What Bible do Anglicans use? Is the New American Bible and New International Version acceptable?

Growing up Roman Catholic in the USA, I typically used the New American Bible. Recently I bought the New International Version Bible for my android phone.

Are either acceptable? What translation does the Anglican Communion-especially the Church of England-use?

 

Besides the King James, Anglicans have no official bible. I am a bible nut so I can tell you quite a few things about bibles.

Secondly, the Anglican Communion doesn't prohibit its churches or members from choosing to read a translation they like for private study. Many of the 'officially approved' bibles stated on the websites of the Anglican Communion and its affiliates are confirmed for use in public teaching in that they meet certain criteria, but its up to the church leaders to decide which among them they want to use. If I recall, the original New American Bible and its Revised Edition are among those approved by the AC, so if you are already well acquainted with them, keep on reading. I recently got the original NAB for my collection and it's not too shabby. The NIV was enormously helpful in its day, but, despite being the no. 1 selling bible even now, there are some problems with it, and I feel that it has run its course. The original 1984 NIV had its problems, but the newer 2011 revision has even more. Both retain the embarrassing 'rape' mistranslation in Deuteronomy 22:28.

I use the New King James Version as my preferred bible in print, as it keeps the KJV tradition but updates the archaic words. Also, for a good digital bible, I'd recommend the WEB/World English Bible (which has the deuterocanon). It is a modern, public-domain bible that is very accurate and can be downloaded for free in formats like ePub and Mobi, among others. The creators wanted to make a free, no-copyright e-Bible that was meticulously translated.

 

The Church of England doesn't authorise particular translations of the Bible - rather, it sets criteria by which versions of Scripture are judged suitable for reading in church during public worship. These criteria include:

Faithfulness in translating the Hebrew or Greek
Resonance with the language of prayer used in the particular authorised service
Suitability for reading aloud in a public gathering
Use of familiar language in well-known quotations or figures of speech
Familiarity to the listener
Intelligibility to the listener
Appropriateness to the linguistic register of the particular congregation

Versions which are read in church during the course of public worship should be translations of the Bible, not paraphrases of it. (In less formal contexts, paraphrases may be used.)

Versions which satisfy many of the above criteria include:
Authorised Version/King James AV/KJB
Revised Standard Version RSV
New International Version NIV
New Jerusalem Bible NJB
New Revised Standard Version NRSV
Revised English Bible REB
English Standard Version ESV

The Apocrypha/Deuterocanon is a necessary resource in CofE lectionaries. Decisions about which version of the Bible to use are made locally.

At my parish church we mostly use the NRSV. Exceptions are made for services like Nine Lessons & Carols or BCP services when we use the KJB.

 

Can you explain why the NKJV is not on the approved list? I know Anglicans who use the NKJV so it is certainly not condemned, but I wanted to know why it is not among the bibles listed for meeting the criteria.

And BTW, the World English Bible is a revision of the ASV (American Standard Version) which itself is a revision of the KJV.

 

I don't have an answer to your question. The above list comes from a Note by the House of Bishops in 2002.

Curiously, supplementary material to the current Canons of the Cof E has the following to say with regard to versions of the Bible:

"If The Book of Common Prayer simply prescribes a portion of scripture to be used, but does not set it out (e.g. in the tables of lessons), any version of the Bible which has not been prohibited by lawful authority may be used.

So far as Common Worship services are concerned, while the lectionary is based on the New Revised Standard Version, any version of the Bible which has not been prohibited by lawful authority may again be used.

Currently, no version of the Bible has been prohibited by lawful authority."

 

I see on the list is NJB (New Jerusalem Bible) has the Apocrypha (Book of Wis. Tobit, 1 and 2 Macabbees and etc). Is the Apocrypha considered canon by the Bishops?

 

I use a 1611 fascimile by Hendrickson which is great quality for $20, archaic spelling and the apocrypha included, as well as the original preface/translator's notes and other things. ESV is my go-to for modern bibles along with the New KJV.

 

What a fantastic idea... does the old font make things hard to read?

Where can one buy a copy?

 

Not really. Try eBay, for new copies with free shipping at a bargain:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/KJV-Bible-...m1ef757f511:g:uxgAAOSw7a9clMPO&frcectupt=true

Much cheaper even than Amazon or Barnes & Noble new copies which go for $30.

 

I’ve noticed TNJB (The New Jerusalem Bible) is sparse on Amazon. They have a revised version of TNJB, but is it the same as the older TNJB?

 

The answer is no. The original KJV had the Apocrypha in it, but it was prefaced with the words to the effect of "Not to be relied upon for your salvation but helpful for you to read".

 

Thanks for the clarity. The benefits of the Apocrypha is that Jesus quotes it an estimated 70 times (especially Tobit) and you discover the origin of the names John and Simon. During the Maccabees, Simon was the worst high priest who stole money crom the tithes, and John was the most beloved and righteous high priest dueing the Macabees, hence why Jesus renamed Simon his disciple Peter but He did not rename John. Iesus did not in my view want to leave Cephas (Peter) with the same Simon that comes from horrible Maccabean High Priest.

 

I use the NRSV with the BCP Daily Offices. Many times I will use my NAB study bible for bible study.

 

It’s yes and no

According to the articles of religion, the apocryphal books are not to be read for doctrine, but should be read for moral education

They are not directly inspired, but they are a pious deposit of the church, so therefore not infallible but still a pious aid to a holy worldview

 

My concern with NAB is that it contains an error, “if a woman who was married and her husband has died, knows (has sex) with a man it is alright,” when it should read “if a woman’s husband has died, she can remarry.”

So this explaina the 66 vs 80 Book Canons.

I get asked about why books were removed from the Bible.

 

I think this is disputed, and is the result of Jesus merely talking about the same general topics that are also talked about in the Apocrypha. Jude 13&14 quoting Enoch is another matter though.

 

Our parish has NASB in the pews, which the rector says is extremely literal and quite good, but his favorite version is the ESV.

I am currently using the MEV because I have tended to think that versions springing mainly from the Byzantine texts are more complete and dependable than those deriving more heavily from the Alexandrian texts. JMO.

 

I should have added,I think this is a Roman Catholic theory to support their theory that the apocrypha is kosher. But we must be prepared to frustrate their knavish tricks.

 

What translations derive from Byzantine texts?

I study Byzantione Historia. I am slowly progressing through a general Byzantine history, and I made great strides in Anna Commenus’ The Alexiad.

 

KJV, NKJV, and MEV (Modern English Version) for sure. I think there are a couple more but I don't recall their names.

There are some reasons to believe that the Codexes 'discovered' by Tischendorf (Sinaiticus and Friderico Augustanus) may not have been authentic. Westcott and Hort leaned on them heavily in their work, based on the belief that they are the oldest (and therefore presumed most reliable) Codexes. Nearly all subsequent newer Bible versions are based primarily on them and other Alexandrian-source materials.

But the Syriac Peshitta and the northern Italy Old Latin (used by the Vaudois) both have the earmarks of similar sourcing as the Byzantine texts. And the Peshitta and Old Latin translations were made in the mid 2nd Century, which makes the Byzantine Greek texts seem older and more reliable to some of us than the texts from south of the Mediterranean (the latter have far more variances in them, too, which suggests careless copying and/or later modifications to support pet ideas).