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

Fascinating! I know that there is much dispute over using the Septuagint (60 B.C.) which is the Old Testament in Greek and predating the changes Jews made to their Mazoretic text (700 to 900 A.D.). The Jews started removing all allusions to the Son of Man and Messiah in their translations as early as 70 A.D, but accomplished the Half-Tankh or abridged Old Testament in the 8th Century. Tensions between Jews and Christians (Catholics) were heightened by the pogroms of Jews by predominately Germanic Knights and Counts. Genocide broke out during the First Crusade (1095-1099 A.D.) with Count Emicho and his German Knights slaughtering Jews at Mainz, Worms, and Spinier. The Church condemned these attacks, with bishops ans clergymen hiding Jews in churches and rebuking the anti-semitic slaughter. Sadly, the pogroms broke out again during King Richard’s Crusade (known as The Third Crusade), with the Lionheart stopping the genocidal lynching only after seizing the wealth of the Jews for his campaign.

While modern scholariship and the now close bond between Jew and Christian since the Holocaust has made the newer scholariship more accurate, we must beware of translations around the 8th-12th centuries when the Jewish People removed all allusions to the Christ from their Bibles. To this day, most Jews only have a Half-Tankh (Old Testament) which ommits Isaiah 53 (Suffering Savior).

 

What's the evidence behind the Jews making any changes to the Masoretic text? In fact, almost all post-Reformation biblical texts stem from the Masoretic text and not the Septuagint, precisely because the Septuagint added, in greek, passages which weren't there in the original hebrew

 

According to the Jews the Septuagint added texts, but the Orthodox Fathers and Sir Lancelot Brenton say those supposed additions arn’t additions, but were always there and were removed by the Jews:

“The Septuagint version having been current for about three centuries before the time when the books of the New Testament were written, it is not surprising that the Apostles should have used it more often than not in making citations from the Old Testament. They used it as an honestly-made version in pretty general use at the time when they wrote. They did not on every occasion give an authoritative translation of each passage de novo, but they used what was already familiar to the ears of converted Hellenists, when it was sufficiently accurate to suit the matter in hand. In fact, they used it as did their contemporary Jewish writers, Philo and Josephus, but not, however, with the blind implicitness of the former. In consequence of the fact that the New Testament writers used on many occasions the Septuagint version, some have deduced a new argument for its authority, --a theory which we might have thought to be sufficiently disproved by the defects of the version , which evince that it is merely a human work. But the fact that the New Testament writers used this version on many occasions supplies a new proof in opposition to the idea of its authority, for in not a few places they do not follow it, but they supply a version of their own which rightly represents the Hebrew text, although contradicting the Septuagint. The use, however, which the writers of the New Testament have made of the Septuagint version must always invest it with a peculiar interest; we thus see what honour God may be pleased to put on an honestly-made version, since we find that inspired writers often used such a version, when it was sufficiently near the original to suit the purpose for which it was cited, instead of rendering the Hebrew text de novo on every occasion. Another important point on which the Septuagint stands in close connection with the New Testament is the general phraseology of the version, --a phraseology in which the traces of Hebrew elements are most marked, but with regard to which we should mistake greatly if we supposed that it originated with the New Testament writers. Thus we may see that the study of the Septuagint is almost needful to any biblical scholar who wishes to estimate adequately the phraseology and usus loquendi of the New Testament. Besides the direct citations in the New Testament in which the Septuagint is manifestly used, there are not a few passages in which it is clear that the train of expression has been formed on words and phrases of the Septuagint: thus an intimate acquaintance with this version becomes.
The veneration with which the Jews had treated this version (as is shown in the case of Philo and Josephus), gave place to a very contrary feeling when they found how it could be used against them in argument: hence they decried the version, and sought to deprive it of all authority. As the Gentile Christians were generally unacquainted with Hebrew, they were unable to meet the Jews on the ground which they now took; and as the Gentile Christians at this time believed the most extraordinary legends of the origin of the version, so that they fully embraced the opinions of its authority and inspiration, they necessarily regarded the denial on the part of the Jews of its accuracy, as little less than blasphemy, and as a proof of their blindness. In the course of the second century, three other complete versions of the Old Testament into Greek were executed: these are of importance in this place, because of the manner in which they were afterwards connected with the Septuagint. The first of the Greek versions of the Old Testament executed in the second century was that of AQUILA. He is described as a Jew or Jewish proselyte of Pontus, and the date commonly attributed to his version is about the year A.D. 126. His translation is said to have been executed for the express purpose of opposing the authority of the Septuagint: his version was in consequence upheld by the Jews. His labour was evidently directed in opposing the passages which the Christians were accustomed to cite from the Septuagint as applicable to the Lord Jesus. The general characteristic of this version is bold literality of rendering: such an endeavour is made to render each Hebrew word and particle into Greek, that all grammar is often set at defiance, and not unfrequently the sense is altogether sacrificed. From the scrupulosity of Aquila in rendering each Hebrew word, his work, if we possessed it complete (and not merely in scattered fragments), would be of great value in textual criticism. Another Greek translator at a subsequent period in the second century was SYMMACHUS. He is described as an Ebionite, a kind of semi-Christian. His version seems to have been executed in good and pure Greek: perhaps he was the more particular in his attention to this in consequence of the mere barbarism of Aquila. A third translator in the same century was THEODOTION, an Ebionite like Symmachus, to whom he was probably anterior. His version is in many parts based on the Septuagint. He is less servile in his adherence to the words of the Hebrew than Aquila, although he is void of the freedom of Symmachus. His knowledge of Hebrew was certainly but limited, and without the Septuagint it is hardly probable that he could have undertaken this version. Thus, before the end of the second century there were, besides the Septuagint, three versions of the Old Testament in Greek, known to both Jews and Christians. All this could not fail in making the Old Testament Scriptures better known and more widely read. Although many Christians believed in the inspiration and authority of the Septuagint, yet this could not have been universally the case; otherwise the disuse of the real Septuagint version of the book of Daniel, and the adoption of that of Theodotion in its stead, could never have taken place. This must have arisen from an apprehension of the poverty and inaccuracy of the Septuagint in this book, so that another version similar in its general style was gladly adopted. We have now to speak of the labours of ORIGEN in connection with the text of the Septuagint. This learned and enterprising scholar, having acquired a knowledge of Hebrew, found that in many respects the copies of the Septuagint differed from the Hebrew text. It seems to be uncertain whether he regarded such differences as having arisen from mistakes on the part of the copyists, or from errors of the original translators themselves. The object which he proposed to himself was not to restore the Septuagint to its original condition, nor yet to correct mere errors of translation simply as such, but to cause that the Church should possess a text of the Septuagint in which all additions to the Hebrew should be marked with an obelus, and in which all that the Septuagint omitted should be added from one of the other versions marked with an asterick. He also indicated readings in the Septuagint which were so incorrect that the passage ought to be changed for the corresponding one in another version. With the object of thus amending the Septuagint, he formed his great works, the Hexapla and Tetrapla; these were (as the names imply) works in which the page was divided respectively into six columns and into four columns. The Hexapla contained, 1st, the Hebrew text; 2nd, the Hebrew text expressed in Greek characters; 3rd, the version of Aquila; 4th, that of Symmachus; 5th, the Septuagint; 6th, Theodotion. The Tetrapla contained merely the four last columns. Besides these four versions of the entire Old Testament, Origen employed three anonymous Greek versions of particular books; these are commonly called the fifth, sixth, and seventh versions. Hence in the parts in which two of these versions are added, the work was designated Octapla, and where all the three appeared, it was called Enneapla. References were then made from the column of the Septuagint to other versions, so as to complete and correct it: for this purpose Theodotion was principally used. This recension by Origen has generally been called the Hexaplar text. The Hexapla itself is said never to have been copied: what remains of the versions which it contained (mere fragments) were edited by Montfaucon in 1714, and in an abridged edition by Bahrdt in 1769-70. The Hexaplar text of the Septuagint was copied about half a century after Origen's death by Pamphilus and Eusebius; it thus obtained a circulation; but the errors of copyists soon confounded the marks of addition and omission which Origen placed, and hence the text of the Septuagint became almost hopelessly mixed up with that of other versions. The Hexaplar text is best known from a Syriac version which was made from it; of this many books have been published from a MS. at Milan; other books are now in the British Museum amongst the rest of the Syriac treasures obtained from the Nitrian monasteries. This Syro-Hexaplar translation preserves the marks of the Greek text, and the references to the other translations. It may yet be made of great use in separating the readings which were introduced by Origen from those of an older date. There were two other early attempts to revise the Septuagint besides that of Origen. In the beginning of the fourth century, Lucian, a presbyter on Antioch, and Hesychius, an Egyptian bishop, undertook similar labours of the same kind. These two recensions (which they were in the proper sense of the term) were much used in the Eastern Churches. From the fourth century and onward, we know of no definite attempt to revise the text of the Septuagint, or to correct the discrepancies of various copies. It is probable, however, that just as the text of the Greek New Testament became in a great measure fixed into the same form as we find it in the modern copies, something of the same kind must have been the case with the Septuagint. As to the Greek New Testament, this seems to have occured about the eleventh century, when the mass of copies were written within the limits of the patriarchate of Constantinople. It is probable that certain copies approved at the metropolis, both politically and religiously, of those who used the Greek tongue, were tacitly taken as a kind of standard. We find amongst the members of the Eastern Churches who use the Greek language, that the Septuagint has been and is still so thoroughly received as authentic Scripture, that any effort to introduce amongst them versions which accurately represent the Hebrew (as has been attempted in modern times) has been wholly fruitless. Thus the Septuagint demands our attention, were it only from the fact that the whole circle of religious ideas and thoughts amongst Christians in the East has always been moulded according to this version. Without an acquaintance with the Septuagint, numerous allusions in the writings of the Fathers become wholly unintelligible, and even important doctrinal discussions and difficulties (such even as some connected with the Arian controversy) become wholly unintelligible. As the Septuagint was held in such honour in the East, it is no cause for surprise that this version was the basis of the other translations which were made in early times into vernacular tongues. There was, however, also another reason; --the general ignorance of the original Hebrew amongst the early Christians prevented their forming their translations from the fountain itself. The especial exception to this remark is the Syriac version of the Old Testament formed at once from the Hebrew. ANCIENT GREEK ΓΕΝΕΣΙΣ (GENESIS) Genesis 1 Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν. 2 ἡ δὲ γῆ ἦν ἀόρατος καὶ ἀκατασκεύαστος, καὶ σκότος ἐπάνω τῆς ἀβύσσου, καὶ πνεῦμα θεοῦ ἐπεφέρετο ἐπάνω τοῦ ὕδατος. 3 καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεός Γενηθήτω φῶς. καὶ ἐγένετο φῶς. 4 καὶ εἶδεν ὁ θεὸς τὸ φῶς ὅτι καλόν. καὶ διεχώρισεν ὁ θεὸς ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ φωτὸς καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ σκότους. 5 καὶ ἐκάλεσεν ὁ θεὸς τὸ φῶς ἡμέραν καὶ τὸ σκότος ἐκάλεσεν νύκτα. καὶ ἐγένετο ἑσπέρα καὶ ἐγένετο πρωί, ἡμέρα μία. 6 Καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεός Γενηθήτω στερέωμα ἐν μέσῳ τοῦ ὕδατος καὶ ἔστω διαχωρίζον ἀνὰ μέσον ὕδατος καὶ ὕδατος. καὶ ἐγένετο οὕτως. 7 καὶ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸ στερέωμα, καὶ διεχώρισεν ὁ θεὸς ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ ὕδατος, ὃ ἦν ὑποκάτω τοῦ στερεώματος, καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ ὕδατος τοῦ ἐπάνω τοῦ στερεώματος. 8 καὶ ἐκάλεσεν ὁ θεὸς τὸ στερέωμα οὐρανόν. καὶ εἶδεν ὁ θεὸς ὅτι καλόν. καὶ ἐγένετο ἑσπέρα καὶ ἐγένετο πρωί, ἡμέρα δευτέρα. 9 Καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεός Συναχθήτω τὸ ὕδωρ τὸ ὑποκάτω τοῦ οὐρανοῦ εἰς συναγωγὴν μίαν, καὶ ὀφθήτω ἡ ξηρά. καὶ ἐγένετο οὕτως. καὶ συνήχθη τὸ ὕδωρ τὸ ὑποκάτω τοῦ οὐρανοῦ εἰς τὰς συναγωγὰς αὐτῶν, καὶ ὤφθη ἡ ξηρά. 10 καὶ ἐκάλεσεν ὁ θεὸς τὴν ξηρὰν γῆν καὶ τὰ συστήματα τῶν ὑδάτων ἐκάλεσεν θαλάσσας. καὶ εἶδεν ὁ θεὸς ὅτι καλόν. 11 καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεός Βλαστησάτω ἡ γῆ βοτάνην χόρτου, σπεῖρον σπέρμα κατὰ γένος καὶ καθ’ ὁμοιότητα, καὶ ξύλον κάρπιμον ποιοῦν καρπόν, οὗ τὸ σπέρμα αὐτοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ κατὰ γένος ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. καὶ ἐγένετο οὕτως. 12 καὶ ἐξήνεγκεν ἡ γῆ βοτάνην χόρτου, σπεῖρον σπέρμα κατὰ γένος καὶ καθ’ ὁμοιότητα, καὶ ξύλον κάρπιμον ποιοῦν καρπόν, οὗ τὸ σπέρμα αὐτοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ κατὰ γένος ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. καὶ εἶδεν ὁ θεὸς ὅτι καλόν. 13 καὶ ἐγένετο ἑσπέρα.” (Septuigint, Greek and English, Sir Lancelot Brenton, Introduction: An Historical Account of the Septuagint Version)

The Septuagint not the Masoretic text is the only way to understand most of New Testament, its OT quotes and the Church Fathers. The Jews wanted to distance the Church frim the Septuagint because it dates 300 years before Christ and the Apostles, before Maccabees made the Messiah and Savior seperate beings when Scripture says the Messiah and Savior of Isa. 53 is the same. The Masoretic Text is 767 years after Jesus and His Apostles, and in a time when the Jews hated Christians. The Jews fear the because its before Messianic passages were removed and it supports the New Testament and its authors who wrote it.

Septuagint
Date: 300 years Before Christ
Used by the Apostles for New Testament
Before Jews changed Scripture to hinder the Gospel. When Jews believed God coming to earth and the Messiah were the same.

Aquila Hebrew Text
Date: 126 A.D., 93 years after Christ and 26 years after the death of the last apostle.
Made with the explicit purpose of hiding the passages that prove in the OT Jesus is Lord and to promote Hebrew translation into Greek.

Masoretic Text
Date: 900 A.D., 869 years after Christ, Middle Ages, period of forgeries.
Edited to omit allusions to Christ, removal of Isaiah 53.

 

Fond of KJV myself but for study I also use the ESV.

 

One quibble I have with the UBS translators (who follow in the footsteps of Westcott and Hort) is that they automatically prefer the shorter reading to the longer one. This causes them to leave out many instances of words or phrases which appear in the KJV. In reading Omanson's A Textual Guide to the Greek New Testament, I notice that a frequent comment concerning words they leave out is, many older MSS (I'd guess most likely they mean the ones from Alexandria in particular) don't contain the word or phrase and they think some copyist added the word or phrase for various reasons. But to my way of thinking, it would be much more common and easy for a copyist to accidentally leave out something than to purposefully add something. It seems like it would make more sense to prefer the longer version rather than the shorter one.

Here's a rather blatant example:
Act 8:34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?
Act 8:35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.
Act 8:36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
Act 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
Act 8:38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
Thanks to the work of these "modern scholars," many Bible versions omit Acts 8:37 entirely! Why? Let's see what Omanson's text says. "Its insertion into the text seems to have been due to the feeling that Philip would not have baptized the Ethiopian without securing a confession of faith, which needed to be expressed in the narrative." It goes on to say that the earliest extant MSS containing the verse dates from the 6th Century; but then the admission is made that the verse was known as early as the late 2nd Century; Erasmus quoted it in Against Heresies, III.xii.8. Since we know that the verse has support from the 2nd Century for its existence, why not assume that some early copyist left it out by mistake and then his mistake was duplicated many times? But no, they like the shorter version. That's why this verse is missing from the ASV, BBE, CEV, ESV, GNB, JB, NAS, NIV, WNT, Amplified, and more than two dozen other translations.

 

Money.

The original English Bibles all had the Ecclesiastical Books (a more balanced and neutral term for the Deuterocanon/Apocrypha) for a few centuries, but when mass printing started to pick up in the 18th century or so, particularly for the evangelical wing of foreign missions, those books were omitted so save space and money for printing costs. And, I'm sure, the low-church party preference was to downplay the importance of those books. Sadly, they succeeded far better than they expected, because now you really have to search to find a "Protestant Bible" with all the books it's supposed to have.

And, to chime into the original question, the English Standard Version (ESV) is hugely popular in the USA right now, especially among the Reformed folks, conservative Lutherans, and the ACNA. It's been considered the "standard" translation for the ACNA's liturgy from the start.

Ironically, the ESV has only ever had one edition with the Ecclesiastical Books, and it's ugly and out of print. Word on the street is that an "Anglican Edition" is in the works, but I'll believe it when I see it. Until then, I'm still reading the RSV "Common Bible" on my own.

 

I am-blessed to have have The New Jerusalem Bible, 1963-68 Edition which contains Deuterocanon/Apocrypha. I havebeen reading it with joy.

 

For myself and the church I attend, we use NRSV.

 

The NRSV has the deutercanonical books (Maccabees, Tobit, Wisdom, etc) from what I remember.

 

For me the good old KJV (Revised/Autherised version) is OK given its obviously dated word uses in some cases. Best for doctrine for me is the RSV, no nonsense translation and ESV Strongs.

Worst is a tie, The Living Bible, which should be renamed the EPT (Evangelical Propaganda Transliteration.) and the New World Translation, which should be renamed the SD&I (Stodgy, Dodgy & Inacurate.)

 

It does indeed. My copy is from Oxford Press, so it's a nice edition.

FWIW, as far as bibles go, I also have on my shelf (in several cases, more than one copy)-
RSV (hardback, student edition)
NIV 1978 ( less problematic edition)
NIV 2011 (Problematic version)
NASB
KJV
NKJV
Ignatius Bible, RSVCE (RC/Byz wife)
NABRE (RC/Byz Wife again)

A copy of "The Complete Psalms" by Pamela Greenberg, which is the psalms done by a Hebrew scholar, rabbinical trained, Jewish poet. Her goal was to bring them back to the emotional heft and poetry they have. She spends a good amount of time explaining her translation methodology. I enjoy this one more for leisure. It's poetry, not theology. A book for retreat, not following the minister/reader in church.

I enjoy looking at scripture comparatively. Of course that's easier now with Bible software on my phone/laptop/tablet.

 

Ignatius Press puts outvsome great histories (an example is The Templars: Knighys pf Christ, Regina Parnoud). Are they who translated the Ignatius Bible?