Advertising - LEO without ads? LEO Pur
LEO

It looks like you’re using an ad blocker.

Would you like to support LEO?

Disable your ad blocker for LEO or make a donation.

LEO Pur
 
  •  

  • Forum home

    Language lab

    Books of the Bible

    35­ Replies
    Topic

    Books of the Bible

    Comment
    In New Entry there's currently an effort to be sure all the books of the Bible are in LEO. Puppengesicht has very kindly already pointed out a few that are missing. I thought it might help to have a central place to review the general issues rather than doing it book by book in every individual case.

    The existing LEO entries aren't 100% consistent. The epistles, for example, currently all have at least three entries, as with Ephesians, or more, as with Colossians which has five -- and none of those yet include the equally common form 'Letter' instead of 'Epistle' on the English side.

    I think there have been a few discussions on this already, but in a quick look, so far I've only come across a couple, e.g.,

    related discussion: Ephesians - Brief an die Epheser
    related discussion: Epistle to the Colossians - der Kolosserbrief

    (St. Paul is a LEO user. Who'da thunk ...)

    One of the remaining questions is what form all the books should be in in the dictionary, in order to cover both short form (1 Corinthians, spoken "First Corinthians"), long form (the First Letter [of Paul] to the Corinthians), old style (Epistle), modern style (Letter), and Jewish (Torah, Prophets, Writings), Catholic, and Protestant usage (1. Mose? Genesis?) -- but without having too many unnecessary minor differences.

    The long forms may not actually be necessary if we could just collect the standard parts of them, so that anyone doing a reading in a worship service could figure them out.

    This might also be a good opportunity to add the standard abbreviations for all the books. I thought we might have covered them somewhere, but I didn't find it in a quick search.

    So just to start:

    The Book of ...
    Genesis (Gen.)
    Exodus (Exod., Ex.)
    Leviticus (Lev.)
    Numbers (Num.)
    Deuteronomy (Deut., Dt.)
    Joshua (Josh., Jos.)
    Judges (Judg., Jg.)
    Ruth (Ø, Ru.)
    Ezra
    Nehemiah (Neh.)
    Esther (Est., Esth.)
    Job
    Psalms (Ps.)
    Proverbs (Prov., Pr.)
    Ecclesiastes, or (obs.) The Preacher (Ec., Eccl.)
    (the Prophet) Isaiah (Isa., Is.)
    (the Prophet) Jeremiah (Jer.)
    (the Prophet) Ezekiel (Ezek.)
    Daniel (Dan.)
    Hosea (Hos.)
    Joel (Ø, Jl.)
    Amos (Ø, Am.)
    Obadiah (Obad., Ob.)
    Jonah (Ø, Jon.)
    Micah (Mic.)
    Nahum (Nah.)
    Habakkuk (Hab.)
    Zephaniah (Zeph.)
    Haggai (Hag.)
    Zechariah (Zech.)
    Malachi (Mal.)
    The Song of Solomon / The Song of Songs (Song, S. of S.)
    The Lamentations of Jeremiah (Lam.)
    The First/Second Book of ...
    Samuel (1/2 Sam.) [= 1/2 Kingdoms (1/2 Kgdms.), Orthodox]
    Kings (1/2 Kg.) [= 3/4 Kingdoms (3/4 Kgdms.), Orthodox]
    Chronicles (Chr.)
    The Gospel according to ...
    Matthew (Matt., Mt.)
    Mark (Ø, Mk.)
    Luke (Ø, Lk.)
    John (Ø, Jn.)
    The Acts of the Apostles (Acts)
    The Letter/Epistle to the ...
    Romans (Rom.)
    Galatians (Gal.)
    Ephesians (Eph.)
    Philippians (Phil.)
    Colossians (Col.)
    Hebrews (Heb.)
    The First/Second Letter/Epistle to the ...
    Corinthians (1/2 Cor.)
    Thessalonians (Thess., Th.)
    The First/Second Letter/Epistle of ...
    Timothy (1/2 Tim.)
    Peter (Pet.)
    John (Jn.)
    The Letter/Epistle of ...
    Titus (Tit.)
    Philemon (Philem., Phlm.)
    James (Jas.)
    Jude
    The Revelation of St. John the Divine / The Revelation to John / The Apocalypse (Rev.)

    KJV uses 'General Epistle' for e.g. James, and 'First Epistle General' for 1 Peter, but I haven't ever heard that used in the modern day.

    The Apocrypha* have less familiar names (to me at least), and quite a few of them seem to be missing:

    The Additions to Esther [= Esth. 10:4–12:6] (Ad. Est.)
    Baruch (Bar.)
    Bel and the Dragon (Bel) [= Dan. 14]
    The First/Second Book of Esdras (1/2 Esd., Esdr.)
    Judith (Jdt.)
    The Letter/Epistle of Jeremiah [= Baruch 6] (Let. Jer., Ep. Jer.)
    The First/etc. Book of the Maccabees (1 Macc.)
    The Prayer of Manasseh (Man., Pr. Man.)
    Psalm 151 (Ps. 151)
    Ecclesiasticus, or the Widsom of Jesus the Son of Sirach (Sir.)
    The Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Young Men / Three Holy Children [= Dan. 3:24–90] (Pr. Azar., S. of 3 Y.)
    Susanna (Sus.) [= Dan. 13]
    Tobit (Tob.)
    The Wisdom of Solomon (Wis.)

    *By the way, LEO says 'Apocrypha (used with sg. verb)' -- is that really true? Or true only in some contexts? I would have used plural ...
    related discussion: apocrypha - Apokryphen

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible

    I'm drawing the line at the Pseudepigrapha for now, but if anyone wants to volunteer ...

    And if I've omitted or mixed up anything, I hope someone will be so kind as to fix it. (-:
    Author hm -- us (236141) 18 Oct 12, 08:23
    Comment
    Quite an undertaking, eh? Let's see if I can help by giving the Catholic version of these things (mostly the same, especially now, but there are a few differences)

    I'm using the forms from the New American Bible, which is the version we use during the liturgy in the United states. In brackets I am including in square the forms based on the older Doauy-Reims translation (which is based on the Vulgate), since these forms are common in literature written well into the 20th century in the English-speaking world (e.g. anything by Archbishop Fulton Sheen, the entire Catholic Encyclopedia of the early 20th century, which is available online, etc.). The Douay-Reims version is the "old-fashioned style" Bible, much like the King James version in its language (first published between 1582 and 1610).

    For epistles, "letter" is used today in the liturgy, though people still say "epistle" sometimes. I would imagine that the use of St. Paul, St. James, etc. is common not only for Catholics, but for Orthodox, "high church" Anglicans, etc.

    In the liturgy, we say "A reading from ..."

    the Holy Gospel (of Jesus Christ) according to St. Matthew / Mark / Luke / John (in common speech of course we say "the Gospel of Matthew, etc.)
    the Acts of the Apostles
    the First / Second Letter of St. Paul to the Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Thessalonians, Timothy, Titus
    the Letter to the Hebrews [the DR version says "epistle of St. Paul to the Hebrews"]
    the Letter of St. James (the Apostle) [also: the Catholic Epistle of St. James the Apostle - "catholic" here meaning "universal"]
    the First / Second Letter of St. Peter (the Apostle)
    the First / Second / Third letter of St. John (the Apostle)
    the Letter of St. Jude (the Apostle) [also: the Catholic Epistle of St. Jude the Apostle]
    the Book of Revelation [also: the Apocalypse of St. John the Apostle, or just "the Apocalypse"]

    All DR versions use "epistle" instead of "letter".

    The New Testament is not that different from what you have above. I'll get on the Old Testament later, which has some differences, and the DR names are totally different.

    #1AuthorMercury3 (877930) 18 Oct 12, 15:19
    Comment
    One of the remaining questions is what form all the books should be in in the dictionary, in order to cover both short form (1 Corinthians, spoken "First Corinthians") 

    In low church (I don't know about high church) circles in the UK you'll see 1/2/etc Chronicles/Thessalonians/John/etc as standard (and that's how it'd be listed in Bibles) and they'd be spoken as such, i.e. Two Corinthians Five-Seventeen. I've only ever heard 'First'/'Second' from Americans.

    Revelation and Lamentations wouldn't usually come with 'of St John' or 'of Jeremiah'; like Acts, they're usually just referred to simply as Revelation and Lamentations.
    #2Author papousek (343122) 18 Oct 12, 18:03
    Comment
    >>spoken as ... Two Corinthians Five-Seventeen

    Interesting, thank you; in that case that is indeed evidently an AE/BE difference.

    Unless this is one of those cases where the ordinal form is threatening to disappear from AE as we speak, as with speaking 'July 4' as 'July four' instead of 'July fourth,' which still is the only form that sounds right to me. Perhaps other AE speakers will comment on whether they too still say 'Second Corinthians.'

    >>like Acts, they're usually just referred to simply as Revelation and Lamentations.

    Same here (not to mention all the people who mistakenly put an S on Revelation); sorry if I wasn't clear about that. The list above was all long/formal forms, not short/normal forms.

    And I see that late at night I may have mis-sorted some of the letters under 'to' and 'of,' sorry; I trust that anyone compiling a final list could check that.

    #3Author hm -- us (236141) 18 Oct 12, 18:23
    Comment
    I say "One Corinthians" when casually discussing it.

    For most dates it's "October Eighteenth", but July 4 is "the Fourth of July" - I think it's just because it's a special day, so it retains an older form.
    #4AuthorMercury3 (877930) 18 Oct 12, 18:31
    Comment
    'One Corinthians,' really? Goodness. I wonder how widespread that is.

    Merc, how do you feel about Apocrypha singular vs. plural? If you just thought about it unawares without someone just having asked you about grammar ... (-;
    #5Author hm -- us (236141) 18 Oct 12, 18:40
    Comment
    I have no idea. Catholic never really talk about the Apocrypha, since many of those books are in our standard Bible: more or less anything that was in the Septuagint is in the Catholic/Orthodox Bible - I'm going to list them when I get the chance. We call them "Deuterocanonical" books, but they carry the weight of Scripture.

    I just looked through the old Catholic Encyclopedia's article on "Apocrypha" and could find no instance where they used the word with a verb - they say "apocryphal books", "apocryphal literature", etc. It seems like a Greek neuter plural though.

    When WE say Apocrypha, we sometimes refer to the Book of Enoch, the Book of Jubilees, the Protoevangelium of James, etc.
    #6AuthorMercury3 (877930) 18 Oct 12, 19:28
    Comment
    Oops, sorry, duh. Well, okay, maybe others will comment on that, and/or on how they read '1' and '2' in this context.

    I just checked the prefaces in a couple of versions I could lay hands on, and the one that uses that term treats it as plural:

    The Apocrypha here translated are those books and portions of books which appear in the Latin Vulgate ..., but are not in the Hebrew Bible. With the exception of 2 Esdras these books appear in the ... Septuagint ... In Luther's German translation ... (1534) the Apocrypha stand between the Old Testament and the New Testament ... The Apocrypha had a place in all the sixteenth century English translations ..., and in the King James Version (1611).
    —RSV

    The New Interpreter's Study Bible (NRSV) calls them the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books of the Old Testament and doesn't say much about them. The prefaces to the individual books are all written by different people, and I did find at least one that treats it as singular:

    While it was never part of the Jewish Scriptures, Judith became part of the Apocrypha, which has a place in the Roman Catholic and Orthodox canons of Scripture.
    —Sidnie White Crawford
    #7Author hm -- us (236141) 18 Oct 12, 20:13
    Comment
    Was hier noch unbedingt rein muss: meine Lieblings-Apokryphe, die Petrus-Apokalypse = The Apocalypse of Peter. Achtung, nichts für Weichspül-Theologen! The real thing! Zu hardcore zum Kanonisieren! :-))) --> http://reluctant-messenger.com/apocalypse-of-...
    #8Author Gart (646339) 18 Oct 12, 21:37
    Comment
    Okay, here are the Catholic versions of the Old Testament. Most of them are the same as the ones hm -- us listed above.

    As above, the older version is listen in square brackets. If it differs from what hm -- us wrote, I will also include the shorter form in regular parentheses:

    Liturgically, "a reading from ..."

    the Book of Genesis
    the Book of Exodus
    the Book of Leviticus
    the Book of Numbers
    the Book of Deuteronomy
    the Book of Joshua [Josue]
    the Book of Judges
    the Book of Ruth
    the First/Second Book of Samuel [First/Second Book of Kings]
    the First/Second Book of Kings [Third/Fourth Book of Kings]
    the First/Second Book of Chronicles [First/Second Paralipomenon]
    the Book of Ezra [(First) Book of Esdras]
    the Book of Nehemiah [Nehemias/Second Book of Esdras]
    the Book of Tobit [Tobias]
    the Book of Judith
    the Book of Esther
    the First/Second Book of Maccabees [Machabees; in the Douay-Reims version the books of Maccabees come at the end of the OT, not sure about their place in the Vulgate]
    the Book of Job
    the Psalms (we never say "a reading from the Psalms" because they are always sung as part of the liturgy itself, whether as part of the Mass or the Divine Office)
    the Book of Proverbs
    the Book of Ecclesiastes
    the Song of Songs [(Solomon's) Canticle of Canticles]
    the Book of Wisdom
    the Book of Sirach [Ecclesiasticus]
    the Book of the Prophet Isaiah [Isaias]
    the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah [Jeremias]
    the Book of Lamentations [Lamentations of Jeremias]
    the Book of Baruch
    the Book of Ezekiel [Ezechiel]
    the Book of Daniel
    the Book of the Prophet Hosea [Osee]
    the Book of the Prophet Joel
    the Book of the Prophet Amos
    the Book of the Prophet Obadiah [Abdias]
    the Book of the Prophet Jonah [Jonas]
    the Book of the Prophet Micah [Miceas]
    the Book of the Prophet Nahum
    the Book of the Prophet Habakkuk [Habacuc]
    the Book of the Prophet Zephaniah [Sophonias]
    the Book of the Prophet Haggai [Aggeus]
    the Book of the Prophet Zechariah [Zacharias]
    the Book of the Prophet Malachi [Malachias]

    Also, Joshua through Maccabees are known as the Historical Books, Job through Sirach as the Wisdom Books, and Isaiah through Malachi as the Prophetic Books. I am not sure how old this scheme is, though.

    In the NT, the epistles of James, John, Peter, and Jude are known as the Catholic Letters/Epistles. This is the general meaning of the word "catholic" meaning "universal" - these letters are not addressed to any particular community, unlike St. Paul's letters.

    I am not sure of the Orthodox canon, but I do think they have "1-4 Kings" instead of "1-2 Samuel" and "1-2 Kings", and "1-2 Esdras" instead of "Ezra" and "Nehemiah". I think there is also a "Letter of Jeremiah" (the final chapter in Baruch in Catholic bibles) and a "3 Maccabees," which is not canonical for Catholics. I also think the Orthodox still refer to Revelation as "Apocalypse."
    #9AuthorMercury3 (877930) 18 Oct 12, 22:45
    Comment
    Another AE speaker here. I've only ever heard First and Second Corinthians. Before reading this thread I would have been very surprised to hear One/Two Corinthians.

    not to mention all the people who mistakenly put an S on Revelation

    Sorry to get all descriptive, but if a lot of people say it, might it not be something to include in the dictionary? I mean, people consider "ain't" incorrect, but people say it and most dictionaries (including LEO) have an entry for it.
    #10Author Amy-MiMi (236989) 18 Oct 12, 23:41
    Comment
    I was married in a Catholic church here in Germany, and the priest read 1 Corinthians 13:13, stating "erste Korinther..." He also presented me with a German Catholic Bible, which I never read in-depth - preferring my King James, because the German was "modernized".
    If not posted by tomorrow, I'll type up the books.

    #11Author Carly-AE (237428) 18 Oct 12, 23:57
    Comment
    Amy-MiMi:

    No, because it's not the same thing. "Ain't", while non-standard, and "wrong" for writing an essay or a news article, is still a part of the language and has a venerable history. We can agree that word forms change, grammar changes, etc.

    But with proper names, they are either right or wrong, period. If enough people called the movie "Star War", they'd still all be wrong.

    "Revelations" is just ignorance, pure and simple. Forgivable to be sure, but it is simply not the title of the book, which recounts A revelation given to John. So the plural is wrong on that count. Also, its original Greek name "Apokalypsis" is singular. So even if MOST people said "Revelations," they'd be wrong.

    It's like people who write "would of" - its simply erroneous and nothing could ever make it right, whereas a double negative may depend on the register and the dialect.
    #12AuthorMercury3 (877930) 19 Oct 12, 00:51
    Comment
    Was weiß Uncle Wiki hierzu zu sagen?

    "The author of the work provided no title for it. However, a title came into usage from the first word of the book in Koine Greek: apokalypsis, meaning "unveiling" or "revelation". It is also known as the Book of the Revelation of Saint John the Divine or the Apocalypse of John (both in reference to its author), or the Book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ (in reference to its opening line), or simply Revelation (often erroneously called Revelations in contrast to the singular in the original Koine), or the Apocalypse."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Revelation - Hervorhebung von mir.

    #13Author MiMo (236780) 19 Oct 12, 07:30
    Comment
    on the question of Revelation/Revelations, it turns out that Leo has both the plural and singular, as I've just discovered from Puppengesicht's Judges/Richter New Entry thread.

    Dictionary: Revelations
    related discussion: Judges - Richter (#9)

    I agree with Mercury & hm--us that this looks wrong -- but I have no time to research or start a wrong entry! (Perhaps someone has started a Wrong Entry in the past? Perhaps there's a 'New Entry' thread in the archives that explains why this entry came into being?)
    #14Author papousek (343122) 19 Oct 12, 11:50
    Comment
    papousek, das ist mir auch aufgefallen. Ich kenne es nur als Relevation = die Offenbarung. Die NIV und KGV haben dort keinen Plural. Aber für ein Wrong Entry fühle ich mich nicht sicher genug. Ich würde es aber unterstützen.
    #15Author Puppengesicht (807439) 19 Oct 12, 13:00
    Comment
    #16Author papousek (343122) 19 Oct 12, 14:20
    Comment
    I'd be willing to bet that "Revelations" is not in print in any version of the Bible - it's just a common ignorant mistake. To have a Leo entry for seems to be perpetuating this mistake. It would be like having an entry for "would of" or an entry for "Star Track" (a lot of people say this for Star Trek when they only know it in passing).
    #17AuthorMercury3 (877930) 19 Oct 12, 14:32
    Comment
    #17 I've started a wrong entry thread (link above).
    #18Author papousek (343122) 19 Oct 12, 14:44
    Comment
    So just to start: ;-)

    1.Mose, Genesis
    2.Mose, Exodus
    3.Mose, Levitikus
    4.Mose, Numeri
    5.Mose, Deuteronomium
    Josua
    Richter
    Ruth, Rut
    1.Samuel
    2.Samuel
    1.Könige
    2.Könige
    1.Chronika
    2.Chronika
    Esra
    Nehemia
    Esther

    Hiob
    Psalm
    Sprüche
    Prediger
    Hohelied

    Jesaja
    Jeremia
    Klagelieder
    Hesekiel
    Daniel
    Hosea
    Joel
    Amos
    Obadja
    Jona
    Micha
    Nahum
    Habakuk
    Zephanja, Zefanja
    Haggai
    Sacharja
    Maleachi

    ----------

    Matthäus
    Markus
    Lukas
    Johannes

    Apostelgeschichte

    Römer
    1.Korinther
    2.Korinther
    Galater
    Epheser
    Philipper
    Kolosser
    1.Thessalonicher
    2.Thessalonicher
    1.Timotheus
    2.Timotheus
    Titus
    Philemon

    Hebräer
    Jakobus
    1.Petrus
    2.Petrus
    1.Johannes
    2.Johannes
    3.Johannes
    Judas

    Offenbarung
    ________________

    Deutsche Übersetzungen gibt es viele, manche sind online verfügbar.

    Hier eine Auswahl:

    - die klassische Luther-Übersetzung, die jeder im Ohr hat
    - die moderne Gute Nachricht Bibel, die man sofort versteht
    - die philologisch genaue Menge-Bibel, die besonders nah an den hebräischen und griechischen Grundtexten übersetzt ist
    - die solide Einheitsübersetzung, die die offizielle deutsche Bibelübersetzung der katholischen Kirche ist
    - die Zürcher Bibel (2007), die dem modernen Stilempfinden entspricht und zugleich die »Fremdheit« der biblischen Texte zur Geltung bringt
    - die wortgetreue Elberfelder Bibel (2006), die sich u.a. durch die konkordante (einheitliche) Wiedergabe zentraler Begriffe auszeichnet
    - die Neue Genfer Übersetzung (NGÜ), die gute Verständlichkeit mit Nähe zum Wortlaut der Grundtexte verbindet
    - die Schlachter-Bibel 2000, die den Grundtext sinngemäß genau und in prägnantem Deutsch wiedergibt
    - die Übersetzung Neues Leben, die besonders leicht und flüssig zu lesen ist
    http://www.die-bibel.de/online-bibeln/ueber-d...

    Englische online Übersetzungen: http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/
    Internationale online Übersetzungen: http://www.bibleserver.com/start
    #19Author Puppengesicht (807439) 20 Oct 12, 00:40
    Comment
    Zur Liste in #19: Da fehlt jetzt natürlich die Information, aus welcher der vielen Bibelübersetzungen die Bezeichnungen stammen.

    Die Bücher des AT in der Einheitsübersetzung (NT wie in #19):

    Genesis
    Exodus
    Levitikus
    Numeri
    Deuteronomium

    Josua
    Richter
    Rut
    1. Samuel
    2. Samuel
    1. Könige
    2. Könige
    1. Chronik
    2. Chronik
    Esra
    Nehemia
    Tobit
    Judit
    Ester
    1. Makkabäer
    2. Makkabäer

    Ijob
    Psalmen
    Sprichwörter
    Kohelet
    Hohelied
    Weisheit
    Jesus Sirach

    Jesaja
    Jeremia
    Klagelieder
    Baruch
    Ezechiel
    Daniel
    Hosea
    Joël
    Amos
    Obadja
    Jona
    Micha
    Nahum
    Habakuk
    Zefanja
    Haggai
    Sacharja
    Maleachi


    Die Aussprache hängt m.E. vom Kontext ab, z.B.
    Jargon: "Eins Korinther"
    allgemeine Umgangssprache: "Erster Korintherbrief"
    Liturgie: "Erster Brief des Apostels Paulus an die Korinther"
    (Bei Büchern wie der Genesis ist das natürlich einfacher.)
    #20Author RE1 (236905) 20 Oct 12, 01:12
    Comment
    "Sprichwörter"? Bah. Für mich sind das "Sprüche". So habe ich es als guter Protestant gelernt. Die Einheitsübersetzung kann mich mal.
    #21AuthorMr Chekov (DE) (522758) 20 Oct 12, 08:35
    Comment
    Re1, ich wollte nicht jede Übersetzung einzeln aufführen, ich habe mich bei den Namen an die Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft orientiert.
    Dort sind einige gute Übersetzungen online verfügbar.

    http://www.die-bibel.de/startseite/

    Die Schreibweise Ijob (in der Einheitsübersetzung) finde ich sehr ungewöhnlich, den meisten Deutschen dürfte jedoch Hiob bekannt sein. 'Sprichwörter' kannte ich jetzt auch nicht. Aber manchen ist Luther vertrauter, anderen Menge, Herder oder Elberfelder. Das kann man schlecht verallgemeinern. Aber Danke für die Auflistung, dann ist Ijob wenigstens auch einmal aufgeführt!
    #22Author Puppengesicht (807439) 20 Oct 12, 11:32
    Comment
    Does anyone know if older German Catholic bibles or German language Orthodox bibles follow the Septuagint (and some versions of the Vulgate) in listing 1-4 Kings instead of 1-2 Samuel; 1-2 Kings, or using other names for books?

    Or, more importantly, what was the leading Catholic translation of the Bible before the 1980s when the Einheitsübersetzung was finished? Did most Catholics just use the Luther translation, or some other translation with "archaic language"? I guess I am asking if there was an equivalent of Doauy-Reims in German.

    Someone should be able to answer this - it wasn't that long ago.
    #23AuthorMercury3 (877930) 20 Oct 12, 16:58
    Comment
    Katholiken haben meines Wissens nie die Luther-Bibel benutzt. (Vor Luther gab es ca. 70 verschiedene Bibelübersetzungen ins Deutsche.)

    Populäre katholische Bibelübersetzungen des 20. Jhdts: 

    Der Kapuziner Konstantin Rösch übersetzte 1914 die Evangelien und die Apostelgeschichte, 1921 das ganze NT neu aus dem Urtext, unter Berücksichtigung der Vulgata und der Lesbarkeit.

    Der Kapuziner Eugen Henne übersetzte 1934 das Alte Testament aus dem Grundtext; als Gesamtausgabe zusammen mit dem NT von Konstantin Rösch war diese Bibelausgabe im katholischen Raum jahrzehntelang sehr verbreitet.

    Die heilige Schrift des Alten und des Neuen Bundes, übersetzt von den kath. Theologen Paul Rießler und Rupert Storr (1934, „Grünewald-Bibel“, „Mainzer Bibel“)

    Die Herder-Bibel, Textgrundlage des ab 1937 im Verlag Herder erschienenen mehrbändigen Werkes Herders Bibelkommentar. Die Heilige Schrift für das Leben erklärt, von 1968 bis 1984 Bestandteil der Jerusalemer Bibel und seit 2005 als selbstständige Übersetzung neu aufgelegt.

    Die Bibelübersetzung von Vinzenz Hamp, Meinrad Stenzel und Josef Kürzinger aus dem Urtext, erschienen 1956 (erste Teile des AT bereits 1949 als Teil der Echter-Bibel erschienen, NT 1953) vereinigt Texttreue und gute Lesbarkeit. Die im Pattloch-Verlag erschienene Bibel (Pattloch-Bibel) erfuhr zahlreiche (über 50) Ausgaben, teils als Familienbibel oder mit reicher Bebilderung (Hundertwasser-Bibel). Kürzingers Übersetzung des Neuen Testamentes zählt bis heute zu den besten Übersetzungen, die es gibt.

    (Quelle: Wikipedia
    #24Author MiMo (236780) 20 Oct 12, 17:26
    Comment
    Mimo war schneller :-)) Obwohl ich seit Jahrzehnten alles vom Bild Verlag boykottiere, habe ich bei dieser Bibel für meine Enkelin zur Erstkommunion eine Ausnahme gemacht: http://www.amazon.de/Die-Original-D%C3%BCrer-...

    Ich wollte auf gar kein Fall die Einheitsübersetzung!

    http://www.karl-sendker.de/zu_uebersetzungen.htm
    #25Author Carly-AE (237428) 20 Oct 12, 17:38
    Comment
    Wenn's jemand noch interessiert, "one Corinthians" wäre für mich als BE-Sprecher ganz normal, "first Corinthians" habe ich aber auch schon gehört.
    #26Authorengländer92 (887053) 20 Oct 12, 18:17
    Comment
    Und meine Gute Nachricht Bibel hat auch "Sprichwörter" bzw. "Ijob" drin.
    #27Authorengländer92 (887053) 20 Oct 12, 18:17
    Comment
    Und ich kenne nur die sprichwörtliche Hiobsbotschaft.

    Unglücksbotschaft, Schreckensnachricht
    http://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/Hiobsbotschaft
    #28Author Harri Beau (812872) 20 Oct 12, 21:56
    Comment
    @Puppengesicht (#22): Natürlich geht es nicht darum, sämtliche Übersetzungen aufzulisten, aber bei den Leo-Einträgen sollten schon die gängigen Varianten vertreten sein, wenn es konfessionelle oder übersetzungsbedingte Unterschiede gibt.

    @Mercury3 (#23): Wie schon von MiMo zitiert, wurden von den Katholiken bis zur Einheitsübersetzung verschiedenste Bibelübersetzungen (aus der Vulgata) verwendet. Erst mit der Einführung der Liturgie in der Landessprache durch das II. Vatikanum wurde eine einheitliche Übersetzung dringlich.

    @Carly-AE (#25): Ich wollte auf gar kein Fall die Einheitsübersetzung!
    Warum nicht?
    #29Author RE1 (236905) 21 Oct 12, 00:00
    Comment
    Thanks, MiMo and others. So there were many different vernacular translations people may have had in their homes, but no one that had any special status like the Douay-Reims in English.
    #30AuthorMercury3 (877930) 21 Oct 12, 00:34
    Comment
    Ich finde die Einheitsübersetzung gar nicht so schlecht, über einzelne Dinge kann man natürlich endlos diskutieren. Sie ist aber zu jung (nur 35 Jahre), um so im Volk verankert zu sein wie die Lutherübersetzung und klingt dadurch vielen ungewohnt.
    #31Author Puppengesicht (807439) 21 Oct 12, 19:57
    Comment
    Zu den Makkabäern, die #0 als Apokriphen bezeichnet werden und nach #20 nur zwei sind, laut it.wikipedia:
    Primo libro dei Maccabei: deuterocanonico;
    Secondo libro dei Maccabei: deuterocanonico;
    Terzo libro dei Maccabei: apocrifo per ebrei, cattolici e protestanti, accettato come canonico solo dalla Chiesa ortodossa;
    Quarto libro dei Maccabei: apocrifo per ebrei, cattolici e protestanti, accettato come canonico solo dalla Chiesa ortodossa;
    Quinto libro dei Maccabei: considerato universalmente apocrifo.

    also:
    - Das Erste Buch der Makkabäer, deuterokanonisch
    - Das zweite Buch der Makkabäer, deuterokanonisch
    - Das dritte Buch der Makkabäer, apokryph für Juden, Katholiken und Protestanten, nur für die Orthodoxe Kirche kanonisch.
    - Das vierte Buch der Makkabäer, apokryph für Juden, Katholiken und Protestanten, nur für die Orthodoxe Kirche kanonisch.
    - Das fünfte Buch der Makkabäer, apokryph für alle.

    Laut de.wikipedia sind auch das erste un zweite Buch nach dem evangelischen Kanon apokryphen, laut en.wikipedia "are considered non-canonical by most Protestants."
    #32Author Marco P (307881) 21 Oct 12, 21:46
    Comment
    RE1, I grew up with the King James version, which I started reading (skipping through) when I was about 10 - and then in-depth starting at about 13. When reading, I'd ask myself: What is He trying to tell me - what does He mean? Other questions would come to mind. The language somehow intensified and broaden my contemplations, bringing my Christian faith all the closer.
    #33Author Carly-AE (237428) 21 Oct 12, 23:27
    Comment
    @Puppengesicht: Das ist sicherlich eine Generationsfrage. Es mögen nur 35 Jahre sein, aber immerhin wird die Einheitsübersetzung seitdem in Liturgie, Religionsunterricht etc. praktisch ausschließlich verwendet. Ich bin damit aufgewachsen und kenne keine andere Übersetzung, wenn mir irgendwo eine andere, deutlich abweichende, unterkommt, wirkt das fremd. Auch wenn sie ihre sprachlichen Mängel haben mag, finde ich es sinnvoll, dass es - wie Luther für die Protestanten - eine einheitliche Version gibt.
    #34Author RE1 (236905) 22 Oct 12, 14:57
    Comment
    I'd say 'One Corinthians' in conversation, but of course I wouldn't have said it when reading the lesson in my school chapel. There it would have been 'The first epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians'.

    Our chaplain incidentally was adamant we shouldn't say: the book OF Genesis (Exodus, Lev. Num. Deut.), but simply 'the book Genesis'. I think this was mistaken pedantry: the two are in apposition, where 'of' is often used in English (e.g. the State of Israel). (He was happy with 'of' in front of a prophet's name -- e.g. Book of Isaiah.)

    The KJR has at least one attribution (Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews) which almost all scholars (going back to Origen) believe to be mistaken. Some other Pauline attributions are considered dubious (I think 100% agreement is confined to Galatians, Romans and I&II Corinthians).

    'Revelations' is a solecism.
    #35Author escoville (237761) 22 Oct 12, 18:20
     
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  
 
 
 
 
 
en
English ⇔ German
 
de
ForumsTrainerCourses
 
en
English ⇔ Spanish
 
es
ForumsTrainerCourses
 
en
English ⇔ French
 
fr
ForumsTrainerCourses
 
en
English ⇔ Russian
 
ru
ForumsTrainerCourses
 
fr
French ⇔ German
 
de
ForumsTrainerCourses
 
es
Spanish ⇔ German
 
de
ForumsTrainerCourses
 
it
Italian ⇔ German
 
de
ForumsTrainerCourses
 
zh
Chinese ⇔ German
 
de
ForumsTrainerCourses
 
ru
Russian ⇔ German
 
de
ForumsTrainerCourses
 
pt
Portuguese ⇔ German
 
de
ForumsTrainerCourses
 
pl
Polish ⇔ German
 
de
ForumsTrainerCourses
 
es
Spanish ⇔ Portuguese
 
pt
ForumsTrainerCourses
Hello
 ­ automatisch zu ­ ­ umgewandelt