Mary Poppins (1964) Jeff’s Review

Wind’s in the east, mist comin’ in. Like something is brewin’ about to begin. Can’t put me finger on what lies in store. But I feel what’s to happen, all happened before. - Bert

Mary Poppins is a Walt Disney musical based on a series books from the beginning of the 19^th century. Jane and Michael Banks are two rambunctious children who drive their nannies crazy. Their parents have hired six of them in the past six months. Finally, their father who is a stern and no-nonsense man who spends very little time with his kids decides he would do the hiring instead of his wife. He places the following advertisement in the London Times:

A British nanny must be a general, The future empire lies within her hands, And so the person that we need, To mold the breed, Is a nanny who can give commands, A British bank is run with precision. A British home requires nothing less. Tradition, discipline and rules must be the tools. Without them, disorder, catastrophe, anarchy, In short you have a ghastly mess.

The children however have a different advertisement they wish their father to place:

If you want this choice position. Have a cheery disposition, Rosy cheeks, no warts. Play games, all sorts. You must be kind you must be witty. Very sweet and fairly pretty. Take us on outings give us treats. Sing songs bring sweets. Never be cross or cruel never give us castor oil or gruel. Love us as a son and daughter. And never smell of barley water. If you won’t scold and dominate us. We will never give you cause to hate us. We won’t hide your spectacles so you can’t see. Put toads in your bed or pepper in your tea. Hurry, nanny! Many thanks. Sincerely, Jane and Michael Banks.

Their father is appalled and sends the children to their room. He rips up their ad and throws it in the fire place. However the wind picks it up and sends it up and out of their house.

The next day at eight o’clock in the morning sharp a long cue of potential nannies stand outside the house waiting to be interviewed. However a gust of wind blows them all down the street. Just then a magical woman flies from the clouds with the help of her umbrella. The children see her from their window and are instantly excited. She has rosy cheeks and everything they proclaim! Mr. Banks is flummoxed by the fact this nanny has the advertisement the children wrote (one he ripped up and threw in the fire place). He hires her and sends her right to work with the kids.

It’s not long before the kids realize Mary Poppins (Julie Andrews) is no ordinary nanny. She takes the children to the park where they meet Bert (Dick Van Dyke) and before know it she has them jumping inside one of his chalk paintings. She also has them floating on the ceiling for a tea party and performing magically games to clean their room.

This musical from 1964 is wonderful and captivating from start to finish. Andrews and Van Dyke have so much chemistry it oozes off the screen. Virtually every musical number is timeless and has become part of the American lexicon. Such as, supercalifragilisticexpialidocious which is a word when you have no other words to say! I loved this film when I was young and I was surprised to see how much my little girl loves the movie today. At 139 minutes, this movie is a delight for the whole family! Four out of four stars!

What Scripture do Catholic bloggers use…

I asked over 100 of my favorite, and popular Catholic bloggers two questions:

 

1. What version of Sacred Scripture do you use most?
2. Why?

The results are now in, and clear winner was theRevised Standard version: Catholic Edition (RSV: CE). And many of them said to stay far away from the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV).

Here are the emails I got from each blogger. I will add more as they come in…

Answers:

Greg Krehbiel - “New American Standard Version (a Protestant translation) for most of the Bible, and the Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition for the deuterocanonical books.”

David Morrison - “Jeff: The Revised Standard Version…..I don’t know why. I have always liked it best.”

Yurodivi - “My personal preference is for the Douaiversion, although I sometimes consult the New American Bible or the Jerusalem Bible for clarification. I like the Douai because the archaic usage seems fitting for such lofty themes as the salvation of the world. I realize some people find that same language discouraging, but it really speaks to me.”

David L Alexander - For my weblog, I use the Revised New American Bible. As it is approved for liturgical use in the USA, it is the one with which most people are familiar. For that reason, it also appears on the USCCB website, and the text is easy to copy and paste from there.

For scripture study, I use the Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition, with commentary. It is considered a more eloquent translation than the NAB. I’m considering making a switch.

Seth Peters - I use the NAB because it’s the official Catholic version. The Douay-Rheims is like the King James: antiquated. But the NAB is the least poetic translation ever. So, on some occasions, I will go to the RSV-CE. And every once in a while I’ve used the New Oxford Annotated, but that’s just to compare notes. So- the NAB it is.

Becket - When I’m reading for fun or for devotion I usually use the NAB which seems to me to be the best in English for a quick read. But when I’m studying or working I use an online source atwww.blueletterbible.com  It’s protestant, but it’s searchable and has a feature in which you can view nine different versions at once for the same verse, including the Latin Vulgate. Now that the US Bishop’s website has a searchable NAB atwww.usccb.org/nab/bible/index.htm I use that when I’m not comparing translations.  Hope that helps!

Michael Dubruiel - Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition (Also known in the U.S. as the Ignatius Bible). It is the closest to the Hebrew and Greek original with little ideaolgical baggage and very readable.

Jeff Miller  - RSV Catholic-Edition as put out by Ignatus Press.

I use it because it is a literal translation suitable for scholarship and it is fairly easy to read.  I really don’t like dynamic translations like the New American Bible and prefer one more faithful to the text. Pretty much every good Catholic Apologist like Jimm Akin also highly recommends the RSV CE.

The NRSV I would stay away from since it uses inclusive language.

Father Jim Tucker - The King James Version, supplemented by the Ignatius Bible (RSV + deuterocanon) The language is elegant, the translation excellent overall, and it is the version that has made its way into English-language literature.

Father Bob Carr -  use the NAB (New American Bible) most because that is what the readings are in Church. I actually do not like it.

I also use La Biblia Latino  America for the same reason in the spanish communities. I do prefer that version to the english and virtually every other english version to the NAB.

I also use the NIV alot because it is quite prominent in envangelical community and is better than the NAB

Lane Core Jr. - Hi, Jeff. I use The Jerusalem Bible (1966). Not The New Jerusalem Bible (1985). Several reasons: (1) I just like the translation; (2) the full edition has good footnotes and cross references, though there is a reader’s edition with neither; (3) besides several JB editions of the Bible, I also have a three-volume JB lectionary that I use to read the day’s Mass readings in my own prayers; and, (4) I have a concordance to the New Testament that uses JB as its base text. God bless. ELC.

Tom Kreitzberg - I probably use the New American Bible most, because I have two copies of it and so am twice as likely to put my hand on an NAB than any other translation. Oh, and that’s also where I usually go for on-line quotations (at the USCCB website).

I’m also likely to use the RSV Catholic, the Knox, and the Douay Rheims, for alternative translations and notes.

Oswald Sobrino - I use the Revised Standard Version the most because it tends to be literal, it seeks to preserve the best literary quality of the old King James Version, and because it does not distort the original by resorting to “gender inclusive”  language. That said, sometimes in particular passages, other translations are better. So the best thing is to compare translations when you are focusing closely on a particular passage. The New Jerusalem Bible, the New American Bible, the New International Version, and the English Standard Bible are all helpful parallel translations to consult.

The New Revised Standard Version can also be helpful; but, in my opinion, is fatally marred by the gender inclusive agenda and obsession. You can do well without ever consulting the New Revised Standard Version, which is the darling edition of theological liberals.

I also recommend an interlinear Greek-English bible for those who can read the Greek alphabet, a skill that can be easily acquired. You will find that the original Greek words tend to be more thought-provoking than the English translations. There are also dictionaries that discuss the different meanings of New Testament Greek words. Vine’s dictionary of New Testament words is, in my experience, very helpful.

D Rober - I tend to use the Revised Standard Version, either the Ignatius Bible for devotional purposes or the original Oxford Annotated Bible for more scholarly purposes. I think it draws the best balance of preserving older expressions with having a translation understandable to modern people, without sacrificing true meaning as other translations do

 

Steven Riddle - It depends on what I’m doing - If I’m studying on my own I use RSV CE If I’m studying with a group, I use whatever they are comfotable with If I’m praying scripture I use the Authorized Edition (which includes the deuterocanonicals) for the sheer majesty and beauty of the language.

What I never, never, never, never, never, never, under any condition other than those forced on me in Mass do is use that excrable NAB committee blando translations.  I also steer away from the Jerusalem Bible because it is a translation from the French after the fact and the New Jerusalem because it warps the language for inclusivity.  Hopw this is helpful.

Laura Tushnet - Ignatius RSV

Karen Marie Knapp - My most-used versions of the Scripture are: The old Jerusalem Bible, with all the notes and cross-references - the first Bible I ever used for serious Bible study and the first Catholic Bible I owned myself, as opposed by my parents’ CCD Bible and the KJB I got given by a friend when she saw the sorry worn-out state of said CCD Bible… when I quote from memory, it’s usually the old Jerusalem text, since I’ve been studying and praying from it for over 30 years.

The Grail Psalter - since it’s the one in the Liturgy of the Hours.

The Kleist-Lilly New Testament, a Catholic current-English translation of the mid-1950s that I accidentally discovered in a used bookstore and have been using ever since.  Good accurate translation, in good big print on full-weight paper.

In addition, I have about 10 other translations around I sometimes refer to, left from my days as a theology grad student.  And the edition of the Vulgate that is four little red hardbound books.

Mary Jane Ballou - I use the Revised Standard Version (not the NRSV – the earlier one).  I think the English is better and I find the notes in the NAB (New American Bible) too annoying.  I’ve also used a bilingual Greek-RSV published by the United Bible Societies (I can read Koine when so inclined and reading in Greek slows me down when I need it..  Of annotated editions, I liked the Navarre Bible Series, Vulgate, RSV and commentary from the Fathers and, of course, St. Josemaria Escriva.

Kelly Clark -For daily Mass readings, I like the The Navarre Bible. In fact, I subscribe to a moderated e-mail list that gives the daily reading and commentaries (where available…they’re still working on the Old Testament commentaries but have gotten some done.)

For prayer and study, I’m partial to The Catholic Study Bible (NAB). My version was  published in 1990 by Oxford University Press, Inc.

Nicole M. DesOrmeaux - The version of sacred scripture I use most frequently and why is the one found in the “office of the church-liturgy of hours” the why goes without saying…

Father Michael Darcy -  I prefer the RSV because it’s written beautifully, but more simply than some of the very old translations (King James, Douai-Rheims: the RSV is basically an updated version of the King James Bible).  It’s also a very literal translation of the original languages.  There’s also an older “St. Joseph’s” version that I like, which is not to be confused with the new St Joseph’s version.  For some reason there is no distinction in their names to make clear the fact that they are different translations, which is unfortunate.  In fact, I discovered the difference quite accidentally.  I hope this helps.

Father Thomas Dowd - I use the NRSV a lot because it is the version we use here in Canada as part of the liturgy.  When I pray the breviary, however, it is the NAB that is used for scripture passages (except the psalms).

For personal study and reading I use either the RSV (an excellent translation) or the JB (for the scholarly footnotes).

When I can, though, I turn to the original Greek for the NT.  My Greek is pretty bad, though, so that is more for research purposes.

The Mighty Barrister - I use several, but I like the Ignatius Bible (which I believe is the Revised Standard Version) best.  When I am doing apologetics, I’ll use the King James Version or the American Standard Version just to make sure we’re speaking the same language.

Father James Goins - I use the Oxford Annotated Revised Standard Version. I love the notes they include. The Oxford Annotated New Revised Standard Version is disappointing. They “cleaned up” the “sexist” language. I think it robbed the text of some of its power.

I would also suggest the Men’s Study Bible. It’s a Protestant translation but has wonderful reflections written by various men scattered throughout.

Carol at Magisterial Fidelity - 1. Douay Rheims. 2. Translation of others too watered down.

Alan Phipps - I prefer to use the Revised Standard Version; I find it to be the most scholarly translation, literal yet appreciative of literary methods. I would recommend the Ignatius Bible that is published by Ignatius Press.  It contains a special Catholic Edition of the RSV.

Carl Olson - When leading a Bible study, as I do each week at my parish, I use the RSVCE, NAB, and the NASB. I also use a Greek/English Interlinear New Testament. In addition, I’ll consult a number of commentaries. For example, we are currently going through the Book of Revelation; I own thirty commentaries on that particular book and will look at 8-10 of them when preparing for a study. Many of them will have the commentator’s own translation of the text, which is always interesting to compare to other translations.

For personal reading of the Bible, I most often use the RSVCE or NASB. Sometimes I’ll use the NAB, but I’m not a big fan of the NAB, nor of the NIV or New Jerusalem.

I like both the RSVCE and NASB because they tend to be quite literal in their translation of the Hebrew or Greek text and take less liberties with the text. My affection for the NASB goes back to my days as an Evangelical Protestant, and I still use the NASB translation I was given by my parents when I was eight years old. However, the translation sometimes has a Protestant bias and it does not, of course, contain the seven deutero-canonical books. However, my NASB Bible contains twenty-five years of personal notes/comments, and they often prove helpful - especially in examining how my understanding of certain passages of Scripture have developed or changed over time.

Father Ethan McCarthy - I use the Revise Standard Version and because it is the most faithful translation.

Charles Everson - New Jerusalem and RSV.  Why?  I enjoy the poetic (though not always the best translation) language of the NJB, but for serious study I use the RSV.

Mark Shea - RSV-CE.  Because it’s a good translation.

Pelianito - use the New American Bible translation most often.  I use it because I have it on CD and it is convenient for cutting and pasting.  However, it is not my favorite translation.  I kind of fell in love with the Jerusalem Bible translation, the first translation I owned.  It seems more poetic and less cumbersome in spots.  The other Bible I love is put out by the Catholic Bishops of the philippines.  It has wonderful footnotes, an excellent study bible.  The best thing is that it may be downloaded free at http://www.bible.claret.org/bibles/

Penitens - In my blog, I tend to use 2 different translations more than others (in no particular order): The latest revision of the New American Bible. This is the version used for the readings at Mass in the  United Statesand I try to reflect on these readings every day on my blog, so it often makes sense to quote from that version. It is easy to hyperlink to the readings on theU.S. bishops’ website and from there one can link to the full context of each selection (with footnotes). This translation also has the advantages of familiarity for U.S. Catholics (being the one they hear at Mass) and lack of outdated language. All that being said, although I respect the U.S. bishops (and whoever who worked diligently on this translation they sponsored), I do not care for the translation.

The other translation I use is the King James Version (known by some Protestants as the Authorised Version). I use it when the elegance of its classic English and/or its resonance with Protestant readers would be more appropriate. Of course, some of its language can be a bit outdated.

I will also sometimes use the Revised Standard Version (a good balance of classic phrasing, modern scholarship, and updated vocabulary) when neither the revised NAB or the KJV work well.

I will also sometimes quote from the new Latin Vulgate translation (available on the  Vatican website).

I will sometimes (although rarely) quote from previous versions of the New American Bible or of the Vulgate when the wording would be most familiar or otherwise appropriate.

Very rarely I will craft a translation of my own, when there is an important nuance not efficiently conveyed by other translations. This is very time-consuming to me, because my scholarship is not very efficient.