Please fill in the blanks:
Thanks Mea Culpa-i had the same thought!
Well then it looks like wikipeida contradicts itself. In the first paragraph it says,
However, if you read more it also says,
You know, this is part of the reason why college professors don’t allow students to use wikipedia as a source. I am in college, I would know.
Also if Jerome only went with the Septuagint and didn’t look at the Hebrew when he was making the Vulgate, that would mean that todays bible are a bit more accurate because most of todays bibles go by the Hebrew. The Hebrew is a bit older. The older ones normilly mean they are the more accurate ones.
Lets look at what the Council of Trent said when the word Vulgate appears:
This part is only talking about the books being used as sacred scripture. It is not talking about the translation here at all. Just the books being used.
None of these say that it is free from error nor does any of these say that it the official bible of the Church.
In Luke 1:42, Elizabeth "exclaimed with a loud cry, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!” (From the Ignatius RSV-CE) So, it doesn’t say blessed are you among women in 1:28, but it does in 1:42. The Greek version doesn’t say blessed are you among women in 1:28, although the Vulgate does. In other words, “blessed are you among women” is in the RSV-CE, in Luke 1:42, right before “and blessed is the fruit of your womb” - where it belongs.
The “blessed” part is not part of the Greek, but is indeed part of Elizabeth’s greeting.
Again, the KJV and the Douay use a rendering that do not appear in the best Greek manuscripts, and the RSV and later translations are more accurate. But the best Greek manuscripts also include the “blessed” part in Elizabeth’s greeting, where it really belongs.
Only in matters of faith and morals. It does NOT mean it’s free of translation error.
Only of the Latin Church. The Eastern Churches continued using the LXX and the Greek NT.
Why the heck not???
Sounds more like prejudice rather than any solid scholarly or theological reason. The RSV-CE has done more to confirm me in my Catholicism than any purely Catholic Bible ever has.
The RSV-CE was prepared by Catholics who revised the original Protestant text.
The Pope does, and he’s smarter than the most of us here.
The Pope doesn’t do so, and even uses it in his theological writings, and yes, he’s smarter than the most of us.
Yes, this is because they are both actually translations of the Vulgate which is where that rendering of that verse came from. The KJV is however only about 95% a translation of the Biblia Sacra Vulgata so it stuffs up the first half of that verse rather delibratly. I do not agree with the modern translative work of the RSV, but it is because I have a preference for the Vulgate.
Thing is, I don’t because the Pope in Divino Afflante Spiritu had already encouraged, and even in a manner of speaking, ordered that new translations be made of the original languages, and that Catholic biblical scholarship should recognize the superiority and authority of the original language manuscripts over any translation, Vulgate included.
Clearly a poor understanding of the science of textual criticism, from someone who has clearly not studied it. A simple principle is that the more manuscripts that agree on a passage, the more likely that is to be the reading of the original. That’s not rocket science.
I think the position on the superiority of the douay/vulgate tradition is based off the fact that jerome translated them from the oldest greek manuscripts is use at the time, that were in the mainstream and highest regard of the church at the time, and he also used a much more literal method preserving the ambiguity sometimes present in passages. If Jerome translated from the oldest most reliable manuscripts available to Him in the 4th century time frame, those manuscripts (known to be a few hundred years old) were probably far more reliable than the ones that we speculate on. The other arguement is that the recension of Jeromes latin is much more textually pure than the greek or hebrew manuscripts now extant. I can appreciate both points of view, and i certainly don’t object to the idea of one translation being better than another, but I DO understand that there are alot of good arguements for both viewpoints…
Yes, but people also seem to forget that we today have access to MORE manuscripts than Jerome ever had, such as the Dead Sea scrolls and the thousands more we have of the New Testament. We have papyri, ancient lectionaries, uncial codices and patristic citations. Moreover, we know that Jerome did a sloppy job translating a few other books, including Tobit. Today we do things in committee, which adds checks and balances to translation work.
I think Jerome did the deuterocanon in one sitting because he did not believe they were inspired. By the way, does this mean he is anathema? I know he is supposed to be a saint, but doesn’t disagreement about the canon cause someone to go to hell?