D
demerzel85
Guest
Well modern ‘translations’ are problematic and inconsistent. That an imprimatur is given does not change the fact that it is a poor translation
Neither would use in the lectionary.
- Status
Neither would use in the lectionary.
R
RobDH
Guest
Actually, ALL “translations” can be problematic and show inconsistency depending upon one’s viewpoint.Well modern ‘translations’ are problematic and inconsistent. That an imprimatur is given does not change the fact that it is a poor translation
First, as I’m sure most know, there is no single manuscript of the NT that is an “original” written in the author or author’s scribe’s hand. There are, instead, many different manuscripts and pieces of manuscripts written in multiple languages, the oldest of which apparently date back only to within 100 to 200 years of the originals. Of course, all of this pertains, in general, to the OT also.
My understanding is that none of these manuscripts or pieces are consistently or totally in agreement through out the NT. At best, they can be grouped into “families” that are more or less in agreement in the majority of cases, which is why even in my Greek interlinear there are footnotes describing some of these “other ancient authorities”.
Added to that is the convention of adding English words to the literal translation to make the text flow in a more natural way when read, for example the might/may/should in John 3:16.
Then add translator bias, whether conscious or unconscious, and presto… we have our various “versions” of the Bible and discussions involving the very questions such as the might/may/should in John 3:16.
All of which points out why discernment is always such a necessary ingredient in our life.
D
demerzel85
Guest
Hence “Moreover, the same holy council considering that not a little advantage will accrue to the Church of God if it be made known which of all the Latin editions of the sacred books now in circulation is to be regarded as authentic, ordains and declares that the old Latin Vulgate Edition, which, in use for so many hundred years, has been approved by the Church, be in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions held as authentic, and that no one dare or presume under any pretext whatsoever to reject it.” from the Council of Trent
And well more than just the manuscripts, one can piece together Sacred Scripture using the writings of the Church Fathers. If not for the mischief of the Deformation, there’d probably be even more manuscripts available.
P
passivesquid
Guest
thanks all. im ging out this weekend to buy a new i want to make sure that i get the right one. and quick question whats the difference between protestant and catholic bibles?
F
freudmacher
Guest
One big difference is the protestant removal of some books from the Old Testiment.
Another difference is some of the ‘explainations’. For example, most protestant bibles will talk about the rapture in the book of Revelation through the explainations, which we as Catholics clearly do not believe. So for that, we all need to be careful.
The bible will say, usually inside the cover, that it is a Catholic Edition.
J
Jerry-Jet
Guest
Buy the Douay Rheims Bible with Haydock commentary.
Read every single word–know every single word–and you’ll be smarter than 99% of people who claim to be theologians.
Read every single word–know every single word–and you’ll be smarter than 99% of people who claim to be theologians.
D
demerzel85
Guest
Amen to that. It’ll be money very very well spent for ages to come.
M
Manfred
Guest
Come again?
There are not a few of us here who have no small problem criticizing English translations of the Bible that offer a multitude of, nay, are pervasive with, infelicitous renderings, including, but not limited to, the NRSV(-CE), the (R)NAB, and any of those which can only be regarded as paraphrases, such as the New Living Translation, the Contemporary English Version.
The fact that some of these are actually used in the Liturgy in one English-speaking nation or another does not render them “acceptable”, since ICEL’s translation of the Novus Ordo itself is far from sublime.
M
Manfred
Guest
The Catholic Biblical Association of Great Britain obtained permission from the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA (NCCCUSA) to correct key New Testament passages to bring them into closer accord with traditional Catholic teaching; e.g., Luke 1:28 “Hail, full of grace”, instead of “Hail, O favored one”. In the Old Testament, the deutero-canonical works (Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, I and II Maccabees, parts of Esther and Daniel) were included. The RSV-CE has a Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur and was published in 1965-66. There is now a Second Catholic Edition published solely by Ignatius Press.
Kindly ignore the NRSV and NRSV-CE; they’re fraught with renderings neutered to conform to “inclusivist” ideology.
M
Manfred
Guest
VERY well said!!!
Until I read this I could never understand what all the fuss over this verse was about. Now I know.
Thank you!!! :tiphat:
G
Graing
Guest
Aside from translations, it is very important to understand whether the version you are purchasing contains the Septuagint or not. I know that the RSV-CE contains these books, and I am fairly sure that the DR contains them, but not sure on the others. Many translations had the reformers excise these wonderful books (which have been referenced by Christ in His teachings). Wouldn’t want to miss out on Macabees, etc.
Is there any reference anywhere that shows which translations include the Septuagint? Can anyone confirm whether the DR contains it?
Is there any reference anywhere that shows which translations include the Septuagint? Can anyone confirm whether the DR contains it?
L
lak611
Guest
The ecumenical RSV with Apocrypha contains all of the books. The RSV-CE does not have 3 & 4 Maccabees, 1 & 2 Esdras, Psalm 151 or the Prayer of Manasseh (those books are considered apocryphal according to the Catholic Church but not the Orthodox). The DR does not have these books either.
M
mmortal03
Guest
And, the other way around, as well.
M
mmortal03
Guest
"RobDH:
Yeah, so actually, it was supposed to be, but as demerzel85 mentioned, they missed some places.
M
mmortal03
Guest
FYI, puzzleannie doesn’t like the fact that some people on this board question translations that have been “approved” by the Church, and thinks these people must all be Sedevacantists.
In reality, just because the Church places a Imprimatur on a translation does NOT mean that it is without error. An approval can have various levels of reasoning and purpose behind them, and the English language itself has various shades of gray. Translations can be approved by individual bishops as being acceptable for special purposes, but that doesn’t mean that they are flawless. As such, this isn’t just a black or white issue, like she contends, but regardless, she continues to criticize us because of her continual choice to not use her “God-given” brain to see this and instead she just continues to follow these individual bishops’ Imprimaturs blindly, thinking that it would be blasphemy otherwise. Sorry, puzzleannie, but this has been on the backburner for a long time, and really needed to be said.
J
Jerry-Jet
Guest
Did Arian Bishops ever give imprimaturs?
D
demerzel85
Guest
True, but some parts are harder simply because much more meaning is carried. Hence the need to ask someone who knows better like a Priest, if one is not sure about some parts. If its rendered too plainly, more often than not, one assume to know everything when actually he/she does not.And, the other way around, as well.
D
demerzel85
Guest
But is the Deutero-canon also called Apocrypha?
D
demerzel85
Guest
And despite of inclusive language, strangely John 3:16 is fine in the NRSV, NAB, NJB and CCB.
D
demerzel85
Guest
Hmm… good question, but were there valid Arian Bishops?
- Status