Bibles

  • Thread starter Thread starter RosaryKindaGuy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jerry-Jet,

Here is a direct quote from Dei Verbum, Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation:
  1. Easy access to Sacred Scripture should be provided for all the Christian faithful. That is why the Church from the very beginning accepted as her own that very ancient Greek translation; of the Old Testament which is called the septuagint; and she has always given a place of honor to other Eastern translations and Latin ones especially the Latin translation known as the vulgate. But since the word of God should be accessible at all times, the Church by her authority and with maternal concern sees to it that suitable and correct translations are made into different languages, especially from the original texts of the sacred books. And should the opportunity arise and the Church authorities approve, if these translations are produced in cooperation with the separated brethren as well, all Christians will be able to use them.
Seems pretty clear to me.
 
mccorm45 said:
Jerry-Jet,

Here is a direct quote from Dei Verbum, Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation:
  1. Easy access to Sacred Scripture should be provided for all the Christian faithful. That is why the Church from the very beginning accepted as her own that very ancient Greek translation; of the Old Testament which is called the septuagint; and she has always given a place of honor to other Eastern translations and Latin ones especially the Latin translation known as the vulgate. But since the word of God should be accessible at all times, the Church by her authority and with maternal concern sees to it that suitable and correct translations are made into different languages, especially from the original texts of the sacred books. And should the opportunity arise and the Church authorities approve, if these translations are produced in cooperation with the separated brethren as well, all Christians will be able to use them.
Seems pretty clear to me.
Click to expand...
Ironically I read Dei Verbum last night. Dei Verbum agrees with Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu. I am a big advocate of the Vulgate and myself wish there were a few more translations from the Vulgate. Honestly we should follow the advice that Pope Pius XII gave us and also Paul VI in Dei Verbum. Honestly we can’t rely on one Bible translation, we have have to use multiple translations. McCorm45, you are one of the few that are well knowledgeable about multiple translations and know how to use them towards your advantage. You also know as well as I do Dei Verbum and doesn’t contradict any Catholic teachings Paul VI worked very closely with Pius XII in his younger days this quote form Dei Verbum sums up how we are to view translations and have reverence to them.
 
tobinatorstark said:
Ironically I read Dei Verbum last night. Dei Verbum agrees with Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu. I am a big advocate of the Vulgate and myself wish there were a few more translations from the Vulgate. Honestly we should follow the advice that Pope Pius XII gave us and also Paul VI in Dei Verbum. Honestly we can’t rely on one Bible translation, we have have to use multiple translations. McCorm45, you are one of the few that are well knowledgeable about multiple translations and know how to use them towards your advantage. You also know as well as I do Dei Verbum and doesn’t contradict any Catholic teachings Paul VI worked very closely with Pius XII in his younger days this quote form Dei Verbum sums up how we are to view translations and have reverence to them.
Click to expand...
Tobinator,

Thanks for the kind words. I too would love to have a modern English translation of the Nova Vulgata. I look at all the different editions of the KJV/NJKV out there to choose from, either in study editions, thinlines, devotional, etc… and I think it is a real shame that there is no English version of the Nova Vulgata in multiple editions out on the market to choose from.

Like I have mentioned multiple times on this forum, if you like the Douay-Rheims, then read it and use it! I have no problem if you love the Douay-Rheims, or Knox, or Confraternity editions. But please don’t suggest that others who prefer the NAB, NRSV, or RSV are reading some sort of difficient translation. They aren’t. I know that there is a tendancy by some to think that way, not necessarily you Tobinator.

Like you mentioned above, the same Church that says the Vulgata is free from doctrinal error is the same Church that now encourages translations from the original texts. It is also the same Church that encourages working with our seperated brethren in producing Bible translations, of course under Church approval. In that sense, the NAB, which had some Protestant involvement, and certainly the NRSV, which is intentionally ecumenical, fit that mandate by Dei Verbum. Are they perfect? By no means! But neither is any translation of the Bible.
 
my favorite version is The Jerusalem Bible ( 1966 ) and also the douay rheims.

Stephen <3
 
Jerry-Jet said:
The fact that any translation team includes non Catholics IS the problem!

The Fullness of Truth doesn’t equate with “Ecumenical textual varient choices” that substitute words which may not be necessarily UNTRUTH but are certainly LESS than the Fullness of Truth!

As long as the NRSV and RSV translate 2 Corinthians 2:10 as forgiving “in the presence of Christ” versus “in the PERSON of Christ” they will not have the Fullness of Truth!

See how many “Ecumenical Protestant biblical scholars” are “Ecumenical” enough to concede that translation.

You won’t find any!

The translation choice involves doctrine.

The Vulgate does not err in doctrine.

“Ecumenical translations” DO!

Not in a diametrically opposed fashion or in a UNTRUE fashion but in a fashion that is LESS than the Fullness of Truth contained in the Vulgate.

The Vulgate isn’t perfect–I would be in favor of translations other than the Vulgate that do not SLACK when it comes to doctrine.

I just don’t know of any.

Now one could correct the doctrinal Lack of the Fullness of Truth in translations that have Protestant scholars–but of course Protestants scholars wouldn’t be that “Ecumenical”!

Ecumenism that diminishes in ANY amount the Fullness of Truth contained in the scriptures is a vice!

Vulgate onlyism is also a vice because the Vulgate can be improved by biblical scholarship that more accurately discovers the Fullness of Truth in original language texts.

That does not mean watering down the Fullness of Truth on doctrinal matters contained in the bible.

100% accuracy on non doctrinal passages of the scripture in various non Vulgate translations of the bible will never trump doctrinal lack of error contained in the Vulgate.

The TRUELY Ecumenical Council of Trent guided by the Holy Spirit stated that the Vulgate could be used “in all disputations”.

If Protestant biblical scholars are truely “Ecumenical” then they would accept the Vulgate’s lack of error on doctrinal matters when they make textual varient choices.

They don’t!

That’s the problem!
Click to expand...
Jerry,

I respect you for the respect you have towards the Vulgate. I read from the Vulgate as well as from the Douay-Rheims. The NRSV in my book is not a good translation. That is my opinion. Others here like McCorm45 do use the NRSV. We shouldn’t tell them that they can’t read it. I honestly don’t think that some people read the NRSV thoroughly enough to give its Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat and such. It is your choice that you don’t read the RSV-CE and NRSV. I respect that. There is no mandate that says all Bible translations should be translated from the Vulgate. I do wish there were more that were translated from the Vulgate. The fact is Pius XII and Paul VI both called for translations based on on the original languages. They didn’t mandate however that all translations must be based on the original language. I encourage your to reread Divino Afflante Spiritu and Dei Verbum along with Providentissismus Deus to understand that we need both translated from the Vulgate and from original tongue. I would also read Syllabus of Errors if you have a chance
 
I have no problem with translations based on original language texts.

What I have a problem with is translators–whether they be Catholic or Protestant that choose textual varients from original language texts that differ from the Vulgate on DOCTRINAL matters.

The Vulgate is not perfect. Many translations improve on its accuracy in many non doctrinal areas of the text.

In doctrinal areas of the text non Catholics will not view the textual varient choices through the lens of the witness of the Catholic Church over the centuries.

That is the problem.

If you don’t believe me then give me a list of some of the protestant biblical scholars who would translate “In Persona Christi” or “In the person of Christ” versus “In the presence of Christ”.

You won’t find any!

So say you have a translation team of biblical scholars equally divided between Protestant and Catholic biblical scholars. How would they resolve the difference?

The translation choice wouldn’t come down to the Protestant view versus the Catholic view for all the Protestant biblical scholars would reject “In the person of Christ”’.

The choice would come down to whether the Catholic “biblical scholars” accepted the Vulgate’s doctrinal accuracy and those who didn’t.

The result would be the Protestant rendering.

That’s the problem!

Now I would never disagree that Catholics couldn’t “Use” other translations of the bible. Many translations can be “Used”.

What I’m suggesting is that Catholic “Use” other translations with full knowledge of the DOCTRINAL differences between those translations and their textual varient choices and the Vulgate and it’s freedom from inaccuracy on doctrinal matters.

How many Catholics that “Use” translations other than the Vulgate KNOW the doctrinal differences?

I think it is a shame that we don’t have an English translation of the Nova Vulgata.

Why is that?

And if someone replies that biblical texts should be translated from the original languages–why is it that we don’t have a Catholic translation of the bible that uses the original language texts and compares textual varient choices in view of the Vulgate’s DOCTRINAL accuracy?

I think the reason we don’t have a translation like that is for a couple of reasons.

The USCCB is wedded to the NAB–I don’t think you’ll be seeing it approve such a project.

Teams of Protestant and Catholic biblical scholars wouldn’t do that.

And Catholic biblical scholars that are totally in support of the Vulgate won’t do that.

The Holy See produces countless documents translated in English but the most important document of all–the Nova Vulgata isn’t translated into English.

Does that make any sense?!
 
Jerry-Jet said:
I have no problem with translations based on original language texts.

What I have a problem with is translators–whether they be Catholic or Protestant that choose textual varients from original language texts that differ from the Vulgate on DOCTRINAL matters.

Frankly the Protestants don’t give a lick about the Vulgate. Some KJV-onlyist deny that there was a Bible before the King James. Catholics take a lot into consideration and there is a lot that is over looked in today’s society with the Bibles. Readability is more important than accuracy to them. I disagree with them, but it is what it is.

The Vulgate is not perfect. Many translations improve on its accuracy in many non doctrinal areas of the text.

In doctrinal areas of the text non Catholics will not view the textual varient choices through the lens of the witness of the Catholic Church over the centuries.

That is the problem.

If you don’t believe me then give me a list of some of the protestant biblical scholars who would translate “In Persona Christi” or “In the person of Christ” versus “In the presence of Christ”.

You won’t find any!

I understand your concern about “In Persona Christi”. My pet peeve is Luke 1:28. If it bothers you that much, don’t read it.

So say you have a translation team of biblical scholars equally divided between Protestant and Catholic biblical scholars. How would they resolve the difference?

The translation choice wouldn’t come down to the Protestant view versus the Catholic view for all the Protestant biblical scholars would reject “In the person of Christ”’.

The choice would come down to whether the Catholic “biblical scholars” accepted the Vulgate’s doctrinal accuracy and those who didn’t.

The Vulgate isn’t a factor that much in translating modern translations.

The result would be the Protestant rendering.

That’s the problem!

Now you are assuming that automatically since there are Protestants involved that it is automatically going to render Protestant

Now I would never disagree that Catholics couldn’t “Use” other translations of the bible. Many translations can be “Used”.

I have no problem using multiple translations on a need by need basis.

What I’m suggesting is that Catholic “Use” other translations with full knowledge of the DOCTRINAL differences between those translations and their textual varient choices and the Vulgate and it’s freedom from inaccuracy on doctrinal matters.

We already know that the Vulgate is error free of doctrinal and moral matters, but the Vulgate really isn’t considered when a new translation is evolving. I do wish they would make more translations based on the Vulgate, but that isn’t for me to decide.

How many Catholics that “Use” translations other than the Vulgate KNOW the doctrinal differences?

plenty

I think it is a shame that we don’t have an English translation of the Nova Vulgata.

We do, it is the RSV-CE. If you would lay out the RSV-CE and Nova Vulgata together, even though the difference of when they were published, the RSV-CE would be almost word for word.

Why is that?

Why don’t we stick with the Clementine edition?? I see err in the Nova Vulgata

And if someone replies that biblical texts should be translated from the original languages–why is it that we don’t have a Catholic translation of the bible that uses the original language texts and compares textual varient choices in view of the Vulgate’s DOCTRINAL accuracy?

Why do you assume that the Vulgate must be used in a translation process??

I think the reason we don’t have a translation like that is for a couple of reasons.

The USCCB is wedded to the NAB–I don’t think you’ll be seeing it approve such a project.

Teams of Protestant and Catholic biblical scholars wouldn’t do that.

And Catholic biblical scholars that are totally in support of the Vulgate won’t do that.

The Holy See produces countless documents translated in English but the most important document of all–the Nova Vulgata isn’t translated into English.

Who said the Nova Vulgata is the most important document?? I find the Nova Vulgata lacking.

Does that make any sense?!
Click to expand...
What makes sense is using the translations that you do and promote them. You can give you 2 cents on the other translations, but you shouldn’t discourage others from reading them. They have an Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat for a reason. They are approved for Catholic use. This doesn’t mean that they are doctrinally free of error. As a strong advocate of the Douay-Rheims and Clementine Vulgate, I will continue to encourage people to try them. I will not discourage those who read the NAB, RSV-CE, NRSV from reading them even if I think badly about the translation.
 
The NIV is biased. Whenever tradition is spoken of in a negative light it is translated as tradition–whenvever it is spoken of in a positive light it is changed to teaching even though the Greek word is the same.

When St. Paul says “Hold fast to the traditions that I have given to you” it is changed to teaching because Protestant don’t believe in oral tradition.

Catholics do. That’s what the bible says.

Which just goes to show what you get with some Protestant “translators”.
 
RosaryKindaGuy said:
what about the NIV or the new international version
Click to expand...
You are probably going to tell us that the NIV New Testament is available in a “Catholic edition”. And I would suggest Catholics stay away from it, for the reason posted in another reply (re the translation of the word “tradition”).

You want a dynamic-equivalent translation? Try the RNAB or the 1966 Jerusalem Bible.

Were I an evangelical Protestant, I’d use the New American Standard (NAS) instead of the NIV.
 
Manfred said:
You are probably going to tell us that the NIV New Testament is available in a “Catholic edition”. And I would suggest Catholics stay away from it, for the reason posted in another reply (re the translation of the word “tradition”).

You want a dynamic-equivalent translation? Try the RNAB or the 1966 Jerusalem Bible.

Were I an evangelical Protestant, I’d use the New American Standard (NAS) instead of the NIV.
Click to expand...
In his recently published book Justification, well-known Anglican Biblical Scholar NT Wright said: “I do know that if a church only, or mainly, relies on the NIV it will, quite simply, never understand what Paul was talking about (52).”

While there is no Catholic NIV, nor likely will ever be one, there appears to be an approved edition of the NIV Psalms: amazon.com/Psalms-New-International-Version-Responsorial/dp/0899426603/ref=sr_11_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1242728569&sr=11-1
 
tobinatorstark said:
Jerry-Jet;5208527:
I think it is a shame that we don’t have an English translation of the Nova Vulgata.
Click to expand...
We do, it is the RSV-CE. If you would lay out the RSV-CE and Nova Vulgata together, even though the difference of when they were published, the RSV-CE would be almost word for word.
Click to expand...
Can you elaborate on this assertion? The one is a revision of the English RSV which is a revision of the King James Bible. The other is a revision of the Latin Vulgate.

AFAIK, the original-language texts underlying these older translations were also different. For example the Textus Receptus in the case of the KJV New Testament versus whatever Greek manuscripts were used in creating the pre-Jerome Old Latin, later used or (in the Gospels) revised by Jerome for the Vulgate New Testament. This is to say nothing of the differences in the underlying Hebrew manuscripts. The KJV utilized the Masoretic Text while Jerome’s Hebrew sources for the Vulgate were of course from a much earlier date.

Certainly the words “…revised according to Liturgiam Authenticam” on the RSV-2CE title page do not imply your conclusion.
 
mccorm45 said:
While there is no Catholic NIV, nor likely will ever be one, there appears to be an approved edition of the NIV Psalms: amazon.com/Psalms-New-International-Version-Responsorial/dp/0899426603/ref=sr_11_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1242728569&sr=11-1
Click to expand...
“Ecumenism” gone awry, for sure! Somewhere I thought there was a “Catholic edition” of the NIV NT, though, of course, there’s nothing “Catholic” about it. Unlike the RSV-CE, no Catholic scholars went in to the NIV and corrected its obvious evangelical misinterpretations.

I owned an NIV once; it was a Ryrie Study Bible. I gave it away to a Protestant co-worker.

Let us also not forget the NIV “Committee on Bible Translation” had NO Catholic scholars on it, and the OT does NOT include the Deutero-canonicals.
 
tobinatorstark said:
that is utterly terrible. 😦
Click to expand...
Maybe. Even though I haven’t really looked at it though, I wouldn’t be surprised if it was better than the '91 NAB Psalms.

Also, I have never seen an approved NIV New Testament for Catholics. I am not sure one exists, although if there was one I would appreciate any evidence of it.
 
If you look at this page you’ll see exactly which translations have received imprimatur in the USCCB since 1991. Of course, it is always possible that a translation received imprimatur before 1991, from another Conference of Bishops, or directly from the Vatican.

Under Canon Law 825, special rules apply for publishing and imprimatur of translations of Sacred Scripture: namely, approval by a Conference of Bishops or directly from the Vatican. Before the 1983 release of the current version of Canon Law, individual Bishops could grant imprimatur.

Can. 825 §1. Books of the sacred scriptures cannot be published unless the Apostolic See or the conference of bishops has approved them. For the publication of their translations into the vernacular, it is also required that they be approved by the same authority and provided with necessary and sufficient annotations.
§2. With the permission of the conference of bishops, Catholic members of the Christian faithful in collaboration with separated brothers and sisters can prepare and publish translations of the sacred scriptures provided with appropriate annotations.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top