Catholic Public Domain Version

[Ron_Conte]

I’ve now completed my translation of the Latin Vulgate into English:
The Catholic Public Domain Version, Original Edition
sacredbible.org/

The entire text is available free, online, and without copyright restrictions.

 

[tobinatorstark]

Congratulations Ron

 

[thistle]

I’ve now completed my translation of the Latin Vulgate into English:
The Catholic Public Domain Version, Original Edition
sacredbible.org/

The entire text is available free, online, and without copyright restrictions.

Hi Ron.

Please do not take offense by my question but how do we know if its an accurate translation? Is your translation approved by the Church?

 

[tobinatorstark]

No this translation is not approved by the Church. See Code of Canon Law 825, I believe.

 

[Leopard]

Please note that “not approved” is not the same as “condemned”. It merely means that no authoritative judgement has yet been made or may ever be made concerning this work. Not surprising, especially considering that this is a new work.

 

[Ron_Conte]

I’m working on an article about the approval of Bible versions, but for now I’ll just make a few general comments.

1. The approval of an individual Bishop is not the approval of the universal Church. The approval of a committee appointed by a Bishops’ Conference is not the not the approval of the universal Church. This type of formal approval is limited and fallible.
2. Even if a Pope were to work on a translation himself and give his formal, definitive, authoritative approval as Pope, such approval is still not the approval of the universal Church. This type of formal approval is limited and fallible.
3. Some Bible versions, over time, have become widely-accepted and widely-used by the faithful. The sensus fidelium and, in the long term, the Living Tradition guided by the Holy Spirit, discerns and judges the various editions of the Bible. This type of non-formal approval is the most definitive and most useful.

Examples:

While St. Jerome was working on his Bible translation, he was accused of serious sins and driven out of Rome under threats to his life. But his translation into Latin, over time, became widely used and widely accepted by the faithful.

Pope Sixtus V personally worked with a group of scholars on the 1590 edition of the Latin Vulgate Bible. He then decreed that no changes were to be made in this authoritative edition of the Bible (except for obvious typographical errors). The language he used was definitive and absolute: “by this, Our perpetually valid Constitution… from the fullness of Apostolic power We establish and declare… by the Apostolic authority, given to us by God….” The Pope ordered that even in future years “not even the smallest part” be “changed, added, or deleted.” Yet under Pope Clement VIII, numerous changes were made to the Pope Sixtus V edition, resulting in different editions being published by the Holy See, under the authority of Pope Clement VIII, in 1592, 1593, and 1598.

The 1598 edition became the standard Latin Vulgate Bible for several hundred years. It was widely accepted and used by the faithful, whereas the 1590, 1592, and 1593 editions were not.

The USCCB committee for the approval of Scripture translations has given approval to Protestant translations, inclusive language translations, and very loose translations. But the sensus fidelium has not adopted most of these translations, despite their formal approval.

The Canadian Bishops’ Conference approved of the NRSV for use in the Mass, and had the lectionaries printed up prior to approval by the Holy See. Pope John Paul II rejected the NRSV for use in the liturgy. At the time, Cardinal Ratzinger had promulgated norms for Bible translation that forbid the type of inclusive language found in the NRSV. But the Bishops approved of the NRSV in opposition to the Holy See. More recently, Pope Benedict has given reluctant approval to the use of the NRSV in the lectionaries of Canada.

So the meaning and usefulness of the approval of a Bible version varies. The most valuable type of approval is found, over a long period of time, in whether or not the sensus fidelium approves of a Bible version by means of widespread usage in study and in devotion before God.

 

[thistle]

I’m working on an article about the approval of Bible versions, but for now I’ll just make a few general comments.

1. The approval of an individual Bishop is not the approval of the universal Church. The approval of a committee appointed by a Bishops’ Conference is not the not the approval of the universal Church. This type of formal approval is limited and fallible.
2. Even if a Pope were to work on a translation himself and give his formal, definitive, authoritative approval as Pope, such approval is still not the approval of the universal Church. This type of formal approval is limited and fallible.
3. Some Bible versions, over time, have become widely-accepted and widely-used by the faithful. The sensus fidelium and, in the long term, the Living Tradition guided by the Holy Spirit, discerns and judges the various editions of the Bible. This type of non-formal approval is the most definitive and most useful.

Examples:

While St. Jerome was working on his Bible translation, he was accused of serious sins and driven out of Rome under threats to his life. But his translation into Latin, over time, became widely used and widely accepted by the faithful.

Pope Sixtus V personally worked with a group of scholars on the 1590 edition of the Latin Vulgate Bible. He then decreed that no changes were to be made in this authoritative edition of the Bible (except for obvious typographical errors). The language he used was definitive and absolute: “by this, Our perpetually valid Constitution… from the fullness of Apostolic power We establish and declare… by the Apostolic authority, given to us by God….” The Pope ordered that even in future years “not even the smallest part” be “changed, added, or deleted.” Yet under Pope Clement VIII, numerous changes were made to the Pope Sixtus V edition, resulting in different editions being published by the Holy See, under the authority of Pope Clement VIII, in 1592, 1593, and 1598.

The 1598 edition became the standard Latin Vulgate Bible for several hundred years. It was widely accepted and used by the faithful, whereas the 1590, 1592, and 1593 editions were not.

The USCCB committee for the approval of Scripture translations has given approval to Protestant translations, inclusive language translations, and very loose translations. But the sensus fidelium has not adopted most of these translations, despite their formal approval.

The Canadian Bishops’ Conference approved of the NRSV for use in the Mass, and had the lectionaries printed up prior to approval by the Holy See. Pope John Paul II rejected the NRSV for use in the liturgy. At the time, Cardinal Ratzinger had promulgated norms for Bible translation that forbid the type of inclusive language found in the NRSV. But the Bishops approved of the NRSV in opposition to the Holy See. More recently, Pope Benedict has given reluctant approval to the use of the NRSV in the lectionaries of Canada.

So the meaning and usefulness of the approval of a Bible version varies. The most valuable type of approval is found, over a long period of time, in whether or not the sensus fidelium approves of a Bible version by means of widespread usage in study and in devotion before God.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not suggesting your translation is not accurate. What I’m asking is how do we know if its accurate or not? Shouldn’t Catholics stick to Church approved translations. Aren’t there already existing approved English translations of the Latin Vulgate?

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Ron Conte: I think it is a great thing that you did your translation of the bible.

It seems that no one translating today gives a hoot about the Latin Vulgate.

The Latin Vulgate has been validated by its long time use in the Catholic Church.

I know you have a great appreciation for that as did the Ecumenical Council of Trent.

The Nova Vulgata may be the juridicial text of ther Latin Rite of the Catholic Church–that does not mean it is the most accurate version of either the bible or the Vulgate.

Just curious–what do you think is the best version of the Latin Vulgate ever published?

Another question: sometimes English does not have words that exactly convey what Latin does. Did you ever run into a situation like that when you were translating where it was difficult to come up with the best English word? Was it ever a 50:50 proposition between two English word alternatives?

What do you think would justify departing from the Latin Vulgate while translating the bible?

Lastly–what in your opinion are the most recent good advances that have come from trying to uncover the original Vulgate?

Has the Vulgate improved any since 1598?

And maybe another question: Do you think that St. Jerome’s last attempt at translating the Psalms resulted in a more accurate text?

Is it possible to make the Psalms more accurate as a study text but have a different Psalter for the Liturgy where meter and singability matter?

Was the Bea Psalter an advance in accuracy?

Do you think that the Latin of the Bea Psalter is too classical and that sometimes Jerome’s less classical Latin is indeed preferable?

 

[Ron_Conte]

Just curious–what do you think is the best version of the Latin Vulgate ever published?

I prefer the Clementine Vulgate. The Leander van Ess edition of the Vulgate (1822-1824) has the full text and all of the differences between the 1590, 1592, 1593, and 1598 Sixtine and Clementine editions. So the van Ess edition is very useful.

Another question: sometimes English does not have words that exactly convey what Latin does. Did you ever run into a situation like that when you were translating where it was difficult to come up with the best English word? Was it ever a 50:50 proposition between two English word alternatives?

Sometimes two English words are needed to convey one Latin word; sometimes a slight rephrasing is needed to make the English accurately express the meaning of the Latin. Often there are two or more possible translation choices, and there is no substantial reason for choosing one over the other. Beyond a certain point, translation decisions are arbitrary.

What do you think would justify departing from the Latin Vulgate while translating the bible?

Jerome translated the Hebrew word ‘qaran’ which can refer to horns or to something that radiates outward, as if it referred to horns (Ex 34:29). I corrected the text according to the Hebrew, so that it says Moses face was radiant. A translator can justify departing from the source text only if another reliable text is needed in a particular instance to make the truths of Scripture clear to the reader.

Lastly–what in your opinion are the most recent good advances that have come from trying to uncover the original Vulgate?

There is no original Vulgate. Many of the earliest Christians translated various books of the Bible into Latin many times over, so that there were almost as many versions of the Bible in Latin as there were copies of the Bible in Latin. There was no one text in Latin. Rather, it is like the roots of a tree, which at their furthest extent from the trunk are very numerous. So there is no one Latin source text for the Vulgate.

Note also that in all of these translations which are the basis for the Latin Vulgate, there was no formal approval for the various translations and editions.

Has the Vulgate improved any since 1598?

It’s hard to say. There are more manuscripts that have come to light in various languages, and these have their influence on our understanding of the Vulgate. The Neo-Vulgate has some usefulness. The new Tweedale edition (London, 2005) is a good new light edit. I don’t think there has been any major improvements on the 1598 edition though.

Do you think that St. Jerome’s last attempt at translating the Psalms resulted in a more accurate text?

I don’t think we have the exact text of any of Jerome’s work. I’m not familiar with the differences between his three attempts at the Psalms (Latin to Latin, Greek to Latin, Hebrew to Latin).

Is it possible to make the Psalms more accurate as a study text but have a different Psalter for the Liturgy where meter and singability matter?

Yes, it is good to have many different versions of the Bible. Some looser translations are good for new converts and for children, since the text is more approachable. The more literal translations are better for study and interpretation of the text. One version of the Psalms could be used for liturgy, and another for study and interpretation.

Was the Bea Psalter an advance in accuracy?
I’m not familiar with the Bea Psalter.

 

[porthos11]

Despite my major disagreements with you, Ron, nonetheless, translating the Bible is a major achievement. My congratulations to you.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Despite my major disagreements with you, Ron, nonetheless, translating the Bible is a major achievement. My congratulations to you.

Thanks. I appreciate your good concern for the place that Sacred Scripture has in the Church.

 

[Manfred]

I’m working on an article about the approval of Bible versions, but for now I’ll just make a few general comments.

1. The approval of an individual Bishop is not the approval of the universal Church. The approval of a committee appointed by a Bishops’ Conference is not the not the approval of the universal Church. This type of formal approval is limited and fallible.
2. Even if a Pope were to work on a translation himself and give his formal, definitive, authoritative approval as Pope, such approval is still not the approval of the universal Church. This type of formal approval is limited and fallible.
3. Some Bible versions, over time, have become widely-accepted and widely-used by the faithful. The sensus fidelium and, in the long term, the Living Tradition guided by the Holy Spirit, discerns and judges the various editions of the Bible. This type of non-formal approval is the most definitive and most useful.

Examples:

While St. Jerome was working on his Bible translation, he was accused of serious sins and driven out of Rome under threats to his life. But his translation into Latin, over time, became widely used and widely accepted by the faithful.

Pope Sixtus V personally worked with a group of scholars on the 1590 edition of the Latin Vulgate Bible. He then decreed that no changes were to be made in this authoritative edition of the Bible (except for obvious typographical errors). The language he used was definitive and absolute: “by this, Our perpetually valid Constitution… from the fullness of Apostolic power We establish and declare… by the Apostolic authority, given to us by God….” The Pope ordered that even in future years “not even the smallest part” be “changed, added, or deleted.” Yet under Pope Clement VIII, numerous changes were made to the Pope Sixtus V edition, resulting in different editions being published by the Holy See, under the authority of Pope Clement VIII, in 1592, 1593, and 1598.

The 1598 edition became the standard Latin Vulgate Bible for several hundred years. It was widely accepted and used by the faithful, whereas the 1590, 1592, and 1593 editions were not.

The USCCB committee for the approval of Scripture translations has given approval to Protestant translations, inclusive language translations, and very loose translations. But the sensus fidelium has not adopted most of these translations, despite their formal approval.

The Canadian Bishops’ Conference approved of the NRSV for use in the Mass, and had the lectionaries printed up prior to approval by the Holy See. Pope John Paul II rejected the NRSV for use in the liturgy. At the time, Cardinal Ratzinger had promulgated norms for Bible translation that forbid the type of inclusive language found in the NRSV. But the Bishops approved of the NRSV in opposition to the Holy See. More recently, Pope Benedict has given reluctant approval to the use of the NRSV in the lectionaries of Canada.

So the meaning and usefulness of the approval of a Bible version varies. The most valuable type of approval is found, over a long period of time, in whether or not the sensus fidelium approves of a Bible version by means of widespread usage in study and in devotion before God.

Ron,

The subject of “ecclesiastical approval” is articulated here in an EXCELLENT manner!!

And we won’t even talk about the USCCB and its beloved cash cow, the (R)NAB. “Approval … limited and fallible” indeed!

 

[Ron_Conte]

Ron,

The subject of “ecclesiastical approval” is articulated here in an EXCELLENT manner!!

And we won’t even talk about the USCCB and its beloved cash cow, the (R)NAB. “Approval … limited and fallible” indeed!

Yes, and these are difficult points to get across to many people. They would blindly accept whatever is approved without regard for truth. Blind acceptance of whatever is approved then becomes a substitute for the search for truth.

The true approval of an edition occurs over a long period of time by means of the work of the Holy Spirit within the Living Tradition. It is the task of the faithful to evaluate translations and editions, by the use of various Bible editions in their lives, and so to contribute to the opinion of the sensus fidelium. We must not abandon that task.

I notice that some participants in this forum have made contributions to this same task, using various editions of the Bible, working with various editions, and expressing well-considered opinions about these editions.

 

[patrick457]

Congratulations, Ron. I did not agree with you on many respects (and I admit that I still do on some) but from what I can see, the CPDV is a very good translation indeed. It puts to shame many versions of the Bible out there, even those translated from Greek or Hebrew.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Congratulations, Ron. I did not agree with you on many respects (and I admit that I still do on some) but from what I can see, the CPDV is a very good translation indeed. It puts to shame many versions of the Bible out there, even those translated from Greek or Hebrew.

thanks

The CPDV is available as a downloadable PDF here:
sacredbible.org/files/CPDV-OE-8.5-11.zip

and online here:
sacredbible.org/catholic/index.htm

And there is a latin/english version here:
sacredbible.org/studybible/index.htm

 

[thistle]

Ron.

Sorry to be a bore about this but I don’t understand Latin so how does someone like me know that your translation into English is accurate?

 

[porthos11]

Ron.

Sorry to be a bore about this but I don’t understand Latin so how does someone like me know that your translation into English is accurate?

No one who doesn’t understand the source language can know, since accuracy is determined by comparison. So we cannot know any more or less about Ron’s translation accuracy than we could about the NAB or RSV or NRSV, unless we knew the source texts. For all we know, Ron’s translation may be more accurate than the DR, since he has had the benefit of other source texts since then.

I wouldn’t look to the Church for a determination of translation accuracy, since she makes no judgments thereof. None of the approvals or imprimaturs of the Church mean any of those are accurate.

 

[tobinatorstark]

No one who doesn’t understand the source language can know, since accuracy is determined by comparison. So we cannot know any more or less about Ron’s translation accuracy than we could about the NAB or RSV or NRSV, unless we knew the source texts. For all we know, Ron’s translation may be more accurate than the DR, since he has had the benefit of other source texts since then.

I wouldn’t look to the Church for a determination of translation accuracy, since she makes no judgments thereof. None of the approvals or imprimaturs of the Church mean any of those are accurate.

You do make a very good point

 

[Ron_Conte]

On the question of accuracy:

1. Whether or not a translation accurately represents the source text. This is determined by comparing the translation text to the source text. Knowledge of both languages is essential to this determination. This is a matter of degree; it is not all or nothing.
2. Whether or not a translation accurately represents the truths explicit and implicit in Sacred Scripture. This is a matter of degree; it is not all or nothing. This is determined only over a long period of time by the use of the translation within the Living Tradition. All the baptized members of the faithful, who live the truths of Scripture in their every day lives, are competent (i.e. have the role) to particupate in determining the degree of accuracy and the usefulness of a translation.

The role of the temporal authority of the Church in determining the usefulness of a translation, and its accuracy is limited. For example, Pope Sixtus V issued a very strongly worded decision of the temporal authority about the 1590 Vulgate. But that edition was not found to be as accurate or as useful as the 1598 edition. In another example, the Canadian Bishops’ Conference approved of the NRSV, against the manifest will of Pope John Paul II, for use in the liturgy. Such use of the temporal authority is fallible and limited.

The fullest and most definitive approval comes from the useage of a translation within the Living Tradition.

On the question of translation decisions:

Often, a translation decision will obscure one level of meaning, while clarifying another level of meaning. For example, in the Song of Songs, there are two (at least) levels of meaning: 1. historical (about Solomon’s marriage) and 2. spiritual (about Christ’s marriage to the Church). At times, a translator has to decide between a translation choice that will clarify the historical meaning, but make the spiritual level of meaning less accessible, or the reverse. I chose to emphasize the spiritual level of meaning of that book. Many modern translations emphasize, or even over-emphasize the historical level of meaning. (This over-emphasis is often seen in the footnotes and annotations as well.)

But which is more accurate, a translation that emphasizes one level of meaning, or a translation that emphasizes a different level of meaning? There can be substantial differences between two translations without either translation being inaccurate or in error.

On the question of literal versus loose translations:

A loose translation trades accuracy in representing the source text for eloquence and readability. A literal translation allows for some ineloquence in wording in exchange for accuracy in representing the source text. So a literal translation is more accurate (re: source text).

Also, literal translations are less likely to err than loose translations. Consider the translation of Wycliff, a heretic condemned by an Ecumenical Council. His translation is so literal that it is useful despite his many doctrinal errors. He did not impose his doctrinal errors on the text.

Whereas some of the looser Catholic translations have some substantial doctrinal problems (especially concerning extensive use of inclusive language). They impose on the text certain politically correct ideas, certain popular ideas in modern secular society, in opposition to the actual wording of the text.

 

[colliric]

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not suggesting your translation is not accurate. What I’m asking is how do we know if its accurate or not? **Shouldn’t Catholics stick to Church approved translations. **Aren’t there already existing approved English translations of the Latin Vulgate?

If you consider that having an Imprimatur is considered as being “Church Approved” enough then The Good News(A.K.A Today’s English Version) edition is Church Approved. It’s a horrible translation to me. Not only do the Catholic versions not have any changed translative language from the Protestant edition, such as in Luke 1:28, but they also are the only Catholic bibles that seperate the Deuterocanon from the Old Testament. Often they are simply printed and just have a “Catholic Version” dust cover put on top(these printings also lack the Imprimatur on the title page).

We sometimes need to consult other versions of scripture to see what others have taken from it and how they have translated it.

and yes there is an approved English translation of the Vulgate, it’s the Douay Rheims. I’m not sure there is a Modern english one though.