CPDV

[Ron_Conte]

The Catholic Public Domain Version of the Bible (CPDV) is a translation of the Sacred Bible, Sixtus V and Clement VIII Latin Vulgate edition. The 1914 Hetzenauer edition of the Vulgate was the main source text. Several other Latin editions were consulted including the 1861 Vercellone edition, the 1822 - 1824 Leander van Ess edition (which compares the 1590, 1592, 1593, 1598 editions of the Sixtus V and Clement VIII editions), and the modern-day Tweedale Edition (London, 2005). The Challoner Douay-Rheims Version of the Bible was used as a guide in translating the Latin text into English. The original Rheims Douai Bible was also frequently consulted.

The CPDV is:

1. translated from the Clementine Latin Vulgate, which has been used by the Church for several hundred years as the preeminent Latin version of the Bible
2. a fairly literal translation, reversing the modern trend of loose paraphrase translations
3. an accurate translation of the Latin text, made using the Challoner Douai Bible as a guide
4. a Roman Catholic translation, in which the Old Testament is translated in the light of the New Testament, and both testaments are translated in the light of Roman Catholic teaching
5. a complete translation, reversing the modern trend to drop words, phrases, and entire verses from the Bible
6. available in an edition that is free from distracting, pedantic, and faithless footnotes
7. translated by a believing and practicing Roman Catholic (no Protestants worked on this translation)
8. free from the imposition of gender-neutral or inclusive language; free from the imposition of political correctness
9. entirely free from copyrights, trademarks, and other restrictions; anyone may copy, print, publish, and use this translation online or offline
10. available online for free; download it or use it from the website at SacredBible.org

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

I use this translation all the time. It is, hands down, the best resource for a pseudo scholar such as myself because of the Vulgate/english subsection. Thank you for all your work on this, I cannot imagine how difficult this must have been.

FSC

 

[Tyuiop411]

I use this translation all the time. It is, hands down, the best resource for a pseudo scholar such as myself because of the Vulgate/english subsection. Thank you for all your work on this, I cannot imagine how difficult this must have been.

FSC

Amen to that. I tried to translate the Vulgate myself and i only got through the Gospel of John before i gave up.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Amen to that. I tried to translate the Vulgate myself and i only got through the Gospel of John before i gave up.

But I think you must have learned a great deal about Scripture for the effort.

My own work translating the Bible from the Vulgate has helped me understand Scripture ever better. Unfortunately, it has also caused me to realize how many serious problems there are in all the current modern English translations of the Bible.

There are continually numerous threads in this discussion group about which Bible version is best. One person praises one version as accurate and literal etc., and another person praises another version similarly. Most of you have no idea what you are talking about, and no idea what the problems and issues are with modern Biblical scholarship. The versions that you claim are literal are far from it, and the versions that you claim are accurate have serious issues with accuracy.

Biblical scholarship, including translation and editing of the Bible, is in a dire state in the Church right now. And few Catholics realize that this problem even exists.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Ron Conte: I certainly agree that there is a big problem in biblical translation.

Could you cite any particular verses where you think that translations that come “somewhat” from the Vulgate such as the Douay Rheims Challoner, Confraternity, or the Knox bible(even though admitedly it is a loose translation)–get translation wrong compared to the CPDV?

I have no axe to grind–I haven’t read all your translation–I have read your translation philosophy–I just wondered if you could tell us some places where even Vulgate derived translations do in fact get things wrong?

And where are there verses in the bible where you think it is indeed a good thing to depart from the Vulgate–not on doctrine or morals of course–but on details based on ancient language texts?

I think it is a good thing that you tried to translate the bible–I wish other Catholics who were able to would do so.

 

[patrick457]

But I think you must have learned a great deal about Scripture for the effort.

My own work translating the Bible from the Vulgate has helped me understand Scripture ever better. Unfortunately, it has also caused me to realize how many serious problems there are in all the current modern English translations of the Bible.

There are continually numerous threads in this discussion group about which Bible version is best. One person praises one version as accurate and literal etc., and another person praises another version similarly. Most of you have no idea what you are talking about, and no idea what the problems and issues are with modern Biblical scholarship. The versions that you claim are literal are far from it, and the versions that you claim are accurate have serious issues with accuracy.

Biblical scholarship, including translation and editing of the Bible, is in a dire state in the Church right now. And few Catholics realize that this problem even exists.

Hmm…you do bring a good point there. But for the sake of all of us, can you specify some of these problems that plague Biblical scholarship nowadays?

 

[Ron_Conte]

Hmm…you do bring a good point there. But for the sake of all of us, can you specify some of these problems that plague Biblical scholarship nowadays?

On translation:

1. dropping phrases and verses from the Bible
2. imposing gender inclusive language on the text
3. loose rephrasings that change a profound, though perhaps somewhat obscure verse, into an easily understood, much less obscure, but much less profound verse.
4. the almost complete abandonment of the Latin as a source text. There is nothing wrong with having some translations based on the Hebrew/Greek. But some translations should be based on the Latin, and even the Hebrew/Greek translations should take account of the Latin.
5. the excessive imposition of interpretation into the translation
6. the assumption of translators that there are errors in Sacred Scripture. This becomes a translation issue, for example, here:

[1 Samuel 13]
{13:1} Filius unius anni erat Saul cum regnare cœpisset, duobus autem annis regnavit super Israel.
{13:1} When he began to reign, Saul was the son of one year, and he reigned over Israel for two years.

Many translations assume that this is an error and they ‘correct’ the text. But the meaning is that Saul had had a conversion two years earlier, so that he was a new man (10:6).

1. the committee approach to translation, which has a tendency to excise any insights into the text, in terms of translation, that are not the majority view.
2. the tendency to treat the text as if it has only the literal/figurative level of meaning, or worse, as if it were merely an historical human text.
3. oversimplifying language, avoiding all but the most common words and phrases, dulling sharp rebukes in Sacred Scripture,
4. narrowing or exaggerating a wording so that an unpopular verse applies to a much smaller group of persons (e.g. wicked instead of impious; e.g. translating sexual sins in a very narrow wording)

On Biblical scholarship in general, some of the same problems noted above apply, then also:

1. the widespread heresy that the Bible is not inerrant, or that the Bible is only inerrant on matters of faith and morals
2. the claim that certain passages in the Epistles, esp. of Paul, are merely historical or cultural, and are not true teachings of the Holy Spirit.
3. the claim that the teachings of Jesus in the Gospels were not truly taught by Him, but are merely a reflection of the understanding of the community in which the books were written.
4. the claim that the Bible should be interpreted without faith, based solely on scholarship
5. the claim that the OT stories, such as Adam and Eve, or Noah, are merely figurative, with no historical content.
6. the almost total abandonment by many scholars of all the work done with Scripture by the Saints, Fathers, and Doctors of the Church

And much more.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

On translation:

1. dropping phrases and verses from the Bible
2. imposing gender inclusive language on the text
3. loose rephrasings that change a profound, though perhaps somewhat obscure verse, into an easily understood, much less obscure, but much less profound verse.
4. the almost complete abandonment of the Latin as a source text. There is nothing wrong with having some translations based on the Hebrew/Greek. But some translations should be based on the Latin, and even the Hebrew/Greek translations should take account of the Latin.
5. the excessive imposition of interpretation into the translation
6. the assumption of translators that there are errors in Sacred Scripture. This becomes a translation issue, for example, here:

[1 Samuel 13]
{13:1} Filius unius anni erat Saul cum regnare cœpisset, duobus autem annis regnavit super Israel.
{13:1} When he began to reign, Saul was the son of one year, and he reigned over Israel for two years.

Many translations assume that this is an error and they ‘correct’ the text. But the meaning is that Saul had had a conversion two years earlier, so that he was a new man (10:6).

1. the committee approach to translation, which has a tendency to excise any insights into the text, in terms of translation, that are not the majority view.
2. the tendency to treat the text as if it has only the literal/figurative level of meaning, or worse, as if it were merely an historical human text.
3. oversimplifying language, avoiding all but the most common words and phrases, dulling sharp rebukes in Sacred Scripture,
4. narrowing or exaggerating a wording so that an unpopular verse applies to a much smaller group of persons (e.g. wicked instead of impious; e.g. translating sexual sins in a very narrow wording)

On Biblical scholarship in general, some of the same problems noted above apply, then also:

1. the widespread heresy that the Bible is not inerrant, or that the Bible is only inerrant on matters of faith and morals
2. the claim that certain passages in the Epistles, esp. of Paul, are merely historical or cultural, and are not true teachings of the Holy Spirit.
3. the claim that the teachings of Jesus in the Gospels were not truly taught by Him, but are merely a reflection of the understanding of the community in which the books were written.
4. the claim that the Bible should be interpreted without faith, based solely on scholarship
5. the claim that the OT stories, such as Adam and Eve, or Noah, are merely figurative, with no historical content.
6. the almost total abandonment by many scholars of all the work done with Scripture by the Saints, Fathers, and Doctors of the Church

And much more.

For these reasons and more I adhere to the D/R Bible!

 

[Ron_Conte]

Could you cite any particular verses where you think that translations that come “somewhat” from the Vulgate such as the Douay Rheims Challoner, Confraternity, or the Knox bible(even though admitedly it is a loose translation)–get translation wrong compared to the CPDV?

[Wisdom] - Challoner
{17:12} And while there is less expectation from within, the greater doth it count the ignorance of that cause which bringeth the torment.

CPDV
{17:12} Et dum ab intus minor est expectatio, maiorem computat in scientiam eius causæ, de qua tormentum præstat.
{17:12} And, while expectation is driven from within, the cause of this is supposing that one is great in knowledge, and as a result, conflict excels.

The 1590 Vulgate has scientiam (knowledge), and later editions have inscientiam (ignorance). The context reveals that the wording should be in scientiam (in knowledge) rather than inscientiam, ignorance.

Most of the time when my wording differs from Challoner it is not a matter of complete disagreement, but of differing translation decisions. I don’t recall all the different points of translation where I differ substantially from Challoner.

And where are there verses in the bible where you think it is indeed a good thing to depart from the Vulgate–not on doctrine or morals of course–but on details based on ancient language texts?

I did consult Hebrew and Greek interlinears in making my translation, so I did not rely exclusively on the Latin. I also corrected the well-known problem in the Latin text in Exodus according to the Hebrew.

{34:29} Cumque descenderet Moyses de monte Sinai, tenebat duas tabulas testimonii, et ignorabat quod **cornuta **esset facies sua ex consortio sermonis Domini.
{34:29} And when Moses descended from Mount Sinai, he held the two tablets of the testimony, and he did not know that his face was **radiant **from the sharing of words with the Lord.

The Hebrew is a word that means either to radiate outward, or to grow horns.

So, yes, I think that other Scriptural traditions, in other languages, should inform and affect the Latin translation.

 

[Jehuty_X]

1. the almost complete abandonment of the Latin as a source text. There is nothing wrong with having some translations based on the Hebrew/Greek. But some translations should be based on the Latin, and even the Hebrew/Greek translations should take account of the Latin.

// latin as a source text??? uh, why should some translations be based on the latin? what makes the latin so special besides st. jerome revising the old latin, etc.???

 

[patrick457]

On translation:

1. dropping phrases and verses from the Bible
2. imposing gender inclusive language on the text
3. loose rephrasings that change a profound, though perhaps somewhat obscure verse, into an easily understood, much less obscure, but much less profound verse.
4. the almost complete abandonment of the Latin as a source text. There is nothing wrong with having some translations based on the Hebrew/Greek. But some translations should be based on the Latin, and even the Hebrew/Greek translations should take account of the Latin.
5. the excessive imposition of interpretation into the translation
6. the assumption of translators that there are errors in Sacred Scripture. This becomes a translation issue, for example, here:

[1 Samuel 13]
{13:1} Filius unius anni erat Saul cum regnare cœpisset, duobus autem annis regnavit super Israel.
{13:1} When he began to reign, Saul was the son of one year, and he reigned over Israel for two years.

Many translations assume that this is an error and they ‘correct’ the text. But the meaning is that Saul had had a conversion two years earlier, so that he was a new man (10:6).

1. the committee approach to translation, which has a tendency to excise any insights into the text, in terms of translation, that are not the majority view.
2. the tendency to treat the text as if it has only the literal/figurative level of meaning, or worse, as if it were merely an historical human text.
3. oversimplifying language, avoiding all but the most common words and phrases, dulling sharp rebukes in Sacred Scripture,
4. narrowing or exaggerating a wording so that an unpopular verse applies to a much smaller group of persons (e.g. wicked instead of impious; e.g. translating sexual sins in a very narrow wording)

On Biblical scholarship in general, some of the same problems noted above apply, then also:

1. the widespread heresy that the Bible is not inerrant, or that the Bible is only inerrant on matters of faith and morals
2. the claim that certain passages in the Epistles, esp. of Paul, are merely historical or cultural, and are not true teachings of the Holy Spirit.
3. the claim that the teachings of Jesus in the Gospels were not truly taught by Him, but are merely a reflection of the understanding of the community in which the books were written.
4. the claim that the Bible should be interpreted without faith, based solely on scholarship
5. the claim that the OT stories, such as Adam and Eve, or Noah, are merely figurative, with no historical content.
6. the almost total abandonment by many scholars of all the work done with Scripture by the Saints, Fathers, and Doctors of the Church

And much more.

And these are probably the reasons why I find myself increasingly distrusting many modern translations and turning to the original languages and ancient translations more.

 

[Ron_Conte]

// latin as a source text??? uh, why should some translations be based on the latin? what makes the latin so special besides st. jerome revising the old latin, etc.???

Council of Trent: “But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema.”

“Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod,–considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic,–ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever.”

In the early Church, the books of the Bible were translated into Latin, in many cases probably from manuscripts that no longer exist. Also, the Latin texts have been used in the Church by the Living Tradition, so they have stood the test of time; they have been vetted by constant long usage. So having some translations based on the Latin is useful.

Also, in my opinion, some of the books of the NT were written in Latin: Mark, and the letter to the Romans.

 

[Squanto]

Pope Pius XII - DIVINO AFFLANTE SPIRITU

The same veneration the Bishops should endeavor daily to increase and perfect among the faithful committed to their care, encouraging all those initiatives by which men, filled with apostolic zeal, laudably strive to excite and foster among Catholics a greater knowledge of and love for the Sacred Books. Let them favor therefore and lend help to those pious associations whose aim it is to spread copies of the Sacred Letters, especially of the Gospels, among the faithful, and to procure by every means that in Christian families the same be read daily with piety and devotion; let them efficaciously recommend by word and example, whenever the liturgical laws permit, the Sacred Scriptures translated, with the approval of the Ecclesiastical authority, into modern languages; let them themselves give public conferences or dissertations on biblical subjects, or see that they are given by other public orators well versed in the matter.

Is not there also a Canon Law requiring Bishops to approve translations of the Bible?

 

[David_Zampino]

Our friend Mr. Conte is at it again.

He has no episcopal authority for translation – or for anything else. By his own admission, on his own website, he has no background in theology either.

Take a look at his various websites and see for yourself. Ask yourself “Does this individual accurately present the Church”? If you still have questions, check with his diocese. See what they have to say.

Blessings,

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

Our friend Mr. Conte is at it again.

He has no episcopal authority for translation – or for anything else. By his own admission, on his own website, he has no background in theology either.

Take a look at his various websites and see for yourself. Ask yourself “Does this individual accurately present the Church”? If you still have questions, check with his diocese. See what they have to say.

Blessings,

What does he misrepresent in the Church? And what does his Diocese say about him/ what is his diocese so I can ask them?

Just trying to educate myself in regards to other peoples backgrounds/motives/beliefs… I havent read anything he posted that I found inaccurate… But what do I know?

FSC

 

[Ron_Conte]

My background in theology is summarized here.

My work with Sacred Scripture can be found here.

The question of approval for Bible translations is complex, and
I don’t think this discussion group is the best place to address that topic.

 

[David_Zampino]

My background in theology is summarized here.

My work with Sacred Scripture can be found here.

The question of approval for Bible translations is complex, and
I don’t think this discussion group is the best place to address that topic.

Ron,

I’ve viewed your site quite extensively. You don’t have the credentials to make the claims you make – and you go far beyond the teachings of the Church insofar as what you require of participants on your “forum”. I refer to this statement “Members should take the attitude of students, and shoud be here primarily to learn.”

I maintain that you have neither the credentials nor the authority to hold yourself up as, functionally, a self-proclaimed interpreter of the Magisterium – especially on issues on which the teaching office of the Church has not made definitive pronouncements.

You have a very narrow and legalistic view of the Church, and frankly, have the capacity to lead many astray.

 

[Sporaticus]

Ron,

I’ve viewed your site quite extensively. You don’t have the credentials to make the claims you make – and you go far beyond the teachings of the Church insofar as what you require of participants on your “forum”. I refer to this statement “Members should take the attitude of students, and shoud be here primarily to learn.”

I maintain that you have neither the credentials nor the authority to hold yourself up as, functionally, a self-proclaimed interpreter of the Magisterium – especially on issues on which the teaching office of the Church has not made definitive pronouncements.

You have a very narrow and legalistic view of the Church, and frankly, have the capacity to lead many astray.

True, especially the part of ‘no episcopal authority’ mentioned previously.

What I have noticed in a couple of books of his that I peroused is that there are no forwards in the book thanking his ‘theologian contemporaries’ for reviewing his books for error, spelling or whatnot.

From what I can guess his works are not peer reviewed in any manner. Of course to be peer reviewed they would need to be read by catholic theologians of PHD or Masters degree caliber and these reviews would either be in the forward, back cover, front cover etc. Most well written catholic publications have this. Conte has none of this collegial nonsense, but he does have a bachelors degree.I’ve also noticed a certain lack of collegial attitude missing in the way he runs his website also.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Ron Conte: I certainly agree that there is a big problem in biblical translation.

Yes, and it is disconcerting how extensive the problems are in Bible translation and Biblical scholarship in general, but it is also disconcerting that so many Catholics do not even realize that problems exist. Loose translations are called literal and accurate. Translations with substantial imposition of inclusive language are said to be entirely free from this fault. Words, phrases and entire verses are dropped from books. Most persons don’t even notice, and most of those who notice don’t even seem to mind!!!.

My translation, the CPDV, makes a small contribution toward reversing those errors and harmful trends in Bible translation and scholarship. The CPDV has less inclusive language than Challoner. And it is a fairly literal translation, much more literal than many translations today that are called literal, but actually take appalling liberties with the text. Also, all of the phrases and verses in the Vulgate are translated and retained in the CPDV.

 

[Jehuty_X]

Council of Trent: “But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema.”

// i’m pretty sure you know that the council of trent only stated that because of the reformation and that the latin vulgate was going to be in the dark (set aside)…nothing is going to happen to anyone who “rejects” the latin vulgate…why? because the council of trent is not God!

“Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod,–considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic,–ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever.”

// still does not mean that one “has to” or is “obligated” to translate from it…pretty much nothing will happen if one rejects the “latin vulgate”…you and i both know that…

In the early Church, the books of the Bible were translated into Latin, in many cases probably from manuscripts that no longer exist. Also, the Latin texts have been used in the Church by the Living Tradition, so they have stood the test of time; they have been vetted by constant long usage. So having some translations based on the Latin is useful.

// the books were translated into latin for the people who only spoke latin which you know…pretty much there is no benefit from translating from the latin vulgate…well, the only benefit that i can think of is for when translating from the hebrew and greek when something is not clear the latin vulgate can be useful…that’s about it…

Also, in my opinion, some of the books of the NT were written in Latin: Mark, and the letter to the Romans.

// i doubt it…