CPDV

[PUP]

Where is the Imprimatur? How does this jive with Canon Law 825?

 

[David_Zampino]

Where is the Imprimatur? How does this jive with Canon Law 825?

Ron has no Imprimatur. He gives every appearance of having set himself up as his own magisterium. You might ask him if his own diocesan bishop recognizes him as a “theologian”.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Where is the Imprimatur? How does this jive with Canon Law 825?

Bible translations are no longer subject to the imprimatur or the nihil obstat.
Approval can only be obtained from the Bishops’ Conference or the Holy See.
For example, the RSV-CE2 has no imprimatur, on the approbation of the USCCB.

Concerning the rules for publishing Bible translations:

[Luke]
{6:1} Now it happened that, on the second first Sabbath, as he passed through the grain field, his disciples were separating the ears of grain and eating them, by rubbing them in their hands.
{6:2} Then certain Pharisees said to them, “Why are you doing what is not lawful on the Sabbaths?”
{6:3} And responding to them, Jesus said: “Have you not read this, what David did when he was hungry, and those who were with him?
{6:4} How he entered into the house of God, and took the bread of the Presence, and ate it, and gave it to those who were with him, though it is not lawful for anyone to eat it, except the priests alone?”
{6:5} And he said to them, “For the Son of man is Lord, even of the Sabbath.”

{12:42} So the Lord said: “Who do you think is the faithful and prudent steward, whom his Lord has appointed over his family, in order to give them their measure of wheat in due time?
{12:43} Blessed is that servant if, when his Lord will return, he will find him acting in this manner."

 

[Me1234]

If you look at his website with his bible version: http:/ /www.sacredbible. org/ in the upper left area it has a link called In depth article In it there is a paragraph titled Additional References. Some of his references are dubious sources for getting a true bible. As in this translation is somewhat translated using a 2 bibles that are from heretical, pope-haters: Tyndale & Wycliffe.

"Additional References

In addition to the above mentioned versions of Scripture, a number of electronic and printed resources were used in the process of translating and editing this version of Scripture. Printed resources included Cassell’s Latin Dictionary (Wiley Publishing, New York, NY, 1968) and 501 Latin Verbs (Baron’s Educational Series, 1995). Electronic resources included the online thesaurus and dictionary at Reference.com (http: //thesaurus.reference . com, http:// dictionary.reference . com), a Latin English online dictionary called “Words by William Whitaker” on the Notre Dame web site (http:// catholic.archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/words . exe) as well as the downloaded program of the same name, my own site SacredBible . org with its online editions of the Clementine Vulgate, and the Wesley Center for Applied Theology for its online Wycliffe version of the Bible (http:// wesley.nnu . edu/biblical_studies) and on rare occasion its online Tyndale version (http:// wesley.nnu . edu/biblical_studies/tyndale/index . htm ). Occasional use was also made of the site New Advent (newadvent.org/) for its online Catholic Encyclopedia, which was useful for looking up names of persons and places. The Google search engine was sometimes used to find resources or to check for modern-day usage of a possible phrasing in the English translation."

Through at an earlier paragraph he mentions that he is translating mainly from the The Latin Source Text, the Clementine Vulgate: mainly on the 1914 Hetzenauer edition of the Clementine Vulgate, with repeated reference also to the 1861 Vercellone edition and the 1885 Desclée edition, as well as the Leander van Ess version of the Latin Vulgate New Testament (which compares the 1590, 1592, 1593, and 1598 editions of the Sixtus V and Clement VIII Vulgate A new edition of the Clementine Vulgate, edited by M. Tweedale, 2005 (but available as a work in progress in 2004) was very helpful. The Tweedale edition, which is in electronic form, was compared with the printed text of the 1914 Hetzenauer, in order to make an online version of the Hetzenauer edition, which itself was then used by the translator to make a new edition of the Clementine Vulgate (in progress: 2009 edition). The Neo-Vulgate (Nova Vulgata) was occasionally consulted as an additional point of reference for the Latin text, but it was not used as a source text.). It isn’t all bad but those 2 sources, Tyndale and Wycliffe, aren’t a good source from a bible I’d want to read.

For the english text guide it says here he used mainly the Challoner Douay-Rheims which is awesome, and occasionally used 5 other catholic approved bibles but yet again he lists the Wycliffe version. I don’t think he knows that Wycliffe was a Lollard Protestant and that it is a bad translation condemned and forbidden to read even by a Decree of the Archbishop Arundel at Oxford in 1408 which in addition forbid the translation of any part of the Bible into English by any unauthorized person. I wish he would have called it a Christian Public Domain Version instead.

 

[Salvatore123]

I think this thread, alone, shows WHY I started a thread a while back and concluded that time and money would be VERY well spent if the Catholic Church authorized biblical scholars with no motive other than to translate the Holy Bible into English and Latin with the most accurate rendering possible, using for source material the earliest known translations we have found to date:

Codex Sinaiticus
Codex Vaticanus
Dead Sea Scrolls

and then comparing them to the ORIGINAL Douay-Rheims (which still exists).

The following (which I am buying as they are released - I have the first two) seem to be a most promising project:

amazon.com/Vulgate-Bible-Pentateuch-Douay-Rheims-Translation/dp/0674055349/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1306716533&sr=1-1

amazon.com/Vulgate-Bible-Historical-Douay-Rheims-Translation/dp/0674996674/ref=pd_sim_b_2

 

[patrick457]

I think this thread, alone, shows WHY I started a thread a while back and concluded that time and money would be VERY well spent if the Catholic Church authorized biblical scholars with no motive other than to translate the Holy Bible into English and Latin with the most accurate rendering possible, using for source material the earliest known translations we have found to date:

Codex Sinaiticus
Codex Vaticanus
Dead Sea Scrolls

Well actually there are a lot of manuscripts which predate Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (the John Rylands Papyrus 52 is generally considered to be the earliest extant fragment of an NT text). They are the earliest surviving complete copies of the NT, but they themselves are not free from scribal errors and some such. I believe this kind of shows us the value of textual criticism.

 

[Salvatore123]

patrick,

The following is the reason why I cited Sinaiticus and Vaticanus:

*"Along with Codex Vaticanus, the Codex Sinaiticus has proven to be one of the most valuable manuscripts for establishing the original text (textual criticism) of the Greek New Testament, as well as the Septuagint. It is the only uncial manuscript with the complete text of the New Testament, and the only ancient manuscript of the New Testament written in four columns per page which has survived to the present day. With only 300 years separating the Codex Sinaiticus and the original manuscripts of the New Testament, it is considered to be very highly accurate, as opposed to most later copies, in preserving obviously superior readings where many later manuscripts are in error.

For the Gospels, Sinaiticus is generally considered among scholars as the second most reliable witness of the text (after Vaticanus); in the Acts of the Apostles, its text is equal to that of Vaticanus; in the Epistles, Sinaiticus is the most reliable witness of the text. In the Book of Revelation, however, its text is corrupted and is considered of poor quality, and inferior to the texts of Codex Alexandrinus, Papyrus 47, and even some minuscule manuscripts in this place (for example, Minuscule 2053, 2062)."*

I apologize for citing Wikipedia, but I didn’t have the time to conduct my own research at this moment.

 

[Me1234]

The ecumenical council of Trent declared the Douay-Rheims (I think the one they used was not the original but that is just a guess as to which one it was) was free of doctrinal error.

An updated version of this with words like nigh in it changed into near would make it a good idea especially because it is not paraphrased and it’s without all those unnecessary footnotes on the bottom. It could be faster and easier to do without all the retranslationing complications.

God allowing the Douay-Rheims to be approved like that by an ecumenical council makes it a pretty safe bet for teaching and reading God’s word without text-made problems. Even if it’s just to clear up questions between 2 possible renderings. It’s a lot like our language today moreso than the original Douai-Rheims. Though the later Douai-Rheims were based off the original so I’d feel really comfortable reading something from either. So long as the translators are pious catholics without an unoffending other religions “correctness” impulse.

 

[Bible_Reader]

The ecumenical council of Trent declared the Douay-Rheims (I think the one they used was not the original but that is just a guess as to which one it was) was free of doctrinal error.

The Council of Trent had its final session in 1563.

The Rheims was not published until 1582, and the Douay was not published until 1610-11.

The first edition of the Sixto-Clementine Vulgate was not published until 1590.

 

[Me1234]

Opps. You’re right the Douay-Rheims wasn’t it. Checking it out now on the internet it’s the old Latin Vulgate Edition that in the Fourth Session, April 8, 1546, that Trent said the old Latin Vulgate is to be “held as authentic, and so no one dare or presume under any pretext whatsoever to reject it.” and Pope Pius XII stated in his 1943 encyclical letter Divino Afflante Spiritu, that this means the Vulgate is “free from any error whatsoever in matters of faith and morals.” that’s where it’s from apparently. :doh2:

 

[Salvatore123]

Me1234,

As Bible Reader correctly noted, the DR (simply an english translation of the A latin-text bible) did not appear until the late 1500’s/early 1600’s. This was the first known “Catholic approved” english translation of the bible and its purpose was to get the bible into as many english speaking people as possible as a counter to the proliferation of protestant english translations that were taking liberties with their translations.

The publishers of the DR had to go to the European continent because of Elizabeth I’s persecution of Catholics after her half-sister died as queen.