Do you think there should be new English translation of the Latin Vulgate?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mannyfit75
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Mannyfit75

Guest
Do you think the Church should have a new translation of the Latin Vulgate in English that reflects our modern English of today that can make both Douay Rheims Bible Readers happy and RSV reader happy?

I think there should be a new English translation of the Latin Vulgate without using the words thou, thy, art, hallow, and other old English style writings.

I think it is possible to produce a new English translation of the Latin Vulgate. If the translation is made I don’t think it should be gender neutral like the NRSV Bible. I don’t like the NRSV Bible. The only translation I use are the RSV and the RSV-2nd Catholic Edition.
 
Yes, I do.
And I think we should use the NRSV more often. I can’t believe you don’t like it! :eek: I actually find it easier to read the RSV.
Wikipedia article:
In the preface to the NRSV, Bruce Metzger wrote for the committee that “many in the churches have become sensitive to the danger of linguistic sexism arising from the inherent bias of the English language towards the masculine gender, a bias that in the case of the Bible has often restricted or obscured the meaning of the original text.” [1] The RSV observed the older convention of using masculine nouns in a gender-neutral sense (e.g. “man” instead of “person”), and in some cases used a masculine word where the source language used a neuter word. The NRSV by contrast adopted a policy of gender-neutral language: “The mandates from the Division specified that, in references to men and women, masculine-oriented language should be eliminated as far as this can be done without altering passages that reflect the historical situation of ancient patriarchal culture.”
One of the conventions NRSV uses is to expand gender-specific phrases. For example, if a translation used “brothers” to refer to a group that is not known to be all male, NRSV may use “brothers and sisters.” Where such adjustments are made the more literal translation is noted in a footnote.
Click to expand...
^^ That’s a good thing by me!
 
Hi Mannyfit,

Ronald Knox has just what you want. Most readable and straight from the Vulgate.

Verbum
 
scottm said:
Yes, I do.
And I think we should use the NRSV more often. I can’t believe you don’t like it! :eek: I actually find it easier to read the RSV.

^^ That’s a good thing by me!
Click to expand...
I have the RSV and the RSV 2nd Catholic Edition. The RSV-CE is pretty easy to read.
 
Mannyfit75 said:
I have the RSV and the RSV 2nd Catholic Edition. The RSV-CE is pretty easy to read.
Click to expand...
How is the CE different from the non-CE edition?

(I have NIV, KJV, NKVJ, RSV, NRSV, NASB, TEV, and the Jerusalem Bible, but I don’t have anything that says “Catholic Edition” on it.)
 
scottm said:
How is the CE different from the non-CE edition?

(I have NIV, KJV, NKVJ, RSV, NRSV, NASB, TEV, and the Jerusalem Bible, but I don’t have anything that says “Catholic Edition” on it.)
Click to expand...
I don’t know. You can ask the publication. I have a St. Ignatius Bible. On the side it said and I’m looking at it now.

Revised Standard Version Second Catholic Edition
 
Sure, why not?

But if you want a new translation for liturgical or scholarly use, no, we should no longer use the Vulgate as the underlying text. According to Liturgiam Authenticam, new translations for liturgical use must come from the best original-language critical editions, with the Nova Vulgata as the reference for conjectural emendations.
 
porthos11 said:
According to Liturgiam Authenticam, new translations for liturgical use must come from the best original-language critical editions, with the Nova Vulgata as the reference for conjectural emendations.
Click to expand...
Which is why I think we should have “official” critical texts of the Hebrew & Greek. Obviously, scholarly opinions change with time, better manuscripts can turn up - so revise as needed, keep older editions available for reference or at least place all old renderings in the footnotes, source all the major variants (including those in the Vulgate and LXX), and put the whole corpus in the public domain so everyone can benefit. Sound good?
 
TheOneTrueFred said:
Which is why I think we should have “official” critical texts of the Hebrew & Greek. Obviously, scholarly opinions change with time, better manuscripts can turn up - so revise as needed, keep older editions available for reference or at least place all old renderings in the footnotes, source all the major variants (including those in the Vulgate and LXX), and put the whole corpus in the public domain so everyone can benefit. Sound good?
Click to expand...
There’s really no need for “official” editions because it’s very difficult to introduce doctrinal bias into critical editions, which are produced by ecumenical efforts and without betraying the texts themselves (unlike translations). The nice thing about the critical editions is that they come with the critical apparatus so essential for cross-referencing.

The best editions we can consider “official” are the Kittel BHS for the Old Testament, the Rahlfs LXX and the UBS4/NA27 GNT.
 
porthos11 said:
The best editions we can consider “official” are the Kittel BHS for the Old Testament, the Rahlfs LXX and the UBS4/NA27 GNT.
Click to expand...
Were these the texts used in making the Nova Vulgata (besides the parts from the Vetus)?
 
TheOneTrueFred said:
Were these the texts used in making the Nova Vulgata (besides the parts from the Vetus)?
Click to expand...
I think the NV is not a new translation, but a revision of the Vulgate. The underlying critical editon was that one prepared by the Benedictine monks of St. Jerome in Rome. I’m not aware of the original-language references they used.
 
It is quite easy to introduce bias according to which original language text one uses.

That’s the whole point!

It’s not like there’s one great original language critical text out there that everyone in the universe can agree is 100% accurate and that that is what we all use and argue over.

When anyone says chunk the Vulgate because we have better original language texts I ask exactly which ones and exactly who decides which ones are an improvement over the Vulgate and which ones are not?

See anyone can use a couple of ancient texts and get a small number of verses that “might” be better than the Vulgate–but then proceed to translate the rest of the Bible about anyway they want to.

They can always say “Well we used better original language texts” and since we did our bible isn’t a “translation of a translation”.

And it must be OK because “look at the diversity of our ecumenical board of bible scholars.”

And if anyone asks why about all the rest of their bibles are different from the Vulgate they can always say “look the words are really so similiar–no bible can be literally translated because some words do not have direct corresponding words or grammar–what’s your problem?”

You’ll never hear anywhere explanations WHY every choice of an original text they used varied from the Vulgate–why exactly they thought other ancient “Critical texts” were more accurate from the Vulgate or WHY they chose the “Accurate Critical Tects” they did choose instead of others that were also different than the Vulgate!

Am I saying that any deviation from the Vulgate is by definition wrong or bad? No! But what I am saying is that one can translate the bible any way they want to under the guise of “Orignal languages” or “ciritical tests” and get it to say about anything they want to!

And I’m also calling into question Any Protestant translators.

Translation is not made in a vacuum! Don’t tell me that renderings and text choices are not influenced in anyway by the faith of the particular translator or group of translators!

Jerome may not have been perfect. but Jerome was Catholic! Jerome had access to manuscripts we don’t have today!

And just because Any manuscript or text we have today is older than Jerome does not mean it is necessarily more accurate than Jerome!

So yes we do need a new English translation of Any version of the Vulgate!

Doesn’t it strike anyone as remotely curious that No One attempts to do that? They translate everything esle in the world but for some reason No One will translate the Vulgate anew. Isn’t that rather odd?

What it really is is not odd but reflective of the biases of Catholics who teach in Catholic seminaries–reflective of their brand of ecumenism–reflective of how they view inclusive language and their own liberal theology.

And also reflective of some Catholic bishops in the United States who don’t mind any Protestant translation being polished a little and given a Catholic seal of approval–but the thought of a new translation of the Vulgate or the Nova Vulgata–you know the Real Bible that was translated in Rome–they view that possibility with abject horror!

Why?

Because then their agendas aren’t advanced! It’s as old as man itself–rig the rules of the game and you can control who wins.

Rig the translation of the Bible and you can advance your agendas. The people who have those agendas never weep for the loss of the Vulgate even if it is at the expense of demonstratably Inferior translations!

Give Catholics a really accurate readable English version of the Vulgate and all those other translations and agendas won’t sell! That’s the real story!
 
We have today in the Vatican library copies of scripture as old and sometimes older than those used by Hieronymus in translating the Bible into street latin. Why would we use a translation which is in effect a “dumbed down” version of the original manuscripts as a basis for a new translation? Talk about an “agenda,” what would you call writing in the style of people with less than a fourth grade education? That’s the level of the Vulgate.
I’ll keep my RSV-CE which was translated from the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, thank you very much. This was translated in a scholarly fashion with due regard to style and readability without sacrificing in any way the original sense of the writings.
No, we don’t want another translation of a translation. Too much gets lost that way.

Matthew
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top