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.
If the Vulgate is such a dumb downed version why did the Catholic Church use if for over a thousand years? Is the Catholic Church dumb, too?

And exactly which Hebrew texts and which Greek texts–oh I know–whatever ones the Protestants that came up with the RSV wanted–yeah that’s the ticket–cherry pick a verse from this manuscript and then another verse from another manuscript but for goodness sakes make sure that it contradicts what is Catholic!

And that’s supposed to be Scholarly? That’s supposed to not have an agenda? Please!

And if you think Doctrine is not sacrificed for Protestant rederings which masquerade as legitimate because they are only “Stylistic” then you are quite naive!

I’d rather have a translation of the truth any day over cherry picked “originals” that do refelct an agenda and a Protestant bias!

I’d rather have Jerome’s Vulgate anyday with its translation mostly of the Greek for the Old Testament than the Masoretic text in centuries later Hebrew which underlies the RSV yet says only originals are where the translations comes from!

Give me a break! And when we later find that some verses are more accurately rendered from the Greek when we find Hebrew texts such as the Dead Sea Scrolls and that the Hebrew Masoretic text isn’t as precise–exactly what is the great Accuracy argument regarding ancient languages?

It never has been a matter over Hebrew over Greek over Latin–it’s always been a matter of Which Hebrew over Which Greek over Which Latin!

I’d rather have Catholic referees! I make no apology for that!

Hail Mary Full of Grace!

If you really believe that then why are you using a version of the bible written by people who don’t believe that and a version so far from the truth that the Catholic edition had to have the verse changed to reflect true Catholic Doctrine!

Don’t tell me that the words don’t make any difference and don’t tell me that the Protestant “Scholars” who came up with the RSV are unbiased!

Who believes that?
 
Yes, I would love to see a new English translation of the Latin Vulgate. The Douay Rheims is pretty hard to understand.
 
Hi Jerry,

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’s the use of translating a translation?

Verbum
 
Verbum said:
What’s the use of translating a translation?
Click to expand...
The funny thing is that people who make this comment think they’re being clever.

Dear Verbum, there are a LOT of internet resources, including this forum, that explain why the Vulgate is a valid source text.
Do the research, rather than trying to play “gotcha”.
 
Hi Joel,

All critical editions of the Bible refer to the Vulgate when it helps establish a better text, like they do with many other ancient translations. So they all benefit from the Vulgate.

What’s a translation of the Vulgate FOR?. Biblical scholars know Latin, so they don’t need a translation. As for the rest of us, we’re better off with a translation from the originals with the occasional footnote referring to the Vulgate or other ancient translations.

Verbum
 
Verbum said:
As for the rest of us, we’re better off with a translation from the originals…
Click to expand...
I couldn’t agree more. Now, do you happen to know where these “originals” are? Because no one else does.
 
Every translation ever done is a translation of a copy.

Why do a translation of a translation?

Maybe because the Vulgate translation is more accurate than biased versions of selective cherry picked originals!

In other words we trust the Vulgate translation of its selection of originals more than any of the current translations and their selection of their originals!

And why do we do that? Because the Catholic Church says that the Vulgate can be used in all disputations and because we have brains enough to see doctrinal bias in translations such as the RSV.

In other words we’re not stupid enough to fall for people who would tell you that oh it comes from the originals and the Vulgate is just a translation.

We’re not dumb and people who think we are aren’t clever!
 
For me the answer to this question is contained in the, “Dogmatic Constitution On Divine Revelation” (DEI VERBUM) chapter VI No. 22 and the directives of the Church’s Magisterium on the norms of scriptural translations which followed.

Since I am sure we are all familiar with these documents I won’t quote them but say no, a translation of the “Nova Vulgata” ins not necessary however it cannot hurt especially if someone finds meaning and is moved to read the scriptures by such a translation. But I prefer the translations due as outlined by the Church’s directives.
 
TOME said:
But I prefer the translations due as outlined by the Church’s directives.
Click to expand...
Please point us to the church directive that says: when in doubt, go with the anti-christian, anti-trinitarian translation.
 
Also point to any directive that says when in doubt or when there is a disputation over a text where Catholic doctrine is involved to go with a non Vulgate or Protestant text!
 
I voted no. Too many translations as it is. Douay is tops in my book.

I like the old and musty anyway. 🙂

If I were a Bible publisher, I’d say we need more translations.
 
Since the Douay Rheims is in the public domain Why Not a douay with English spellings and without archaic language. It could be done.

How would people complain about the Doauy if it were easily readable?
 
At that point, the argument would probably become solely Vulgate vs. critical text.

I hope to be able to get some of the Confraternity online this weekend, maybe that will address some people’s problems with readability.
 
The Confraternity New Testament is great. It’s a shame that some in the USCCB suppress it and discourage its use.
 
Hi Jerry,

the Catholic Church says that the Vulgate can be used in all disputations and because we have brains enough to see doctrinal bias in translations such as the RSV.

This applies to the Latin Vulgate, not to its translations.

Verbum
 
That is true.

I would say this though–the Douay Rheims Haydock Bible is closer to the Vulgate than the RSV-CE, any Protestant translations of the bible into English, the NRSV-Catholic Edition, or the New Jersualem Bible.

I say all of them err more from the truth of the Vulgate than the Douay Rheims Haydock does.

Since they do they are farther from the truth of the Vulgate.

Why would anyone want to be far away from the truth of the Vulgate that could be used in “all disputations”?
 
The Vulgate is a translation of the Septuagint plus the Greek New Testament.

Even though the Vulgate is infallible, a triple language barrier is worse than a double language barrier. Why not just get a brand new translation from the LXX/GNT?
 
Why is it impossible to get a good English translation of the Vulgate?

The answer is it isn’t impossible–it’s just if you did that it would be Catholic doctrinally correct and that doesn’t fit many people’s agendas–that’s why they’re always proposing something different–not because they think they can really improve on the Vulgate–but because they just don’t want the Vulgate–they don’t really want the truth!

Any group of “Bible scholars” can take any cherry-picked amount of “originals” and get the bible to say anything they want it to say–and I gurantee you it won’t sound like the Vulgate.

That’s not coincidence–that’s the whole point they’re trying to get to in the first place.

The reason the Vulgate is doctrinally correct in the first pace is that it has been subject to the church’s scrutiny–and I don’t mean any regional group of bishop’s scrutiny but the scrutiny of the Holy See.

That’s the real rub. Why do you think some in the USCCB fight tooth and nail to ring out every smidgin of inclusive language they possibly can in the liturgy and the NAB?

Let the Holy See be in charge of biblical translation!

But no! The thought of that terrifies the people with agendas!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top