Douay-Rheims and "extra" Psalms?!

[opdsgt]

Good evening, all.

As part of my study of the pope’s encyclical on love, I was reading excerpts of On The Love of God by St. Bernard of Clarivaux, a French monk who lived in the 12th century. I came across a passage in his writings that I would eventually discover is Psalm 70.16 (I finally found this text in the Douay-Rheims translation).

I have two questions.

First, why does the D-R contain all these “additional” verses that are not to be found in today’s Catholic translations or, for that matter, Protestant ones?

drbo.org/intro.htm
nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/psalms/psalm70.htm
gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=psalm+70

Second, what translation was Bernard likely quoting from? I found the Psalm in the D-R, but the D-R didn’t come along until after he died. The Vulgate? Or an even earlier translation?



TIA!

 

[batteddy]

The psalms are merely numbered differently.

There is one section the Vulgate and Douay splits up into two psalms but protestant bibles (which I consider the NAB to be, lol) keep together as one, and then another that the Vulgate and Douay keep together but which the protestant bibles split up.

Both have 150 psalms. But only at the beginning and end of the psalter does the numbering match. In a large middle chunk, the vulgate numbering is one less because the protestants split one into two early on in the psalter which the Vulgate keeps as one. The numbers are thus out of line until it comes to the point where the Vulgate splits a section up that the protestants have as one psalm, and so the Vulgate and Douay “catch up” numbering wise after that.

The douay version of that psalm is number 69.

 

[Manfred]

Good evening, all.

As part of my study of the pope’s encyclical on love, I was reading excerpts of On The Love of God by St. Bernard of Clarivaux, a French monk who lived in the 12th century. I came across a passage in his writings that I would eventually discover is Psalm 70.16 (I finally found this text in the Douay-Rheims translation).

I have two questions.

First, why does the D-R contain all these “additional” verses that are not to be found in today’s Catholic translations or, for that matter, Protestant ones?

drbo.org/intro.htm
nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/psalms/psalm70.htm
gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=psalm+70

Second, what translation was Bernard likely quoting from? I found the Psalm in the D-R, but the D-R didn’t come along until after he died. The Vulgate? Or an even earlier translation?



TIA!

Are you sure about the Psalm and verse?

My D-R reads as follows for Ps. 70.16:

(70-16) I will enter into the powers of the Lord: O Lord, I will be mindful of thy justice alone.

The Psalms and their numbering in the Vulgate and in vernacular translations based on it, such as the D-R, are from the Greek Septuagint, not the Hebrew. In many places, the Psalms in Vg translations differ by one from those in the Hebrew.

The corresponding verse in the Revised Standard Version, whose Psalms are translated from the Hebrew, reads:

(71-16) With the mighty deeds of the Lord GOD I will come, I will praise thy righteousness, thine alone.

Notice that the Psalm to which you are referring is numbered 71, not 70, in the RSV, NAB, and other modern translations.

 

[porthos11]

The psalms are merely numbered differently.

There is one section the Vulgate and Douay splits up into two psalms but protestant bibles (which I consider the NAB to be, lol) keep together as one, and then another that the Vulgate and Douay keep together but which the protestant bibles split up.

Both have 150 psalms. But only at the beginning and end of the psalter does the numbering match. In a large middle chunk, the vulgate numbering is one less because the protestants split one into two early on in the psalter which the Vulgate keeps as one. The numbers are thus out of line until it comes to the point where the Vulgate splits a section up that the protestants have as one psalm, and so the Vulgate and Douay “catch up” numbering wise after that.

The douay version of that psalm is number 69.

The differences have nothing to do with Protestants or Catholics. The difference occurs depending on whether the Psalms follow the Hebrew numbering or the Septuagint numbering.

 

[demerzel85]

The differences have nothing to do with Protestants or Catholics. The difference occurs depending on whether the Psalms follow the Hebrew numbering or the Septuagint numbering.

Well for Catholics its a simple matter of the Latin Vulgate using the Greek numbering and the Nova Vulgata using the Hebrew numbering. So well previous to the Nova Vulgata Catholics only used the Greek numbering and Protestants used the Hebrew numbering.

And well in terms of Catholics liturgical books, I know that the Sacramentary and Lectionary have use different Psalm numbering. So well for Catholics, its just that we’re confused what to use

 

[porthos11]

Well for Catholics its a simple matter of the Latin Vulgate using the Greek numbering and the Nova Vulgata using the Hebrew numbering. So well previous to the Nova Vulgata Catholics only used the Greek numbering and Protestants used the Hebrew numbering.

And well in terms of Catholics liturgical books, I know that the Sacramentary and Lectionary have use different Psalm numbering. So well for Catholics, its just that we’re confused what to use

I meant to say that the difference in numbering is not a Catholic vs. Protestant matter, as implied by the preceding post.

 

[demerzel85]

I meant to say that the difference in numbering is not a Catholic vs. Protestant matter, as implied by the preceding post.

I was just expanding on the Greek and Hebrew numbering differences and the implications of the Latin Vulgate base and Nova Vulgata base. But since the Holy See has yet to clarify the issue of Latin Vulgate vs Nova Vulgata it being a Catholic vs Protestant matter is both a yes and a no.