Douay-Rheims only?

[ProVobis]

Should Psalters differ in translation according to their use–in other words should what we chant be different from what we study–accuracy being paramount in study and chantability and singability be more important when it comes to singing and chanting?

You’re on the right track here. Language and order of words does affect singability and sometimes the translation has to be compromised somewhat to take that into account. For example, Italian is probably most singable because of the many vowel endings of words. Latin to some extent as well. English not so much. A lot of words end with “d” and “t” and “b” and “g” and other sounds which can’t be stretched out. Puts heavier emphasis on internal vowels which can produce weird singing. Thus the Vatican II suggestion of Gregorian chant.

 

[tvknight415]

Until then I think that the best bible is the Confraternity Douay Bible with a New translation of the New Latin Psalms authorized by Pope Pius XII.

The copyright for most of these bibles is 1949 through 1952.

I have a 57 copy of the Douay/Confraternity (1st 8/7 sap), but I’ve always thought about getting an older translation. Do you know if anyone ever published one with the Pius XII psalms and Genesis only (since this translation of Genesis was supposedly unique to the Confraternity Bible, whereas the rest of the Confraternity OT books made it into the NAB)? Also, if a Bible says “OT in the Douay-Chanoller, NT and Psalms in the Confraternity”, would that be the Pius XII psalms as well if the copyright is early 50’s?

 

[relstudent]

The problem with biblical translation nowadays (in the last 100 years) is that they are done by committee and the most “popular” translation wins out. Rarely, if ever, is a Bible translated with a cohesive theological vision in mind. The strength of an individual translator (archtype Jerome) is that the translation tends to be in line with a unified theological vision. However, the Bible was written over several different periods of time and the language and cultural context also changed. There is a logic behind having experts in each time period consult to determine the most proper translation. Remember, translation is not transferring a word into its english counterpart, but conveying the original intent and meaning of the author into an understandable form. Now, in translation there will ALWAYS be something lost, in committee translation it is a unified vision along with linguistic shortcommings, in individual translations it is the loss of an overriding language check, the possibility of a diminished vocabulary, and the possibility of translating to assumptions (think of Joseph Smith). Ideally people would learn and read the Bible from the original sources or at least consult many diverse translations. Each one has its merit and logic behind the translation and knowing the reasons behind the differences is more important than finding the “best” translation.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

In 1953 and 1954 there were bibles published that would have the Confraternity translation of Genesis through Ruth (that translation of Genesis is unique–it’s not the Douay Rheims Challoner of 1750 and it is not the NAB of 1970).

The Psalms will only be the Pope Pius XII Psalms if it says s New Translation of the Book of Psalms from the New Latin Version Approved by Pope Pius XII.

Other bibles from 1954 and earlier that speak of the Confraternity Psalms will be different but not unacceptable.

The Pope Pius XII Psalms were prepared by professors of the Pontifical Biblical Institute of Rome by command of Pope Pius XII and published at Vatican city in 1945 AD.

They were based on not the Latin of the Clementine Vulgate but a more polished Latin–I think they’re the most accurate but many people thought they were atrocious to sing and chant and reportedly Pope John XXIII hated them.

They never were made mandatory and never caught on.

The English translation of them seems like it tries to make them more poetic in English–in other words it tries to polish them a bit.

The Confraternity Psalms of 1950 through 1954 don’t try to do that and still aren’t bad. Many of those bibles will say that they have been edited by John P. O’ Connell. They come in Home Editions and Marian Editions and Trinity Editions and Papal Editions–many that are quite nice

I think everything goes downhill with the 1955 Confraternity Psalms–they will say in Psalms chapter 1 verse 1 “Happy is the man” instead of “Blessed is the man” which just doesn’t cut it.

That’s why I tell people to go with the Pope Pius XII Psalms–they’re accurate and haven’t started the slide towards the abyss that is the NAB. That slide for the Psalms started in 1955.

I did though once on ebay see a 1957 bible that DID have the Pope Pius XII Psalms–I only saw that once–all other times they did not exist come 1955.

OTHER than the Psalms though the rest of the Old Testament up through 1969 was good and had conservative book introductions and conservative notes.

So one can pick exactly how much compromise to put up with–I don’t go for anything that doesn’t have the Pope Pius XII Psalms–others might not be bothered by pre-1955 Confraternity Psalms–still others might could even stomach editions up to 1969.

The TOTAL abyss comes with the NAB in 1970 where they retranslated Genesis to say “In the beginning WHEN God created” instead of “In the beginning GOD”. By then the modernist liberal biblical scholars who thought that the Bible should sound like creation myth stories had taken over.

Now it’s 2013–43 years later–and the NAB still doesn’t cut it!

You could take the Confraternity Old Testament in its final form and the Confraternity New Testament–make just a few changes–insert the New Grail Psalms that will be in the Liturgy–and voila–have a GREAT BIBLE!

The Confraternity Revision of the New Testament in 1941was a step in the right direction–in 1955 the modernists took over messing up the Psalms and its been all down hill ever since!