Douay-Rheims only?

[tp3192000]

Anyone can erroneously claim to translate from the original languages. Answer me this: what is better–the Confraternity Douay Bible with a New Translation of the New Latin Psalms which was indeed authorized for liturgical use in the English liturgy in the late sixties–OR

Any iterations of the RSV which claiming to translate from the original languages–simply translate erroneously?

I’ve heard the original languages game played many times here to justify LOUSY translations of the bible.

Should translations be based on the original languages? Of course. Is the Nova Vulgata–the juridicial text of the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church–would it fit that criterion? Is it based on the original languages sufficiently or is it based on Latin?

What would be superior–the Nova Vulgata in English or ANY of the RSV iterations?

I would say that the Nova Vulgata would be vastly superior.

See the average Catholic knows that the Jerusalem bible–the New Jerusalem Bible and the NAB simply don’t cut it. They search for an alternative. For many the alternative is the RSV-CE–for others it is the RSV-2CE.

They don’t choose these Protestant based translations because they love them–only because there are no modern language English alternatives.

The NAB has horrendous notes–a smattering of language inclusiveness–and Psalms so bad that the Holy See rejected them for use in the liturgy.

If you want a reason NOT to use the RSV in any of its forms it would be because the deuterocanonical books are abbreviated–they are shorter than what is in the Latin Vulgate–shorter than the Nova Vulgata–shorter than the Knox Bible–shorter than the Douay Rheims Challoner Bible.

Why should Catholics rely on shorter forms of the deuterocanonical books in Protestant based translations such as the RSV edited by Protestants who don’t believe that the deuterocanonical books are inspired sacred scripture in the first place?

Now don’t get me wrong–he KJV has the most beautiful Psalms and if I HAD to pick a
Protestant based Catholic polished translation it would be the RSV-2CE.

Do I think that it translates as accurately as the Confraternity Douay? No. And just because it uses the original languages doesn’t mean it does them as accurately.

What the Catholic Church needs is a better alternative to the NAB which is dreadful and Protestant based alternatives.

If the Nova Vulgata was translated into English it wouldn’t be perfect but it would put ANY of the RSVs in the trash can when it comes to accuracy.

What I will say good about the RSVs is that stylistically they are very superior to the NAB which is ALWAYS stilted and awkward.

The Jerusalem Bible and the New Jerusalem bible simply aren’t literal enough.

And any bible that doesn’t say “A virgin will conceive” in Isaiah 7:14 and “Hail Mary Full of grace” in Luke simply doesn’t cut it.

The RSV-2CE at least gets those right.

I will say this: if you use the RSV-2CE AND the Douay Confraternity BOTH–you will be 99% there when it comes to the bible.

Please forgive my ignorance as I have always used the NAB. I love it. What could be a truer translation than the NAB, which is a Roman Catholic translation?
I have only seen one or two passages from the Douay Rheims and I do not understand the translations; it is not my language they are translating to.

 

[tp3192000]

In other words a translation of a translation of a translation is bettert than a liberal modernist translation directly from original language texts.

Do you really believe this? Things are not only lost in translation, but are lost from scribal errors in copying, additions from copiers, exclusions from copiers and misunderstandings of what is copied, language changes, etc.
I fundamentally disagree with this statement and would much prefer a translation that is relying on the earlier texts.

 

[ProVobis]

Serious Bible study will try to learn the code of the earliest text found. Reading translations is taking someone else’s word for it and no translation is infallible.

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

http://chirho.me/memes/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/314186_127272334089184_1114427336_n.jpg

 

[ProVobis]

Do you really believe this? Things are not only lost in translation, but are lost from scribal errors in copying, additions from copiers, exclusions from copiers and misunderstandings of what is copied, language changes, etc.
I fundamentally disagree with this statement and would much prefer a translation that is relying on the earlier texts.

I believe serious Bible study should focus on the language of the earlier text, its nuances, limitations, etc. Translations into other languages (or even paraphrasing or changing word order) will only move you further from the source.

 

[tp3192000]

I believe serious Bible study should focus on the language of the earlier text, its nuances, limitations, etc. Translations into other languages (or even paraphrasing or changing word order) will only move you further from the source.

This seems to be a sensible statement. So if you are looking at an ancient Greek text, you need to read it and understand ancient Greek to fully appreciate it. On the other hand, every sentence has a meaning and this meaning should be able to be translated into other languages. Notes are included that explain nuances. So for persons who do not speak ancient Greek or belong to a Bible study group to best understand what is written in the Bible, they will need to read the most authentic translation and footnotes that explain nuances. For me this has been the NAB, but I am open to correction.

 

[ProVobis]

This seems to be a sensible statement. So if you are looking at an ancient Greek text, you need to read it and understand ancient Greek to fully appreciate it. On the other hand, every sentence has a meaning and this meaning should be able to be translated into other languages. Notes are included that explain nuances. So for persons who do not speak ancient Greek or belong to a Bible study group to best understand what is written in the Bible, they will need to read the most authentic translation **and footnotes that explain nuances. ** For me this has been the NAB, but I am open to correction.

Exactly. The New St. Jerome Biblical Commentary seems pretty good as well as the Gospel Parallels, which I think is excellent. A Primer of Biblical Greek is pretty good to have too. It won’t teach you how to speak in Greece but that’s not its function.

 

[EphelDuath]

Please forgive my ignorance as I have always used the NAB. I love it. What could be a truer translation than the NAB, which is a Roman Catholic translation?
I have only seen one or two passages from the Douay Rheims and I do not understand the translations; it is not my language they are translating to.

The footnotes of the NAB deny that Biblical prophecies were made or were fulfilled, in essence denying Christ’s divinity. The renderings of certain passages also at times unnecessarily inject modern secular principles into the ancient texts.

 

[tp3192000]

Exactly. The New St. Jerome Biblical Commentary seems pretty good as well as the Gospel Parallels, which I think is excellent. A Primer of Biblical Greek is pretty good to have too. It won’t teach you how to speak in Greece but that’s not its function.

Thank you for the suggestions. I will look further into these.

 

[COPLAND_3]

The footnotes of the NAB deny that Biblical prophecies were made or were fulfilled, in essence denying Christ’s divinity. The renderings of certain passages also at times unnecessarily inject modern secular principles into the ancient texts.

Exactly! For a Study Bible to say that the prophets wrote their prophecy after the events happened, and to say that the authors forged the names of apostles or prophets to their own writing in order to get the readers to think it come from someone great, makes me wonder how on earth anyone would consider that good and something that would strengthen someone’s faith and trust in the Bible. I’ve seen the NAB footnotes and similar so-called scholarship be a stumbking block for most people.

 

[tvknight415]

I suspect that the number of capable Biblical language experts will always be higher in the protestant denominations compared to the Catholic church. Because of their devotion to sola scriptura, they hold the Bible in the highest and will likely continue to obsess with new translations as English evolves and new manuscripts are discovered. So, I expect a high level of scholarship on any Protestant based translation. And, as long as it’s been reviewed and tweaked by the Church, that’s good enough for me.

The Douay Rheims is a beautiful translation, both linguistically and in presentation (ie, Haydocks or the art plates included). But, admittedly, the archaic language is more difficult to follow. If someone grew up reading Douay or King James (for protestant converts), the language is less of a barrier than it is to someone who hasn’t. But, if someone is going to struggle with the language where a modern (Catholic- or Protestant-originated) translation won’t cause such difficulty, is the reader truly better served?

Case in point - When I got serious about my faith, I used an NAB for my RCIA class. However, I did love (and do to this day) the language of the Douay/KJV versions, and received a Douay at confirmation. And, as I tried to make it my primary Bible, I struggled with the language for a long time (then, I would have been happy to have been a DR onlyist). But, having read sections of Douay, going back to the NAB felt less than inspiring, so I backed off reading scripture for a good long time rather than struggle with the language. Only as I discovered other more readable translations such as RSV-CE and Jerusalem did I start focusing on reading the Bible again. Well, using my newly acquired RSV-2CE, I’m plowing through an ambitious project to read the entire Bible over the next 4-6 months. It’s something I wouldn’t do with my Douay, due to the archaic language and speed I can get through it. I do pick up the Douay (or Jerusalem) and occasionally do a chapter or two of a book (and doing this is helping me grasp the flow of the archaic language better). But, I comprehend better using the modern translation (and I’ve found nothing in the -2CE that makes me question my faith - in fact, it’s very good at reinforcing it).

And FWIW, I still pick up my NAB to preview readings for Mass when I have to lector.

Ultimately, I’d say have 3 Bibles:

1. RSV 1st or 2nd Catholic edition (literal, modern English, readable even though Protestant based).
2. Douay-Rheims Chanoller or Douay-Confraternity (literal, beautiful English, choice depends on how much you want). I went both
3. Whatever translation is used for your country’s lectionary (NAB, Jerusalem, or NRSV) for reference.

If you feel so inclined, add a 4th or 5th in a more dynamic translation (Jerusalem, New Jerusalem, or Knox) to give a nice change of pace.

 

[EphelDuath]

I suspect that the number of capable Biblical language experts will always be higher in the protestant denominations compared to the Catholic church. Because of their devotion to sola scriptura, they hold the Bible in the highest and will likely continue to obsess with new translations as English evolves and new manuscripts are discovered. So, I expect a high level of scholarship on any Protestant based translation. And, as long as it’s been reviewed and tweaked by the Church, that’s good enough for me.

I don’t think that’s factually true. While perhaps Protestants have per capita more Biblical scholars than Catholics, since we have higher regard for patristics, liturgy, ethics, ecclesiology, etc. than most Protestants do, that’s not necessarily relevant considering that there’s more Catholics on earth than all of the non-catholic Christians combined.

Plus you also have to consider that Protestants frequently have to meddle with the translation so as to not contradict their own beliefs. Hence why “hail, highly favored one” appears in virtually every Protestant translation of the Bible despite the Greek word implying a significantly greater exultation than that.

 

[ProVobis]

… that there’s more Catholics on earth than all of the non-catholic Christians combined.

Depends on which country you’re from. In the Anglophone world, there are far more Protestants than Catholics. (Could explain why there are more than 200 English Bibles.) In the Hispanic or or Italian or Polish world, there are 80-90% Catholics. Worldwide, I think the ratio of Catholics to non-Catholic Christians is about the same.

 

[bjh13]

Depends on which country you’re from. In the Anglophone world, there are far more Protestants than Catholics. (Could explain why there are more than 200 English Bibles.) In the Hispanic or or Italian or Polish world, there are 80-90% Catholics. Worldwide, I think the ratio of Catholics to non-Catholic Christians is about the same.

Even in the “Anglophone” world, like the United States, there are far more Catholics than Protestants. In 2011 there were about 67 million Catholics based on attendance, which was more than all the Protestant denominations combined including Mormon and Jehovah’s Witness churches (which are not truly Christian faiths by doctrine). The closest Protestant denomination in size was the Southern Baptist Conference, which has shrunk to about 16 million. There is a report that comes out every year from the National Council of Churches which you can look at, these numbers are pretty well documented.

The issue you run into isn’t that Protestants outnumber us, but that Protestants buy more Bibles. I go to a fairly large and popular Catholic church with a pretty decent sized Bible study class and emphasis on reading the Bible on your own (the Msgr brings it up every single homily), and maybe one out of fifty parishioners will carry a Bible to Mass (though plenty will bring in something like the Magnificat). At a Baptist service, virtually everyone will bring their own Bible and in the pew you have extra Bibles just in case someone didn’t bring one. Everyone is expected to open the Bible and read along when verses are being read. Protestant Bibles probably outsell Catholic ones every year just on replacement pew Bibles alone, not withstanding everything else.

The reason Protestant’s have so many more translations is because there is no unified Protestant hierarchy making a specific recommendation. Most like to use the NIV, but plenty of hardcore fundamentalist churches will require a KJV Bible. At many of the mainline churches you will have something easier to read like the NLT. Some places, like Saddleback in Orange County, you will have a pastor quote from half a dozen translations in the same sermon. Most Catholics in America use the NAB or NABRE because that is the closest to what they hear at Mass, and because it has official approval from the Church few are going to question it regarding if it is too “dynamic” or not “formal” enough like you see in Protestant circles. Even with all these translations, only a handful of them sell with anything close to decent numbers; NIV, NLT, and KJV outdistance the others in terms of sales for the most part.

 

[SoMissCatholic]

Even in the “Anglophone” world, like the United States, there are far more Catholics than Protestants. In 2011 there were about 67 million Catholics based on attendance, which was more than all the Protestant denominations combined including Mormon and Jehovah’s Witness churches (which are not truly Christian faiths by doctrine). The closest Protestant denomination in size was the Southern Baptist Conference, which has shrunk to about 16 million. There is a report that comes out every year from the National Council of Churches which you can look at, these numbers are pretty well documented.

The issue you run into isn’t that Protestants outnumber us, but that Protestants buy more Bibles. I go to a fairly large and popular Catholic church with a pretty decent sized Bible study class and emphasis on reading the Bible on your own (the Msgr brings it up every single homily), and maybe one out of fifty parishioners will carry a Bible to Mass (though plenty will bring in something like the Magnificat). At a Baptist service, virtually everyone will bring their own Bible and in the pew you have extra Bibles just in case someone didn’t bring one. Everyone is expected to open the Bible and read along when verses are being read. Protestant Bibles probably outsell Catholic ones every year just on replacement pew Bibles alone, not withstanding everything else.

The reason Protestant’s have so many more translations is because there is no unified Protestant hierarchy making a specific recommendation. Most like to use the NIV, but plenty of hardcore fundamentalist churches will require a KJV Bible. At many of the mainline churches you will have something easier to read like the NLT. Some places, like Saddleback in Orange County, you will have a pastor quote from half a dozen translations in the same sermon. Most Catholics in America use the NAB or NABRE because that is the closest to what they hear at Mass, and because it has official approval from the Church few are going to question it regarding if it is too “dynamic” or not “formal” enough like you see in Protestant circles. Even with all these translations, only a handful of them sell with anything close to decent numbers; NIV, NLT, and KJV outdistance the others in terms of sales for the most part.

That is not correct. Protestants as a whole outnumber Catholics in the United States about 2 to 1. You are correct that Catholics make up the largest single group by a wide margin (Southern Baptist being a very distant second).

 

[ProVobis]

Even in the “Anglophone” world, like the United States, there are far more Catholics than Protestants.

I don’t know if we’re talking about the same thing here.

In Anglosphere, Catholics vs Protestants

U.S. 26% (includes Hispanics which are predominately Catholic) vs 33%

Australia 27% vs 38%

U.K. 14% vs 60%

N.Z. 13% vs 47%

Canada 43% vs 21%

nationmaster.com/graph/rel_pro_by_cou_pro_pro-religion-protestantism-country-protestants-protestant

nationmaster.com/graph/rel_rom_cat_by_cou_rom_cat_cat-religion-roman-catholicism-country-catholic

 

[ProVobis]

That is not correct. Protestants as a whole outnumber Catholics in the United States about 2 to 1.

And that includes the Hispanic population (17%) who are predominately Catholic.

 

[bjh13]

That is not correct. Protestants as a whole outnumber Catholics in the United States about 2 to 1. You are correct that Catholics make up the largest single group by a wide margin (Southern Baptist being a very distant second).

I stand corrected, I misread the source I was looking at.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

We would have more Catholic translations and better Catholic translations if National Episcopal Conferences DIDN’T have the power to authorize them.

What I think would be ideal would be if the Holy See itself gave approval to Bible translations.

That would end all the liberal modernist language inclusive nonsense!

Let the Holy See be the arbiter every 10 years to changes in the liturgy and let the Holy See make sure that a corresponding bible for devotional and study use would EXACTLY match what was read in Mass!

Let the Holy See attempt to get all the translations from all the languages around the world as close as possible to the SAME bible.

See I trust the Holy See to do that better than individual national episcopal conferences because they are universal and loolk after the whole church–they are much more inclined to almost die to get everything as perfect as possible which is what you need when it comes to the bible and the liturgy.

I suppose you’d have to have some sort of continuing translation arm that would be accountable to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and whoever is in charge of sacraments and divine worship.

Alas–it’s a pipe dream and will probably never happen.

But just remember this–the reason people argue so vehemently over bible translation is because Sacred Scripture–along with Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium define what we believe.

The best way for “Modernists” to advance their agendas is if Catholics from the Latin Rite around the world do not have access to a good vernacular translations of the Nova Vulgata.

Why? Because the Nova Vulgata is the BASE that original language translations should be measured by.

If they had that then it wouldn’t be too hard to spot the agendas.

I’m not against translation from original language texts–I am against original language textual varient choices that ARE NOT supported by scripture as viewed through the lens of the Catholic Church over the last 2,000 years and are PURPOSELY made to advance agendas that are not what the Catholic Church has always taught about the scriptures.

In my opinion the Nova Vulgata can be improved upon but unless there is SUBSTANTIAL (How do you like that concept amateur theologians?) reason for different textual varients then it should be left alone!

“A virgin will conceive”. “Hail Full of Grace!”

These are the translations you get when you take the “modernist scholars” out of the equation and yes they should be out of the equation!

If their translations had to pass the scrutiny of the Holy See instead of National Episcopal Conferences you wouldn’t see this junk!

 

[ProVobis]

We would have more Catholic translations and better Catholic translations if National Episcopal Conferences DIDN’T have the power to authorize them.

And who would be better in translations and authorizations than those familiar with the local dialect, understanding, meanings, etc? Do you really think the Vatican has nothing better to do than determine the best translations for the hundreds of vernaculars out there? Do they even have the manpower in all of Italy to do that?