Douay-Rheims only?

[EphelDuath]

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?

Plenty of English speakers work in Rome. The Vox Clara Committee, for instance, was created at the behest of Pope Bl. John Paul II to advise English translators as an intermediary from the Congregation for Divine Worship.

I don’t see what’s so insane about the above proposal. Rome intervened to make the Revised Grail Psalms to be the official English Psalter of the Catholic Church. My understanding is that they also advised the update the RSV:CE to the 2CE, which is why it’s now the only English Bible in conformity with the CDW’s principles. Those two interventions were pretty much the best thing to happen to the English community of the Catholic Church since Liturgiam authenticam. So why can’t they go the extra step and trash the NAB, NRSV and NJB, or at least say that the RSV2CE or ‘revised’ Jerusalem Bible (with “Yahweh” replaced with “the Lord” and the psalms replaced with the Revised Grail; currently the only place this Bible is published is by Catholic Truth Society) as the standard.

 

[ProVobis]

Plenty of English speakers work in Rome.

Then they should know that English is different from country to country and what works in the U.S., for example, won’t necessarily work in the U.K. As I’ve stated before, you want a translation, the Google translator can’t be that much worse than a committee which decides how to split their royalty commissions on translations.

 

[EphelDuath]

Okay, I’ll bite. Let’s have Google’s (or some copyright free alternative) auto-translator spit us out an English version of the New Vulgate. Many sections will feel awkward, bizarre, or mistranslated, but the general gist of it will be transmitted. There’s no heterodox footnotes, and vertical inclusive language is expunged because there’s no politically-minded folks on the translation committee to object to “Blessed is the man”. Rome proclaims this to be the official English Bible of the Catholic Church, so now there is significant liturgical unity between every English-speaking Catholic due to a common worship Lectionary. It won’t cost an exorbitant amount to shovel all of our current NAB/NRSV/NJB study Bibles, concordances, etc. in the furnace because there’ll be no copyright fees on what we’re replacing them with, and there will assuredly be about a thousand publishing companies ready to compete to give us the lowest cost and highest quality binding of this new Bible. Now that the matter is settled, all of the superfluous translators and organizers that are working on creating or updating other Bibles can do something far more useful for the Church rather than making competing unsatisfactory translations themselves.

Sounds like we have a fairly decent scenario on our hands. Now, just replace the part where it’s “awkward, bizarre, or mistranslated” with “created with a reasonable degree of competence”. So what’s wrong with this picture?

 

[ProVobis]

Sounds like we have a fairly decent scenario on our hands. Now, just replace the part where it’s “awkward, bizarre, or mistranslated” with “created with a reasonable degree of competence”. So what’s wrong with this picture?

Nothing except how will you know? I have yet to see a job resume with the word “incompetent” on it.

 

[tp3192000]

Plenty of English speakers work in Rome. The Vox Clara Committee, for instance, was created at the behest of Pope Bl. John Paul II to advise English translators as an intermediary from the Congregation for Divine Worship.

I don’t see what’s so insane about the above proposal… So why can’t they go the extra step and trash the NAB, NRSV and NJB

The Catholic Church does not put its fingers in her ears, but listens to scholars regardless of their faith. The NAB is a great translation of the manuscripts that have survived throughout the years. The notes may be sometimes controversial because there is disagreement among scholars. The NAB may not be the best translation with the most accurate footnotes and explanations, but it is not to be trashed.
It is not a bad thing to be introduced to others’ ideas and statements that challenge what we believe, rather it brings us to further study and greater understanding.

 

[tp3192000]

Plenty of English speakers work in Rome. The Vox Clara Committee, for instance, was created at the behest of Pope Bl. John Paul II to advise English translators as an intermediary from the Congregation for Divine Worship.

I don’t see what’s so insane about the above proposal… So why can’t they go the extra step and trash the NAB, NRSV and NJB

The Catholic Church does not put its fingers in her ears, but listens to scholars regardless of their faith. The NAB is a great translation of the manuscripts that have survived throughout the years. The notes may be sometimes controversial because there is disagreement among scholars. The NAB may not be the best translation with the most accurate footnotes and explanations, but it is not to be trashed.
It is not a bad thing to be introduced to others’ ideas and statements that challenge what we believe, rather it brings us to further study and greater understanding.

 

[EphelDuath]

The Catholic Church does not put its fingers in her ears, but listens to scholars regardless of their faith. The NAB is a great translation of the manuscripts that have survived throughout the years. The notes may be sometimes controversial because there is disagreement among scholars. The NAB may not be the best translation with the most accurate footnotes and explanations, but it is not to be trashed.
It is not a bad thing to be introduced to others’ ideas and statements that challenge what we believe, rather it brings us to further study and greater understanding.

OK. Let’s keep the NAB as a scholar’s Bible, then. But as a liturgical Bible it needs to be much more than professional; it has to sound eloquent to the ears, it can’t have an overburdened copyright such that no other country would want to adopt it, and it can’t contradict the teachings of the Church because it’s not in line with secular principles. The NAB is a miserable failure on all three counts.

 

[tvknight415]

Actually, I think liturgical use is the one area where the NAB is really good (and I’m not a fan of the NAB translation). It’s language is at a lower reading level than many of the ones people like to debate on here as being ‘the best’. It’s not just us who study the Bible in the pews on Sundays - it’s Catholics who those readings may be the only scripture they are exposed to all week, and thus might not be as comfortable with a very literal sentence structure (RSV) or old-time language (Douay). Also, it’s not just adults at mass, but children too. I’m all for having a lower reading level in the church readings so that the people can follow them more easily. Do we really want people (including our children!) being bored with the first half of mass because they don’t understand what’s going on, and tuning out because of it?

Besides, everyone’s big gripe with the NAB seems to be over the footnotes of the translation, more than the actual translation itself. Well, the readings at mass aren’t using the footnotes. Also, how many of the footnotes are actually suspect? From what I’ve heard, not that many. And, for the ‘casual’ Bible reader or CCD student, having the same text as at mass, which is easier to follow than the ‘best’ translations, probably is more beneficial than a few bad footnotes.

 

[EphelDuath]

Actually, I think liturgical use is the one area where the NAB is really good (and I’m not a fan of the NAB translation). It’s language is at a lower reading level than many of the ones people like to debate on here as being ‘the best’.

The language is at a lower level, alright.

Genesis 25:30 - “He said to Jacob, ‘Let me gulp down some of that red stuff; I am famished.’ That is why he was called Edom.”

Psalm 23:6 - “I will dwell in the house of the LORD for endless days.”

Granted, you’ll never hear me say that a Bible has to have poetically beautiful language to be valid. However, it would be nice. Beautiful cathedrals and artwork and music naturally attract people to Christ and adorn His majesty, so the absolutely dreadful NAB should be held at no lower standard.

It’s not just us who study the Bible in the pews on Sundays - it’s Catholics who those readings may be the only scripture they are exposed to all week, and thus might not be as comfortable with a very literal sentence structure (RSV) or old-time language (Douay). Also, it’s not just adults at mass, but children too. I’m all for having a lower reading level in the church readings so that the people can follow them more easily. Do we really want people (including our children!) being bored with the first half of mass because they don’t understand what’s going on, and tuning out because of it?

False dichotomy. Either we take the NAB, or we have to deal with a translation that a lot of people can’t understand? Why not make an orthodox Bible that’s easy to understand?

Besides, everyone’s big gripe with the NAB seems to be over the footnotes of the translation, more than the actual translation itself. Well, the readings at mass aren’t using the footnotes. Also, how many of the footnotes are actually suspect? From what I’ve heard, not that many. And, for the ‘casual’ Bible reader or CCD student, having the same text as at mass, which is easier to follow than the ‘best’ translations, probably is more beneficial than a few bad footnotes.

There’s no footnotes as Mass, correct. But the initial instinct for somebody looking to purchase a Bible for private devotion is to use the same translation as the one in the Lectionary, and thus are indirectly lead to the heterodox footnotes.

It’s not just “a few bad footnotes.” It’s quite a large number of them, actually. Everybody brings up the example of Matthew’s entrance to Jerusalem because that’s one of the most idiotic and egregious, but all over the NAB, the footnotes will tell you that events in the NT didn’t actually happen, that the authors of certain books were anonymous liars forging a more well-known person’s signature, denies Catholic doctrine, promotes the view that miracles can be explained away by tricky secular interpretation, et al. This is a serious problem. Some examples.

NAB footnotes contain the following claims:
Calls the Catholic dogma of Purgatory a “notion”
1 Corinthians 3:15

Casts doubt on passages that clearly give support to the dogma of Purgatory
1 Corinthians 3:15

Challenges the Marian Dogma of the Immaculate Conception
Luke 2:35

Insinuates that Jesus was hostile toward Mary or denied the common interest with his mother
John 2:4

Mary “objected” to the angel’s message, and doubted God at the Annunciation
Luke 1, 26-38

Repeated insinuations that Jesus could not predict the future
Matthew 16:21-23

1 Samuel puts evil into the mouth of God

In the Pauline corpus the Greek word πορνείᾳ (porneia), which means “sexual immorality” is rendered vaguely as “immorality.” In our era of widespread sexual confusion and sin, texts like these cannot afford to be obscure.

The book of Judges errs in its theology by failing to distinguish between primary and secondary causes
Judges 21:15

Matthew repeatedly made mistakes in his application of Old Testament prophecies
Matthew 21:4-5

John put anti-Jewish polemics which belonged to the late first century into Our Lord’s mouth
John 1:19

Source

 

[ProVobis]

happen, that the authors of certain books were anonymous liars

I take the position that all translators are “liars” to various degrees. Whether the lie is intentional or not is another matter.

 

[josesiem]

I’m envious of my fellow Catholics getting so much out of the DR version. I bought a beautiful copy from Baronius Press, but I just cannot get into the language. I have a hard time understanding it. I take it with me, try to read it, and after a few minutes, throw my hands up in the air, and get out a newer translation!

I love the NABRE. The NAB was a bit of a disaster, but I got to say, they did a heck of a job with the revision.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

I’m envious of my fellow Catholics getting so much out of the DR version. I bought a beautiful copy from Baronius Press, but I just cannot get into the language. I have a hard time understanding it. I take it with me, try to read it, and after a few minutes, throw my hands up in the air, and get out a newer translation!

I love the NABRE. The NAB was a bit of a disaster, but I got to say, they did a heck of a job with the revision.

Is English not your first language?

 

[Jerry-Jet]

They have a New King James–why not a New Douay Rheims?

It wouldn’t be too hard to polish the Douay Rheims.

It wouldn’t be too hard to FIX its shortcomings.

It wouldn’t b e too hard to make a good English translation of the Nova Vulgata–for that matter have a side by side Nova Vulgata in Latin with an English translation of it on the same page.

I guarantee you that such a bible would be far superior to ALL modern Catholic bibles AND also to the Protestant based RSV-2CE.

For that matter you could FIX whatever is obviously wrong with Haydock’s notes–yes folks those notes would be far superior to NAB notes.

What I’m really saying is that English speaking Catholics should have a bible that is based on the Latin scriptural tradition–that departs from that tradition only when original language textual varients obviously warrant changes–and also has conservative traditional notes!

Is that so impossible to have?

 

[josesiem]

This new translation would be great! I wish they had notes like the Navarre Bible series – traditional and with lots of quotes from the saints.

 

[ProVobis]

Shouldn’t be that difficult. For example, first ten verses of Genesis: vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_vt_genesis_lt.html

1 In principio creavit Deus caelum et terram.
2 Terra autem erat inanis et vacua, et tenebrae super faciem abyssi, et spiritus Dei ferebatur super aquas.
3 Dixitque Deus: “Fiat lux”. Et facta est lux.
4 Et vidit Deus lucem quod esset bona et divisit Deus lucem ac tenebras.
5 Appellavitque Deus lucem Diem et tenebras Noctem. Factumque est vespere et mane, dies unus.
6 Dixit quoque Deus: “Fiat firmamentum in medio aquarum et dividat aquas ab aquis”.
7 Et fecit Deus firmamentum divisitque aquas, quae erant sub firmamento, ab his, quae erant super firmamentum. Et factum est ita.
8 Vocavitque Deus firmamentum Caelum. Et factum est vespere et mane, dies secundus.
9 Dixit vero Deus: “Congregentur aquae, quae sub caelo sunt, in locum unum, et appareat arida”. Factumque est ita.
10 Et vocavit Deus aridam Terram congregationesque aquarum appellavit Maria. Et vidit Deus quod esset bonum.

Compare with the Clementine Vulgate: drbo.org/x/d?b=lvb&bk=1&ch=1&l=1#x

[1] In principio creavit Deus caelum et terram. [2] Terra autem erat inanis et vacua, et tenebrae erant super faciem abyssi: et spiritus Dei ferebatur super aquas. [3] Dixitque Deus: Fiat lux. Et facta est lux. [4] Et vidit Deus lucem quod esset bona: et divisit lucem a tenebris. [5] Appellavitque lucem Diem, et tenebras Noctem: factumque est vespere et mane, dies unus.
[6] Dixit quoque Deus: Fiat firmamentum in medio aquarum: et dividat aquas ab aquis. [7] Et fecit Deus firmamentum, divisitque aquas, quae erant sub firmamento, ab his, quae erant super firmamentum. Et factum est ita. [8] Vocavitque Deus firmamentum, Caelum: et factum est vespere et mane, dies secundus. [9] Dixit vero Deus: Congregentur aquae, quae sub caelo sunt, in locum unum: et appareat arida. Et factum est ita. [10] Et vocavit Deus aridam Terram, congregationesque aquarum appellavit Maria. Et vidit Deus quod esset bonum.

All one has to do is to run a compare of each book and make the adjustments in his favorite Bible, using perhaps a decent Latin dictionary.

 

[COPLAND_3]

They have a New King James–why not a New Douay Rheims?

It wouldn’t be too hard to polish the Douay Rheims.

It wouldn’t be too hard to FIX its shortcomings.

It wouldn’t b e too hard to make a good English translation of the Nova Vulgata–for that matter have a side by side Nova Vulgata in Latin with an English translation of it on the same page.

I guarantee you that such a bible would be far superior to ALL modern Catholic bibles AND also to the Protestant based RSV-2CE.

For that matter you could FIX whatever is obviously wrong with Haydock’s notes–yes folks those notes would be far superior to NAB notes.

What I’m really saying is that English speaking Catholics should have a bible that is based on the Latin scriptural tradition–that departs from that tradition only when original language textual varients obviously warrant changes–and also has conservative traditional notes!

Is that so impossible to have?

Its being done now, and the New Testament should be done by Christmas. I originally was going to keep it unpolished (as the single volumes of the Douay-Rheims Study Bible is unpolished now but will be adjusted very soon), but the original Douay-Rheims is being put into modern spelling such as the names of people and places, and all the thee, thou, thine, etc etc are being put into modern renderings, as well as the phrases like “What thinkest thou” is being put into modern renderings like “what do you think”… and so on.

The Douay-Rheims of 1609 is a very literal translation, and its going to still be as close and true to the original as possible, so its not going to be smooth as a dynamic equivalent version. Its going to be called the New Douay Rheims Bible (NDRB). Any word changes (which are only done when absolutely necessary) are having footnotes that give what the original Douay-Rheims has, such as words like ‘trow’ which is ‘know’ and similar out of date words that most English speaking people have never heard of.

 

[ProVobis]

Uncomfortable Facts About The Douay-Rheims

(need to scroll down a bit)

 

[Jerry-Jet]

ProVobis: If both were translated as well as one could possibly translate–which do you think would be better–an English translation of the Clementine Vulgate–or an English translation of the Nova Vulgata?

Which of Jerome’s three Psalters do you think is the most accurate?

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?

I don’t know Latin but i’ve heard that the Bea Psalter was accurate but hated because it wasn’t good when it came to singing and chanting. I guess even when it comes to Latin that there are controversies–they say that a lot of people got mad at Jerome because they didn’t like some of his translations choices either.

I do think it is a good thing that people care enough to strongly differ when it comes to translation.

The better and better that Greek translation and Latin translation is–the better that English translation is–the English has to be based on something.

Sometimes I do think that biblical scholars should ask themselves–if Jesus were speaking in Aramaic–what Aramaic words would He have used that the Greek was trying to convey?

One question for the know it alls our there–Did Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John ALL write the first manuscripts of their gospels in Greek–did Matthew actually first write his in Aramaic?

One wonders how good a translator Matthew and John were–they both heard Jesus speak His words in Aramaic–how good was THEIR translation of those words into Greek?

I’ve also heard it said that the best Greek in the whole New Testament is in the book of Hebrews–that book tells WHY Jesus died on the cross–maybe the Holy Spirit wanted that particular book to be in excellent Greek.

Sometimes I think that Paul might have made the first draft of that book but then someone like maybe Apollos might have polished it up with Paul’s approval?

 

[CalCatholic]

I’m envious of my fellow Catholics getting so much out of the DR version. I bought a beautiful copy from Baronius Press, but I just cannot get into the language. I have a hard time understanding it. I take it with me, try to read it, and after a few minutes, throw my hands up in the air, and get out a newer translation!

I love the NABRE. The NAB was a bit of a disaster, but I got to say, they did a heck of a job with the revision.

Especially the new Psalms (2010). The 1991 Psalms were poor due to an over use of inclusive language. The 1970 Psalms are what are still used in Mass today.

 

[ProVobis]

ProVobis: If both were translated as well as one could possibly translate–which do you think would be better–an English translation of the Clementine Vulgate–or an English translation of the Nova Vulgata?

If you were working with the same translator(s), I’d say the latter. There seems to be updated information with the Nova Vulgata.

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?

If one is using them for prayer and it sounds like a prayer to you, I don’t think it matters. The translations could all be dead wrong but the prayer still counts. If you’re using them for historic purposes or comparisons, that’s another matter. If you’re singing them together, it’s probably best to go back to the original source and preserve that source in the best way you can. Music which is based on scripture can last for a long time; you want to get that right the first time.

One question for the know it alls our there–Did Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John ALL write the first manuscripts of their gospels in Greek–did Matthew actually first write his in Aramaic?

One wonders how good a translator Matthew and John were–they both heard Jesus speak His words in Aramaic–how good was THEIR translation of those words into Greek?

The best educated guesses were that they were written or dictated in Greek. We don’t have the original Greek or Hebrew documents but Jerome supposedly had some. Also we trust that the work was copied as closely as possible. Nevertheless errors were inevitable and this could be seen with all the variations in the writings gathered.

If only we had the Gutenberg press in the B.C. era.