Douay Rheims questions

[floresco]

Vulgate: Adiuro vos filiæ Ierusalem per capreas, cervosque camporum, ne suscitetis, neque evigilare faciatis dilectam donec ipsa velit.

Isn’t the Latin saying she, not it, in regards to the beloved? In the modern versions it reads like a call to abstinence, but in the older ones it actually is in line with the metaphor. This was one of my many favorite verses, and I am appalled that the modern translations inserted a completely new meaning into it. (please somebody correct me if I’m mixing this up)

I’m reading the Latin the same way that you are. It looks like the perfect participle of diligo in the accusative feminine used as a substantive, i.e. “beloved woman”. I suspect that those other versions are translating directly from the Hebrew which does use a Hebrew word for “love” there.

 

[MarkThompson]

Wow, lots of responses!

This pretty much answers all my questions Right now the cheapest Haydock one I can find is at this site where they do really inexpensive scans of old/rare books and will reprint them for you. Otherwise the Haydock is over one hundred dollars!!! Not reasonable at the moment. And thanks Floresco, I’ll keep that in mind if this doesn’t work out

I know a lot of you know Latin so can you help me out here? Here’s one of those absolutely different phrases I found between the NAB and the DR. The way the DR has it makes a LOT more sense when we look at it as a metaphor between God and His people/Jews. Here it is:

NAB: I adjure you, daughters of Jerusalem, by the gazelles and hinds of the field, Do not arouse, do not stir up love before its own time.
NRSV: I adjure you, O daughters of Jerusalem, by the gazelles or the wild does: do not stir up or awaken love until it is ready!
[BIBLEDRB]Song of Songs 3:5[/BIBLEDRB]
Vulgate: Adiuro vos filiæ Ierusalem per capreas, cervosque camporum, ne suscitetis, neque evigilare faciatis dilectam donec ipsa velit.

Isn’t the Latin saying she, not it, in regards to the beloved? In the modern versions it reads like a call to abstinence, but in the older ones it actually is in line with the metaphor. This was one of my many favorite verses, and I am appalled that the modern translations inserted a completely new meaning into it. (please somebody correct me if I’m mixing this up)

You’re right that the Latin dilectam means “a beloved one (female)”, whereas “love” would have been dilectionem. But the important question is not what the Latin says, it’s what the Hebrew original says. I don’t read a lick of Hebrew, but generally when all other translations agree, that’s a good sign of what the true meaning is. And I can’t find another translation that agrees with the DR on this verse.

Nor is the issue “modern” translations, or a “new” meaning “recently” found. Coverdale’s 1535 Bible has, “I charge you (o ye doughters of Ierusale) by the Roes and hyndes of the felde, that ye wake not vp my loue ner touch her, till she be content herself.” The 1611 KJV has, “I charge you, O ye daughters of Ierusalem, by the Roes and by the Hindes of the field, that ye stirre not vp, nor awake my loue, till he please.”

I have to say, it’s nearly a unanimous verdict on this one. (Anyone who reads Hebrew is invited to tell us what they think!)

 

[GerardMajella]

Isn’t the Latin saying she, not it, in regards to the beloved? In the modern versions it reads like a call to abstinence, but in the older ones it actually is in line with the metaphor. This was one of my many favorite verses, and I am appalled that the modern translations inserted a completely new meaning into it. (please somebody correct me if I’m mixing this up)

From The Complete Art Scroll Siddur, (the Orthodox Jewish prayer book), translating the Hebrew to English, page 301:

“I adjure you, O Nations who are destined to ascend to Jerusalem — for if you violate your oath you will become as defenseless as gazelles or hinds of the field — if you dare provoke God to hate me or disturb His love for me while He still desires it.”

The Jews to this day recite the Song of Songs every Sabbath Eve. This particular quote is taken to be a statement from Israel to the nations. This song written by King Solomon is an allegory, and not to be taken literally.

“The Jewish prophets frequently likened the relationship between God and Israel to that of a loving husband angered by a straying wife who betrayed him. Solomon composed Shir HaShirim (“Song of Songs”) in the form of that same allegory.” (p. 298).

On a personal note, I like to keep Jewish commentaries on the Old Testament handy in these cases. This is a perfect example of an Old Testament quote that would be near impossible to decipher without going to original Jewish sources. That is not to say that the Jewish commentators are the end all and be all – Just that our Jewish brethren can sometimes shed clarity and light on obscure passages in the Old Testament.

 

[floresco]

I have to say, it’s nearly a unanimous verdict on this one. (Anyone who reads Hebrew is invited to tell us what they think!)

I looked it up in my Hebrew Bible and the word was ahavah which means “love”. However, the Vulgate is the official Bible of the Church. Also keep in mind that for the last 2000 years most Hebrew manuscript lines have had varying degrees of anti-Catholic influence. There would be an ideological preference for variants that ran counter to Church interpretations.

 

[GerardMajella]

There would be an ideological preference for variants that ran counter to Church interpretations.

It’s a double edged sword. You can read the Old Testament in the eyes of the Jewish Sages in its original meaning and context, or you can read the Church’s interpretation of the Old Testament in the light of Christ. Sometimes they converge, and sometimes the Church finds symbolism, allegory, and metaphors relating to Christ, where the Jewish Sages do not.

It was strictly forbidden for the Jewish scribes to tamper with the Torah – every Hebrew letter in the Torah was required to be transcribed without tampering.

 

[floresco]

It was strictly forbidden for the Jewish scribes to tamper with the Torah – every Hebrew letter in the Torah was required to be transcribed without tampering.

Nevertheless, there are manuscript variants. The difference between the words for “love” and “beloved” is one letter, the letter “vav”. This letter is written as a single straight line. It looks a lot like our letter “l”. We are talking about one pen stroke of difference.

 

[Student09]

And I can’t find another translation that agrees with the DR on this verse.

That’s funny, and even rather strange, because in the link you provided I found:

New American Standard Bible:
“I adjure you, O daughters of Jerusalem, By the gazelles or by the hinds of the field, That you will not arouse or awaken my love Until she pleases.”

Young’s Literal Translation:
I have adjured you, daughters of Jerusalem, By the roes or by the hinds of the field, Stir not up nor wake the love till she please!

And using “he” instead of “she” (still referring to a person as opposed to “it”):

King James:
“I charge you, O you daughters of Jerusalem, by the roes, and by the hinds of the field, that you stir not up, nor awake my love, till he please.”

American Standard Version:
“I adjure you, O daughters of Jerusalem, By the roes, or by the hinds of the field, That ye stir not up, nor awake my love, Until he please.”

Darby:
I charge you, daughters of Jerusalem, By the gazelles, or by the hinds of the field, That ye stir not up, nor awake my love, till he please.

Webster:
I charge you, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, by the roes, and by the hinds of the field, that ye stir not up, nor awake my love, till he please.

Hmmm … maybe you need a pair of good reading glasses!

 

[MarkThompson]

Hmmm … maybe you need a pair of good reading glasses!

“My love” ≠ “My beloved one.”

 

[GerardMajella]

Nevertheless, there are manuscript variants.

Less so among the Jewish scribes. They were quite meticulous, and the most distinguished professional people throughout the ancient world:

*“Some scribes also copied biblical texts. The care with which this was done has been recognized with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls which allows scholars to compare medieval texts with examples copied a thousand years earlier. The relatively few differences disclosed are not so often scribal errors as variant texts.” * (Oxford Companion to the Bible, p. 684)

Amongst Hebrew to English translations, you see many of these strange variants. If you are going to decipher these differences, it helps to go directly to a Hebrew source or sources. It’s one thing to have discrepancies in Hebrew, and quite another to have discrepancies in translation from Hebrew to English.

 

[Student09]

“My love” ≠ “My beloved one.”

They can be used synonymously, and if you pay attention to the pronouns (till she/ he pleases) you will see that this usage is implied. Or what do you think the pronoun is referring to??

 

[MarkThompson]

They can be used synonymously, and if you pay attention to the pronouns (till she/ he pleases) you will see that this usage is implied. Or what do you think the pronoun is referring to??

God’s love as an active agent.

 

[BettyM]

The DR is a perfect translation of the Latin Vulgate of the Church and is far superior to the modern bibles.

Challoner edition is fine, its teh standard pretty much.

The Haydock version has much more in depth commentary if you can find one but they are rare now and also more expensive.

I agree. The DR is a great translation. It has become my favorite and my teenage son’s favorite.

 

[Student09]

God’s love as an active agent.

Unless you mean the Holy Spirit I have no idea how that could work in English. We don’t have gendered nouns (pronouns) for things like love in English.

 

[Robert_Burns]

I am looking into buying a cheap DR bible and I’m a bit confused, is the one edited by Bp. Challoner the standard? Or are there a few slightly different versions, or does this just refer to commentary?

I’m making the switch because I have a NAB and previously used a NRSV (or something like that ) but the other day there was a reading at the TLM, one of my favorites, and what the DR says is 100% different than how I remember it in my old bibles!!! It’s almost frightening that so much can get lost in translation! I want the real deal, no “loose interpretation” and I would rather put my faith in the DR.

Thanks for the help, I greatly appreciate it!

You might Investigate a Douay Rheims Haydock - it has extensive New Testament commentary.

 

[ljubim]

You might Investigate a Douay Rheims Haydock - it has extensive New Testament commentary.

I would REALLY like a Haydock Commentary would help me a lot!

As for the verses in question, it really doesn’t matter whether it means love or beloved - the thing that made it so different was the “she (or he)” versus “it.”

Thanks for all the help! It’s really interesting hearing what you guys have to say.

 

[pataburd]

I would REALLY like a Haydock Commentary would help me a lot!

As for the verses in question, it really doesn’t matter whether it means love or beloved - the thing that made it so different was the “she (or he)” versus “it.”

Thanks for all the help! It’s really interesting hearing what you guys have to say.

FWIW: the “new” translation of the Missal (that is, in keeping with what Rome wants, compared to what dissident bishops want instead) returns to the use of “she” versus “it” while making references to the Church ". . . guide over it and protect it, Lord . . . " or “. . . protect her . . .”

I stopped reading the NAB years ago. Aside from the text, which followed the rules of “dynamic” versus “literal” translation, the commentary and footnotes were often inimical to Catholic teaching.

 

[crazzeto]

I am looking into buying a cheap DR bible and I’m a bit confused, is the one edited by Bp. Challoner the standard? Or are there a few slightly different versions, or does this just refer to commentary?

I’m making the switch because I have a NAB and previously used a NRSV (or something like that ) but the other day there was a reading at the TLM, one of my favorites, and what the DR says is 100% different than how I remember it in my old bibles!!! It’s almost frightening that so much can get lost in translation! I want the real deal, no “loose interpretation” and I would rather put my faith in the DR.

Thanks for the help, I greatly appreciate it!

Challoner and Haydock are the two versions you’re most likely to find available. I have both, there are slight differences but both are good. I would rate Haydock as a little more “readable” to modern eyes, but only slightly so in some verses.

Personally I charish both mine, though my Challoner gets a little more use as it’s a far more compact bible. My Haydock Douay Rhiems is a gigantic family bible, but I love it for study since the Rev. Haydock’s commentary is outstanding.

 

[floresco]

Amongst Hebrew to English translations, you see many of these strange variants. If you are going to decipher these differences, it helps to go directly to a Hebrew source or sources. It’s one thing to have discrepancies in Hebrew, and quite another to have discrepancies in translation from Hebrew to English.

I have taken several Biblical Hebrew courses. While this does not make me an expert it is quite sufficient for me to check Hebrew sources.directly. My comments about variant texts referred to these, not to English translations.

 

[GerardMajella]

I have taken several Biblical Hebrew courses. While this does not make me an expert it is quite sufficient for me to check Hebrew sources directly. My comments about variant texts referred to these, not to English translations.

“Some scribes also copied biblical texts. The care with which this was done has been recognized with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls which allows scholars to compare medieval texts with examples copied a thousand years earlier. The relatively few differences disclosed are not so often scribal errors as variant texts.” (Oxford Companion to the Bible, p. 684)

The Jewish scribes were quite meticulous in transcribing the Old Testament. The finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls proves that they transcribed the Old Testament with meticulous care.

This is not so surprising. After all, the Jewish scribes were the most erudite and well-educated class of professionals in ancient times.

In the culture of the Jewish scribes, changing even a single syllable of the Torah was considered a very serious sin. They used various techniques – such as counting, size of text, etc. - to ensure accuracy when transcribing Torah scrolls.

You’ll have a hard time convincing me, and the readers of this thread, that the Jewish scribes made deliberate and frequent scribal errors.

 

[Hesychios]

… in truth, we don’t actually have Jerome’s text, we have scribe-copied codices, of which no complete version exists from earlier than about a third of a millennium after Jerome’s lifetime.

Nice to see your posts on this topic.

Very refreshing