Douay-rheims vs NJB

[s4angel]

I have both bibles which I use, I used to have an older version of the NJB but i guess I loved it to much as it came up missing so I had to replace it.

When I want clarification I switch between bibles to see different translations sometimes the way words are used throws me for a loop.

The question is what is the real difference in translation and how come no one agrees on a translation? Which bible is the most correct? Should I even worry about it?

 

[ljubim]

Bible Translation Guide

This helped me!

(My personal favorites are the NAB and NRSV.)

 

[garysibio]

You might find this article I wrote for my blog interesting: bibleandworldtoday.blogspot.com/2009/08/sad-state-of-bible-translating.html

 

[Omyo12]

You might find this article I wrote for my blog interesting: bibleandworldtoday.blogspot.com/2009/08/sad-state-of-bible-translating.html

Interesting blog, I agree Douay-Rheims onlyism is quite uncalled for.

However, what I found interesting was this:

The problem with inclusive language is that it distorts the meanings of certain texts while attempting to fix a problem that didn’t exist in the first place.

I agree to some degree (especially if its regarding messianic prophesy), but tell me, what do you find more accurate to the meaning of the text?

John 1:4 “In him was life; and the life was the light of men.”
or
John 1:4 “In him was life; and the life was the light of humans.”

Also this:
Genesis 1:26 “Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness,’”
or
Genesis 1:26 “Then God said, ‘Let us make humans in our image, after our likeness,’”

I’m not asking what sound more “poetic”
I mean linguistically which do you find more accurate?

 

[Huiou_Theou]

You might also be interested in the Ronald Knox bible if you can find it.
Translation is something I have been studying (slowly) for about 8 years now.

Most bibles contain errors in translation related to the bias of the religious sect doing the translation: Greek is the original NT, and still honored by all the church with respect to the New Testament – but eg: in Jerome’s translation into Latin, certain variations occur. Some of this is because of differences in vocabulary –
eg: the word sub-stance is a compound word both in Greek and Latin – but with different meanings. In Greek it is hypo-stasis (under-stand) and in Latin it is sub-stance (stand under) – In english, literally I may translate it as that which one under-stands – but that would raise eyebrows, though it is true.

Seems like a perfect translation – UNTIL one looks at the definition of trinity – three PERSONS (hypo-stasis) but one substance.

This caused a lot of heretic calling in the early years before the definition was formalized – for east and west (though in agreement on the idea) – had problems with the wording and mistakenly thought the other branch of the church was saying something they were not in fact saying. There is a difference of connotation between the words, though the actual words would appear to be identical.

There are other kinds of differences which show up regularly – for example, certain schools of scribes copying the bible would improve the grammar (Eg: those in Alexandria are known for this) – and occasionally move sentences from one place to another where they were thought it fit better – which then led to disputes and the practice of putting the sentence in the original place AND in the preferred place. – and sometimes a tired writer just lost their place and copied a sentence out of order or twice.

One such duplication is the salutation of the Angel to Mary in the book of Luke – Elisabeth is the one who says “blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb.” – but several copyists placed those words on the lips of the angel as well at the annunciation. Of course, non-catholic sects make all sorts of accusations along those lines with respect to Catholic tampering – but it is really an outgrowth of their ignorance of context. St. Elisabeth said those words to Mary – and it was not her own impulse – rather it was the inspiration of the Holy Spirit as EXPLICITLY mentioned in the text. So there is no ground for contesting placing the words on the lips of the Angel – for angels are merely messengers of the voice of God – and Elizabeth acted as an angel in her speech to Mary.

There is more here that I think would interest you along the lines of Elisabeth, consecration, and the meaning of John The Nazarite in her womb – but those are for a different day. I can edit text, and come back to it several times – which makes for easy reading – but right now I am editing everything two and three times already; no fooling. But writing and doodling help get my mind off the encroaching stuff coming…so I waste quite a few hours editing…

With regard to the Jerusalem bible, I find the translation often quite useful – I also have no problem with the Douay Rheems, although – I have to warn you that it was translated originally by priests on their way to martyrdom in England in a hurry – hence the red cover. Look up one Edmund Campion if you are interested in history. The priests were barely through their studies in many cases, and so the original Douay has errors – the KJV bibile which the protestants were rushing to publish in a race against the Douay – is likewise full of very poor choices of translation – and strangely enough there is often blatant plagarism between the original versions of the KJV and the Douay. The later Challoner version claims to be reformed in accordance with the Vulgate, but IMHO it appears to me that bishop challoner had an increasingly free hand with the revisions (plural editions) and they are not always true to the vulgate. (BTW: The Vulgate gets revised occasionally also – there is no panacea).

Doctrinally, I seldom see things which are irreprable within a text – for example in the KJV, a bad translation in one place (ambiguous) can be corrected by showing other texts – but to the novice reader who is not familiar, they form biases early based on poorly phrased statements. I have yet to see any major doctrinal difference from ANY of the origonal ancient manuscripts (Though moderns ones, eg: the Jehovah Witnesses’ NWT translation makes certain unjustifiable insertions of the indefinite article to attempt to disprove Jesus’ divinity – THO- they forget to edit some of the MOST blatant statements because they didn’t think about what they MEANT.Also Thomas Jefferson’s bible is a literal cut and paste to make it say what he wanted it to – it was a political statement. etc.)

Be aware that the new Jerusalem Bible, at least the older ones – use the pseudo-name Yahweh – which in German and with the Jehova witnesses is Jehova.

This is a purposeful mistake – and I became quite attached to the name until I got taken down on the point here a while back – and learned the truth.

The personal name YHWH’s proper pronuciation was lost – YAHWEH is using the vowels from a word which means God – but not his personal name – but I would speculate that Judah, which is spelled the same in Hebrew as YHWH but with an extra D is the best clue to how the name was pronounced. Various examinations of the word by authors I have found suggest that the “D” was inserted into the name so as not to pronounce God’s actual name – D being the fourth letter of the jewish alphabet, and Judah being the fourth son.
So the name, removing the D – will be very close to the word JEW(a) – though that W might be an n sound; I haven’t been able to prove it yet though.

Back to the Ronald Knox bible for a moment – one of the major reasons I like it, although it is a very carefully thought out paraphrase in some places – is that he is not trying to translate literally, but based on his knowledge as a scholar – eg: his footnotes are EXCELLENT. He also notices and explains the structure of certain psalms and writings whose poetic nature does not translate – yet he will make an alphabet poem to at least give the reader an idea of how the text was meant.

The best bibles, of course, carry the Catholic Bishops authorization (imprimateur) – but the more you look at, the more armed you are for asking the right kind of questions to not be fooled by an ill turn of phrase. I have also noted that in some passages, virtually all translations in English are bad – and quite a bit of it has to do with St. Paul’s overcomplicated writing style.

But again, the best bible – is the one you will use.

Your brother in Christ, Andrew.

 

[garysibio]

Interesting blog, I agree Douay-Rheims onlyism is quite uncalled for.

However, what I found interesting was this:

I agree to some degree (especially if its regarding messianic prophesy), but tell me, what do you find more accurate to the meaning of the text?

John 1:4 “In him was life; and the life was the light of men.”
or
John 1:4 “In him was life; and the life was the light of humans.”

Also this:
Genesis 1:26 “Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness,’”
or
Genesis 1:26 “Then God said, ‘Let us make humans in our image, after our likeness,’”

I’m not asking what sound more “poetic”
I mean linguistically which do you find more accurate?

Although the primary definition of the word ‘man’ is a human being of the male gender, it also means all people regardless of gender. Take a look at Gen 1:27: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” ‘Man’ clearly means male and female. My wife abhors inclusive language. She believes that proponents of it are implying that women are so dumb they don’t realize that ‘man’ can also include both sexes.

 

[Omyo12]

Although the primary definition of the word ‘man’ is a human being of the male gender, it also means all people regardless of gender. Take a look at Gen 1:27: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” ‘Man’ clearly means male and female. My wife abhors inclusive language. She believes that proponents of it are implying that women are so dumb they don’t realize that ‘man’ can also include both sexes.

Yes, but the Hebrew word “adam” and the Greek word “anthropos” are much more gender neutral than the English word “man”

For example,
John 1:6 “There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.”

The Greek word here is literally “a human” but based on the context we know he was of male gender. This is why sometimes in Bibles with some inclusive language, the gender of a person is sometimes not revealed while other times it is. Context context context.

Anthropos is quite tricky, since it is used many times to mean a male only, but again, this known through context.

English does not really have a gender neutral pronoun for people.
This is why the New English Translation of the Septuagint sometimes uses “it”

Same with the Hebrew word `adam…
Look at:
“This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.”

The Hebrew world here is NOT `adam but ish which actually means a male

(Now most Bibles with inclusive language go a little too far, such as changing singular pronouns to plural ones and adding “and sisters” at times)

However, at this point minor inclusive language simply becomes a matter of taste, it is NOT taking away from the meaning of the text.

I find it interesting that you don’t mind the ESV’s rendering of 1 Timothy 3:15 “if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth.”

the verse we Catholics take as referring to Magisterium; which has the SOLE authority of upholding the truth on Earth.

CCC 100: “The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him.”

However implied by the ESV to be one of many (what else?) institutions equipped with the same power…

Also in regards to “radical feminism,” no my friend…
THIS is radical feminism…
(its a scene from “The Prince of Egypt” when God reveals Himself to Moses as the Burning Bush, however, the voice of God is re-dubbed by a woman)

There’s also the movie Dogma where God is played by Alanis Morissette…

 

[Omyo12]

I have both bibles which I use, I used to have an older version of the NJB but i guess I loved it to much as it came up missing so I had to replace it.

When I want clarification I switch between bibles to see different translations sometimes the way words are used throws me for a loop.

The question is what is the real difference in translation and how come no one agrees on a translation? Which bible is the most correct? Should I even worry about it?

I think the NJB and Douay-Rheims together are a great combination of dynamic and literal!

 

[garysibio]

Yes, but the Hebrew word “adam” and the Greek word “anthropos” are much more gender neutral than the English word “man”

For example,
John 1:6 “There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.”

The Greek word here is literally “a human” but based on the context we know he was of male gender. This is why sometimes in Bibles with some inclusive language, the gender of a person is sometimes not revealed while other times it is. Context context context.

Anthropos is quite tricky, since it is used many times to mean a male only, but again, this known through context.

You’re missing the point. First, we’re talking about the English language so the use of the Greek and Hebrew is irrelevant. A word is either gender neutral or it’s not. To say a word is more gender neutral is like saying a woman is more pregnant.

The English “man” can be used in two ways:

1. A gender-specific reference to the half of the population with bot X and Y chromosomes.
2. The gender-neutral everyone.

I find it interesting that you don’t mind the ESV’s rendering of 1 Timothy 3:15 “if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth.”

the verse we Catholics take as referring to Magisterium; which has the SOLE authority of upholding the truth on Earth.

CCC 100: “The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him.”

However implied by the ESV to be one of many (what else?) institutions equipped with the same power…

The problem here is that the definite article does not appear in the Greek text. I’ve discussed this issue in other threads on the CAF and here’s a summary of what I’ve learned:

1. Although it is possible to translate this passage with the definite article, it is not mandatory according to Greek grammar.
2. Many non-English Catholic translations of this verse also use the indefinite article.
3. The use of the indefinite article, IMO, better expresses Catholic teaching since it still makes the Church a pillar of the truth while also acknowledging the Bible’s role. The Church is not free to contradict Scripture therefore Scripture can be considered a pillar as well.

Also in regards to “radical feminism,” no my friend…
THIS is radical feminism…
(its a scene from “The Prince of Egypt” when God reveals Himself to Moses as the Burning Bush, however, the voice of God is re-dubbed by a woman)

There’s also the movie Dogma where God is played by Alanis Morissette…

I think that altering Scripture to fit a social-political agenda is a bigger problem than the garbage put out by Hollywood.

 

[CalCatholic]

I think the NJB and Douay-Rheims together are a great combination of dynamic and literal!

I agree, if you could only have two translations, one should be a formal text (like the D-R) and one should be a dynamic text (like the NJB). There are times you want to look up verses and compare them to the Greek or to study a book closely, then a formal (more literal) translation is probably your best bet. But other times a dynamic (less literal) translation flows better when reading for enjoyment of inspiration. But then you could have a third translation, or a fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh,… I lost track, too many!!!

 

[Kasey1]

I think the NJB and Douay-Rheims together are a great combination of dynamic and literal!

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh,I feel the same too