P
patrick457
Guest
Sorry for a slight thread-necromancy, but just to remind you that I’m still waiting.
- Status
K
Khalid
Guest
AND I’M STILL LOOKING! ARGH!
I’m probably putting 10 minutes a day in to it - I was busy on my thesis for break (if you’ve not noticed, I’ve spent much less time on this forum recently, and ditto for writing Wikipedia), if the library was open. Having only 10 minutes a day slows down the search dramatically (as one can only begin to get started before one is out of time), once it’s been established that I can’t find it with a computer search (I’ve went all the way back to the beginning, reading Isaiah, and attempting to remember what commentaries I read, and then looking at the bibliographies of those commentaries, and the bibliographies of those works listed in the bibliographies, etc. I can’t even remember if it was a book or a periodical, because it had a soft cover. I think…
It is damn annoying, trying to find something that one read in the past, and is certain one read, but is unable to remember the exact book. (I’m not yet ready to give up and admit that since I read about two hundred pages minimum a day, spread over eight or ten books, oft times with two or three in the same genre, that my mind synthesized two or more sources together due to the proximity of reading in time, and the proximity of the subject matter.)
And then I actually have to read, or at least barely skim, all of those books - I’m thinking that I read the book or article it was in, but skimmed so quickly I didn’t notice it.
I had a false start about a month ago, when I saw the name “Moises Silva” - I was damn near certain it was written by him, but it wasn’t. Another false start a couple of weeks ago, when I shunted myself over in my search to the Periodicals section, and got the Biblical Archaeology Review out (I still think it might be in there: article 9 volume 2 has great bearing on this discussion: you’ll find it interesting at the very least), and thought that I was home free. And then I found some old work out of Bibliotheca Sacra that was close… but still no cigar.
I have not forgotten of this thread since the first time I’ve forgotten of this thread.
I’m probably putting 10 minutes a day in to it - I was busy on my thesis for break (if you’ve not noticed, I’ve spent much less time on this forum recently, and ditto for writing Wikipedia), if the library was open. Having only 10 minutes a day slows down the search dramatically (as one can only begin to get started before one is out of time), once it’s been established that I can’t find it with a computer search (I’ve went all the way back to the beginning, reading Isaiah, and attempting to remember what commentaries I read, and then looking at the bibliographies of those commentaries, and the bibliographies of those works listed in the bibliographies, etc. I can’t even remember if it was a book or a periodical, because it had a soft cover. I think…
It is damn annoying, trying to find something that one read in the past, and is certain one read, but is unable to remember the exact book. (I’m not yet ready to give up and admit that since I read about two hundred pages minimum a day, spread over eight or ten books, oft times with two or three in the same genre, that my mind synthesized two or more sources together due to the proximity of reading in time, and the proximity of the subject matter.)
And then I actually have to read, or at least barely skim, all of those books - I’m thinking that I read the book or article it was in, but skimmed so quickly I didn’t notice it.
I had a false start about a month ago, when I saw the name “Moises Silva” - I was damn near certain it was written by him, but it wasn’t. Another false start a couple of weeks ago, when I shunted myself over in my search to the Periodicals section, and got the Biblical Archaeology Review out (I still think it might be in there: article 9 volume 2 has great bearing on this discussion: you’ll find it interesting at the very least), and thought that I was home free. And then I found some old work out of Bibliotheca Sacra that was close… but still no cigar.
I have not forgotten of this thread since the first time I’ve forgotten of this thread.
K
Khalid
Guest
Erratum: Volume 2 Issue 2 Article 9
P
patrick457
Guest
I hope you still haven’t forgotten this thread, otherwise you would have forgotten that you remembered that you have forgotten this thread.
K
Khalid
Guest
Actually, I couldn’t find it! I paged through all my subscribed threads CTRL+F’ing every variation of “Dead Sea Scrolls”, “Masoretic text”, “Ancient versions”, “manuscripts”, “textual criticism”, “Qumran”, “Biblical scholarship”, and “Septuagint” that I could think of… I was pretty far off, titled “Glaring Errors in the Douay-Rheims?” - no wonder it took me five months to locate a reference (O! how I dread my dissertation now, although I’ve begun the habit of citing everything as I write it, instead of trying to go back and find the references later if I’m called out).
Your bump brought it back to my first screen again (I’m subscribed to about 1,100 threads); I found the answer spread through several books and articles (although it is not true for all parts of the Septuagint, as some books in the DSS and MT agree with each other more; whereas some agree more with the LXX), so I’m going to have to give quite a bibliography (I believe my initial recall was tainted, and the claims are not as strong as I had supposed - indeed, little agreement in Isaiah 7:14, much in Isaiah 53, most in the deuterocanonicals - after half a year of searching - I begin to think that some of it came from reading a translation of the DSS at the same time as reading the LXX, noting some similarities and conflating differences - however, I did find the original book), which is (apologies for the confused nature of the citations):
James VanderKam in McDonald and Sanders (eds.) The Canon Debate, Questions of Canon through the Dead Sea Scrolls (pp.90-104, p. 94), which cites 25% MT, 30% LXX, 40% Samaritan, 5% unaligned.
Those mentioned above in the Biblical Archaeology Review:
Moises deSilva, Introduction to the Septuagint, pp.99-109 (and more, about how the LXX includes - or MT excludes - some Hebrew/Aramaic books found at Qumran, such as Tobit, Sirach, Judith; the entire book is good reading).
Edwin M Yamauchi, The Archaeological Background of Esther, Parts 2 and 3, Bibliotheca Sacra, Issues 2-3, 1980.
Harvey Minkoff, Searching for the Better Text, Biblical Archaeology Review
There was something written by Charlesworth (of Old Testament Pseudepigrapha fame), but I can’t even find the reference to the reference now…
And some textual notes to Samuel in the NRSV and NET Bible, which, again, I was certain was in a book by Metzger, called something like Textual Notes to the New Revised Standard Version.
When you’re done with those (which are available without a pricey subscription) I’ll send you some more (most of which require a subscription, or access to a library with one: I don’t have a scanner, but I can attempt to take cell-phone pictures of the relevant pages… they’re still legible [and that’s with a Samsung Galaxy SII], just not fun to read).
Your bump brought it back to my first screen again (I’m subscribed to about 1,100 threads); I found the answer spread through several books and articles (although it is not true for all parts of the Septuagint, as some books in the DSS and MT agree with each other more; whereas some agree more with the LXX), so I’m going to have to give quite a bibliography (I believe my initial recall was tainted, and the claims are not as strong as I had supposed - indeed, little agreement in Isaiah 7:14, much in Isaiah 53, most in the deuterocanonicals - after half a year of searching - I begin to think that some of it came from reading a translation of the DSS at the same time as reading the LXX, noting some similarities and conflating differences - however, I did find the original book), which is (apologies for the confused nature of the citations):
James VanderKam in McDonald and Sanders (eds.) The Canon Debate, Questions of Canon through the Dead Sea Scrolls (pp.90-104, p. 94), which cites 25% MT, 30% LXX, 40% Samaritan, 5% unaligned.
Those mentioned above in the Biblical Archaeology Review:
Moises deSilva, Introduction to the Septuagint, pp.99-109 (and more, about how the LXX includes - or MT excludes - some Hebrew/Aramaic books found at Qumran, such as Tobit, Sirach, Judith; the entire book is good reading).
Edwin M Yamauchi, The Archaeological Background of Esther, Parts 2 and 3, Bibliotheca Sacra, Issues 2-3, 1980.
Harvey Minkoff, Searching for the Better Text, Biblical Archaeology Review
There was something written by Charlesworth (of Old Testament Pseudepigrapha fame), but I can’t even find the reference to the reference now…
And some textual notes to Samuel in the NRSV and NET Bible, which, again, I was certain was in a book by Metzger, called something like Textual Notes to the New Revised Standard Version.
When you’re done with those (which are available without a pricey subscription) I’ll send you some more (most of which require a subscription, or access to a library with one: I don’t have a scanner, but I can attempt to take cell-phone pictures of the relevant pages… they’re still legible [and that’s with a Samsung Galaxy SII], just not fun to read).
K
Khalid
Guest
And I just found this while looking at Wikipedia in regards to another thread (so who knows whether it’s even in the reference cited? It is Wikipedia, after all):
“The usual assumption is that it was made somewhere around 432 B.C., when Manasseh, the son-in-law of Sanballat, went off to found a community in Samaria, as related in Neh. 13:28 and Josephus Antiquities XI.7.2; 8.2. Josephus himself, however, dates this event in the days of Alexander the Great, and though there is a notorious confusion in Josephus at this point, he may be right about the Gerizim temple dating from 332, and that may have been the date of the copying of their Pentateuch. Recent scholarship, however, is inclined to think that the real schism between the peoples did not take place until Hasmonean times when the Gerizim temple was destroyed in 128 B.C. The script of the Samaritan Pentateuch, its close connections at many points with the Septuagint, and its even closer agreements with our present Hebrew text, all suggest a date about 122 B.C.”
The Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. 1, p. 35.
“The usual assumption is that it was made somewhere around 432 B.C., when Manasseh, the son-in-law of Sanballat, went off to found a community in Samaria, as related in Neh. 13:28 and Josephus Antiquities XI.7.2; 8.2. Josephus himself, however, dates this event in the days of Alexander the Great, and though there is a notorious confusion in Josephus at this point, he may be right about the Gerizim temple dating from 332, and that may have been the date of the copying of their Pentateuch. Recent scholarship, however, is inclined to think that the real schism between the peoples did not take place until Hasmonean times when the Gerizim temple was destroyed in 128 B.C. The script of the Samaritan Pentateuch, its close connections at many points with the Septuagint, and its even closer agreements with our present Hebrew text, all suggest a date about 122 B.C.”
The Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. 1, p. 35.
K
Khalid
Guest
Did you find it and become satisfied?
K
kbf1970060
Guest
If you want specific words, and verses, then you need to go and get them.Maybe this got buried in the thread on recommended translations, or maybe mr East and West has no response. But I am extremely curious to know what folks out there consider to be “errors” in the Douay-Rheims (Challoner Revision). And merely saying “he copied from the King James” is NOT an acceptable answer. I want specific verses/words.
Do your worst!
K
kbf1970060
Guest
I Kings 12:3 / Christ / Anointed
I Kings 12:5 / Christ / Anointed
Psalm 131:10 / Christ / Anointed
Isaias 64:10 / thy holy one / thy sanctuary
host / sacrifice
I Kings 12:5 / Christ / Anointed
Psalm 131:10 / Christ / Anointed
Isaias 64:10 / thy holy one / thy sanctuary
host / sacrifice
J
Jerry-Jet
Guest
Are unicorns in the KJV–the Douay Rheims–or both?
K
Khalid
Guest
I think they’re in the KJV only, which is my primary Bible. I also use the Haydock DRC, essentially for the notes, as I am fully literate insofar as reading Latin goes, even if I can’t speak a word of it (my Greek literacy is markedly less; my Hebrew literacy is non-existent).
The “old Douay-Rheims” - not Challoner - used “Christ” almost every place in the Old Testament where modern versions have “anointed” or something similar; “Christ” is a transliteration, not a translation, and I have ambivalent feelings about using it, in, say, Psalm 2. “Christ” is the Greek translation of “moschiach”, which is the Hebrew that underlays the English translation to “anointed” in the OT. In the NT, “Christ” undergirds the translation “Christ”, so, it’s not a translation, but a transliteration (e.g. the Greek word respelled using Latin characters).
There are minor errors in both the KJV and DR and DRC, but none that I would call glaring. The closest any of those comes to a glaring error is “Satan” in Isaiah 14:12, “O Satan, how you are fallen”, where the Latin is “Lucipher”, and is normally translated as “morning star”. Contextually, Satan makes great sense in Is 14:12 - "advanced revelation, anyone? - but a problem is encountered according to most exegeses, since Christ himself is called lucipher, that is, light-bringer or morning star, in the Apocalupsis in the Vulgate. The only other “error” in the KJV is Lk 1:28; contrary to popular belief, I support the comma Johanneum.
Now, there are infelicities in all translations, and some times these don’t rise to be errors: read Ps 22/23 in the DRC; it is terrible, honestly. In the KJV, it is one of the most comforting, beautiful, spiritual, and uplifting writings - not just Psalms - ever written. But, in each case, it has to do with different methods of translation (the DRC was more literal), and other minor differences, ending up with an end-product that reads terribly, although it is technically correct and accurate - it just lacks the poetry and power of, “YEA, though I walk through the VALLEY OF THE SHADOW OF DEATH, I shall fear no evil, for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff, they comfort me…”, or “he restoreth my soul” v. “he converteth my soul”, or, in the first verse, “The LORD ruleth me” (DRC) v. “The LORD is my shepherd” (KJV).
But merely bad prose or poetry doesn’t, by itself, constitute an error or make a translation bad, although bad prose and poetry can be “the straw that breaketh the back of the camel”, or just one more problem, in a translation that is already jam-packed with errors, front-to-back, such as the NAB.
The “old Douay-Rheims” - not Challoner - used “Christ” almost every place in the Old Testament where modern versions have “anointed” or something similar; “Christ” is a transliteration, not a translation, and I have ambivalent feelings about using it, in, say, Psalm 2. “Christ” is the Greek translation of “moschiach”, which is the Hebrew that underlays the English translation to “anointed” in the OT. In the NT, “Christ” undergirds the translation “Christ”, so, it’s not a translation, but a transliteration (e.g. the Greek word respelled using Latin characters).
There are minor errors in both the KJV and DR and DRC, but none that I would call glaring. The closest any of those comes to a glaring error is “Satan” in Isaiah 14:12, “O Satan, how you are fallen”, where the Latin is “Lucipher”, and is normally translated as “morning star”. Contextually, Satan makes great sense in Is 14:12 - "advanced revelation, anyone? - but a problem is encountered according to most exegeses, since Christ himself is called lucipher, that is, light-bringer or morning star, in the Apocalupsis in the Vulgate. The only other “error” in the KJV is Lk 1:28; contrary to popular belief, I support the comma Johanneum.
Now, there are infelicities in all translations, and some times these don’t rise to be errors: read Ps 22/23 in the DRC; it is terrible, honestly. In the KJV, it is one of the most comforting, beautiful, spiritual, and uplifting writings - not just Psalms - ever written. But, in each case, it has to do with different methods of translation (the DRC was more literal), and other minor differences, ending up with an end-product that reads terribly, although it is technically correct and accurate - it just lacks the poetry and power of, “YEA, though I walk through the VALLEY OF THE SHADOW OF DEATH, I shall fear no evil, for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff, they comfort me…”, or “he restoreth my soul” v. “he converteth my soul”, or, in the first verse, “The LORD ruleth me” (DRC) v. “The LORD is my shepherd” (KJV).
But merely bad prose or poetry doesn’t, by itself, constitute an error or make a translation bad, although bad prose and poetry can be “the straw that breaketh the back of the camel”, or just one more problem, in a translation that is already jam-packed with errors, front-to-back, such as the NAB.
P
patrick457
Guest
From the KJV:
- Numbers 23:22: God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn.
- Numbers 24:8: God brought him forth out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn: he shall eat up the nations his enemies, and shall break their bones, and pierce them through with his arrows.
- Deuteronomy 33:17: His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh.
- Job 39:9-10: Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib? Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?
- Psalms 22:21: Save me from the lion’s mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns.
- Psalms 29:6: He maketh them also to skip like a calf; Lebanon and Sirion like a young unicorn.
- Psalms 92:10: But my horn shalt thou exalt like the horn of an unicorn: I shall be anointed with fresh oil.
- Isaiah 34:7: And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness.
- Psalms 21:22: Save me from the lion’s mouth; and my lowness from the horns of the unicorns.
- Psalms 28:6: And shall reduce them to pieces, as a calf of Libanus, and as the beloved son of unicorns.
- Psalms 77:69: And he built his sanctuary as of unicorns, in the land which he founded for ever.
- Psalms 91:11: But my horn shall be exalted like that of the unicorn: and my old age in plentiful mercy.
- Isaias 34:7: And the unicorns shall go down with them, and the bulls with the mighty: their land shall be soaked with blood, and their ground with the fat of fat ones.
- Numbers 23:22: God hath brought him out of Egypt, whose strength is like to the rhinoceros.
- Numbers 24:8: God hath brought him out of Egypt, whose strength is like to the rhinoceros. They shall devour the nations that are his enemies, and break their bones, and pierce them with arrows.
- Deuteronomy 33:17: His beauty as of the firstling of a bullock, his horns as the horns of a rhinoceros: with them shall he push the nations even to the ends of the earth These are the multitudes of Ephraim and these the thousands of Manasses.
- Job 39:9-10: Shall the rhinoceros be willing to serve thee, or will he stay at thy crib? Canst thou bind the rhinoceros with thy thong to plough, or will he break the clods of the valleys after thee?
P
patrick457
Guest
It all boils down to a difference between the texts.
Masoretic - LXX - Gallican Psalter - Iuxta Hebraicum
יְהוָ֥ה רֹ֝עִ֗י (“Yhwh [is] my shepherd”) - Κύριος ποιμαίνει με (“The Lord shepherds me”) - Dominus regit me - Dominus pascit me
נַפְשִׁ֥י יְשׁוֹבֵ֑ב (“My soul/life/being nefeš] he returns”)* - τὴν ψυχήν μου ἐπέστρεψεν (“My soul/life/being psychē] he returns”)* - animam meam convertit - animam meam refecit
גַּ֤ם כִּֽי־אֵלֵ֨ךְ בְּגֵ֪יא צַלְמָ֡וֶת (“Even when I walk in a valley of death-shadow”) - ἐὰν γὰρ καὶ πορευθῶ ἐν μέσῳ σκιᾶς θανάτου (“For even if I walk in the midst of death’s shadow”), Nam etsi ambulavero in medio umbrae mortis - Sed et si ambulavero in valle mortis
- The verb is Hebrew šub ‘to [cause to] turn back, to turn around, to return, to restore’, which is translated in the Septuagint as ἐπιστρέφω (epistrephō), of the same meaning. Latin converto is a literal translation of both.
Q
Qoeleth
Guest
Well, the few errors in the Douah-Rheims basically seem to come from errors in the VUlgate itself (e.g. Qo 2:3). All the DR does is translate the Latin, which is straigthforward and prosaic. I agree, that it does not read as poetically as the KJV, nor is it as accurate, since the KJV also consulted the Greek.Maybe this got buried in the thread on recommended translations, or maybe mr East and West has no response. But I am extremely curious to know what folks out there consider to be “errors” in the Douay-Rheims (Challoner Revision). And merely saying “he copied from the King James” is NOT an acceptable answer. I want specific verses/words.
Do your worst!
P
patrick457
Guest
The translators of the Rheims NT-Douai OT “conferred” with Hebrew and Greek texts, as well as with “other editions in diuerse languages,” although their purpose was to indeed translate out of the Latin Vulgate.
A
AmbroseSJ
Guest
Apparently they had access to a very accurate Vulgate text as well. It seems to anticipate the Clementine which as yet wasn’t published.
J
Jerry-Jet
Guest
Aren’t Doctrinal errors worse than non doctrinal errors?
Does the Douay Rheims have any DOCTRINAL errors in translation?
Does the Douay Rheims have any DOCTRINAL errors in translation?
K
Khalid
Guest
No, because it is a literal translation from the Latin (and I am unaware of any places where it translates the Latin inadequately, although it is often wooden), and the (Clementine) Vulgate was declared by Trent, I believe, and confirmed by a later Papal writing, as “safe for use in all disputations, as it contains no doctrinal error”.
J
Jerry-Jet
Guest
Then why do so many Catholics here recommend translations of the bible that do not have the fullness of truth when it comes to doctrine?
Why would a Catholic recommend a Catholic polished Protestant translation of the bible?
Or a modern Catholic translation that agreed with many Protestant translations?
Sometimes I wonder if some Catholics believe that the word choices that are made in composing the bible don’t matter as long as you have the magisterium to bail us out and tell us what the bible really means!
I’m not saying that the Vulgate cannot be improved upon–what I’m saying is unless there is great proof for a textual varient that will indeed improve upon the Vulgate text then leave the Vulgate alone!
Why would a Catholic recommend a Catholic polished Protestant translation of the bible?
Or a modern Catholic translation that agreed with many Protestant translations?
Sometimes I wonder if some Catholics believe that the word choices that are made in composing the bible don’t matter as long as you have the magisterium to bail us out and tell us what the bible really means!
I’m not saying that the Vulgate cannot be improved upon–what I’m saying is unless there is great proof for a textual varient that will indeed improve upon the Vulgate text then leave the Vulgate alone!
po18guy
Well-known member
The D-R that I found on eBay came with the approbation of no less than James Cardinal Gibbons. Check that bio! The error that I have seen some make is to assume that, since the NAB is the “official” American bible, that all prior translations are to be preferred less. Not at all! In my case, quite the reverse is true.
- Status