"Glaring errors" in the Douay-Rheims?

[patrick457]

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!

Part of the problem I think is that there is no ‘Vulgate text’ per se. The text has come down to us in the same way as the Hebrew OT and the Greek NT: via different textual groups, ranging from the Italian-Northumbrian text (considered to be the best), to the French text, which somehow managed to combine the worst aspects of all the other versions. There was such a huge variance among the textual traditions even at such an early date, that during the Carolingian period, different people attempted to produce a ‘standard’ version of the text like Alcuin of York or Theodulf of Orleans. It was, however, only by the 13th century that we begin to see a standardized Vulgate become popular (the so-called Paris Bible).

 

[Khalid]

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!

My primary Bible is a thoroughly Protestant translation that Challoner himself used to polish the Rheims NT, and, contrary to intuition, is remarkably similar in all doctrinal areas, just written with far better English and is a bit less literal. Although I do consult the DRC very often (almost to the point of having two primary Bibles), and the NKJV just slightly less often, along with the Trinitarian Bible Society’s Textus Receptus and the Hodges-Farstad Majority Text (I have the UBS and NA27 and am getting the NA28, but I don’t personally care for them, believing them inferior to the Byzantine text). And the Rahlf’s LXX, as I won’t be able to afford the Gottingen in this life. I’ve completely given up my Van **** (it’s bleeped out for some reason: it’s like the American TV Host, Dick Van ****, “Dike”) Bible (I never read the Jesuit Bible that much), and can’t read a lick of Hebrew (ironic).

Give a man who’s read the NIV, or, God forbid, the NLT or CEB, or, worse, MSG his entire life the DRC, and he’ll think he’s reading an old interlinear.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Change my last post to say Nova Vulgata instead of Vulgate!

Now tell me why it would be a bad idea to leave the Nova Vulgata ALONE unless there was great proof that an alternate textual rendering was warranted!

Just for the record I use the Douay Rheims Challoner Old Testament which I guess some would say polishes a Catholic English translation of the bible in the direction of the KJV–but I would say that it does that without being objectionably protestant in reference to doctrine.

What I advocate is using original language texts but not overturning the Nova Vulgata unless there is great textual evidence that alternate renderings are warranted.

And yes I know that SOME would say that there are problems with the Nova Vulgata but I guess that overall it would be the best place to start if one wanted to have a base text.

See if you translate the bible in that fashion you avoid inclusive language lunacy–Protestant bias–and overt modernism.

You wind up with a bible that is Catholic and you could produce a bible like that without modern atrocious notes!

And IF someone wants to make the point that we should translate from original language texts and that there should be no base text such as the Nova Vulgata I say how could one prove that the Nova Vulgata was used as a base text if there were some occasions where textual changes would be made that resulted in a finished product that was not exactly the Nova Vulgata?

My thesis is this: I think that there are many people with agendas who hide behind the phrase “original language texts” when all they are really trying to do is support inclusive language or Protestant bias or historical-critico modernism.

These people know that it is easy to do that if they don’t have to prove that their textual renderings are SUPERIOR to the Nova Vulgata.

If they had to PROVE that they were they wouldn’t be able to advance their agendas in translation.

 

[patrick457]

Change my last post to say Nova Vulgata instead of Vulgate!

Now tell me why it would be a bad idea to leave the Nova Vulgata ALONE unless there was great proof that an alternate textual rendering was warranted!

Just for the record I use the Douay Rheims Challoner Old Testament which I guess some would say polishes a Catholic English translation of the bible in the direction of the KJV–but I would say that it does that without being objectionably protestant in reference to doctrine.

What I advocate is using original language texts but not overturning the Nova Vulgata unless there is great textual evidence that alternate renderings are warranted.

And yes I know that SOME would say that there are problems with the Nova Vulgata but I guess that overall it would be the best place to start if one wanted to have a base text.

See if you translate the bible in that fashion you avoid inclusive language lunacy–Protestant bias–and overt modernism.

You wind up with a bible that is Catholic and you could produce a bible like that without modern atrocious notes!

And IF someone wants to make the point that we should translate from original language texts and that there should be no base text such as the Nova Vulgata I say how could one prove that the Nova Vulgata was used as a base text if there were some occasions where textual changes would be made that resulted in a finished product that was not exactly the Nova Vulgata?

My thesis is this: I think that there are many people with agendas who hide behind the phrase “original language texts” when all they are really trying to do is support inclusive language or Protestant bias or historical-critico modernism.

These people know that it is easy to do that if they don’t have to prove that their textual renderings are SUPERIOR to the Nova Vulgata.

If they had to PROVE that they were they wouldn’t be able to advance their agendas in translation.

Okay, the Nova Vulgata.

First of all, I’d like to point out that I think the relationship between the Vulgate and the Nova Vulgata are like that of the original Reims-Douai and Challoner: both ostensibly share the same name (‘Douay-Rheims’ as it is commonly spelled) and have some things in common, but in actual practice they could very well be different versions on their own right. But that’s just how I see it.

The thing about the Nova Vulgata is that it is a ‘revision’ of the Scriptural text in Latin in accord with modern textual and linguistic studies, while preserving or refining its Christian Latin style. In other words, the text is revised to be in accord with modern critical editions in the original languages.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

I maintain that if anyone did a great English translation of the Nova Vulgata that it would be SUPERIOR to any English version of the bible currently being published.

It wouldn’t be perfect but it would beat what is currently out there.

 

[Khalid]

I highly doubt it would be superior to the DRC, translated from the Clementine Vulgate, “with the consultancy of all other versions in many tongues”, or something like that - it might be easier to read. The Nova Vulgata, honestly, makes some really bad textual decisions. Especially in Sirach. And in the “missing verses” of the New Testament, which are some of the most important and powerful verses in the entire Bible. Now, if it was translated with the same level of literalism as the Authorized Version, would it be far superior to every modern Catholic translation? Yes. Would it be far superior to every modern translation, full stop? Probably not, the ESV and NASB are pretty good - but at least it would contain the whole Bible.

 

[patrick457]

I highly doubt it would be superior to the DRC, translated from the Clementine Vulgate, “with the consultancy of all other versions in many tongues”, or something like that - it might be easier to read. The Nova Vulgata, honestly, makes some really bad textual decisions. Especially in Sirach.

Really? How so?

The Reims NT (I’m not talking about the Challoner) came out well before the Sixtine (1590) and Clementine (1592) Vulgates were even published, although they did later “[conform] it to the most perfect Latin Edition,” perhaps when the Douai OT came out in 1609-10 (could be wrong though).

And FTR the original title says that the translation was “diligently conferred with the Hebrew, Greek and other Editions.”

 

[Khalid]

The modern one (Challoner) is a damn literal rendering of the Clementine Vulgate, at least from my reading of one side-by-side with the other. I’ve never laid eyes on an actual, original D-R. If I had to wager a guess, Challoner, when borrowing partially from the KJV, also took pains to conform it to the Clementine, as the aforementioned “most perfect Latin editions”. And the OT was probably based on the Clementine from the get-go.

I’ve never had the pleasure of seeing a Sistine Vulgate, but, from what I’ve read in textual histories and various books upon the subject, it was quite bad, and the reformers jumped on it, that two popes issued two opposed versions in rapid succession. (Obviously not understanding Papal Infallibility, but most Catholics probably didn’t either back then - look at Saint Sir Thomas More himself, going to the pyre for a doctrine he doubted.)

 

[patrick457]

The modern one (Challoner) is a damn literal rendering of the Clementine Vulgate, at least from my reading of one side-by-side with the other. I’ve never laid eyes on an actual, original D-R. If I had to wager a guess, Challoner, when borrowing partially from the KJV, also took pains to conform it to the Clementine, as the aforementioned “most perfect Latin editions”. And the OT was probably based on the Clementine from the get-go.

I’ve never had the pleasure of seeing a Sistine Vulgate, but, from what I’ve read in textual histories and various books upon the subject, it was quite bad, and the reformers jumped on it, that two popes issued two opposed versions in rapid succession. (Obviously not understanding Papal Infallibility, but most Catholics probably didn’t either back then - look at Saint Sir Thomas More himself, going to the pyre for a doctrine he doubted.)

You can find it on the Internet, actually, if you knew where to look: the Wikipedia article on the Reims-Douai links to online facsimiles of the original and at least one or two sites which sells hard copy editions of it.

As for the Clementine, it seems that it also leaves much to be desired, textually speaking (albeit probably not as bad as the Sistine). Trent expressed the objective of producing an authoritative, ‘authentic’ edition of the Vulgate purged of centuries of errors as possible, but in practice the versions published immediately post-Trent fell short of the ideal: the Sixtine was rushed to the press to meet popular demand, and the Clementine was rushed to remedy the controversy the Sixtine has caused.

The conciliar dream of producing a purified standard text seems to have been frustrated by lack of time and adequate resources as well as some improper use of available material: although good early manuscripts such as Codex Amiatinus were consulted, they apparently made little impression on the editors.

 

[Khalid]

Would you mind enumerating a short list, including say, five, of the most egregious errors in the Clementine? (If I may give guidelines, enumerate them in Latin and in the original Greek of the text you believe is accurate - probably NA27 - alongside the Majority/Byzantine text. If they’re in the OT, you can try to guide me through them, or use LXX, as I can’t read Hebrew.) I’ve read it essentially cover-to-cover and haven’t noticed any that I’d call major errors, although I’ve not studied it in detail, and, the Lord knows, on a read-through, an entire chapter could be missing and the reader wouldn’t notice most of the time.

Note that I consider the “extra” verses in the New Testament to be correct, and not additions of glosses, but the modern texts to be eliminations of legitimate inspired text. The only exceptions to this are in the Comma Johanneum, which I believe is possibly an addition, the Pericope Adulterae, which I believe is almost certainly an addition, but one which goes back to what is called an “authentic Jesus-tradition”, and “forgive them father” (same, addition of authentic Jesus tradition not in the earliest texts), and the angel stirring the waters of the pool (an apostolic addition of some sort to explain the Jewish custom in what would otherwise be a nonsensical passage - without the angel stirring the waters, why does the cripple want to be thrown in to them so badly?).

Some of those “additions of authentic tradition not in the earliest texts” are probably missing from the Alexandrian texts alone, which are the sole exemplars of “the earliest texts” we have, which probably survived so long because the Church refused to use them and threw them out in to the desert, for us unsuspecting fools to find 1500 years later. Used books are eventually worn out. Unused books buried in the desert last forever. There’s some hyperbole in there, but much truth.

 

[patrick457]

Would you mind enumerating a short list, including say, five, of the most egregious errors in the Clementine? (If I may give guidelines, enumerate them in Latin and in the original Greek of the text you believe is accurate - probably NA27 - alongside the Majority/Byzantine text. If they’re in the OT, you can try to guide me through them, or use LXX, as I can’t read Hebrew.) I’ve read it essentially cover-to-cover and haven’t noticed any that I’d call major errors, although I’ve not studied it in detail, and, the Lord knows, on a read-through, an entire chapter could be missing and the reader wouldn’t notice most of the time.

Note that I consider the “extra” verses in the New Testament to be correct, and not additions of glosses, but the modern texts to be eliminations of legitimate inspired text. The only exceptions to this are in the Comma Johanneum, which I believe is possibly an addition, the Pericope Adulterae, which I believe is almost certainly an addition, but one which goes back to what is called an “authentic Jesus-tradition”, and “forgive them father” (same, addition of authentic Jesus tradition not in the earliest texts), and the angel stirring the waters of the pool (an apostolic addition of some sort to explain the Jewish custom in what would otherwise be a nonsensical passage - without the angel stirring the waters, why does the cripple want to be thrown in to them so badly?).

Some of those “additions of authentic tradition not in the earliest texts” are probably missing from the Alexandrian texts alone, which are the sole exemplars of “the earliest texts” we have, which probably survived so long because the Church refused to use them and threw them out in to the desert, for us unsuspecting fools to find 1500 years later. Used books are eventually worn out. Unused books buried in the desert last forever. There’s some hyperbole in there, but much truth.

I really like this sort of question since it makes me do research and . You folks should ask me more stuff like this, really.

Care to wait for a year? Nah, just joking, but you will have to wait a bit.

For the moment I will answer what I could answer: I do not believe that any one text-type of the NT (or the OT for that matter) is more ‘accurate’ over the other. On the contrary, the trend which I see in history is that you have at first a huge diversity, a multiplicity of versions, out of which a single version is singled out as the standard. Diversity is literally the root of Scriptural traditions. So yeah, I think all those ‘Masoretic vs. Septuagint’ or ‘Byzantine vs. Alexandrian’ debates are (to be frank) pointless, stupid even.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

What would a fully corrected Douay Rheims look like?

How many glaring errors would HAVE to be changed?

I’ve always thought that if you could correct the NASB in a Catholic edition that that would be a pretty good bible–though I’m sure the foundation that owns the copyright to the NASB
would never stand for it.

How would a corrected Douay Rheims Challoner vary from a translation of the Nova Vulgata? Which would be better and why?

I think BOTH a corrected Douay Rheims Challoner and an English translation of the Nova Vulgata would be better than the modern translations we now have.

The Latin translations isn’t perfect in every detail but i DO BELIEVE that it is more DOCTRINALLY accurate than all the modern translations we now have.

And Haydock’s notes aren’t perfect either but they’re better than the historico-critical modernist notes we have in modern translations written by people who in their heart of hearts don’t really believe in the miracles of the bible or that the Holy Spirit actually DID inspire human authors to write the scriptures!

 

[patrick457]

Before I go on:

The only exceptions to this are in the Comma Johanneum, which I believe is possibly an addition,

The Comma has a bit of an interesting history. As you probably know it is not found in all the other versions; in fact, the earliest Vulgate manuscripts (Amiatinus and Fuldensis) do not have it. Now many of the early manuscripts which do contain the Comma contain a prologue supposedly written by St. Jerome which accuses unfaithful translators of leaving it out on purpose. Curiously, Codex Fuldensis has this prologue, but the main text, written by the same scribe, actually omits the Comma itself. (!) It is in the so-called Spanish text-type of the Vulgate that we can see the Comma being included from as early as the 7th-8th century. (We’ve once talked about it in another thread.)

the Pericope Adulterae, which I believe is almost certainly an addition, but one which goes back to what is called an “authentic Jesus-tradition”, and “forgive them father” (same, addition of authentic Jesus tradition not in the earliest texts),

Exactly.

and the angel stirring the waters of the pool (an apostolic addition of some sort to explain the Jewish custom in what would otherwise be a nonsensical passage - without the angel stirring the waters, why does the cripple want to be thrown in to them so badly?).

As an aside, this is how the Pool of Bethesda operated from a natural POV.

In digs conducted in the 19th century, a large tank situated about 100 feet north-west of St. Anne’s Church was discovered, which was identified as the Pool of Bethesda. Further archaeological excavation in the area, in 1964, discovered the remains of churches built during the Byzantine and Crusader periods, as well as a temple to Asclepius and Serapis built during Hadrian’s remodelling of Jerusalem as Aelia Capitolina, the small healing pools of the asclepieion, the other of the two large pools, and the dam between them. It was discovered that the Byzantine construction was built in the very heart of Hadrian’s construction, and contained the healing pools.

There were two large basins: the northern pool, measuring 53 x 40 meters, which served as a reservoir (otṣar) for collected rainwater, and the southern pool (47 x 52 meters) which served as the ritual pool (miqveh). The two pools would have been surrounded by porticos on all four sides, with an additional portico extending across the massive 6-meter barrier wall separating the two basins (cf. John 5:2 “Now there is in Jerusalem by the sheep gate a pool, which is called in Hebrew Bethesda, having five porticoes”). This wall was partly hewn into the rock and partly built of alternating courses of well-dressed header-and-stretcher ashlars with smoothed exteriors.

A flight of steps facilitated access down to the very base of the pool, depending on the amount of water available there for bathing. These extended down along the entire western side of the southern pool (53 meters in length), with sets of steps in groups of one to six extending between landings. The landings at different intervals would have been used for the placing of the beds of disabled people.

Within the massive barrier wall was a vertical shaft which led to a horizontal tunnel with a sluice gate at the bottom, which meant that the water of the otṣar to the north could easily have come into contact with with the water of the miqveh to the south by simply lifting the sluice gate. Further on, at the lower level of the tunnel, there was a covered trough in which more than 1 cubic meter of valid water could have ‘mingled’ with the added water, before then rising and replenishing the waters of the southern pool. A sluice gate was opened at the far end of this trough when necessary, which then, in turn, led to a covered channel that helped drain surplus water away to the south.

It is thought that the pool would have bubbled and frothed when the water was drained into the southern pool, which was what John was describing when the waters were “stirred up.” In addition, layers of bright red soil trapped between geological layers, seen within the lower part of this area, may have contributed to the picture provided by early Christian writers such as Eusebius and Eucherius regarding the color of the stirred-up waters (Eusebius describes it as “of a ruddy color,” while Eucherius calls it “reddish”).

 

[patrick457]

Not exactly an ‘egregious’ error, and not exactly limited to the Clementine (perhaps not even an ‘error’ at all), but here’s a nice variant.

Cumque transissent quadraginta dies, aperiens Noë fenestram arcæ, quam fecerat, dimisit corvum, qui egrediebatur, et non revertebatur, donec siccarentur aquæ super terram.

(Challoner) And after that forty days were passed, Noe, opening the window of the ark which he had made, sent forth a raven: which went forth and did not return, till the waters were dried up upon the earth.

The manuscript tradition is divided as to whether the negative non is included: some include it in agreement with the Septuagint (καὶ ἐξελθὼν οὐχ ὑπέστρεψεν “and after it had gone out it did not return”), while others, including three early manuscripts (Amiatinus, Ottobonianus, Turonensis, all from the period between the 6th-8th centuries) omit it in accordance with the Hebrew (וַיֵּצֵ֤א יָצוֹא֙ וָשׁ֔וֹב, wayyēṣē’ yāṣwō’ wāšwōḇ “and it went out, going out and returning”). FTR this is how the passage (and the relevant phrase) appears in the Nova Vulgata:

Cumque transissent quadraginta dies, aperiens Noe fenestram arcae, quam fecerat, dimisit corvum; qui egrediebatur exiens et rediens, donec siccarentur aquae super terram.

 

[patrick457]

Some of those “additions of authentic tradition not in the earliest texts” are probably missing from the Alexandrian texts alone, which are the sole exemplars of “the earliest texts” we have, which probably survived so long because the Church refused to use them and threw them out in to the desert, for us unsuspecting fools to find 1500 years later. Used books are eventually worn out. Unused books buried in the desert last forever. There’s some hyperbole in there, but much truth.

You do realize that the Coptic versions were translated out of the Alexandrian text (the Old Latin translations and Syriac versions other than the Peshitta, meanwhile, conform more to the Western text), and that the Scriptural quotations of Fathers like Origen, Athanasius, Didymus the Blind, and Cyril (who are all, not surprisingly, natives of Alexandria) tend to agree with this version, don’t you?

Personally, I think it’s more likely that different respective text-types were first used specifically (but not exclusively) in given areas, but that the Byzantine text spread as the Byzantine Church and Empire gained influence throughout the East, supplanting any different textual versions that were once used in those areas.

 

[patrick457]

Another nice minor variant I’ve encountered.

Et cum non invenissent eos, trahebant Jasonem et quosdam fratres ad principes civitatis, clamantes: Quoniam hi qui urbem concitant, et huc venerunt, quos suscepit Jason, et hi omnes contra decreta Cæsaris faciunt, regem alium dicentes esse, Jesum.

And not finding them, they drew Jason and certain brethren to the rulers of the city, crying: They that set the city in an uproar, are come hither also; whom Jason hath received; and these all do contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, Jesus.

(Acts 17:6-7, Clementine / Challoner)

This is a case of an error by misspelling: the original reading has orbem, which conforms with the Greek (τὴν οἰκουμένην tēn oikoumenēn), which later got misspelled as urbem. We can already see this gaffe in the Gutenberg Bible. (Curiously, Wycliffe’s translation from the Latin has: “That these it ben, that mouen the world”!) The Stuttgart critical edition (the version from which the text you could find in many sites on the web are copied from), meanwhile, gives the correct reading - quoniam hii qui orbem concitant et huc venerunt - and so also the Nova Vulgata:

Et cum non invenissent eos, trahebant Iasonem et quosdam fratres ad politarchas clamantes: “Qui orbem concitaverunt, isti et huc venerunt, quos suscepit Iason; et hi omnes contra decreta Caesaris faciunt, regem alium dicentes esse, Iesum”.

 

[patrick457]

Since you’ve talked about the Johannine comma, let’s do a little comparison between different texts of the same passage (1 John 5:6-12).

Amiatinus

Hic est qui venit per aquam et sanguinem, Iesus Christus: non in aqua solum, sed in aqua et sanguine: et spiritus est qui testificatur quoniam Christus est veritas. Quia tres sunt qui testimonium dant, spiritus, et aqua, et sanguis, et tres unum sunt. Si testimonium hominum accipimus, testimonium dei maius est: quoniam hoc est testimonium dei, quod maius est, quia testificatus est de filio suo. Qui credit in filio dei, habet testimonium dei in se: qui non credit [corr. add.: *filio], mendacem facit eum, quoniam non credidit [corr. = *credit] in testimonio quod testificatus est deus de filio suo. Et hoc est testimonium, quoniam vitam aeternam dedit nobis deus, et hæc vita in filio ejus. Qui habet filium, habet vitam: qui non habet filium [corr. add.: *dei], vitam non habet.

===

Gutenberg

Hic e(st) q(ui) venit p(er) aquam & sanguinem Ihesus Christus. No in aqua solu(m): sed in aqua & sanguine. Et spiritus e(st) qui testificat(ur): q(uon)i(am) crist(us) e(st) veritas. Quonia(m) tres sut q(ui) testimoniu(m) dat in celo· pater· verbu(m)· et spirit(us) sanctus: & hi tres unu(m) sunt. Et tres sut qui testimoniu(m) dat in terra: spirit(us)· aqua· & sanguis: & tres unum sunt. Si testimoniu(m) homi(num) accipim(us): testimoniu(m) dei maius e(st). Quonia(m) hoc e(st) testimoniu(m) dei q(uo)d maius e(st): qu(on)i(am) testificat(us) e(st) de filio suo. Qui credit in filiu(m) dei, habet testimoniu(m) dei in se. Qui no credit filio medace(m) facit eu(m): q(ui)a no credit i testimoniu(m) q(uo)d testificat(us) e(st) deus de filio suo. Et hoc e(st) testimoniu(m): qu(on)i(am) vita(m) eterna(m) dedit nobis deus: & hec vita in filio ei(us) e(st). Qui habet filiu(m) habet vita(m): q(ui) no habet filium dei, vita(m) no habet.

===

Clementine

Hic est, qui venit per aquam et sanguinem, Jesus Christus: non in aqua solum, sed in aqua et sanguine. Et Spiritus est, qui testificatur quoniam Christus est veritas. Quoniam tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in cælo: Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus: et hi tres unum sunt. Et tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in terra: spiritus, et aqua, et sanguis: et hi tres unum sunt. Si testimonium hominum accipimus, testimonium Dei majus est: quoniam hoc est testimonium Dei, quod majus est, quoniam testificatus est de Filio suo. Qui credit in Filium Dei, habet testimonium Dei in se. Qui non credit Filio, mendacem facit eum: quia non credit in testimonium quod testificatus est Deus de Filio suo. Et hoc est testimonium, quoniam vitam æternam dedit nobis Deus: et hæc vita in Filio ejus est. Qui habet Filium, habet vitam: qui non habet Filium, vitam non habet.

===

Nova Vulgata

Hic est, qui venit per aquam et sanguinem, Iesus Christus; non in aqua solum sed in aqua et in sanguine. Et Spiritus est, qui testificatur, quoniam Spiritus est veritas. Quia tres sunt, qui testificantur: Spiritus et aqua et sanguis; et hi tres in unum sunt. Si testimonium hominum accipimus, testimonium Dei maius est, quoniam hoc est testimonium Dei, quia testificatus est de Filio suo. Qui credit in Filium Dei, habet testimonium in se. Qui non credit Deo, mendacem facit eum, quoniam non credidit in testimonium, quod testificatus est Deus de Filio suo. Et hoc est testimonium, quoniam vitam aeternam dedit nobis Deus, et haec vita in Filio eius est. Qui habet Filium, habet vitam; qui non habet Filium Dei, vitam non habet.

 

[johnbres2]

D-R has many phrasings that sound awkward to the modern palette, even compared to the KJV. Psalm 119 is a HUGE example. The D-R has “I will keep thy justifications” (118:8 and throughout) versus the KJV’s far more clear: “I will keep thy statutes.”