B
Bengoshi
Guest
Hi there! Maybe you’d like to check out the new ESV Study Bible. I bought one last year and it’s good as it has A LOT of features! It would be a great addition to your collection!
- Status
T
Transformer
Guest
It’s not an argument that convinces mainline scholars. St. Jerome may well have had some Greek and Hebrew manuscripts that we don’t–maybe even some manuscript traditions that are no longer extant–but he did not have the breadth of manuscripts we have: thousands and thousands of fragments.
What’s more, how old were the copies of Jerome’s Vulgate used to translate the D-R? If the oldest copies of the Vulgate used for the D-R postdate Jerome’s original work by as much time as our oldest Greek manuscripts postdate the original completed books of the NT, then we can assume as a baseline that those copies of the Vulgate were no less corrupt in Latin than our Greek manuscripts are in Greek!
Now as for the argument that the D-R is great because the Vulgate has been corrected against the Greek and Hebrew, there are several problems. First, how extensively was it changed to fit the Greek and Hebrew? When there was a direct conflict between the best Latin tradition and the best Greek tradition, which was followed? If the Latin was followed, then it wasn’t really corrected against the original languages, was it? If the Greek was followed, then what is the point of a translation from the Latin in the first place?
Third, at what stage did this alteration happen? The Clementine Vulgate? At what stage thereof? If the Vulgate was corrected against, say, 7th century Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, then 11th century manuscripts, and then 15th century manuscripts, doesn’t that invalidate the first argument above, that the D-R is superior because it’s based on really old manuscripts no longer extant?
No; the D-R is a translation of a translation that predates (and so, does not benefit from) modern scholarship. As a translation, it is inferior to the best 20th century translations from the original languages.
Honestly, I detect in defenders of the D-R as the best translation available a certain prejudice. A prejudice for Latin over Greek, a prejudice for older things (older is not a synonym for traditional) over newer, a prejudice against the modern Scripture scholarship in which the Catholic Church now gladly participates. A personal love for the D-R is, of course, great. It is an important and admirable part of the history of English Bible translation, excellent relative to its time. But arguments that it is the best translation are not evidence-based.
The most common fallacy that defenders of the D-R as the best translation commit is setting up false comparisons. They will often compare Jerome’s original Vulgate to modern English translations. That’s a doubly false comparison. The valid comparisons are (1) between Jerome’s original Vulgate and the original text of the Biblical books, (2) between the manuscripts of the Vulgate used for the D-R and the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts used for 20th century English translations, and (3) between the D-R itself and the contemporary English translation itself.
Also, Jimmy Akin says that the Latin Vulgate is not the official translation of the Latin Church.
R
Ron_Conte
Guest
The Latin Scriptural tradition began in the early Church, long before Jerome. Many persons translated various books of the Bible into Latin, using many different early manuscripts none of which is entirely extant at this point in time. We have thousands of fragments. They had whole manuscripts. They had many different translations into Latin from Greek and Hebrew, based on many manuscripts. Jerome’s first task was to arbitrate between the very many existing Latin editions.
Oldest is not necessarily best. The Latin texts have the advantage of hundreds of years of use in liturgy, commentary, magisterial documents, private study and devotion. A very old but little used Greek manuscript lacks that advantage. The useage by the Living Tradition preserves the text free from moral and doctrinal corruption, as Trent taught.
Each of the Scriptural traditions in the Church has a place and a role, and each informs the other, so that all are improved. The overly simplistic idea that the original language is best is not true. Also, the translation norms of the Church still say that on disputed points, the Latin is normative.
M
Mattjolley
Guest
I wouldn’t put much trust in the ‘Which Bible Should You Read?’ Pamphlet.
Yes it reads well, but at the end of the day it’s just a Douay Rheims advertisement. Every sales pitch out there makes the advertised product sound like the best thing going. Truth is, the DR is just as flawed as any other translation, but the author of the booklet just blindly ignores the minus points of the D-R and highlights the flaws found in others. Arguably the Douay-Rheims-Challoner should have fallen into obscurity since Divino Afflante Spiritu.
Now don’t get me wrong, I own several copies of the D-R and I do have a soft spot for it, but its not my ‘go-to’ bible. It’s generally accepted that it has many weaknesses and flaws as a translation, particularly in light of modern scholarship.
Yes, every bible has its ‘problems’, particularly when it comes to how certain passages are rendered. Yet all that should really matter most is that whatever translation you read helps you in furthering your understanding of scripture and the faith. People need not be influenced by the opinions of others, if it has an Imprimatur then it’s approved and you’re free to read it, no matter what any pamphlet author says to the contrary.
Yes it reads well, but at the end of the day it’s just a Douay Rheims advertisement. Every sales pitch out there makes the advertised product sound like the best thing going. Truth is, the DR is just as flawed as any other translation, but the author of the booklet just blindly ignores the minus points of the D-R and highlights the flaws found in others. Arguably the Douay-Rheims-Challoner should have fallen into obscurity since Divino Afflante Spiritu.
Now don’t get me wrong, I own several copies of the D-R and I do have a soft spot for it, but its not my ‘go-to’ bible. It’s generally accepted that it has many weaknesses and flaws as a translation, particularly in light of modern scholarship.
Yes, every bible has its ‘problems’, particularly when it comes to how certain passages are rendered. Yet all that should really matter most is that whatever translation you read helps you in furthering your understanding of scripture and the faith. People need not be influenced by the opinions of others, if it has an Imprimatur then it’s approved and you’re free to read it, no matter what any pamphlet author says to the contrary.
E
eccehomo
Guest
Words mean a great deal. for instance, take the commandment “Thou shalt not kill”, and find that in the Greek, it reads “Thou shalt not murder” as it does in the Hebrew. Is there a difference between killing and murder? My point is that I would prefer to get as close to the original as possible, and will suffer a bit of archain (spelling?) language - The Challoner DR is comfortable to read, if you like words and are not in a hurry.
G
ghman101
Guest
I also studied which Bible to read and the DR is the best for me! Some of the more current translations that Protestants are coming out with are literally something you should use for fire-starter! They lack the meaning.
And don’t forget, there is definitely something in the Bible Codes, beyond just what we are reading. My bet is the Holy Spirit has blessed us with computers to unlock the Holy Word, as it has SO much more for us in past, present and future predictions, all on the same pages we read…amazing to say the least!
Lastly, let us all take our Holy Bible’s with us to Mass, to read, study & underline, so that we get the most we can out of it. Why wouldn’t we want to have the Word with us almost at all times?!? and as an example to others.
Praise Him, gh
And don’t forget, there is definitely something in the Bible Codes, beyond just what we are reading. My bet is the Holy Spirit has blessed us with computers to unlock the Holy Word, as it has SO much more for us in past, present and future predictions, all on the same pages we read…amazing to say the least!
Lastly, let us all take our Holy Bible’s with us to Mass, to read, study & underline, so that we get the most we can out of it. Why wouldn’t we want to have the Word with us almost at all times?!? and as an example to others.
Praise Him, gh
T
Transformer
Guest
Ron–
The best translation, especially for study, is the one that best reflects the original texts at the time of their completion and their becoming normative for the community (when they reached their final stage and became canon). Having “hundreds of years of use in liturgy, commentary, magisterial documents, private study and devotion” is only tangentially related to the central issue. The point is to translate the inspired texts. The inspired texts are the originals, in the original language. If a given verse in 1 Thessalonians said one thing at the time of its completion and becoming normative for the community and canonical in the first century, but an altered version of it from the early 2nd century was used extensively in the East and West, in Greek and Latin, for the next 1900 years, and was even declared (correctly!) free from doctrinal and moral error, the earlier original is still what translations should try to approximate.
Even if I do accept as superior whichever text has “hundreds of years of use in liturgy, commentary, magisterial documents, private study and devotion,” does not the Greek have more years of use in the living Church than the Latin, taking into account the East as well as the West?
The Latin we have does not approximate the original inspired books as closely as the original language texts we have. That’s the whole issue.
The best translation, especially for study, is the one that best reflects the original texts at the time of their completion and their becoming normative for the community (when they reached their final stage and became canon). Having “hundreds of years of use in liturgy, commentary, magisterial documents, private study and devotion” is only tangentially related to the central issue. The point is to translate the inspired texts. The inspired texts are the originals, in the original language. If a given verse in 1 Thessalonians said one thing at the time of its completion and becoming normative for the community and canonical in the first century, but an altered version of it from the early 2nd century was used extensively in the East and West, in Greek and Latin, for the next 1900 years, and was even declared (correctly!) free from doctrinal and moral error, the earlier original is still what translations should try to approximate.
Even if I do accept as superior whichever text has “hundreds of years of use in liturgy, commentary, magisterial documents, private study and devotion,” does not the Greek have more years of use in the living Church than the Latin, taking into account the East as well as the West?
Of course each of the Scriptural traditions in the Church (including the Latin) has had a place and a role, and of course the Latin and original language traditions have informed one another positively. But that isn’t the issue under question here. The issue under question here is whether a particular translation of a translation is better than a translation from original language texts that are just as well preserved (relative to the original inspired texts) as our Latin texts are (relative to Jerome’s original Vulgate and the Old Latin translations before it). It isn’t. That a translation of a translation is worse than a direct translation is axiomatic; there is nothing unique to the Bible that changes the axiom.
The Latin we have does not approximate the original inspired books as closely as the original language texts we have. That’s the whole issue.
I would like to read this for myself, if possible, and see it clarified. If every original language text we have says one thing and the Latin says another, and the most likely contingency is that there was an error in the Latin tradition at some point, are we still required to presume the Latin right? What if the original language witness is overwhelmingly (but not completely) against the Latin? Or is the Latin only normative on doctrinal disputes tangentially related to textual issues, and not directly on deciding what the original text actually said?
W
WmB
Guest
I have several different bible translations, as does everyone else in this thread. The one I rely on for accuracy is the Douay-Rheims & Clementina Vulgata [side-by-side] from Baronius Press. Since Latin is my second language, it’s easy for me to read that side of the book if I want to be sure I understand what is being said (love the sound of the archaic English, but it’s easy to misunderstand). In general, the Challoner D-R gets it “right” when compared to the Vulgate and to the other translations. (I don’t have anything against Greek and Hebrew, I just never learned those languages and it’s not worth it to me, at this late point in my life, to take them up. I just trust that St. Jerome knew what he was doing.)
For everyday reading, though, I like the RSV-CE. And I have a copy of the Ignatius New Testament on order (looking forward to June!).
For everyday reading, though, I like the RSV-CE. And I have a copy of the Ignatius New Testament on order (looking forward to June!).
C
crazzeto
Guest
For me it is very much the best bible to read, the formality and “highness” of the language really serves to put me in a prayerful mode. Typically when I read from the Douay bible I will slow down and really pay attention, more over it just moves me in ways other translations can’t.
That said, this is not going to be universally true. Just find the bible that works best for you as your primary reading bible. For study I would suggest scrapping any idea of sticking exclusivly to a single translation, rather I would suggest getting access to as many translations as you can. I typically read (when studying) each chapter twice, once in a different translation (right now the Gosple of John in DR / NAB). You’ll find the differences in translation will really help you get more meaning out of what you’re reading.
That said, this is not going to be universally true. Just find the bible that works best for you as your primary reading bible. For study I would suggest scrapping any idea of sticking exclusivly to a single translation, rather I would suggest getting access to as many translations as you can. I typically read (when studying) each chapter twice, once in a different translation (right now the Gosple of John in DR / NAB). You’ll find the differences in translation will really help you get more meaning out of what you’re reading.
K
KEVIN_WILCOX
Guest
Swampboy, I see you’re a Catholic. Dispense with reading the Bible, it can lead you astray into misinterpretation and mistaken translation. One reason why the Scriptures were not open to the reading by laity. Instead concentrate on reading Catholic Theology. The Orthodox Church had no Bible as such, their Scripture was scattered throughout the Liturgy and writings of the Church Fathers. They now have a New Testament (the collection of Gospel and Apostolic letters) with commentary by the Church Fathers.
The value of DR or Haydock is the commentary.
The value of DR or Haydock is the commentary.
B
Bengoshi
Guest
Oh my goodness! I can’t believe you just told him not to read his Bible anymore!
Everyone should read the Bible and know what God Himself teaches us in His Word! Luke even commended the Bereans in Acts 17:11 when they checked the Scriptures to see if what St. Paul was teaching is true and correct. All Catholics should read the Bible themselves. A lot of people who translated the Bible to their own language were martyred (burned at the stake among others) during the middle ages. They just wanted to let the Truth be known. All true Christians have the Holy Spirit to guide them in their search for Truth. Jesus called the HS our Counselor, Helper, or Advocate and will teach us all things. In addition to that, there are good books on hermeneutics which you can buy for guidance such as “How to Read the Bible For All Its Worth” by Gordon Fee, “Living By the Book” by Howard Hendricks, etc. Commentaries are good but only after you’ve already done your own reflection of the passage. Not to read the Bible is the worst possible advice anyone can give! 
S
swampboy
Guest
Don’t worry…as an ex-Baptist I would never put down the Bible!!Oh my goodness! I can’t believe you just told him not to read his Bible anymore!
It’s just that I can not find a decent Catholic Bible that has all of the features of some of my Protestant versions. I have determined that I need several different ones to accomplish the same thing that one of my others did. I have been looking at the ESV study bible…it looks decent, as do many of the other ESVs. Unfortunately all of the ESVs but one are missing 7 books in the OT…and the one that includes the “apocrypha” has no cross references. But I do like the translation in general…only a few verses that bug me, but no more than say the Jerusalem bible.
S
swampboy
Guest
If modern scholarship and access to more recently dioscovered texts are superior to the Vulgate that was based on fewer, older transcripts, wouldn’t a translation such as the NRSV ,which is supposed to represent the pinnacle of modern scholarship, be the best one to use?
K
KEVIN_WILCOX
Guest
The best translation of the Bible is Catholic theology. Lacking a competent commentary upon the Text one risks getting lost in one’s own understanding, i.e.“re-inventing the wheel.”
Swampboy, you are a Catholic, take pride in your Catholic heritage.
Swampboy, you are a Catholic, take pride in your Catholic heritage.
C
crazzeto
Guest
Kevin, I’m not sure where you’re getting what you’re writing here but this is false information.
B
Bengoshi
Guest
That’s good!Don’t worry…as an ex-Baptist I would never put down the Bible!!
I was just so shocked at Kevin’s advice. It’s just like the middle ages all over again with him. “Accept the magisterium’s teachings with docility, no need to read the word of God yourself!” 
K
KEVIN_WILCOX
Guest
S
swampboy
Guest
Well, I am Catholic…but the Church promotes and encourages private reading of the Bible, but not private interpretation–Scripture isto be read in light of Church teachings/Tradition, as noted below:
- Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence. (Dei Verbum)
K
KEVIN_WILCOX
Guest
Begoshi,That’s good!
Name of forum: “Catholic Answers Forum”
Are you intending this become a diatribe on Sola Scriptura?
K
KEVIN_WILCOX
Guest
To comprehend Scripture one needs at least the knowledge of 15 languages (including dialects), and knowledge of many cultural histories: Catholics have The Pontifical Biblical Commission, founded in 1902.
The doctrine of *sola scriptura *, that the Bible is to be understood by private interpretation implies that all truths necessary for salvation are found in the Bible and that everyone can and ought to grasp those truths for himself by reading the Bible. For many reasons, both implications are false. The Church is infallible in all her teachings.
- Status