Jerusalem Bible

[Joel_Tunnah]

It keeps being mentioned that wind, breath, and spirit are all valid translations of the word. I understand that. But what I do not understand, and what no one has yet explained is why, when presented with the choices wind, breath, or spirit - all equally valid - a catholic translation would choose wind?

One thing that sets apart Catholicism from protestants is the body of knowledge and tradition, spanning 2000 years, that is the Church. The Church believed, and St Jerome translated that the Spirit of God moved over the waters. What is the compelling reason to change that? Making the OT more “authentic”? More Jewish? Last time I checked, the Septuagint that Jerome used was a Jewish translation from 250BC. Even they used the word Spirit. The Masoretic Text preferred by liberals is from 700 AD, and is known to contain changes to the messianic prophecies.

This seems so obviously a problem to me, but obviously not to most of you here. I’ll gladly drop it now, but I just had to mention that again.

 

[mccorm45]

One thing that sets apart Catholicism from protestants is the body of knowledge and tradition, spanning 2000 years, that is the Church. The Church believed, and St Jerome translated that the Spirit of God moved over the waters. What is the compelling reason to change that? Making the OT more “authentic”? More Jewish? Last time I checked, the Septuagint that Jerome used was a Jewish translation from 250BC. Even they used the word Spirit. The Masoretic Text preferred by liberals is from 700 AD, and is known to contain changes to the messianic prophecies.

I am pretty sure that Jerome did not translate the OT into Latin from the LXX but from the Hebrew. He only refered to the LXX, and used it directly when translating parts of the Deuterocanonical books like Esther.

 

[demerzel85]

I am pretty sure that Jerome did not translate the OT into Latin from the LXX but from the Hebrew. He only refered to the LXX, and used it directly when translating parts of the Deuterocanonical books like Esther.

But he did not use the Masoretic Text either. Since St Jerome was using OT manuscripts that were already ancient in his time and they have since been lost, modern day scholars pale in comparison to him.

 

[mccorm45]

But he did not use the Masoretic Text either. Since St Jerome was using OT manuscripts that were already ancient in his time and they have since been lost, modern day scholars pale in comparison to him.

I love St. Jerome…but I am not sure I can agree with that statement. I think we oftentimes get too negative an image of Biblical scholarship, just because of the publicity of the wackos like the Jesus Seminar. But to be fair and honest, we do have the Dead Sea Scrolls and many manuscripts, both in Greek and Hebrew, from which to work with which are very ancient. We also have a greater understanding of many Greek and Hebrew words. Again, this is not to diminish the work of St. Jerome, however, I think it is unwise to just lump all current Biblical Scholars as being liberals or useless just because the wierd ones get all the press. We must balance that view with the scholarship of people like Ben F. Meyer, NT Wright, and Scott Hahn.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

The Masoretic text isn’t accurate and shouldn’rt be valued at all period.

 

[mccorm45]

The Masoretic text isn’t accurate and shouldn’rt be valued at all period.

OK? That is kind of a blanket statement that seems to me to be a bit over-the-top. Perhaps I will add a few of my own. I am sure that you would then say that almost all of the people in the world who do Biblical studies, both Catholic and Protestant/liberal and orthodox, are simply fools since they refer to the Masoretic OT. That would mean that Pope Benedict, or the pre-2005 biblical scholar/theologian Joseph Ratzinger, waisted the last 50 years of his academic life because he probably relied on the Masoretic OT.

The fact remains that most translations, while using the Masoretic as a base, will use a composite of different texts, including the LXX, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Targums, and even the Vulgate when making decisions on translating. If you look at the notes and alternative renderings that many modern Bibles provide, they clearly compare many different versions.

I just don’t think you can say that the Masoretic has no value. Clearly it does, particularly in conjunction with other OT texts.

 

[demerzel85]

But to be fair and honest, we do have the Dead Sea Scrolls and many manuscripts, both in Greek and Hebrew, from which to work with which are very ancient. We also have a greater understanding of many Greek and Hebrew words. Again, this is not to diminish the work of St. Jerome, however, I think it is unwise to just lump all current Biblical Scholars as being liberals or useless just because the wierd ones get all the press. We must balance that view with the scholarship of people like Ben F. Meyer, NT Wright, and Scott Hahn.

But they have not used the Dead Sea Scrolls widely. And greater understanding of the words is one thing, fluency and working knowledge is quite another.

 

[demerzel85]

That would mean that Pope Benedict, or the pre-2005 biblical scholar/theologian Joseph Ratzinger, waisted the last 50 years of his academic life because he probably relied on the Masoretic OT.

In Jesus of Nazareth by Papa Ratzi, he has been using Greek in his explanations of various aspects.

 

[mccorm45]

1. To respond to the question about the Dead Sea Scrolls. The whole point is to use them in conjuction with other texts, like the LXX, Masoretic, Vulgate, and others in order to find the best, most accurate text. So, they certainly wouldn’t use the entire Dead Sea Scrolls in a translation.

In regards to the understanding of Greek/Hebrew words, I think most people would feel confident in saying that because we currently have a better understanding of these etymologies, we do have better working knowledge of them. I will refer you to what Jimmy Akin wrote in This Rock magazine in February of 2002:

"Jerome did have manuscripts that we don’t have today—but this is misleading. He also lacked manuscripts that we do have, and he lacked the critical apparatus we have for sorting through textual variants.

One scholar, however brilliant, working in an age when textual criticism was still embryonic, was not as good as today’s community of scholars who are able to critically cross-examine each other’s work in an age in which the rules of textual criticism have been worked out much better. Further, no matter how many manuscripts Jerome had access to, it was not the thousands used by biblical scholars today.

Ronald Knox puts the manuscript point wryly when he writes, “You cannot, I think, be tied down to the statement that Saul was one year old when he came to the throne, merely because that is the construction which the Vulgate has put on an obviously defective Hebrew original” (Trials of a Translator, 29)."

1. In regards to what Pope Benedict used in his book, he certainly used the Greek New Testament, since he is fluent in Koine Greek, but he again would have used all the applicable manuscripts of the OT.

 

[Joel_Tunnah]

One scholar, however brilliant, working in an age when textual criticism was still embryonic, was not as good as today’s community of scholars who are able to critically cross-examine each other’s work in an age in which the rules of textual criticism have been worked out much better.

Add this to the list of hundreds of unsubstantiated claims made in support of, and by, modern textual criticism. Newer is always better? No.

Further, no matter how many manuscripts Jerome had access to, it was not the thousands used by biblical scholars today.

Of those thousands, how many had doctrinal or theological differences with the manuscripts Jerome had access to? Now of the modern translations done under the premise of textual criticism, how many have doctrinal or theological differences from the Vulgate. If you said “all of them”, you are correct.

 

[mccorm45]

Joel,

The problem I have with what you are saying is that it is not consistent with what the Church has been saying for the past 60+ years. Like it or not, the same Church that commissioned the Vulgate also promoted the translation of the Bible from the original languages. The same Church that brought together the Bishops at Trent is the same one that called for the Second Vatican Council. This is this same Church that was led by Pope Pius XII, who wrote Divino Afflante Spiritu. Let me refer, again, to what Jimmy Akin has written about the Vulgate:

"There was a time when the Vulgate could be described as an “official” translation of Scripture for the Latin rite of the Church, but not the whole Church. It also never superseded the original language versions in authority (a point Pius XII made in Divino Afflante Spiritu21). But while the Vulgate in its latest edition—the “Neo-Vulgate” promulgated by John Paul II—has a privileged position based on its use in ecclesiastical documents, the law has changed such that there is no “official” translation of Scripture for the Latin rite.

Ecclesiastical documents have acknowleged that the Vulgate is free of doctrinal and moral error. However, not containing doctrinal and moral error is not the same thing as being a perfect translation. In fact, it isn’t even the same thing as being a good translation. If someone utters the Spanish sentence " La manzana es verde" and I translate that as “The apple is red,” then I have in not committed a moral or theological error, but I have committed a translation error (verde means green, not red). In the same way, as Pius XII pointed out (DAS 20), this does not mean that the Vulgate always reflects accurately what is in the original texts. Sometimes it doesn’t."

Let me conclude by saying that as Catholic’s, we have nothing to fear from accurate translations of the Bible. While sometimes the notes that accompany them leave a lot to be desired, the translations like the NAB, RSV, NJB, JB, and even the NRSV can be trusted by the faithful.

 

[Joel_Tunnah]

…the translations like the NAB, RSV, NJB, JB, and even the NRSV can be trusted by the faithful.

Why should we trust any of those translations when none of them are allowed to be used in the mass?

Also, the Church is not a publishing house. It’s not like the vatican made the NAB, boxed it up and shipped it out.

 

[lak611]

Why should we trust any of those translations when none of them are allowed to be used in the mass?

All except the NJB are used in the Mass in various English-speaking countries.

 

[Joel_Tunnah]

Where is the NAB, RSV, and NRSV used in Mass? Don’t say the United States, because the text you hear in mass is not the text used in printed copies of the NAB at your local bookstore. And there was a specific injunction against the NRSV, due to inclusive language.

 

[mccorm45]

Why should we trust any of those translations when none of them are allowed to be used in the mass?

Well, first of all, the English translation of the Vulgate, the Douay-Rheims, is no longer used at Mass in the English speaking world.

Secondly, the NAB is used for Mass in the United States. As a matter of fact, if you go to the Vatican website and select Bibles in English, which one do you find: vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_INDEX.HTM

Third, the rest of the English speaking world uses primarily the Jerusalem Bible, or in some few places the RSV/NRSV.

 

[mccorm45]

Where is the NAB, RSV, and NRSV used in Mass? Don’t say the United States, because the text you hear in mass is not the text used in printed copies of the NAB at your local bookstore. And there was a specific injunction against the NRSV, due to inclusive language.

Look, the fact remains that the readings for Mass do not come from an English translation from the Vulgate, but is primarily from the NAB. What does it matter what version of the NAB is used, there have been various translations of the Vulgate into English since the Council of Trent. The Douay-Rheims was updated and edited in the 19th century by Bishop Challoner. The New Testament was changed with the Confraternity version in the US, and lets not for get Msgr. Knox’s version which was used at Mass in the UK.

The RSV has been approved for use by the Antilles Bishops conference. The Jerusalem Bible is used most everywhere else.

 

[Manfred]

Where is the NAB, RSV, and NRSV used in Mass? Don’t say the United States, because the text you hear in mass is not the text used in printed copies of the NAB at your local bookstore. And there was a specific injunction against the NRSV, due to inclusive language.

Joel,

The link below shows where the various English-language biblical versions are used in the English-speaking nations of the world today.

usccb.org/liturgy/page1.shtml

Re the NAB in the USA, however: Rome, with good reason, forced the US bishops to correct certain misleading inclusive language renderings, as well as other passages with strong doctrinal implications, before the Revised NAB NT (1986 ed.) would be allowed in the Mass. This is why the NAB you find online and in stores doesn’t always match what’s read at Mass.

As far as the NRSV for lectionary use in the USA, you are correct: Rome shot it down - again, with good reason.

And, if you are familiar with the Vatican document “Liturgiam Authenticam” (2001), you know that Scripture texts used in the Mass must be translated from the original languages, with recourse to the Neo Vulgata.

 

[Manfred]

mccorm45 wrote:

"Look, the fact remains that the readings for Mass do not come from an English translation from the Vulgate, but is primarily from the NAB. What does it matter what version of the NAB is used, there have been various translations of the Vulgate into English since the Council of Trent. The Douay-Rheims was updated and edited in the 18th century by Bishop Challoner. The New Testament was changed with the Confraternity version in the US, and lets not for get Msgr. Knox’s version which was at one time used at Mass in the UK.

The RSV SECOND Catholic Edition (RSV-2CE) has been approved for use by the Antilles Bishops conference. The Jerusalem Bible is used most everywhere else."

I’ve made some slight corrections in italics to your otherwise on-the-mark post.

 

[Cranch]

Well, first of all, the English translation of the Vulgate, the Douay-Rheims, is no longer used at Mass in the English speaking world.

As a resident of the English speaking world , I can tell you this statement is incorrect. I hear the D-R every week at the Latin Mass I attend, where the readings are proclaimed in both Latin and English.

…the rest of the English speaking world uses primarily the Jerusalem Bible, or in some few places the RSV/NRSV.

In the case of the NRSV, those few places are precisely one: Canada, where the NRSV has been used in defiance of Rome for years. Only now have the Canadian bishops finally agreed to changes worked out with Rome.

What does it matter what version of the NAB is used, there have been various translations of the Vulgate into English since the Council of Trent.

It obviously matters to Rome. As has been pointed out, the Vatican required changes to the NAB lectionary before authorizing its use. I think much of this revolved around the use of inclusive language, especially in the NAB revised Pslams from 1991 which are not used in Mass.

 

[mccorm45]

mccorm45 wrote:

"Look, the fact remains that the readings for Mass do not come from an English translation from the Vulgate, but is primarily from the NAB. What does it matter what version of the NAB is used, there have been various translations of the Vulgate into English since the Council of Trent. The Douay-Rheims was updated and edited in the 18th century by Bishop Challoner. The New Testament was changed with the Confraternity version in the US, and lets not for get Msgr. Knox’s version which was at one time used at Mass in the UK.

The RSV SECOND Catholic Edition (RSV-2CE) has been approved for use by the Antilles Bishops conference. The Jerusalem Bible is used most everywhere else."

I’ve made some slight corrections in italics to your otherwise on-the-mark post.

Thank you kind sir!