Joel 2:25: Where did "ears" come from?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mike_H_SS
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
DaveBj said:
Going back to the original-original (the Hebrew), the word is ha-shanim, “the years.” That should settle it.

(FWIW, the PC Study Bible software that I use has about 30 English translations of the Bible, and the D-R version there is the one with “ears.”)
Click to expand...
So I think the two possibilities available are (1) (less likely IMHO) the particular edition of the Challoner D-R used by whoever transcribed the text into the Internet had the typo or (2) whoever first transcribed the text of the Challoner D-R into the Internet committed the typo.
 
patrick457 said:
So I think the two possibilities available are (1) (less likely IMHO) the particular edition of the Challoner D-R used by whoever transcribed the text into the Internet had the typo or (2) whoever first transcribed the text of the Challoner D-R into the Internet committed the typo.
Click to expand...
Patrick, the 1914 printing of the Douay Rheims I have has the error.
 
irenaeuslyons said:
Patrick, the 1914 printing of the Douay Rheims I have has the error.
Click to expand...
Ok, here is an interesting thing. I have two printings of the Douay on pdf. Both from 1914. One has it. The other does not have the error. The correct one was printed in England. The incorrect one was printed in Baltimore.
 
irenaeuslyons said:
Ok, here is an interesting thing. I have two printings of the Douay on pdf. Both from 1914. One has it. The other does not have the error. The correct one was printed in England. The incorrect one was printed in Baltimore.
Click to expand...
I am so-o-o trying not to make a wisecrack about Baltimorons 😛

(Full disclosure – I lived less that 30 minutes south of Baltimore 1978-1987 and 1991-2001, still support the Ravens.)
 
irenaeuslyons said:
Ok, here is an interesting thing. I have two printings of the Douay on pdf. Both from 1914. One has it. The other does not have the error. The correct one was printed in England. The incorrect one was printed in Baltimore.
Click to expand...
AFAIK most online versions of the Challoner (such as this one) are based on an 1899 edition printed in Baltimore.
 
Mike_H_SS said:
Understood. I guess what I meant was, what source did the Douay-Rheims scholars use that contained ‘ears’? It’s curious to me that no other English translation (as far as I know) has that, and it’s not in the Vulgate.
Click to expand...
Nobody really knows which Vulgate was used by Gregory Martin (the translator.) It was prior to the Clementine, yet it appears to have been a remarkably good Vulgate.
 
Mike_H_SS said:
Different Scripture translations carry very different translations of Joel 2:25.

The King James Version and most of the other non-Catholic translations read pretty much the way the New Jerusalem Bible translation does:
I will make up to you for the years devoured by grown locust and hopper, by shearer and young locust, my great army which I sent to invade you.
Which is in fair agreement with the Latin of the Vulgate:
Et reddam vobis annos, quos comedit locusta,
bruchus, et rubigo, et eruca:
fortitudo mea magna quam misi in vos.
Two popular Catholic translations, however, are interestingly different, which leads me to ask three questions.

The Douay-Rheims translation reads like this:
And I will restore to you the ears which the locust, and the bruchus, and the mildew, and the palmerworm have eaten; my great host which I sent upon you.
Question 1: How did ‘years’ become ‘ears’? (That just screams “typo!” but, really, one doubts such a thing would have got by the scholarly proofreaders of the Douay-Rheims…)

The New American Bible, Revised Edition, renders the verse as follows:
I will repay you double
what the swarming locust has eaten,
The hopper, the consuming locust, and the cutter,
my great army I sent against you.
Question 2: How did ‘years’ (or ‘ears’) become ‘double’?

I know different sources can provide different nuances or wordings, but the difference here was one I found particularly curious. Which leads to Question 3: Is there an online resource of Scriptural research where it might be more appropriate to ask these questions?
Click to expand...
It’s an old technique of correcting maladaptive behavior. The translator kept making mistakes and he was being pulled by his ears. It’s a Freudian slip.

😃
 
QNDNNDQDCE said:
Well, there is not a single correct word to use in an English Bible because the Bible was not written in English. There can be two equally admissable translations for the same phrase. Additionally, the Douay-Rheims was created primarily as an English translation of the Vulgate, so it has a preference for anglicizing the existing Latin words. The problem is that Latin-derived words often have different connotations than they do in the original language.

As a translation of the Vulgate, the Douay-Rheims does well to translate with “to do penance,” as this is a word-for-word translation of “paenitentium agere.” It is a perfect translation of the Vulgate. Additionally, the Vulgate is a good translation of the Greek. If you consult a Latin dictionary, you will see that this does mean “to repent.”

perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dpaeniteo

In addition, the Biblical concept of repentance does include “doing penace” as well. For example, there is Matthew 11:20-21 where repentance is linked with acts of mortification.

If it was so great, then why was ‘penance’ changed to repent in the Bible used by the Vatican and other Catholic Bibles? Obviously, something was amiss!

As for ears vs. years, I have found numerous typos in the DR on my phone’s Bible app. Usually, they are obvious so the important thing is just to expect them. Same with the Summa Theologica on New Advent. I imagine that these errors are mostly just mistakes introduced while transcribing from text to an electronic format. For this typo in particular, I could imagine that it slipped by because ear was interpreted as in ears of corn, so it seemed to make some sense in context.
Click to expand...
 
Change? The official Bible of the Vatican currently is the Nova Vulgata, which retains the usage of “do penance.”

“Petrus vero ad illos: Paenitentiam, inquit, agite, et baptizetur unusquisque vestrum in nomine Iesu Christi in remissionem peccatorum vestrorum, et accipietis donum Sancti Spiritus”
vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_nt_actus-apostolorum_lt.html#2

Verily Peter said unto them: Do penance, and be baptized everyone of you for the remission of your sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."
-Acts 2:38

If you are referring to the contemporary English translations, that it is a different matter. They are translated out of thd Greek rather than the Latin so the more Latinate expression doesn’t have any priority. Remember that that it is not the Catholic Church that claimed their is only one acceptable translation, but certain Protestants who assert that μετανοέω can only mean “to change one’s mind” to the exclusion of anything else. I already gave an example which showed the same word used with a penitential meaning. Never mind the fact that the expression “do penance” is the Latin equivalent of the English verb “repent.” If “repent” is a more accurate rendering of the Greek in modern English, that is no fault of the Latin.

To give a parallel example, you could assert with the same force that all Protestant translations are faulty because, as my Protestant pastor said, δικαιόω doesn’t mean “to justify, i.e. to make righteous,” but “to declare righteous.” Or you could say that “justify” in common usage today most usually means to argue a case for something, which gives a misleading impression of the biblical doctrine of justification from either a Protestant or a Catholic perspective. Maybe you should be more concerned about this. It is far more significant than the trivial issue you have been pressing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top