Luke 2:14

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mary1973
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Mary1973

Guest
In the Douay-Rheims version it reads:
Glory to God in the highest; and on earth peace to men of good will.

In my New American Bible, the text is:
Glory to God in high heaven, peace on earth to those on whom his favor rests.

I remember the Douay-Rheims translation from my youth. Does anyone know why it was changed? I looked at the Latin Vulgate but my Latin skills are minimal so could not tell which translation is correct.

Thank you and a Merry Christmas!
 
The *Vulgata Clementina *reads:
Gloria in altissimis Deo,
et in terra pax hominibus bonæ voluntatis.


The *Nova Vulgata *reads:
Gloria in altissimis Deo,
et super terram pax in hominibus bonae voluntatis


Either of which may be appropriately translated as “…on earth peace to men of good will.”

The Douay-Rheims was a translation of the Vulgate, which was itself, of course, a translation of the Greek and Hebrew sources. The NAB, as I understand it, was translated directly from Greek and Hebrew without passing through the Latin Vulgate. I don’t know Greek, so I can’t say whether the NAB renders an accurate translation.
But you’d think if it was, the *Nova Vulgata *ought to have been rendered differently?

tee
 
We must first of all know that the entire Bible is corrupted and unreliable and is mostly filled with man-made laws and corruption! “`How can you say, “We [the Jews] are wise, for we have the law of the LORD,” when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?’ (From the NIV Bible, Jeremiah 8:8)”

The Revised Standard Version makes it even clearer: “How can you say, ‘We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us’? But, behold, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie. (From the RSV Bible, Jeremiah 8:8)”

In either translation, we clearly see that the Jews had so much corrupted the Bible with their man-made cultural laws, that they had turned the Bible into a lie!

See Also Deuteronomy 31:25-29 where Moses peace be upon him predicted the corruption/tampering of the Law (Bible) after his death.

The Book of Moses predicted that the Law (Bible) will get corrupted. The Book of Jeremiah which came approximately 826 years after did indeed confirm this corruption.

The Bible’s English translations are all different and corrupted. See how the Bible translators are not truthful. They add their personal words, thoughts and interpretations as if they were GOD Almighty’s Holy Words. This resulted in having hundreds of English-translated Bibles considerably differing with each others in the translations and in issues that are very serious and are relevant even to the central faith of Christianity.

The Bible’s “original manuscripts had been lost” according to the Christian scholars and theologians:

Some Christians decided to respond to many of the Bible’s contradictions. They named their site “101 Clear Contradictions in the Bible.” Ironically, their own quotes below refute them! For example, you can do a search on this text in their site: “Confirmation of this type of copyist error is found in various pagan writers as well.” Even those Christian scholars admit with their own typed words by their own fingers that the Bible does indeed contain “copyist error(s)”, and they lowered their Holy Scripture to the level of a pagan book through their comparison. My question is then, how can it be the word of GOD when it contains Satanic “copyist errors”?

By the way, please visit: The Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible.

The Original manuscript don’t even exist according to the bible’s own theologians!

“Christians readily admit, however, that there have been ‘scribal errors’ in the copies of the Old and New Testament. It is beyond the capability of anyone to avoid any and every slip of the pen in copying page after page from any book, sacred or secular. Yet we may be sure that the original manuscript (better known as autograph) of each book of the Bible, being directly inspired by God, was free from all error. Those originals, however, because of the early date of their inception no longer exist.”

“Because we are dealing with accounts which were written thousands of years ago, we would not expect to have the originals in our possession today, as they would have disintegrated long ago. We are therefore dependent on the copies taken from copies of those originals, which were in turn continually copied out over a period of centuries. Those who did the copying were prone to making two types of scribal errors. One concerned the spelling of proper names, and the other had to do with numbers.”
 
“Most Christians will affirm that the Bible is our rule of faith and practice. It is a little self contradictory to stand in the pulpit and say the word of God is inspired, when in his heart the pastor knows he is not referring to any book here on this earth that people can hold in their hands and believe. He really should say what he believes - that the word of God WAS inspired at one time but we no longer have it, so the best we can do is hope we have a close approximation of what God probably meant to tell us.” (geocities.com/brandplucked/transinsp.html)

“It also seems a bit inconsistent to say he believes the originals were inspired, when he has never seen them, they never were together in one single book and they no longer exist anyway. How does he know they were inspired? He accepts this by faith. Yet he seems to lack the faith to actually believe that God could do exactly what He said He would do with His words. God said He would preserve them and that heaven and earth would pass away but His words would not pass away.” (geocities.com/brandplucked/transinsp.html)

Yet, this same person writes:

"How Old Was Ahaziah, 22 or 42?

This is an apparent contradiction that frequently is thrown in the face of Christians who believe we have an inspired Bible. Many Atheist, Islam and Bible dubunker sites bring up this example. Sad to say, most of the “Christian” apologetic sites which promote the new bible versions cave in here and say the number 42 is a copyist error.

Here is a typical response by those Christians who use and promote the modern versions. This one comes from Techtonics Apologetics. This “defender of the faith” answers: “ Was Ahaziah forty-two or twenty-two (per 2 Kings 8:26) when he ascended the throne? More likely 22, and 2 Chronicles has been hit by a copyist error. See our foundational essay on copyist errors for general background. In favor of the “22” reading in 2 Chronicles: The 2 Kings reading; some LXX and Syriac manuscripts.

This typical Christian response is not limited to this one example, but in many objections brought up by the infidels or the curious, this same rote answer is given. There is a copyist error. There is a typo in God’s book. The skeptics laugh and the modern version proponent looks like a fool.

2 Chronicles 22:2 tells us that Ahaziah was 42 years old when he began to reign. The Hebrew texts, plus Wycliffe 1395,Coverdale 1535, Bishop’s Bible 1568, Geneva Bible 1599, the Revised Version, the American Standard Version, Douay 1950, the Spanish Reina Valera 1960, Italian Diodati 1602, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, the Jewish translations of 1917 and 1936, the 1998 Complete Jewish Bible, Hebrew Names Bible, Rotherham’s Emphasized Bible, Webster’s 1833 translation, the New English Bible 1970, the New Jerusalem, KJV 21st Century, and the Third Millenium Bible all say Ahaziah was 42 years old when he began to reign.
The inspired Hebrew text clearly says Ahaziah was 42 years old. The masoretic scribes were very scrupulous in copying their sacred trust. No word or number was written from memory but each word was carefully checked before he recopied it. The copies were checked and checked again and if there were a single error, the whole was discarded and and new one begun......" ([geocities.com/brandplucked/22or42.html](http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/22or42.html))
 
1- There is no evidence that the errors are only limited to spelling of proper names and numbers. They’re only assuming this and are using it as fact. And even if this was true, then as they openly admitted, this takes away the Bible’s perfection. The reader must remember that the Christians’ entire polytheist trinity paganism comes solely from conclusions and interpretations! There is not ONE SINGLE claim or hard evidence in the Bible about GOD Almighty being 3, or that Jesus is our Creator. Jesus who ran away from King Herod to Egypt, and who begged GOD Almighty for Mercy and prostrated his face down to the ground before Him on the night of crucifixion can not be the Creator of the Universe. The trinitarian pagans would happily try to convince you that trinity is right from their corrupted book, while at the same time, they openly admit that there are errors and man’s alterations that exist in the Bible, and the original manuscripts had been lost. If the original manuscripts had been lost, then what makes you be so sure that trinity is the correct conclusion?

2- According to the Bible’s theologians, no one even knows who wrote the copies that they’re referring to. In other words, we don’t even know if these people were anointed from GOD Almighty or not, because we don’t have any evidence that the letters found that make up the Bible today were officially written by men.
 
40.png
DJIGIT:
The Original manuscript don’t even exist according to the bible’s own theologians!
There’s no need to yell.

And when was the Q’ran written down? Do the original manuscripts still exist?

No.

Your arguments also work against the the writings and traditions of Islam. In the end it comes down to faith either way.
 
40.png
tee_eff_em:
The *Vulgata Clementina *reads:
Gloria in altissimis Deo,
et in terra pax hominibus bonæ voluntatis.


The *Nova Vulgata *reads:
Gloria in altissimis Deo,
et super terram pax in hominibus bonae voluntatis


Either of which may be appropriately translated as “…on earth peace to men of good will.”

The Douay-Rheims was a translation of the Vulgate, which was itself, of course, a translation of the Greek and Hebrew sources. The NAB, as I understand it, was translated directly from Greek and Hebrew without passing through the Latin Vulgate. I don’t know Greek, so I can’t say whether the NAB renders an accurate translation.
But you’d think if it was, the *Nova Vulgata *ought to have been rendered differently?

tee
Thank you so much for your informative answer. I didn’t know that the NAB was translated directly from the Hebrew and Greek. Of course, if we could ask Fr. Mitch Pacwa, he would be able to explain it to us as he knows all those ancient languages.
 
40.png
Mary1973:
In the Douay-Rheims version it reads:
Glory to God in the highest; and on earth peace to men of good will.

In my New American Bible, the text is:
Glory to God in high heaven, peace on earth to those on whom his favor rests.

I remember the Douay-Rheims translation from my youth. Does anyone know why it was changed? I looked at the Latin Vulgate but my Latin skills are minimal so could not tell which translation is correct.

Thank you and a Merry Christmas!
Concerning Luke 2:14, in A Commentary on the New Testament, prepared by the Catholic Biblical Association, in 1942, on page 240, it says:
14. Cf. 19, 38 [see Luke 19:38] Among men of good will is the reading of the best MSS [manuscripts], but many MSS read “among men good will.” The Greek word that is translated here as good will is used especially of God’s “benevolence” towards men. No particular group of men is meant here; the sense is “mankind to whom God is well-disposed.”
In A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, ed. by Bernard Orchard, pub.by Thomas Nelson & Sons, in 1953, on page 943, it says in part:
14. Three possible renderings: (1) ‘Glory to God in the highest; and on earth peace to men of good will’] as in DV [Douay-Rheims]; (2) ‘Glory to God in the highest and on earth: peace to men of good will’; (3) ‘Glory to God in the highest; peace on earth; good will to men’. … It is probable then that the meaning is ‘peace to men who are thus made the objects of divine favour’.
 
Todd Easton:
In A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, ed. by Bernard Orchard, pub.by Thomas Nelson & Sons, in 1953, on page 943, it says in part:
14. Three possible renderings: (1) ‘Glory to God in the highest; and on earth peace to men of good will’] as in DV [Douay-Rheims]; (2) ‘Glory to God in the highest and on earth: peace to men of good will’; (3) ‘Glory to God in the highest; peace on earth; good will to men’. … It is probable then that the meaning is ‘peace to men who are thus made the objects of divine favour’.
Very informative! That third rendering is the one I have never understood, at least wrt the accuracy of the Vulgate. *Voluntatis *at least is cast in the genitive, and it is difficult to understand it being used as the subject or object being related “toward men”. I suppose *bonae *may be nominative plural, and contrive the meaning as something like “good [things] of the will toward men”?

tee
 
DJIGIT said:
We must first of all know that the entire Bible is corrupted and unreliable and is mostly filled with man-made laws and corruption! “`How can you say, “We [the Jews]
are wise, for we have the law of the LORD,” when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?’ (From the NIV Bible, Jeremiah 8:8)”

The Revised Standard Version makes it even clearer: “How can you say, ‘We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us’? But, behold, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie. (From the RSV Bible, Jeremiah 8:8)”

In either translation, we clearly see that the Jews had so much corrupted the Bible with their man-made cultural laws, that they had turned the Bible into a lie!

To declare that the Bible is corrupted and unreliable and then to quote a Bible verse to support your claim is silly since the very verse you are quoting is by your own declaration corrupted and unreliable.
 
Mary1973

The Douay-Rheims is virtually word for word true to the Latin Vulgate, while the NAB is looser but still acceptable.

The Vulgate, in turn, is a very direct translation of the Greek text of this particular verse.

The looseness of the NAB doesn’t seem to be egregious. The Greek upsistois could mean “highest” as in heaven, or in rank, so Glory to God in the highest is appropriately inclusive in my opinion, whereas Glory to God in the highest heaven is the narrower of the two.

The Greek eudokia can mean “good will” but also “delight, pleasure, satisfaction, etc.” so I could see how one could say peace to men of good will, or else peace to men who are found pleasing [to God].

I’m an amateur on these matters, but still pretty good in both Latin and Greek. Much more fluent in the Latin.
 
40.png
tee_eff_em:
I suppose *bonae *may be nominative plural, and contrive the meaning as something like “good [things] of the will toward men”
pax in hominibus bonae voluntatis

The placement of bonae near voluntatis renders them both genitive in my mind.

The Greek has eudokias “good will” in the genitive case following anthropois or “men” in the dative case.
 
Have any of you listened to Pope Benedict over the Christmas season or even printed out and meditated upon his midnight Mass homily?

This very point was brought up by him. I will place the excerpt here:

MIDNIGHT MASS

SOLEMNITY OF THE NATIVITY OF THE LORD

***HOMILY OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI ***

Vatican* Basilica
Saturday, 24 December 2005 *

The word “peace” brings us to a third key to the liturgy of this holy Night. The Child foretold by Isaiah is called “Prince of Peace”. His kingdom is said to be one “of endless peace”. The shepherds in the Gospel hear the glad tidings: “Glory to God in the highest” and “on earth, peace…”. At one time we used to say: “to men of good will”. Nowadays we say “to those whom God loves”. What does this change mean? Is good will no longer important? We would do better to ask: who are those whom God loves, and why does he love them? Does God have favourites? Does he love only certain people, while abandoning the others to themselves? The Gospel answers these questions by pointing to some particular people whom God loves. There are individuals, like Mary, Joseph, Elizabeth, Zechariah, Simeon and Anna. But there are also two groups of people: the shepherds and the wise men from the East, the “Magi”. Tonight let us look at the shepherds. What kind of people were they? In the world of their time, shepherds were looked down upon; they were considered untrustworthy and not admitted as witnesses in court. But really, who were they? To be sure, they were not great saints, if by that word we mean people of heroic virtue. They were simple souls. The Gospel sheds light on one feature which later on, in the words of Jesus, would take on particular importance: they were people who were watchful. This was chiefly true in a superficial way: they kept watch over their flocks by night. But it was also true in a deeper way: they were ready to receive God’s word. Their life was not closed in on itself; their hearts were open. In some way, deep down, they were waiting for him. Their watchfulness was a kind of readiness – a readiness to listen and to set out. They were waiting for a light which would show them the way. That is what is important for God. He loves everyone, because everyone is his creature. But some persons have closed their hearts; there is no door by which his love can enter. They think that they do not need God, nor do they want him. Other persons, who, from a moral standpoint, are perhaps no less wretched and sinful, at least experience a certain remorse. They are waiting for God. They realize that they need his goodness, even if they have no clear idea of what this means. Into their expectant hearts God’s light can enter, and with it, his peace. God seeks persons who can be vessels and heralds of his peace. Let us pray that he will not find our hearts closed. Let us strive to be active heralds of his peace – in the world of today.
 
Fergal,

Thanks for posting the Pope’s words. How ironic that he should speak of the very thing which was troubling me. And what a beautiful message.

Mary
 
2:14 “Glory42 to God in the highest,
and on earth peace among people43 with whom he is pleased!”44
42sn Glory here refers to giving honor to God.
43tn This is a generic use of ἄνθρωπος (anqrwpo") referring to both males and females.
44tc Most witnesses (א2 B2 L Θ Ξ Ψ Ë1,13 Ï sy bo) have ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία (en anqrwpoi" eudokia, “good will among people”) instead of ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκίας (en anqrwpoi" eudokia", “among people with whom he is pleased”), a reading attested by א* A B* D W pc (sa). Most of the Itala witnesses and some other versional witnesses reflect a Greek text which has the genitive εὐδοκίας but drops the preposition ἐν. Not only is the genitive reading better attested, but it is more difficult than the nominative. “The meaning seems to be, not that divine peace can be bestowed only where human good will is already present, but that at the birth of the Saviour God’s peace rests on those whom he has chosen in accord with his good pleasure” (TCGNT 111).
bible.org/netbible/luk2_notes.htm#242

bible.org/netbible/luk2.htm

the difference in manuscripts do not even equal a hill of beans, theologically speaking.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top