Most literal translation?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ChristusVincit
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
There is reason to believe by many that the Stuttgart vulgate and the Nova Vulgata are closer to St Jerome’s Latin Vulgate than the Clementine Vulgate is. For one thing you have numerous add-on verses and phrases which ended up in the Douay-Rheims. 1 John 5:7 being the most famous example. Secondly, the Nova Vulgata, while it changes language styling in places, which is obvious even to someone who doesn’t speak Latin, is based on the Stuttgart (a Protestant attempt to recreate St Jerome’s Vulgate) which is based largely on the codex amiantinus, an 8th century copy of the Vulgate that was preserved in a monastery, and other earlier works.

St Jerome may have had better texts to work from. It’s silly to think that he didn’t. We don’t even know if we have St Jerome’s Vulgate. What we have are copies that have been handed down by various copyists, some more carefully than others.

As for the most painfully literal, you can go with Bibleworks software which is popular with protestants for original language study, or you can use logos software, with Catholic Bibles and a NRSV Greek interlinear. A decent Catholic version of that, if you’re interested in original language study, is available from Steve Ray’s Bibletheology site. It’s a small fortune and I don’t know if it has Septuagint related interlinear material. If you find yourself buying little modules here, there and everywhere for other software packages to compare to the material that you can find in that package you might consider just coughing up the cash and getting it, because those individual bible modules hack away at your budget pretty quick in $25-50-100 increments anyway, but that’s not for everybody. Unless you’re a seminarian or a serious apologist you have to seriously consider that you will never use all of that. Most people can get by just fine with esword and the free material on the web.

You can find many of these tools for esword for free just by searching for them. You may not get the high quality commercial stuff, but you’ll get some very useful guides that aid your study. I even found a Greek LXX/NT transliterated with concordance that can be paralleled with the KJV and the newer Greek for comparison and study purposes on esword, for free. It’s painfully literal and slow, but the results are worthwhile.
 
bengland said:
There is reason to believe by many that the Stuttgart vulgate and the Nova Vulgata are closer to St Jerome’s Latin Vulgate than the Clementine Vulgate is.
Click to expand...
The Stuttgart and the NV are very different texts; the former is based on Latin texts, critically evaluated, whereas the NV often abandons the Latin entirely, in favor of a loose rendering of the Greek or Hebrew. The claim that the NV is closer to Jerome’s Vulgate is absurd.

Also, the most literal translation is not necessarily the best translation.
 
Good morning, una fides,
una_fides said:
I agree that we are in need of an updated vernacular translation of the Vulgate. The Douay Rheims is a very good translation of the Vulgate and a very literal one at that. I have read through and translated a few books from the Vulgate, and the Douay Rheims matches up very literally. I also use my Latin-English (Vulgate-Douay) for my Bible studies, and again most everything I’ve found is a solid literal translation. Granted if it were updated it would be worded somewhat differently. You wouldn’t have words like “doth” etc, but I would not say that it would necessarily say it would be “substantially different” either. Do you have some kind of inside knowledge of the Latin and English translations you can share that I’m missing here?
Click to expand...
No, no gnostic knowledge! 🙂 Just merely pointing out that the English language has evolved rather significantly in the last 400 years. I recall remarking to another poster that most modern-day English-speakers gave up on Elizabethan English after struggling through a few Shakespeare plays in high school and/or college. I, myself, can handle Shakespeare, but would struggle much more with Chaucer, and would be totally out of my depth with Beowulf! And I’m pretty conversant with the English language!
una_fides said:
I changed your emphasis in the above quote. Note that the Church used such strong wording as she “ordained and declared” that the Vulgate edition is approved and is authentic and cannot be at all rejected. Yes, there were other Latin editions circulating, but the declaration is not aimed at them at all. It cites them to set apart the Vulgate edition as entirely on a different plane then the rest of them. There were also various heretical Scriptural texts circulating at the time as well, and I’m sure there were some written in Latin. In addition, you are correct that nothing is said of other texts, so again my point that an infallible Council gave its stamp of approval to the Vulgate and no other text can make such a boast.
Click to expand...
I’ve read the entire text thoroughly and still think that you’re making an unwarranted stretch here. What this statement is saying is that there were many Latin versions in circulation, and that of all the LATIN editions, the Vulgate is to be considered authentic. Nothing is said here about the legitimacy, or lack thereof, of Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, or any other translations of the Scriptures. I think that you’re arguing from silence. But we can agree to disagree.
una_fides said:
True, however, Jerome would have also most likely had a much better understanding of these ancient languages as he was living much closer to their usage than modern scholars 2000 years later.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. In St. Jerome’s day, study of Hebrew had almost entirely died out within the Church. That’s what made his work on the Old Testament so remarkable. He was one of few who could work with the language. With regard to Greek – that language went through significant changes over a six hundred year period, from classical Greek to Koine Greek (New Testament Greek) to Byzantine Greek, and the three languages are very different – and translate very differently.
una_fides said:
Not at all! Early Church fathers had access to oral tradition that we do not have access to today. They heard homilies not written down anywhere and were living within a few generations of the apostles or in some cases actually spoke with the apostles themselves. They also were more aware of what words would have meant in their customary usage in the times as well as how they would have been understood historically. Popes have made similar statements to mine above. Nothing gnostic here. Please don’t try reading things into what I said. Why is it that you seem to be coming across as averse to St. Jerome as well as to the Vulgate?
Click to expand...
You misunderstand me fairly significantly.

I am NOT in ANY WAY denying the validity and importance of the oral tradition. And I’m more than well aware of when the Early Church Fathers lived and to whom they spoke or may have spoke – and if we were talking about Ignatius of Antioch or Polycarp of Smyrna, I’d grant you the point. But we’re not talking about the Apostolic Age here (which ended with the martyrdom of Polycarp, the last known living disciple of one of the Apostles). We’re talking about the VERY late Patristic period period, leading into the early Medieval period. St. Jerome died in AD 420, after all, nearly 300 years after St. Polycarp, so the likelihood of “secret inside information” (your words) is pretty unlikely!

I’m not trying to twist your words in any way. Considering the point in the New Testament Canonization process at this time, many gnostic writings (like the Gospel of Thomas) claimed “secret inside information”. That particular phrase, within the context of a 4th century discussion, is a red flag.

I am not averse to either St. Jerome or the Vulgate. I’ve spoken extremely highly of his talents, and I hold a high view of the value of the Vulgate as well. My argument lies not with St. Jerome or with the Vulgate, but rather with the pedestal some try to put them both on – a pedestal which requires a number of arguments from silence to exist, and one which I don’t think is warranted.

Peace. We’re on the same side! 🙂
 
Could any of you explain to me why the English speaking Church uses the New American Bible for almost everything? The Missal, the Vatican website, the USCCB website? If the translation was not the closest (in conveying the meaning of the ideas, not necessarily the words alone) to the original, then why would the Church rely on it so much? Is everyone here avoiding the obvious answer to the original question?
 
erikd said:
Could any of you explain to me why the English speaking Church uses the New American Bible for almost everything? The Missal, the Vatican website, the USCCB website? If the translation was not the closest (in conveying the meaning of the ideas, not necessarily the words alone) to the original, then why would the Church rely on it so much? Is everyone here avoiding the obvious answer to the original question?
Click to expand...
Decisions of the temporal authority of the Church are fallible.
 
Are you suggesting that because the Pope has not spoken infallibly on this issue in our lifetime, that the high opinion of the Church is not as worthy as the commentaries on this forum?
 
Erikd

You ask why is the NAB used so often by US Catholics. I would suggest that it is because it is an excellent translation, true to the Greek and the meaning behind the Greek words,
 
Isn’t that the answer to the original question? The answer that has taken 80 postings and numerous arguments? Thank you for proving my point.
 
The conclusion that the NAB is an ‘excellent translation’ does not follow from the mere fact that it is used so widely in the U.S.

Neither does the conclusion that the Neo Vulgate is excellent or best follow from the approval of that version as the normative Latin text.
 
Ron_Conte said:
The conclusion that the NAB is an ‘excellent translation’ does not follow from the mere fact that it is used so widely in the U.S.

Neither does the conclusion that the Neo Vulgate is excellent or best follow from the approval of that version as the normative Latin text.
Click to expand...
Ron: Your first statement is absolutely true, though not related to what I said. I never said that the NAB is the best as it is the most widely used, I said it is the most true to the original translation as it is the one the Church uses. Big difference in the two statements. Your second statement I cannot agree with. If a text receives specific approval from the Magisterium, as the Vulgate did, it would seem as though the stamp of “approval” were on it over and above any others. Otherwise, why would it be singled out in an official teaching of the Church? Pope Benedict XVI spoke of the Vulgate as the “approved” version (see my earlier posts in this thread.)
 
erikd said:
Ron: Your first statement is absolutely true, though not related to what I said. I never said that the NAB is the best as it is the most widely used, I said it is the most true to the original translation as it is the one the Church uses. Big difference in the two statements. Your second statement I cannot agree with. If a text receives specific approval from the Magisterium, as the Vulgate did, it would seem as though the stamp of “approval” were on it over and above any others. Otherwise, why would it be singled out in an official teaching of the Church? Pope Benedict XVI spoke of the Vulgate as the “approved” version (see my earlier posts in this thread.)
Click to expand...
How did you reach your conclusion that the NAB is the translation that is most true to the original texts? Are you assuming that the temporal authority of the Church is perfect, always choosing the best translation?

The Magisterium does not teach that the temporal authority is infallible or perfect in its decisions. The Neo-Vulgate is approved as normative for the Latin Church, not by the Magisterium (teaching authority), but by the temporal authority of the Church. Such an exercise of the temporal authority is not the infallible perfect decision of the universal Church, but merely a judgment of the prudential order.

In all of these threads on Bible versions, there are numerous posters who confuse decisions of the prudential order made by the temporal authority of the Church, with teachings of the Magisterium. Also, it is a common error to assume that such decisions always result in the best edition being chosen. This is obviously not the case.

For example, the revised Psalms of the NAB were approved by the U.S. Bishops were rejected for use in the liturgy by the Holy See. Also, the original NAB edition was found unacceptable by the Holy See for use in the Mass, and a number of textual changes were required. But the published editions of the NAB still today entirely lack those emendations required by the Holy See. The NAB has been found lacking and changed a number of times over the years. The claim that the NAB must be most accurate because it is approved is plainly contradicted by the history of the NAB version.

In Canada, the NAB is not use, but instead the NRSV is used. This edition was initially rejected by the Holy See under Pope John Paul II for use in the Mass – but the Canadian Bishops used it anyway. Eventually (and I’m sure reluctantly) the Holy See under Pope Benedict permitted the use of the NRSV. But the Bishops were continuing to use the text regardless of approval.

It is absurd to claim that whichever edition of the Bible is ‘approved by the Church’ must be the best or most accurate edition.
 
erikd said:
Could any of you explain to me why the English speaking Church uses the New American Bible for almost everything? The Missal, the Vatican website, the USCCB website? If the translation was not the closest (in conveying the meaning of the ideas, not necessarily the words alone) to the original, then why would the Church rely on it so much? Is everyone here avoiding the obvious answer to the original question?
Click to expand...
The Church is not infallible in this regard. It is merely prudential judgment of the bishops in charge of assigning this text for this language. The stated purpose of the NAB was to get a Bible that protestants and Catholics could read together and understand. It was not necessarily to most accurately portray the dogmas of the faith that the authors intended to communicate. The Douay Rheims, for example, translates “repent” as “do penance,” which has a particularly Catholic overtone to it.

Douay Rheims:
Luke 13:3 “No, I say to you: but unless you shall do penance, you shall all likewise perish.”
vs. the NAB:
“By no means! But I tell you, if you do not repent, you will all perish as they did!”

Douay:
Luke 1:28 “And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.”
NAB:
"And coming to her, he said, “Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you.”

I could continue with examples, but again, the purpose of the NAB is ecumenism. The purpose of the Douay Rheims is to give a literal Catholic translation from the Church’s official text: the Latin Vulgate.
 
I’m also not aware of any authoritative declarations from the Church concerning the authenticity of the NAB. It’s the version that’s usually used in English but not exclusively. Many English documents I’ve read from Rome use the RSV.
 
Ron:

I’m not trying to argue so please forgive me but I fail to see your point. You see, as a Catholic, I will follow the teaching and recommendations of the Church. Not all recommendations are infallible teachings but all are to be taken seriously by anyone calling themselves a Roman Catholic.

Your point about the NAB is well taken as I have two different versions in my possession. I believe there have actually been four different versions. But the textual differences deal with gender-neutral language, not the entire context of Scripture. If the Douay-Rheims uses language that is archaic, and which may potentially lead the reader into a false perception of its actual meaning, then perhaps the clearest sense of what is written lies with a more current translation. Don’t get me wrong, I love the Douay-Rheims. I have a beautiful copy of it on my desk and It gets a lot of use. For clarity, however, I choose the NAB or the RSV. I sometimes study them together.

As for your point regarding the temporal authority of the Church, well you’re right only the Pope can speak ex-cathedra. However, the temporal authority of the Church has the power to create Canons, such as our list of 73 Canonical Books of the Bible, such as the Canon Law, etc. etc. Not all disciplines are infallible teachings. All these, whether infallible or not, are to be adhered to by the faithful of the Church, that is what makes us Catholics. We can choose to be cafeteria Catholics and pick and choose our own ideals, but that would make us protesters, better known as Protestants.

Also, if you believe that the NAB is not the best translation because the Holy See rejected parts of the Psalter in 1994, you may want to ask the Holy Father why the NAB is still shown on the Vatican website. Perhaps the Holy See believes that, though the translation may have some resolvable problems, it is still the best translation available today for today’s readers. You may not agree with this but, again, you seem to be protesting.

One more note, Ron. I typically don’t participate in these discussions because they inevitably lead to conflict and that’s the last thing I want. I was, however, drawn into this one because the answer seemed so obvious to me. Jesus Christ built His Church (Matt. 16:18) and that Church is the “Pillar and foundation of Truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). As Jesus taught St. Peter to Feed His sheep (John 21:15-17), so St. Peter tells the elders to “Shepherd the flock” (1 Peter 5:2) and likewise St. Peter tells the flock to “be subject to the Presbyters” and to “cloth yourselves in humility” (1 Peter 5: 5). That is my goal and I hope I’ve achieved it. You may be absolutely correct in your assertion, but my faith is in my Church and in the Presbyters of my Church. While only one of those Presbyters may speak infallibly on the issues of faith and morals, St. Peter implored us to listen to them all, and to humble ourselves before them all. I hope I’ve done just that.
 
I read in a post by Erikd:
You see, as a Catholic, I will follow the teaching and recommendations of the Church. Not all recommendations are infallible teachings but all are to be taken seriously by anyone calling themselves a Roman Catholic.
Click to expand...
This is well said and worth emphasizing.

When discussing translations, we are really talking about personal preferences. People differ in taste and opinions.

However is the Douay Rheims version referred to in these discussions the Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition. If so I do not like it due to the archaic language.

Again in discussing the Vulgate, which is being considered?

Is it:

1 Nova Vulgata, Bibliorum Sacrorum Editio, Sacrosanti Oecumenici Concilii Vaticani II, Ratione Habita, Iussu Pauli Pp. VI Recognita, Auctoritate Ioannis Pauli Pp. II Promulgata

2 Biblia Sacra juxta Vulgatam Clementinam 1598 with Glossa Ordinaria Migne edition (1880). or
  1. Biblia Sacra Iuxta Vulgatam Versionem, Fourth Revised Edition, edited by Roger Gryson, © 1994 Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, Stuttgart?
These are the ones I have in BibleWorks 8. There may be other versions of the Vulgate available. When people advocate the Vulgate, which do they have in mind?
 
NoelFitz said:
I read in a post by Erikd:

This is well said and worth emphasizing.

When discussing translations, we are really talking about personal preferences. People differ in taste and opinions.

However is the Douay Rheims version referred to in these discussions the Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition. If so I do not like it due to the archaic language.

Again in discussing the Vulgate, which is being considered?

Is it:

1 Nova Vulgata, Bibliorum Sacrorum Editio, Sacrosanti Oecumenici Concilii Vaticani II, Ratione Habita, Iussu Pauli Pp. VI Recognita, Auctoritate Ioannis Pauli Pp. II Promulgata

2 Biblia Sacra juxta Vulgatam Clementinam 1598 with Glossa Ordinaria Migne edition (1880). or
  1. Biblia Sacra Iuxta Vulgatam Versionem, Fourth Revised Edition, edited by Roger Gryson, © 1994 Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, Stuttgart?
These are the ones I have in BibleWorks 8. There may be other versions of the Vulgate available. When people advocate the Vulgate, which do they have in mind?
Click to expand...
We are referring to the one that received the Church’s authoritative backing in the Council of Trent: #2 Clementinam. That’s not to say the others may not be good or profitable, but they cannot boast of having such a degree of acceptance by the Church.
 
una_fides said:
I’m also not aware of any authoritative declarations from the Church concerning the authenticity of the NAB. It’s the version that’s usually used in English but not exclusively. Many English documents I’ve read from Rome use the RSV.
Click to expand...
I think that you’re correct here. I’m sure I’ve read somewhere (it will come to me, probably in the middle of the night!) that the RSV is the English-language translation preferred by the Vatican.
 
una_fides said:
We are referring to the one that received the Church’s authoritative backing in the Council of Trent: #2 Clementinam. That’s not to say the others may not be good or profitable, but they cannot boast of having such a degree of acceptance by the Church.
Click to expand...
Unless publication dates have been posted incorrectly, the Clementinam was published AFTER the Council of Trent, some 50 years after the Decree on the Scriptures. How can we be sure that this is the text, and no other, referred to in the Conciliar statement? I’m not trying to be argumentative, I’m actually quite curious.

Blessings,
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top