Most literal translation?

[David_Zampino]

I strongly disagree with you.

Based on WHAT??? Your personal opinion? Research?? Scholarship???

You have a lot to say about agreements and disagreements, but, in my view, are lacking substance as to ***WHY ***you agree or disagree.

We can’t prove that the Vulgate used less reliable text nor can we prove that those using the so called “original texts” are more reliable.

“Original” texts? I’m certainly not claiming “original” texts, merely pointing out that there are extant manuscripts which pre-date St. Jerome – of which he may have been aware or of which he may not have been aware.

You’re trying to prove an argument from silence.

Please provide proof that the Vulgate uses less reliable texts.

Please provide proof that the Vulgate uses ***more ***reliable texts!

Your position, or what seems to be your position, taken to its logical end, would dictate that Scripture scholarship stopped with St. Jerome! Do you really mean this? I suspect that the good saint would be horrified at such a thought!

 

[David_Zampino]

but nothing proves their accuracy or lack of accuracy.

You persist in repeating an argument from silence.

Please address the numerous points I have made over a number of posts, several of which were directed specifically to you.

 

[mexanava87]

The most literal Bible is always going to be the Interlineal Bible. If you want to study the Greek New Testament and the Hebrew Old Testament I highly recommend buying “The Interlinear Hebrew-Greek-English Bible, One-Volume Edition” if you want to study the Greek Old Testament (aka the Septuagint) that is complete with the Duerocanonical books then I highly recommend “Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and English.” If you are a serious about learning the Bible and wanting to get a better grasp of the original I language and contexts of which it was first spoken or just simply curious, I would get both. There a bit pricey, but not too much. This is the cheapest place I found it. I have them both and I love it. I use these as my guide lines to see how trust worthy other translations is.
I developed a scale that is very familiar to the scale that the staff of Catholic Answers use in their book entitled The Essential Catholic Survival Guide. In my scale I have 5 categories.

-1st is literal - a true word-for-word translation
-2nd is essentially literal - a word-for-word translation that has some modification to it in order to make it more readable
-3rd is dynamic - an essentially literal translation with some thought-for-thought in it as well
-4th is thought-for-though - which is a translation that tries to convey the message rather than the actually translating it word-for-word and contains some paraphrasing in it as well
-5th is paraphrased - which is the bible completely paraphrased.

Here is my order of Bibles that contain the Duerocanonical books in them.

1 - Interlineal Bible (ILB)*
1 - Revised Standard Bible (RSV)*
1 - King James Version (KJV)*
1 - New King James Version (NKJV)*
1 - Geneva Bible (GB)*
1 - English Standard Version (ESV)*
2 - New Revised Standard Bible (NRSV)*
2 - Douay-Rheims (DR)
2 - Confraternity Version (CV)
3 - New American Bible (NAB)
3 - Ronald Knox Translation (KNX)
3 - Christian Community Bible (CCB)
4 - Revised English Bible (REB)*
4 - New English Bible (NEB)*
4 - New Living Translation (NLT)*
4 - Good News Translation (GNT) / Today’s English Version (TEV)*
4 - Contemporary English Version (CEV)*
4 - New Jerusalem Bible (NJB)
4 - Jerusalem Bible (JB)
5 - Living Bible (LB)*

*Some you have to specifically search for "containing/with the Apocrypha/Duerocanonical Books.

Check these Bibles out at book store or look check them out at ChristianBook.com or Amazon.com. Sometimes they let you read a couple pages of them so you can see their structure.

I hope you find the translation you’re looking for.

God Bless and keep the faith,
Michael

 

[Bible_Reader]

Mexanava87 – I am quite surprised to see you list the NKJV as being available in an edition with the Deuterocanonicals. I am unaware of this edition, and the publisher has stated that it is not interested in publishing an edition with the Apocrypha.

Do you have a link to the edition?

I believe you meant to write “Interlinear” instead of “Interlineal” (in two places) and “Deuterocanonical” instead of “Duerocanonical”.

I cannot share your enthusiasm for Brenton’s edition (which is widely available online); both his Greek and his translation have serious errors. I recommend instead the resources listed by the IOSCS for the Greek and the NETS for an English translation.

 

[ChristusVincit]

The most literal Bible is always going to be the Interlineal Bible. If you want to study the Greek New Testament and the Hebrew Old Testament I highly recommend buying “The Interlinear Hebrew-Greek-English Bible, One-Volume Edition” if you want to study the Greek Old Testament (aka the Septuagint) that is complete with the Duerocanonical books then I highly recommend “Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and English.” If you are a serious about learning the Bible and wanting to get a better grasp of the original I language and contexts of which it was first spoken or just simply curious, I would get both. There a bit pricey, but not too much. This is the cheapest place I found it. I have them both and I love it. I use these as my guide lines to see how trust worthy other translations is.
I developed a scale that is very familiar to the scale that the staff of Catholic Answers use in their book entitled The Essential Catholic Survival Guide. In my scale I have 5 categories.

-1st is literal - a true word-for-word translation
-2nd is essentially literal - a word-for-word translation that has some modification to it in order to make it more readable
-3rd is dynamic - an essentially literal translation with some thought-for-thought in it as well
-4th is thought-for-though - which is a translation that tries to convey the message rather than the actually translating it word-for-word and contains some paraphrasing in it as well
-5th is paraphrased - which is the bible completely paraphrased.

Here is my order of Bibles that contain the Duerocanonical books in them.

1 - Interlineal Bible (ILB)*
1 - Revised Standard Bible (RSV)*
1 - King James Version (KJV)*
1 - New King James Version (NKJV)*
1 - Geneva Bible (GB)*
1 - English Standard Version (ESV)*
2 - New Revised Standard Bible (NRSV)*
2 - Douay-Rheims (DR)
2 - Confraternity Version (CV)
3 - New American Bible (NAB)
3 - Ronald Knox Translation (KNX)
3 - Christian Community Bible (CCB)
4 - Revised English Bible (REB)*
4 - New English Bible (NEB)*
4 - New Living Translation (NLT)*
4 - Good News Translation (GNT) / Today’s English Version (TEV)*
4 - Contemporary English Version (CEV)*
4 - New Jerusalem Bible (NJB)
4 - Jerusalem Bible (JB)
5 - Living Bible (LB)*

*Some you have to specifically search for "containing/with the Apocrypha/Duerocanonical Books.

Check these Bibles out at book store or look check them out at ChristianBook.com or Amazon.com. Sometimes they let you read a couple pages of them so you can see their structure.

I hope you find the translation you’re looking for.

God Bless and keep the faith,
Michael

This is a pretty amazing post Cheers!

 

[Bible_Reader]

While I cannot endorse many of Tobinatorstark’s strongly-worded opinions, I would like to note that current scholarly consensus is that the ascription in Matt. 6:14 is a late addition. Note that it occurs in a variety of different forms in the Greek manuscripts. In his Textual Commentary on the New Testament, Second Edition, Metzger concludes:

The absence of any ascription in early and important representatives of the Alexandrian, the Western, and other types of text, as well as early patristic commentaries on the Lord’s Prayer (those of Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian), suggests that an ascription, usually in a threefold form, was composed (perhaps on the basis of 1 Chr 29.11–13) in order to adapt the Prayer for liturgical use in the early church. Still later scribes added “of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”

You will readily note that the formula does not appear in Bibles translated from the UBS3, UBS4, or the Nestle-Aland editions of the Novum Testamentum Graece.

 

[una_fides]

I’m prepared for the most painfully literal version possible. I want the closest thing next to reading the original language, even if it makes little sense. Any suggestions?

The Douay Rheims is a literal translation of the Latin Vulgate, which is the Church’s official translation given her stamp of approval in an infallible General Council (Trent). No other translation can make such a boast. St. Jerome who wrote the Vulgate had access to original manuscripts that we do not have access to today. He also had access to inside knowledge being an early Church father and having access to the early tradition of the Church and understandings of the Scriptures. I know Latin and read from the Vulgate and the Douay Rheims side by side. The Greek testaments have many variants from various manuscript deviations, so your safest bet would be to go with the Church’s translation, the Latin Vulgate, and if you can’t read Latin, then use the Douay Rheims.That’s my 2 cents.

 

[erikd]

If I might be able to make a recommendation here it is to stick to the most literal translation, not the most literalist translation. The difference is that literal maintains the ideas presented by the original writers while literalist preserves the words even if the idea is lost. In today’s times, in order to get the closest to the original, I might suggest the RSV-Catholic Edition as it appears, in my humble opinion, to be the most literal translation, thought the New American Bible (Catholic) is quite good too. It you wanted to see the original wording, as close to St. Jerome’s Latin translation as possible, the Douay is the way to go, though some ideas may be lost in the translation. Also, the Douay will be the closest to the original Latin, not necessarily to the original Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic. Good luck and God Bless.

 

[ronin67]

Catholic theology. I don’t want to fill my head with anything that contradicts the Catholic Church and her teachings. Protestant translations are fine for those who are not Catholic not fine for those who are Catholic.

What contradicts the Catholic Church? Jesus The Christ was God in the Flesh. Cruxified and rose again on the third day. It says the same thing in my New Oxford study bible with Apocrypha and NASB. So close minded. Human doctrinal differences mean nothing when it comes to the true word of God through the scriptures. Can we agree that Jesus is our Lord and Savior? Can we agree that the Holy Trinity exists? How we differ in doctrinal approach and flow of service (or mass) is really not the point. Purgatory, non-exsistant. The Apocrypha wasn’t even part of the original canon of the scriptures until the reformation by Martin Luther. To back up the claims of the Catholic Church (in reference to forgiveness of sins and to justify paying for forgiveness of sins), the Apocrypha was added to back up the claim of purgatory and needed payment for forgiveness of sins to shorten ones time in purgatory. If the reformation didn’t take place, it is very likely the original Catholic stance on the canonical importance on the books of the Apocrypha would have remained unchanged. No one can stand as the Vicor of Christ. Christ was God. No human pope can fill those shoes in his absents. Besides, isn’t the Holy Spirit still active with Christ in the world today? I really like the tradition of some of the Catholic doctrine, but most Catholics suffer from the same problems; they think the Catholic Church is the only way, they really don’t study any other Christian doctrine to compare (filled with to much pride), and many of the specific beliefs are not supported by canonical scripture (need for confession to a priest, raising Mary as a co-redeemer/belief that she is the literal mother of God, however, I will say she was the most rightous woman who ever walked the earth). In the end, are we not all Christians?

Take Care and May God Bless you all!

Ed-]/-]

 

[una_fides]

What contradicts the Catholic Church? Jesus The Christ was God in the Flesh. Cruxified and rose again on the third day. It says the same thing in my New Oxford study bible with Apocrypha and NASB. So close minded. Human doctrinal differences mean nothing when it comes to the true word of God through the scriptures. Can we agree that Jesus is our Lord and Savior? Can we agree that the Holy Trinity exists? How we differ in doctrinal approach and flow of service (or mass) is really not the point. Purgatory, non-exsistant. The Apocrypha wasn’t even part of the original canon of the scriptures until the reformation by Martin Luther. To back up the claims of the Catholic Church (in reference to forgiveness of sins and to justify paying for forgiveness of sins), the Apocrypha was added to back up the claim of purgatory and needed payment for forgiveness of sins to shorten ones time in purgatory. If the reformation didn’t take place, it is very likely the original Catholic stance on the canonical importance on the books of the Apocrypha would have remained unchanged. No one can stand as the Vicor of Christ. Christ was God. No human pope can fill those shoes in his absents. Besides, isn’t the Holy Spirit still active with Christ in the world today? I really like the tradition of some of the Catholic doctrine, but most Catholics suffer from the same problems; they think the Catholic Church is the only way, they really don’t study any other Christian doctrine to compare (filled with to much pride), and many of the specific beliefs are not supported by canonical scripture (need for confession to a priest, raising Mary as a co-redeemer/belief that she is the literal mother of God, however, I will say she was the most rightous woman who ever walked the earth). In the end, are we not all Christians?

Take Care and May God Bless you all!

Ed

Ed,

I realize this post wasn’t addressed to me, but seeing as you posted it publicly, I do feel the need to at least say something. First, I don’t know where you got the idea that the Deuterocanonical books (you call “Apocryphal”) were added to the canon later. They were in the original list of books at the Council of Carthage, which was the first council to compile the New Testament books into a whole. Here is a link to the text from the Council: bible-researcher.com/carthage.html You my be surprised to see books in there that aren’t in your Bible.

Also, how do you know that any of the books in your Bible are inspired in the first place? And if there are inspired books in there, how do you know that each particular book is inspired? Who compiled the list of books? I’ll give you a hint, it’s the same people who relied on the same Tradition in compiling those books as who also believed universally in the Tradition concerning purgatory, Mary being the theotokos (literally “God-bearer” or “Mother of God”), the power that Christ gave to priests to forgive sins in his name (John 20:20-23), the sinlessness of Mary and her participation in the passion of Christ in a special way (btw, you misunderstand the term “co-redeemer”), and the other foundational dogmas of the Catholic faith.

I used to be an anti-Catholic fundamentalist before I actually studied the early Church fathers in depth and discovered that they were actually Catholic! They universally understood the authority of the Catholic Church led by her bishops, whom Christ gave the authority to bind and loose in reference to both sins and doctrines and whom Christ promised the gift of the Holy Spirit to guide into all truth.

Here is a question to ask yourself: How does the Holy Spirit guide people to the truth? As a Protestant, I used to say he did so by people sincerely reading the Bible. The thing I realized is that there are tens of thousands of protestant denominations all possessing sincere people and even sincere scholars reading Scripture and coming to vastly different conclusions on every fundamental issue in the Book. If that is how the Holy Spirit works, then he must be really confused or is deceiving people. The truth is that the Spirit works through His Church, the Bride of Christ. Scripture never says anywhere that it is the sole rule of faith or that it is our only source of truth, rather it says that “the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Tim 3:15).

We are blessed with the countless resources online that explain the Catholic faith from her own lips rather than from what others think she teaches. If you go to www.catholic.com, you can type in whatever topic you have a question on and read various articles on the subject. They often cite or list teachings from the early Church fathers on the subject. I suggest, for example, going on there and typing in “Mother of God” and reading some of the various articles that will pop up. Here’s another great site: catholicapologetics.info/

May the grace of God be with you on your journey.

 

[ronin67]

Ed,

I realize this post wasn’t addressed to me, but seeing as you posted it publicly, I do feel the need to at least say something. First, I don’t know where you got the idea that the Deuterocanonical books (you call “Apocryphal”) were added to the canon later. They were in the original list of books at the Council of Carthage, which was the first council to compile the New Testament books into a whole. Here is a link to the text from the Council: bible-researcher.com/carthage.html You my be surprised to see books in there that aren’t in your Bible.

Also, how do you know that any of the books in your Bible are inspired in the first place? And if there are inspired books in there, how do you know that each particular book is inspired? Who compiled the list of books? I’ll give you a hint, it’s the same people who relied on the same Tradition in compiling those books as who also believed universally in the Tradition concerning purgatory, Mary being the theotokos (literally “God-bearer” or “Mother of God”), the power that Christ gave to priests to forgive sins in his name (John 20:20-23), the sinlessness of Mary and her participation in the passion of Christ in a special way (btw, you misunderstand the term “co-redeemer”), and the other foundational dogmas of the Catholic faith.

**John 20:20-23 he was talking to his deciples/Apostles to come (not a modern day priest). The ones who walked with Christ. The original disciples were ordained directly from Christ (God in the Flesh). How does it apply to a priest (does a modern day priest command such authority that Jesus bestowed on the original disciples/not hardly)? The bible also says to confess our sins to one and other. I can go direct to the Lord with my confessions of sin. Good passage, taken out of text for the Catholic.

1 Timothy 3:15; Yes, the church is the pillar of foundation of the truth, but where does this truth come from? The truth comes from the Holy Scripture, which reflects the truth of God, thus establishing the truth of the church. Since none of us were fortunate enough to witness the great acts of our Lord and Savior first hand (Blessed are those who don’t see, yet believe) like the disciples, we base the Foundations of the Church off of the Actions/teachings of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Where are these facts found that tells us how to establish the foundation of the Church? Yes, you guessed it, from the Holy Bible. **

Also, a person can read the Holy Bible til he is blue in the face and not receive the Holy Spirit. A person is not truly saved until he accepts Christ as his Lord and Savior. This is only revealed to the person, when God opens the heart of the unbeliver to believe and see the truth of Christ. Remember a sacrifice is man giving up something for God. Accepting Christ is not a sacrifice, but a gift bestowed upon the believer by God (definition for Sacrement). When a believer is opened to accept Christ, it is followed by the Sacrament of Baptisim (Sacrement being a gift from God to man). I’m not anti-Catholic, just like things to be per scripture as intended from God.

Thank you sir for pointing out these explainations. Also, bear in mind, Mary was just the means of Holy Conception for Christ to enter this world. After, Christ is born and his ministry begins, why is Mary hardly even read about. Yes, she was the mother of Jesus, who embodied the essence of God in the flesh, but never once was she the mother of God the creator. Remember, John 1:1-5, “In the beginning was the word, and the word is with God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him nothing was made that was made”.

Thank you for your time sir and may Christ be with you!

Ed

 

[una_fides]

Ed, a few more quick comments that I hope will prove helpful.

John 20:20-23 he was talking to his deciples/Apostles to come (not a modern day priest). The ones who walked with Christ. The original disciples were ordained directly from Christ (God in the Flesh). How does it apply to a priest (does a modern day priest command such authority that Jesus bestowed on the original disciples/not hardly)? The bible also says to confess our sins to one and other. I can go direct to the Lord with my confessions of sin. Good passage, taken out of text for the Catholic.

So you’re admitting that the apostles had the ability to forgive sins in the name of Christ. If Christ could give it to them, why not also to their successors who succeeded them? Why in the world would Christ give this special gift to the apostles only to have it die with them? Also is there anything in Scripture that says that this special gift died with the apostles? The successors to the apostles were ordained directly by God the Holy Spirit through the apostles who were ordained on earth by God the Son. If you read the early Church fathers, you will find that they universally understood their role as receiving the authority of the apostles.
Here is a link to the early Church fathers on this topic: freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1775198/posts

Since you rely on sola Scriptura (which btw is itself unbibilical), here is a list of Scriptures, which will help reinforce apostolic succession and apostolic authority: scripturecatholic.com/apostolic_succession.html

1 Timothy 3:15; Yes, the church is the pillar of foundation of the truth, but where does this truth come from? The truth comes from the Holy Scripture, which reflects the truth of God, thus establishing the truth of the church.

But where does the Bible come from? The Bible comes from the Church. You do not have an inspired Bible without first acknowledging the authority of the Catholic Church, which compiled it for you.
**St. Augustine: “I would not believe in the Gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not influence me to do so.”
Against the letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D. **
thecatholictreasurechest.com/august.htm

…

 

[una_fides]

…

Since none of us were fortunate enough to witness the great acts of our Lord and Savior first hand (Blessed are those who don’t see, yet believe) like the disciples, we base the Foundations of the Church off of the Actions/teachings of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Where are these facts found that tells us how to establish the foundation of the Church? Yes, you guessed it, from the Holy Bible.

But the Holy Bible says to follow both the written Word and the oral Tradition.
2Th. 2:14 Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.
Who would know the apostle’s teachings and be able to intepret them better than their immediate successors to the apostles? St. Ignatius of Antioch, disciple of St. John the Apostle, bishop and martyr wrote the following:
“You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the Apostles. Reverence the deacons as you would the command of God. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop, or by one whom he appoints. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” (*Letter to the Smyrnaeans *8:1 A.D. 110]).

Also, a person can read the Holy Bible til he is blue in the face and not receive the Holy Spirit. A person is not truly saved until he accepts Christ as his Lord and Savior. This is only revealed to the person, when God opens the heart of the unbeliver to believe and see the truth of Christ. Remember a sacrifice is man giving up something for God. Accepting Christ is not a sacrifice, but a gift bestowed upon the believer by God (definition for Sacrement). When a believer is opened to accept Christ, it is followed by the Sacrament of Baptisim (Sacrement being a gift from God to man). I’m not anti-Catholic, just like things to be per scripture as intended from God.

How do you know your interpretation of Scripture is correct? How do you even know you are saved? If you were to ask members of the various 20,000+ protestant denominations how they know their interpretation is correct, they will likely say something similar to what you do in that it’s the “inner witness of the Holy Spirit” who “guides the believer into the truth.” The problem again as I pointed out is these same people when taken as a whole disagree on every issue in the Book. There is no unity in understanding nor unity in body nor unity in spirit. Where the Holy Spirit is there is unity, and mirroring the words of St. Ignatius of Antioch, “wherever Jesus Christ is there is the Catholic Church.”

Thank you sir for pointing out these explainations. Also, bear in mind, Mary was just the means of Holy Conception for Christ to enter this world. After, Christ is born and his ministry begins, why is Mary hardly even read about. Yes, she was the mother of Jesus, who embodied the essence of God in the flesh, but never once was she the mother of God the creator. Remember, John 1:1-5, “In the beginning was the word, and the word is with God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him nothing was made that was made”.

First, Scripture never says that Mary was “just” the means of conception and nothing more. Second, you misunderstand what is meant when the Church calls her the “Mother of God.” That does not mean that she is the creator of God or that she existed before God or anything to that affect. Please read this article: catholic.com/library/Mary_Mother_of_God.asp
Mary was the mother of Jesus Christ, who was both true God and true man. He was only one Person, and Mary was the mother of Jesus Christ, the divine human person. She did not give Jesus his divinity or create his divinity any more than your mother gave or created your human soul. Only God makes the eternal soul of man, and in the case of Mary, the Son took upon him human flesh through the Virgin’s womb. She is rightly called the Mother of God because she was the Mother of Jesus Christ who was God. You must understand the term how Catholics mean it and intend it, which is to say that she is the mother of Jesus Christ, who is God.

Thank you for your time sir and may Christ be with you!

Ed

You are quite welcome. Since we are both deviating from the topic of the thread, I wouldn’t mind continuing this conversation by PM if you are interested.

 

[mexanava87]

Mexanava87 – I am quite surprised to see you list the NKJV as being available in an edition with the Deuterocanonicals. I am unaware of this edition, and the publisher has stated that it is not interested in publishing an edition with the Apocrypha.

Do you have a link to the edition?

I believe you meant to write “Interlinear” instead of “Interlineal” (in two places) and “Deuterocanonical” instead of “Duerocanonical”.

I cannot share your enthusiasm for Brenton’s edition (which is widely available online); both his Greek and his translation have serious errors. I recommend instead the resources listed by the IOSCS for the Greek and the NETS for an English translation.

Thank you for correcting my spelling mistakes and thank you for informing me about Brenton’s edition of the Septuagint. I will check out the one’s you recommend me, thank you again. The one that I’m referring to for the NKJV is entitled “The Orthodox Study Bible.” Here’s the link christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=003590&event=85684SPF|1154535|85684

 

[Bible_Reader]

Ah, the Orthodox Study Bible. That’s an interesting bird, because it claims to be translated from the Septuagint (although the reviews I have read of it have been quite critical of it.)

Happy reading!

 

[NoelFitz]

**tobinatorstark **

You wrote:

We have no physical proof that the manuscripts that were used in modern translations are older than those used by Jerome because they (the manuscripts used by Jerome) are non existant.

This is an excellent point. I have been trying to find out the sources used by St Jerome without success.

 

[David_Zampino]

You’re making a few unwarranted assumptions here.

The Douay Rheims is a literal translation of the Latin Vulgate, which is the Church’s official translation given her stamp of approval in an infallible General Council (Trent). No other translation can make such a boast.

1. The Douay Rheims was the best possible translation of the Vulgate at a particular and specific point in history. It does not necessarily follow that it would remain such today. Even leaving aside any and all other points of discussion, the English language has changed substantially enough over the last 400 years that even supposing one was to attempt a translation today (even one as literally as possible) it would look substantially different.
2. It does not necessarily follow that because the Church gave an approval to the Vulgate, that said approval automatically devolves on a translation of the Vulgate.
3. Let’s look at what the Council of Trent actually said.

In the Decree Concerning the Canonical Scriptures, the Council stated:

And it has thought it meet that a list of the sacred books be inserted in this decree, lest a doubt may arise in any one’s mind, which are the books that are received by this Synod. They are as set down here below: of the Old Testament: the five books of Moses, to wit, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first book of Esdras, and the second which is entitled Nehemias; Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidical Psalter, consisting of a hundred and fifty psalms; the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch; Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, to wit, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggaeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of the Machabees, the first and the second. Of the New Testament: the four Gospels, according [Page 19] to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the Evangelist; fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, (one) to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, (one) to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, (one) to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter the apostle, three of John the apostle, one of the apostle James, one of Jude the apostle, and the Apocalypse of John the apostle. But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema. Let all, therefore, understand, in what order, and in what manner, the said Synod, after having laid the foundation of the Confession of faith, will proceed, and what testimonies and authorities it will mainly use in confirming dogmas, and in restoring morals in the Church.

What we have here is a statement that the list of books found in the Vulgate is dogmatic, not the translation itself.

Next, let’s look at the Decree Concerning the Edition, and Use, of the Sacred Books:

Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod,–considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic,–ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever.

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.

St. Jerome who wrote the Vulgate had access to original manuscripts that we do not have access to today.

Quite possible. It is also possible that St. Jerome used some of the same manuscripts that modern translators do have access to today. It is further possible that modern translators have access to manuscripts that had been lost or hidden in St. Jerome’s day. Remember, the Church was recovering from 250 years of persecution!

He also had access to inside knowledge being an early Church father and having access to the early tradition of the Church and understandings of the Scriptures.

I’d be very careful making a statement like that. It could easily be misconstrued in a gnostic fashion. Very easily.

I know Latin and read from the Vulgate and the Douay Rheims side by side. The Greek testaments have many variants from various manuscript deviations, so your safest bet would be to go with the Church’s translation, the Latin Vulgate, and if you can’t read Latin, then use the Douay Rheims.That’s my 2 cents.

Again, while not putting down either the Vulgate or the Douay Rheims, you’re making claims for these Bibles that go beyond the warrant of the Church.

 

[PJM]

=ChristusVincit;5234628]I’m prepared for the most painfully literal version possible. I want the closest thing next to reading the original language, even if it makes little sense. Any suggestions?

Google “Young’s Literal Translation” From the Greek. Very solid.

The specific and most common answer will be Douey Rheimes, the first from Latin to English done around 1610. It can be found on the net.

The Latin bible was transcribed by St. Jereome in about 350, from Greek, Aramaic and Latin and is considered the "First Bible, in a “common language.”

 

[una_fides]

1. The Douay Rheims was the best possible translation of the Vulgate at a particular and specific point in history. It does not necessarily follow that it would remain such today. Even leaving aside any and all other points of discussion, the English language has changed substantially enough over the last 400 years that even supposing one was to attempt a translation today (even one as literally as possible) it would look substantially different.

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?

1. It does not necessarily follow that because the Church gave an approval to the Vulgate, that said approval automatically devolves on a translation of the Vulgate.

True. I didn’t say it did, and if anything I said was taken that way, that was not what I intended to communicate.

1. Let’s look at what the Council of Trent actually said. … Next, let’s look at the Decree Concerning the Edition, and Use, of the Sacred Books:
   Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod,–considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic,–ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that *no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever. *

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 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.

It is also possible that St. Jerome used some of the same manuscripts that modern translators do have access to today. It is further possible that modern translators have access to manuscripts that had been lost or hidden in St. Jerome’s day. Remember, the Church was recovering from 250 years of persecution!

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.

I’d be very careful making a statement like that. It could easily be misconstrued in a gnostic fashion. Very easily.

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?

Again, while not putting down either the Vulgate or the Douay Rheims, you’re making claims for these Bibles that go beyond the warrant of the Church.

I don’t see how anything I wrote went beyond what the Church said. I was doing my best to reiterate those things. I stick to my original statement that no other translation other than the Vulgate can boast of having been backed by an infallible General Council. Is this not true?

 

[erikd]

This exchange has been well versed though I must say that una fides certainly has control of the facts. To quote Pope Benedict XVI: “Jerome was able, with the assistance later of other collaborators, to produce a better translation: this constitutes the so-called “Vulgate”, the “official” text of the Latin Church which was recognized as such by the Council of Trent and which, after the recent revision, continues to be the “official” Latin text of the Church.” This was spoken by Pope Benedict XVI on Wed. Nov. 7, 2007 and is available from the Vatican’s website through the following link:

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20071107_en.html

I must say, however, that there’s been a more recent development, at least in the English speaking world, of which not much has been said. The St. Joseph Missal (weekday and Sunday) utilizes the New American Bible. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, on their website, utilizes the New American Bible. The Vatican, on the English version of the Vatican’s website, utilizes the New American Bible. As a matter of fact, the only English language document produced by the Magisterium in recent times that does not utilize the New American Bible is the Catechism, which utilizes the Revised Standard Version (RSV) - Catholic Edition. Neither of these translations can compare, in language to the Douay. It seems that the Magisterium, while not having spoken authoritatively on the matter in over 400 years, certainly has some strong opinions. If one is a Latin scholar then I understand the need for the Vulgate. For the common man, however, I will accept, with great joy, whatever the Church today accepts. God Bless.