Most literal translation?

[una_fides]

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,

I just dug this up:
What is the Clementine Vulgate?

       After the Council of Trent, which declared in 1546 that the Vulgate           alone was to be held as "authentic in public readings, discourses, and           disputes, and that nobody might dare or presume to reject it on any           pretence" (Sess. IV, De editione et usu sacrorum             librorum), the Holy See undertook the task of producing a           *corrected, standard text of the Vulgate for the use of the universal           Church*. In 1590, an edition was duly produced in Rome by a commission of           scholars, revised further by Sixtus V, and finally approved by him.           After his death a further revision was carried out under the Jesuit           Franciscus Toletus, and finally the work was printed in 1598 during the           pontificate of Clement VIII, whose name has been attached to it since           1641. The Clementine text was the offical version of the Vulgate until           1979.

vulsearch.sourceforge.net/text.html#x2

 

[AmbroseSJ]

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,

I would suggest that it is because it is the only edition permitted (in a variant revision) for use in the Sacred Liturgy in the US. Also I would add that it has changed the numbering of the verses and chapters in many of the OT books from what was traditionally found in all bibles until the late 20th c. The daily readings as prescribed on the USCCB website are all NAB chapter/verses, not D/R or KJV or RSV etc. There is a concerted effort by the USCCB to promote the NAB to the exclusion of other older Catholic Bibles, and this effort is paying off (literally I’m sure) for them. I consider the translation awkward, embarassing at times, and anti-traditional. It has little to recommend it, IOW, aside from the USCCB steamrolling it through the US Catholic Church. In the business world this would be a case of a conflict of interest, or even anti-trust laws.

 

[David_Zampino]

I just dug this up:
What is the Clementine Vulgate?

       After the Council of Trent, which declared in 1546 that the Vulgate           alone was to be held as "authentic in public readings, discourses, and           disputes, and that nobody might dare or presume to reject it on any           pretence" (Sess. IV, De editione et usu sacrorum             librorum), the Holy See undertook the task of producing a           *corrected, standard text of the Vulgate for the use of the universal           Church*. In 1590, an edition was duly produced in Rome by a commission of           scholars, revised further by Sixtus V, and finally approved by him.           After his death a further revision was carried out under the Jesuit           Franciscus Toletus, and finally the work was printed in 1598 during the           pontificate of Clement VIII, whose name has been attached to it since           1641. The Clementine text was the offical version of the Vulgate until           1979.

vulsearch.sourceforge.net/text.html#x2

Thanks for the information and for the link. I greatly appreciate it.

 

[Ron_Conte]

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.

Truth is greater than rules. It is the error of the Pharisees not to distinguish between the Truth, and particular rules and judgments of the prudential order. Faithful Catholics should sometimes disagree with decisions of the temporal order by the Holy See or the various Bishops Conferences and individual Bishops. Blindly obeying all temporal decisions is not faithfulness.

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.

You fail to distinguish between infallible teachings, non-infallible teachings, and judgments of the prudential order. You also fail to give the proper weight, greater or lesser, to each of those three exercises of Church authority. The list of Canonical Books is an infallible teaching. The Church teaches infallibly through papal infallibility, Councils, and the Universal Magisterium; all other teachings are non-infallible; decision of the prudential order are fallible. It is not faithfulness to oversimply ‘the Church’ so that everything said or done by any Bishop or by the Pope is given exactly the same weight. No disciplines are infallible; only teachings may be infallible. Some teachings are non-infallible.

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.

You have not supported your claim that the NAB is the best translation. The Holy See has approved the NRSV, the JB, the Grail Psalter, and the RSV for use in the Mass in various English speaking nations. So the mere approval of the NAB for use in the U.S. does not make it the best version. Also, the Pope is not the webmaster for the Vatican website. It is absurd to claim that the NAB is established as best merely because it is on the site.

 

[Ron_Conte]

I just dug this up:
What is the Clementine Vulgate?

       After the Council of Trent, which declared in 1546 that the Vulgate           alone was to be held as "authentic in public readings, discourses, and           disputes, and that nobody might dare or presume to reject it on any           pretence" (Sess. IV, De editione et usu sacrorum             librorum), the Holy See undertook the task of producing a           *corrected, standard text of the Vulgate for the use of the universal           Church*. In 1590, an edition was duly produced in Rome by a commission of           scholars, revised further by Sixtus V, and finally approved by him.           After his death a further revision was carried out under the Jesuit           Franciscus Toletus, and finally the work was printed in 1598 during the           pontificate of Clement VIII, whose name has been attached to it since           1641. The Clementine text was the offical version of the Vulgate until           1979.

vulsearch.sourceforge.net/text.html#x2

That site has the 2005 Tweedale edition of the Latin Vulgate, which is a light edit of the Clementine Vulgate. This edition was approved by the Bishops Conference of England and Wales. The idea that the Clementine edition is no longer to be used, or has been entirely superceeded by the NV, is false.

 

[erikd]

Truth is greater than rules.

Whose truth, Ron? Your truth?

You fail to distinguish between infallible teachings, non-infallible teachings, and judgments of the prudential order.

No, sir, I did not. I was merely making an example that the Church, in Her infinite wisdom should be followed and adhered to by anyone calling themselves a Catholic. You, sir, are protesting.

You have not supported your claim that the NAB is the best translation. The Holy See has approved the NRSV, the JB, the Grail Psalter, and the RSV for use in the Mass in various English speaking nations. So the mere approval of the NAB for use in the U.S. does not make it the best version. Also, the Pope is not the webmaster for the Vatican website. It is absurd to claim that the NAB is established as best merely because it is on the site.

Thank you for clarifying the webmaster issue, I guess I thought the Pope was the IT guy. Could you get any more cynical? I guess we’ll listen to RON from now on for the infallible truth, as RON has deemed the Church to be fallible according to RON’s wisdom. Keep protesting, RON. You’re on a collision course with the truth.

 

[NoelFitz]

Ron

Many thanks for your post.

In Latin Masses today what translation is used? Is it Nova Vulgata, Bibliorum Sacrorum Editio, Sacrosanti Oecumenici Concilii Vaticani II, Ratione Habita, Iussu Pauli Pp. VI Recognita, Auctoritate Ioannis Pauli Pp. II Promulgata.?

This and* Biblia Sacra juxta Vulgatam Clementinam 1598 with Glossa Ordinaria Migne edition (1880) *seem to have Church backing.

However for over 1000 years prior to 1598 another Vulgate must have been used.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Thank you for clarifying the webmaster issue, I guess I thought the Pope was the IT guy. Could you get any more cynical? I guess we’ll listen to RON from now on for the infallible truth, as RON has deemed the Church to be fallible according to RON’s wisdom. Keep protesting, RON. You’re on a collision course with the truth.

Pope John XXIII: “Differences of opinion in the application of principles can sometimes arise even among sincere Catholics. When this happens, they should be careful not to lose their respect and esteem for each other. Instead, they should strive to find points of agreement for effective and suitable action, and not wear themselves out in interminable arguments, and, under pretext of the better or the best, omit to do the good that is possible and therefore obligatory.” (Mater et Magistra, n. 238.)

Cardinal Ratzinger: “When there is a question of the communion of faith, the principle of the “unity of truth” (unitas veritatis) applies. When it is a question of differences which do not jeopardize this communion, the “unity of charity” (unitas caritatis) should be safeguarded.” (CDF, Donum Veritatis, n. 26)

Pope John Paul II: “This magisterium is not above the divine word but serves it with a specific carisma veritatis certum, which includes the charism of infallibility, present not only in the solemn definitions of the Roman Pontiff and of Ecumenical Councils, but also in the universal ordinary magisterium, which can truly be considered as the usual expression of the Church’s infallibility. This does not, however, prevent the Church from recognizing and fostering a legitimate pluralism in theology. Right after the Council, Paul VI stated that ‘a moderate diversity of opinions is compatible with the unity of the faith and with fidelity toward the teachings and norms of the magisterium’.” (To The Bishops From The US On Their ‘ad Limina’ Visit, Thursday, 15 October 1988)

The Church teaches infallibly in any of three ways:

1. the solemn definitions of the Roman Pontiff
2. and of Ecumenical Councils,
3. but also in the universal ordinary magisterium

Otherwise the teaching of the Church is non-infallible and non-irreformable.

Judgments of the prudential order are fallible.

 

[Ron_Conte]

However for over 1000 years prior to 1598 another Vulgate must have been used.

There was no standard Latin edition prior to Jerome. After Jerome, there seems to have been far fewer editions, but still a diversity of editions with no one approved edition. The 1590 edition was supposed to be the definitive Latin edition. Pope Sixtus V decreed that no changes were to be made in this authoritative edition of the Bible (except for obvious typographical errors). The language he used was definitive and absolute: “by this, Our perpetually valid Constitution… from the fullness of Apostolic power We establish and declare… by the Apostolic authority, given to us by God….” The Pope ordered that even in future years “not even the smallest part” be “changed, added, or deleted.” Yet Pope Clementine VIII issued editions in 1592, 93, and 98.

But in all these discussions about Latin editions of the Bible, few persons seem concerned about the actual contents of the edition. Is it not offensive to God, the one true Author of the Bible, to show no concerns for the contents of an edition, but only to argue about which edition is approved?

 

[NoelFitz]

Ron

many thanks for your reply. My confusion is lifting a little bit.

It seems clear to me now that the Clementine Vulgate is not the official Latin version of the Bible in the Church.

Una Fides wrote:

After the Council of Trent, which declared in 1546 that the Vulgate alone was to be held as “authentic in public readings, discourses, and disputes, and that nobody might dare or presume to reject it on any pretence” (Sess. IV, De editione et usu sacrorum librorum), the Holy See undertook the task of producing a corrected, standard text of the Vulgate for the use of the universal Church. … finally the work was printed in 1598 during the pontificate of Clement VIII, whose name has been attached to it since 1641. The Clementine text was the offical version of the Vulgate until 1979.
vulsearch.sourceforge.net/text.html#x2

The above link gives:

There is a single, definitive Clementine text, namely the Editio Typica published by the Typographus Vaticanus in 1598 under the title “Biblia Sacra Vulgatæ editionis, Sixti V Pontificis Maximi jussu recognita et edita”, with the single proviso: “nisi aliquid occurrat, quod typographicæ incuriæ manifeste ascribendum sit” (Clement VIII, Cum sacrorum).

I take it Biblia Sacra juxta Vulgatam Clementinam 1598 with Glossa Ordinaria Migne edition (1880), *Biblia Sacra Vulgatæ editionis, Sixti V Pontificis Maximi jussu recognita et edita * and BIBLIA SACRA JUXTAVULGATAM CLEMENTINAM
EDITIO ELECTRONICA
PLURIMIS CONSULTIS EDITIONIBUS DILIGENTER PRÆPARATA
A MICHAELE TVVEEDALE. (Tweedale = Clem Lite) are all the same, essentially.

However they are not the official Latin version of the Church which is Nova Vulgata, Bibliorum Sacrorum Editio, Sacrosanti Oecumenici Concilii Vaticani II, Ratione Habita, Iussu Pauli Pp. VI Recognita, Auctoritate Ioannis Pauli Pp. II Promulgata

Roma locuta, causa finita

 

[erikd]

Pope John XXIII: "Differences of opinion in the application of principles can sometimes arise even among sincere Catholics. When this happens, they should be careful not to lose their respect and esteem for each other.

That’s a great quote, Ron. If you remember, I was apologizing for the disagreement, I kept telling you that I didn’t want the conflict, I kept calling you sir. You, sir, kept calling my opinion “absurd.” Let’s agree to disagree and leave it at that. If you want to continue a private discussion, you can send me an e-mail so we don’t clog up this thread.

 

[una_fides]

Truth is greater than rules. It is the error of the Pharisees not to distinguish between the Truth, and particular rules and judgments of the prudential order. Faithful Catholics should sometimes disagree with decisions of the temporal order by the Holy See or the various Bishops Conferences and individual Bishops. Blindly obeying all temporal decisions is not faithfulness.

You fail to distinguish between infallible teachings, non-infallible teachings, and judgments of the prudential order. You also fail to give the proper weight, greater or lesser, to each of those three exercises of Church authority. The list of Canonical Books is an infallible teaching. The Church teaches infallibly through papal infallibility, Councils, and the Universal Magisterium; all other teachings are non-infallible; decision of the prudential order are fallible. It is not faithfulness to oversimply ‘the Church’ so that everything said or done by any Bishop or by the Pope is given exactly the same weight. No disciplines are infallible; only teachings may be infallible. Some teachings are non-infallible.

You have not supported your claim that the NAB is the best translation. The Holy See has approved the NRSV, the JB, the Grail Psalter, and the RSV for use in the Mass in various English speaking nations. So the mere approval of the NAB for use in the U.S. does not make it the best version. Also, the Pope is not the webmaster for the Vatican website. It is absurd to claim that the NAB is established as best merely because it is on the site.

Hey Ron,

I’d like to clarify something here to help all of us, specifically in regards to what the Church requires of us in response to the varying degrees of her teaching authority. To infallible teachings we must give our full consent of faith. When the Church exercises her ordinary Magisterium, though the decisions are not infallible, we are still bound to give those teachings a religious submission of intellect. We can ask questions and for clarifications if we do not understand or are having difficulty reconciling the teachings, but ultimately we must obey the Church.

I’m bringing this up to preempt a possible argument on the opposition’s side, who would try to claim that because the Church uses the NAB that it somehow therefore falls under her ordinary Magisterium and therefore ipso facto we must accept that it is a good version, or w/e. It seems that has been the line of argumentation presented on this thread so far just without explicitly invoking the ordinary Magisterium by name. What must be kept in mind, however, is that the Church has not–to my knowledge–explicitly taught that the NAB must be accepted as a good text, etc. If she did, I would submit and question, but she has not, and I do not believe she will. The Church has, however, in the infallible Council of Trent said that the Latin Vulgate cannot be rejected and must have universal acceptance. Hence, the Church has bound us regarding the Vulgate but has not regarding any other translation of the Bible.

Hope this helps.

 

[David_Zampino]

Pope John XXIII: “Differences of opinion in the application of principles can sometimes arise even among sincere Catholics. When this happens, they should be careful not to lose their respect and esteem for each other. Instead, they should strive to find points of agreement for effective and suitable action, and not wear themselves out in interminable arguments, and, under pretext of the better or the best, omit to do the good that is possible and therefore obligatory.” (Mater et Magistra, n. 238.)

Cardinal Ratzinger: “When there is a question of the communion of faith, the principle of the “unity of truth” (unitas veritatis) applies. When it is a question of differences which do not jeopardize this communion, the “unity of charity” (unitas caritatis) should be safeguarded.” (CDF, Donum Veritatis, n. 26)

Pope John Paul II: “This magisterium is not above the divine word but serves it with a specific carisma veritatis certum, which includes the charism of infallibility, present not only in the solemn definitions of the Roman Pontiff and of Ecumenical Councils, but also in the universal ordinary magisterium, which can truly be considered as the usual expression of the Church’s infallibility. This does not, however, prevent the Church from recognizing and fostering a legitimate pluralism in theology. Right after the Council, Paul VI stated that ‘a moderate diversity of opinions is compatible with the unity of the faith and with fidelity toward the teachings and norms of the magisterium’.” (To The Bishops From The US On Their ‘ad Limina’ Visit, Thursday, 15 October 1988)

The Church teaches infallibly in any of three ways:

1. the solemn definitions of the Roman Pontiff
2. and of Ecumenical Councils,
3. but also in the universal ordinary magisterium

Otherwise the teaching of the Church is non-infallible and non-irreformable.

Judgments of the prudential order are fallible.

So, Ron, am I to assume that you DO accept the Second Vatican Council AND the teachings of Blessed Pope John XXIII and his legitimate successors?

How do YOU define “Judgments of the prudential order”? And by what authority?

I have been greatly confused with your (lack of responses) on this issue, since you have not responded to my questions on this point.

A simple “yes” or “no” will suffice.

 

[Ron_Conte]

I’m bringing this up to preempt a possible argument on the opposition’s side, who would try to claim that because the Church uses the NAB that it somehow therefore falls under her ordinary Magisterium and therefore ipso facto we must accept that it is a good version, or w/e. It seems that has been the line of argumentation presented on this thread so far just without explicitly invoking the ordinary Magisterium by name. What must be kept in mind, however, is that the Church has not–to my knowledge–explicitly taught that the NAB must be accepted as a good text, etc. If she did, I would submit and question, but she has not, and I do not believe she will. The Church has, however, in the infallible Council of Trent said that the Latin Vulgate cannot be rejected and must have universal acceptance. Hence, the Church has bound us regarding the Vulgate but has not regarding any other translation of the Bible. Hope this helps.

infallible teachings - full assent of faith
non-infallible teachings - religious submission of will and intellect
falllible decisions of the prudential order

We may faithfully disagree, to a limited extent, with some points within ordinary non-infallible teachings. Example: Avery Dulles in First Things Oct. 2005 disagreeing with Veritatis Splendor’s list of intrinsically evil acts, specifically, slavery.

We may also faithfully disagree, to a limited extent, with some decisions of the temporal authority. Examples: The choice of the NV as the normative Latin text. The closing of a parish in a diocese. The decision of surpress a religious order. The decision to permit the use of the NRSV in the Mass in Canada.

Blind obedience is not what Christ taught.

 

[Manfred]

infallible teachings - full assent of faith
non-infallible teachings - religious submission of will and intellect
falllible decisions of the prudential order

We may faithfully disagree, to a limited extent, with some points within ordinary non-infallible teachings. Example: Avery Dulles in First Things Oct. 2005 disagreeing with Veritatis Splendor’s list of intrinsically evil acts, specifically, slavery.

We may also faithfully disagree, to a limited extent, with some decisions of the temporal authority. Examples: The choice of the NV as the normative Latin text. The closing of a parish in a diocese. The decision of surpress a religious order. The decision to permit the use of the NRSV in the Mass in Canada.

Blind obedience is not what Christ taught.

Wow, this is easier than I thought!

I have no problem whatsoever with disagreeing with the decisions of the temporal authority to use the RNAB and the NRSV in the USA and Canada, respectively.

 

[mmmcounts]

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?

Young’s Literal Translation.

 

[NoelFitz]

I am grateful to all who have contributed here. The varying opinions show the freedom of opinion within the Church. We are free to have different views, provided they are not contrary to the infallible core of Catholicism.

Quot homines, tot sentential,
De gustibus non disputatum est.

My favorite versions are:
***Greek: ***
NA27 GNT = UBS GNT (4th revised Edition).

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

The Clementine Vulgate is now obsolete and redundant having been superseded by the above.

English:
My favorite is the NRSV (CE). Next to this I like the NASB (1995 Edition) and the NAB. I consider these close to the GNT.

I note Ron wrote:

Differences of opinion in the application of principles can sometimes arise even among sincere Catholics. When this happens, they should be careful not to lose their respect and esteem for each other.

I sympathize with Erikd though. It is often difficult to remain respectful and courteous.

Ron wrote:

Faithful Catholics should sometimes disagree with decisions of the temporal order by the Holy See or the various Bishops Conferences and individual Bishops.

I agree fully. Thus one can disagree with a Pope, be he Paul or Clement (when he is not speaking ex cathedra), but his views must be considered with respect.

 

[tnystrom]

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?

Why do you want a super literal translation? So literal that it makes no difference that you can’t understand it? Isn’t understanding the purpose of Sacred Scripture?

 

[tobinatorstark]

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.

I back up your statement

 

[tobinatorstark]

**tobinatorstark **

You wrote:

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

If one were to know what the manuscripts were used by St. Jerome and those of the modern versions one could tell. I know that you are well in depth with scripture. Just don’t limit your transltaions