Nova Vulgata

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

Manfred

Guest
Given that the Douay-Rheims-Challoner is a faithful, literal translation of the Clementine Vulgate of 1592, which English translation today would come closest to approximating the Nova Vulgata? Liturgiam Authenticam still directs that Scriptural translations for lturgical purposes be from “the original languages”. Yet it establishes the Nova Vulgata as a point of reference for vernacular translations and the variant witnesses to the various manuscripts.

IMHO, none of today’s modern English translations for Catholics are all that suitable for reading, let alone for liturgy. As a glaring example, the highly-vaunted RSV-CE renders Luke 1:34 as “How can this be, since I have no husband?” The DRC still renders it the best: “How shall this be done, because I know not man?”

Still, one of them - RSV-CE, JB, NJB, NAB, RNAB - should be close to the Nova Vulgata - shouldn’t it?

Thanks for your help!
 
40.png
Manfred:
Given that the Douay-Rheims-Challoner is a faithful, literal translation of the Clementine Vulgate of 1592, which English translation today would come closest to approximating the Nova Vulgata? Liturgiam Authenticam still directs that Scriptural translations for lturgical purposes be from “the original languages”. Yet it establishes the Nova Vulgata as a point of reference for vernacular translations and the variant witnesses to the various manuscripts.

IMHO, none of today’s modern English translations for Catholics are all that suitable for reading, let alone for liturgy. As a glaring example, the highly-vaunted RSV-CE renders Luke 1:34 as “How can this be, since I have no husband?” The DRC still renders it the best: “How shall this be done, because I know not man?”

Still, one of them - RSV-CE, JB, NJB, NAB, RNAB - should be close to the Nova Vulgata - shouldn’t it?

Thanks for your help!
Click to expand...
Manfred:

I agree with you that the RSV got that verse wrong - It’s maddening, because it gets 99.9% of the translations right, even when many others don’t.

The new Revised English Bible (a Revision of the New English Bible) Blows Isaiah 9:6 - For a child has been born to us, a son is given to us; he will bear the symbol of dominion on his shoulder, and his title will be: Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty Hero, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.

Mighty Hero should be translated as Mighty God or God-Hero, but definitely NOT Mighty Hero. The ONLY reason to translate the Hebrew word EL as Mighty Hero is to question the Divinity of Christ!

I believe that the translations need to be faithful to the Original Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic & Syriac that the Scriptures were written in. They should never deviate from the Ortiginal languages. This is esp. true in matters of political correctness or where someone might not like the resulting doctrine.

I also believe in FORMAL EQUIVALENCE (Word for Word Translation) over DYNAMIC EQUIVALENCE (Phrase by Phrase or Interpretive Translation), and I deplore the recent trend towards “Gender Neutrality” when that wasn’t in the original texts.

I believe that Priests and readers together should consult their Bishops in cases like you mentioned above, and where the deviation from the Original Languages appears to be deliberate and for the purpose of NOT supporting the Church’s Doctrine as Taught to all people in all places for all times, the reading should be changec to correctly reflect the Original Language.

At a minimum, this should be done only with the Rector’s express permission and the knowledge of the Bishop. This way, the Rector can explain why the change was made, and the Bishop will not be caught be surprise if questions should arise.

As good as the Nova Vulgata is, it’s still a translation.

In Christ, Michael
 
Michael,

Thanks for taking time to reply.

You are way too kind to the RSV-CE. My impression (and that’s all it is) of the editors is that, because they absolutely needed to get “Hail, full of grace” in, they looked the other way in many other places (e.g., Matt. 16:18 “powers of death”; 1 Cor. 9:5 “a wife”; Gen. 12:3 "shall bless themselves; Ps. 45:6 “Your divine throne”; Is. 7:14 “young woman”).

Admittedly, I DO like its traditional style (lo, behold, use of “and” at start of sentences to mimic the original).

But my point is the Nova Vulgata “bats .1000” and, using “modern” scholarship, renders any given passage in a “correct” Catholic manner. The RSV-CE does not. I also find the JB and 1970 NAB not literal enough, and the NJB and RNAB, while a bit more literal than their predecessors, to be “hell-bent” on gender-inclusive language.

Makes me wish I’d taken Latin in high school so I could read the NV. Yes, it IS another translation from the original languages, and so are the other five I mentioned. But the editors of the other five didn’t do anywhere near as well in taking “Catholicism” into account; they wanted to be “ecumenical” in their appeal. Swell idea, but, you know - how many evangelical Protestants, or even mainstream Protestants, actually flock to any of these five?

You really think the priests and bishops are concerned with this? As far as they seem to be concerned, we have the gender-inclusive RNAB and the ICEL Mass texts; who could ask for anything more?

Manfred
 
Hi Manfred,

Equal or possibly superior to the Nova Vulgata is the French translation “Bible de Jérusalem”. Perhaps it is easier for you to learn French?

Verbum
 
I agree, that you really cannot go wrong with the Vulgate. Latin is one of the very few languages that you can actually translate the Greek ‘word for word’, most of the time that is. I have the Sacra Vulgata, and I rely upon it heavily, even though I am more of a Greek man than Latin. I don’t believe there is a scholar out there that is better than St. Jerome when it comes to the transmission from Greek to Latin.

As far as Luke 1:34
RSV-CE renders Luke 1:34 as “How can this be, since I have no husband?”
Click to expand...
That is most assuredly not a literal translation from the Greek! The Greek has ,“andra ou ginosko” which is literally, “a man I do not know”. What you have the RSV doing is giving a dynamic equivilent meaning to it, which is sense for sense and not word for word. The NRSV has done even a poorer job by translating it like this, “How can this be, since I am a virgin?”

Though, I do support much of what Textual Criticism has offered by compiling all the ancient manuscripts in search for the most accurate reading of the Bible. It is amazing and fascinating that we have many thousands of ancient manuscripts of the Bible, and we have access to them! And most of all the Catholic Church encourages further development into it’s scholarship! So it is not just a Protestant thing. The RSV is one of the better English translations on the market because of it’s use of the most ancient texts of the Bible, and for the most part it is relable for an English translation. But I do not rely upon English translations as my primary reference, but if I did, I would rely upon the Douay-Rheims-Challoner Version!
 
40.png
copland:
As far as Luke 1:34
That is most assuredly not a literal translation from the Greek! The Greek has ,“andra ou ginosko” which is literally, “a man I do not know”. What you have the RSV doing is giving a dynamic equivilent meaning to it, which is sense for sense and not word for word. The NRSV has done even a poorer job by translating it like this, “How can this be, since I am a virgin?”
Click to expand...
That’s an interesting perspective. I find “…since I am a virgin?” to be a lot closer to “…a man I do not know?” than “…I have no husband.”

In modern english “virgin,” when applied to women, gives a far more literal meaning to the translation. The NRSV says what the Greek says in modern English without the use of anachronistic idioms like “know a man.”

Don’t get me wrong, I love the Douay-Challoner, (and would love to see it as the only English translation for liturgical use) but if the Bible is being translated into modern English, it should be modern English and dispense with the anachronistic euphamisms and idioms. Word for word translation into modern English is often non-sensical or unclear. Often there are better English terms than the literal translation for conveying the actual meaning of the original.

Unfortunately in this pocket of Canada, we’re saddled with the NRSV for liturgical use.

For study purposes, I generally cross-reference several translations for the sake of clarity because all of them could be better.
 
Brethren,

I realize Luke 1:34 is “only one” verse, but, a verse here or a verse there that is poorly rendered and I tend to lose confidence in a particular translation. The original RSV translators I might be able to excuse for their awful rendering; they were Protestant and Mary isn’t “big” in their book. But the editors of the RSV CATHOLIC Edition really blew this one! And if there really IS a SECOND Catholic edition from Ignatius, does anyone know if they got it right?

The English-language Jerusalem Bible (1966) renders the verse “…since I am a virgin”, similar to the NRSV. One of the posters is quite correct in that “I am a virgin” agrees nicely with “man I know not”.

But back to my original issue: the Nova Vulgata is now (since 1979, I believe) the “official” Bible of the Latin-rite Catholic Church. Divino Afflante Spiritu, while encouraging biblical studies and vernacular translations from the original languages, did NOT prohibit use of translations from the Vulgate. Liturgiam Authenticam suggests that vernacular translations may not all use the exact same “traditions” of say, the Greek original of Tobit or Sirach; yet, for “reference purposes”, the Nova Vulgata is the standard. So - why no English translation of such?
 
Lapsed,
In modern english “virgin,” when applied to women, gives a far more literal meaning to the translation. The NRSV says what the Greek says in modern English without the use of anachronistic idioms like “know a man.”…Word for word translation into modern English is often non-sensical or unclear. Often there are better English terms than the literal translation for conveying the actual meaning of the original.
Click to expand...
When we rely upon translators who give the ‘sense for sense’ equivilent meaning then we put ourselves at the mercy of the translator, and it will be rendered according to their religious bias. I may agree with them and hold the same bias as they do, but I still do not prefer to have the Word of God changed or altered in the process of transmission. If you were going to translate the NRSV’s Luke 1:34 back into Greek from the English, then it would come out different from the original “andra ou ginosko- I do not know a man” into “ego eimi parthenon- I am a virgin”.

I feel it is much safer to translate as literal as possible, not neccessarily word for word, but translate verb for verb, noun for noun, participle for participle,etc etc. But the only thing that should change is the word order since the grammar is much different between Greek and English. Footnotes are great for those places that may need further explanation to clarify, but not at the expense of altering the actual text of the Word of God.

But don’t get me wrong, I do feel as if there is a place for non-literal translations, but I think people have relied too heavily on them and replaced the pure Word of God with versions that have tried to make the Word easier to read at the expense of purity. I guess I have become more sensitive to it since I have studied Greek and see major deceptive flaws in some of the paraphrase Bibles and Dynamic Equivilent Versions on the market. But hey, if the Catholic Church approves some of them for Her flock then I obviously accept it too! But I hope people will become aware of what purpose they serve.
 
Copland wrote:

“… I do feel as if there is a place for non-literal translations, but I think people have relied too heavily on them and replaced the pure Word of God with versions that have tried to make the Word easier to read at the expense of purity. … But hey, if the Catholic Church approves some of them for Her flock then I obviously accept it too! But I hope people will become aware of what purpose they serve.”

I hate to have to admit this but I don’t trust the judgement of the Catholic hierarchy - especially that in the USA - with what’s approved or what’s not for Scriptural translations. You see, the USCCB thinks the NAB with Revised NT and Psalms is a splendid translation, so splendid, in fact, that, in the Liturgy, no other English translation is even allowed anymore. And, of course, there is the whole ICEL debacle. Talk about dumbed-down renderings by the score.
 
40.png
Manfred:
I hate to have to admit this but I don’t trust the judgement of the Catholic hierarchy - especially that in the USA - with what’s approved or what’s not for Scriptural translations. You see, the USCCB thinks the NAB with Revised NT and Psalms is a splendid translation, so splendid, in fact, that, in the Liturgy, no other English translation is even allowed anymore. And, of course, there is the whole ICEL debacle. Talk about dumbed-down renderings by the score.
Click to expand...
On an unintellectual off note, come to Canada.
You’ll be screaming about the infernal darkness of Hell with the NRSV for the liturgical Bible, and the NAB for the common population.
Just scream happy to the Canadian Bishops’ council. :rolleyes:
 
Manfred,
I hate to have to admit this but I don’t trust the judgement of the Catholic hierarchy - especially that in the USA - with what’s approved or what’s not for Scriptural translations. You see, the USCCB thinks the NAB with Revised NT and Psalms is a splendid translation, so splendid, in fact, that, in the Liturgy, no other English translation is even allowed anymore. And, of course, there is the whole ICEL debacle. Talk about dumbed-down renderings by the score.
Click to expand...
I can understand how you feel, and I am sure that the flock of the early Church also had trouble at times always trusting the organization of the Apostles and their successors in their judgments. I sometimes have to remind myself that Jesus said that ‘the Gates of Hades shall not prevail against the Church.’ And that He established the Church, and that She is guided by the Holy Spirit. I suppose that that is where faith comes in. And I must say that I am glad that I rely upon 3 things for my faith, that is, the Bible, Sacred Tradition, and the Magesterium of the Church. And not upon the Bible, Tradition, and aka Copland! haha!

But as for the NAB, it is very good translation. But the footnotes are not always reliable to orthodoxy. But the translators did a fine job with the actual Biblical text. Though it is not perfect, no translation is.
 
40.png
copland:
Lapsed,

When we rely upon translators who give the ‘sense for sense’ equivilent meaning then we put ourselves at the mercy of the translator, and it will be rendered according to their religious bias. I may agree with them and hold the same bias as they do, but I still do not prefer to have the Word of God changed or altered in the process of transmission. If you were going to translate the NRSV’s Luke 1:34 back into Greek from the English, then it would come out different from the original “andra ou ginosko- I do not know a man” into “ego eimi parthenon- I am a virgin”.
Click to expand...
This is precisely why I cross reference several translations (some of them protestant :eek: ) and use a concordance when I’m studying the Scriptures. Not having the requisite language background to read the original languages, I’m very much at the mercy of the translators, so I tend to compare them and generaly give the greatest weight to the Duay-Challoner when seeking a consensus among the translations.

I think if most transated works were translated back to their original languages, the resulting re-translation would read considerably differently from the original work.

My personal preference for modern English translations is an approach that is word for word as far as possible but will resort to dynamic equivelance in places where word for word is nonsensical or very unweildly, though I would also drop archaic idioms for modern equivelants and plain language. I don’t know if it’s Church approved, but my favourite of the modern translations (meaning post '60’s) is the English Standard Version for a meeting of readability and accuracy.

For devotional reading, it’s always the Duay-Challoner, though.
 
Lapsed,

Fair enough!

I have studied some Latin and Aramaic, but I have had 2 years of Greek and I have put most of my effort in that language over the years. I collect transcripts of actual ancient manuscripts of the Bible, and even photocopied editions of the actual manuscripts themselves. They are very hard to find on the market and usually are out of print, and sometimes expensive. I also have different ancient versions of the Greek NT and Septuagint OT, Latin Vulgate and Old Latin Usserianus 2 manuscript, and 3 different Aramaic versions of the NT- Peshitta, Sinaitic, and Curetonian, and the Hebrew Masoretic Text, and the Biblical Dead Sea Scrolls, etc etc. And what I have discovered over the years is that it is a very complexed issue when someone searches for the ‘original.’ For example, most of the NT was written in Greek, but there are some exceptions, such as Matthew, which was writtten in Aramaic by Matthew. Or another example, most of the OT was written in Hebrew, but there are exceptions, and plus most of the OT citations found in the NT are quoted not from Hebrew but from the Greek Septuagint.

With that said, which I feel as if I have left much out to be said, one way to avoid being totally at the mercy of translators is to purchase some interlinear Bibles, such as a NT Greek interlinear, Hebrew OT interlinear, Aramaic NT interlinear, and Latin Vulgate. Also a decent Greek and Hebrew Lexicon and a Latin Dictionary. You would be amazed how much it can raise the level of your devotional study. That may sound like alot to purchase, but it really is not, no more than buying different translations.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top