NRSV is unfaithful

  • Thread starter Thread starter childofmary1143
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Would it be a mortal sin for a Catholic to attempt such a project?

You could always go back to the original languages and still stick mostly with the Douay Rheims–wouldn’t such a course comply with Divino Afflante Spritu–you’d be using the originals–that doesn’t necessarily mean wholesale CHANGING the Douay Rheims.
 
Manfred said:
Right or wrong, no scripture scholar is going to want to incur the stigma of “levity and sloth” levied on him by Pius XII in Divino Afflante Spiritu for not using the original languages.
Click to expand...
So, then, those Catholic translators who will be in the future applying Liturgiam Authenticam (comparing to the Latin) are sure going to be doing some answering to Pius XII at the pearly gates? Come on! One of the main points of revising the Douay Rheims would be just that, to revise what of it we have found to be inaccurate when comparing to the original languages. The revision would quite readily use the original languages where the revisers would know they are needed.
 
Manfred said:
The D-R has as much chance of being revised as the Tridentine Latin Mass has of being re-instated universally and supplanting the Novus Ordo Missae.
Click to expand...
I think it has a much better chance than that. They are already bringing a more traditionally translated Missal back, and Liturgiam Authenticam is not going to stop there.
 
mmortal03 said:
So, then, those Catholic translators who will be in the future applying Liturgiam Authenticam (comparing to the Latin) are sure going to be doing some answering to Pius XII at the pearly gates? Come on! One of the main points of revising the Douay Rheims would be just that, to revise what of it we have found to be inaccurate when comparing to the original languages. The revision would quite readily use the original languages where the revisers would know they are needed.
Click to expand...
Liturgiam Authenticam requires that Scripture texts for use in the Liturgy be from the original languages. But where an already-prepared original-language translation be found - especially in the Deutero-canonica - at variance with the Nova Vulgata, only then does the latter prevail.

What went wrong with basing a translation on the original languages is that many modern translation teams seem to have gone out of their way to avoid having recourse to the Vulgate, whether the Clementine or the Nova.

However, I don’t think revising the D-R by comparing it to original-language texts would satisfy either DAS or LA.
 
Manfred said:
Liturgiam Authenticam requires that Scripture texts for use in the Liturgy be from the original languages. But where an already-prepared original-language translation be found - especially n the Deutero-canonica - at variance with the Nova Vulgata, only then does the latter prevail.

What went wrong with basing a translation on the original languages is that many modern translation teams seem to have gone out of their way to avoid having recourse to the Vulgate, whether the Clementine or the Nova.

However, I don’t think revising the D-R by comparing it to original-language texts would satisfy either DAS or LA.
Click to expand...
I am not following what you are specifically talking about when you say “an already-prepared original language translation.” Can you clarify (or give an example) and rephrase the above in terms of that?
 
Jerry-Jet said:
How much of the Douay Rheims is textually inaccurate?

Doesn’t the Nova Vulgata not only correct some inaccuracies bu possibly introduce others by being a much freer translation.

I guess what I’m really asking is which is closer to accurate–the Nova Vulgata or the Douay Rheims?

I believe that somewhere between the two you have something that is pretty close to the truth.

Get rid of some archaic language WITHOUT INCLUSIVE language and you’d probably have a great translation.
Click to expand...
Jerry:

The Nova Vulgata is a Translation from the ORIGINAL Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic and Syriac, While the Douay Rheime Challoner is pretty much a translation of Jerome’s Vulgate wth some recourse to the Greek N.T & O.T… That means the Nova Vulgata would be more accurate than the D-R., because the D-R is a translation of a translation.

You might want to try the RSV-CE (not the NEW RSV - the RSV was never Degenderized), which you can get one at Ignatius Press - It’ll read like this:

The Bible, Revised Standard Version
etext.lib.virginia.edu/rsv.browse.html

Go to Ignatius Press and search for rsv:
ignatius.com/index.aspx

Ignatius Bible (RSV), 2nd Edition
Code: IB2-P
Your Price: $19.95

Compact Ignatius Bible (RSV) - Burgundy with zipper
Code: IBC:BGZ-P
Your Price: $29.95

Ignatius Bible (RSV), 2nd Edition
Code: IB2-H
Your Price: $29.95

The RSV, second Catholic edition is the only Bible translation that uses standard (non-feminist) English and is in conformity with the Church’s translation guidelines found in the Vatican document, Liturgiam Authenticam

There are more, but that should give you an idea.

And Amazon.Com still has a few copies of the Jerusalem Bible which is a very good DYNAMIC EQUIVALENCE Translation - Do NOT even look at the NEW JB which has been Degenderized as the New RSV:

tinyurl.com/ya9tw7

If you are fluent in Latin and Koine Greek, you are welcome to revise the Douay-Rheims, otherwise I recommend one of the above, esp the REV-CE 2nd Edition.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael
 
Manfred said:
Liturgiam Authenticam requires that Scripture texts for use in the Liturgy be from the original languages. But where an already-prepared original-language translation be found - especially in the Deutero-canonica - at variance with the Nova Vulgata, only then does the latter prevail.

What went wrong with basing a translation on the original languages is that many modern translation teams seem to have gone out of their way to avoid having recourse to the Vulgate, whether the Clementine or the Nova.

However, I don’t think revising the D-R by comparing it to original-language texts would satisfy either DAS or LA.
Click to expand...
Manfred:

The Vulgate was a translation of the Sacred Texts that was undertaken to make the Scriptures understandable to Western Romans who spoke Latin but who (as in the case of most other Western Romans) barely spoke Biblical Greek and didn’t speak Hebrew or any of the other Biblical languages (That’s what all of our translations are trying to do for us today) - It’s not the original Scriptures that the Church Fathers or that Jesus and the Apostles quoted or that they used to teach doctrine to Easly Christians or to correct and to lead into righteousness. Because of that, some things had to get lost in the translation - It’s inevitable. It’s worse when we try to make a Translation from a translation, because then we lose even more in the translation.

That’s why we shouldn’t make the Vulgate serve the purpose of the orignial language texts now that we have access to the original language texts, not when the original language texts would give us a lot more information and help to restore the meaning to the scriptures that the Early Christians had access to and would allow us to eliminate one source of error and lost information.

We can only hope that the translators would have the courage to give us what is in the texts and not cloud it with feminist and other agendas that have nothing to do with spreading the Gospel.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael
 
One point to make here is that there may be a slight difference between what people call “accuracy” and what would be the “best conveyance of the words into English”. I have been made aware of numerous cases where the words chosen in other English translations, while functionally adequate to provide the general meaning of the passage, are not as good as the words chosen in the DR, where more subtle forms of symbolism in these passages are better rendered for fully understanding the context as an English reader.

The process of translating using the Douay Rheims as a guide should obviously not be done as a test for the direct accuracy of the resulting content, but instead be done intending to best convey the fullness of the originals within the context of the English language. Why shouldn’t a translator consider how the DR translators would have translated something, for instance, imagining how they would have translated the more accurate sources that we now have? Who is to say that the formula they used isn’t excellent, and that they just didn’t always have the purest source to work with?
 
What really is needed is a transliteration of the DRV and for the most part change the old spelling with the new spelling. As for scholarly cross-referencing and checking with the manuscript copies…well I’d still rather have the commentary of the Church Fathers and Doctors of the Church instead.
 
Returning to the OP and the NRSV, can anyone confirm whether statements by the Vatican in recent years about the use of the NRSV in the liturgy apply to all rites, or just the Western rite? I recently attended a Maronite Divine Liturgy, and noticed that the translation used in the Qurbono was the NRSV.
 
mmortal03 said:
I am not following what you are specifically talking about when you say “an already-prepared original language translation.” Can you clarify (or give an example) and rephrase the above in terms of that?
Click to expand...
mmortal,

An “already-prepared” translation from the original languages would be the NAB, RSV-CE, JB.

I believe all of these omit verses in Sirach, especially, that are in the Nova Vulgata and even in the Clementine. Unfortunately, I don’t have a listing at hand, but you might try this site which characterizes the Lectionary in the USA.

catholic-resources.org/Lectionary/Differences-USA1970-1998.htm#Table

Hope that helps.
 
Traditional_Ang said:
We can only hope that the translators would have the courage to give us what is in the texts and not cloud it with feminist and other agendas that have nothing to do with spreading the Gospel.
Click to expand...
But, you see, THIS is exactly the problem with some modern-language translations!

There are probably more mis-renderings in translations from the original languages - not because they ARE from the original languages but because of the biases of the modern translators, be they Protestant or Catholic.

Examples: the NIV, NAB (whatever edition), JB, NJB, and even the beloved RSV-CE. The NIV has an inherently and distinct evangelical bias. The NAB (1970) and JB (1966) were given to too much paraphrase. The RNAB and NJB (1985) were gender-neutered. And the RSV-CE has a tendency to blur some rather fine distinctions with its not-always literal renderings.
 
Digitonomy said:
Returning to the OP and the NRSV, can anyone confirm whether statements by the Vatican in recent years about the use of the NRSV in the liturgy apply to all rites, or just the Western rite? I recently attended a Maronite Divine Liturgy, and noticed that the translation used in the Qurbono was the NRSV.
Click to expand...
I dug up the document cited by the webpage from the OP’s citation. Which turns out to be
Liturgiam Authenticam; it is quite clear that it refers only to the Roman Liturgy.
 
Liturgiam Authenticam requires that Scripture texts for use in the Liturgy be from the original languages. But where an already-prepared original-language translation be found** (for example, the RSV)** - especially n the Deutero-canonica - at variance with the Nova Vulgata, only then does the latter prevail.
Click to expand...
What went wrong with basing a translation on the original languages is that many modern translation teams seem to have gone out of their way to avoid having recourse to the Vulgate, whether the Clementine or the Nova.
Click to expand...
However, I don’t think revising the D-R by comparing it to original-language texts would satisfy either DAS or LA.
Click to expand...
Ok, so what you are saying is that they are required to translate from the original languages without using any current examples from the vernacular that they are translating to, and then, after they are finished, compare it to the Nova Vulgata? I don’t see much practical difference from them instead doing the following:

Alternatively, just go through the Douay Rheims, correct where it doesn’t match the original languages, and then compare it to the Nova Vulgata? Wouldn’t that fulfill the same requirements?
 
Manfred said:
Who is to say that (the Douay-Rheims-Challoner translators)…didn’t always have the purest source to work with?
Click to expand...
Wait, I didn’t say that. The sources used in Douay and Rheims most certainly could have not been the purest to work with. What I said was that while no one should say that their formula used wasn’t excellent, it could have just been that they didn’t always have the purest sources to work with.
Click to expand...
 
Manfred said:
However, I don’t think revising the D-R by comparing it to original-language texts would satisfy either DAS or LA.
Click to expand...
To further what I am trying to get at, here is another way to put it: The DAS nor LA don’t disallow revisions in any way, shape, or form. All they say is that translating from the original languages is the way to go. So, if someone wants to revise something that wasn’t from the original languages, and make it fulfill that goal, then DAS and LA should be completely happy with that. Just because the bishops went back and started from scratch with the NAB, and that is all relative to what you consider “scratch”, that doesn’t mean you have to go all the way back to square one just to consider your result to be from the original languages.

If they went through the Douay Rheims and compared it to the original languages and corrected it as such, that would be QUITE GOOD and shouldn’t conflict with the DAS or LA at all.
 
My problem with the Douay-Rheims is the naming of the books of the Old Testament. Nobody really knows that Osee is really Hosea, or that 1&2 Kings are really 1&2 Samuel, etc., unless they are super Bible scholars. Also, the Psalms are numbered differently. Everybody knows the 23rd Psalm, except, if somebody happens to use a Douay-Rheims Bible, then it’s actually the 22nd Psalm. :whacky: :bigyikes:
 
mmortal03 said:
Yes, however, the Liturgy uses the Bible for all three readings, which is why it applies to Bible translations as well.
Click to expand...
As they apply to the Roman Liturgy, but the document claims no authority over Bible translations used in other liturgies, so far as I can tell.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top