NRSV is unfaithful

  • Thread starter Thread starter childofmary1143
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The Catholic Church in England and Wales, and associated English-speaking non U.S. countries, are currently working on a new Lectionary and Bible Translation (to replace the 40 year old Jerusalem Bible).

They are basing this on the NRSV but are correcting the gender-neutrality into traditional male-centered renderings.

Personally, I’m quite excited about this as the NRSV is a really good version other than its gender-agenda. Roll on 2007.
 
dalcent said:
The Catholic Church in England and Wales, and associated English-speaking non U.S. countries, are currently working on a new Lectionary and Bible Translation (to replace the 40 year old Jerusalem Bible).

They are basing this on the NRSV but are correcting the gender-neutrality into traditional male-centered renderings.

Personally, I’m quite excited about this as the NRSV is a really good version other than its gender-agenda. Roll on 2007.
Click to expand...
Oh, yes, I have every confidence that they’ll do this just right. NOT!!

Besides, these countries - unlike the USA - already and still have permission to use the RSV Catholic Ed. of 1965-66.
 
dalcent said:
The Catholic Church in England and Wales, and associated English-speaking non U.S. countries, are currently working on a new Lectionary and Bible Translation (to replace the 40 year old Jerusalem Bible).

They are basing this on the NRSV but are correcting the gender-neutrality into traditional male-centered renderings.

Personally, I’m quite excited about this as the NRSV is a really good version other than its gender-agenda. Roll on 2007.
Click to expand...
I’d rather they just update the wordings in the Douay Rhiems 😉
 
demerzel85 said:
I’d rather they just update the wordings in the Douay Rhiems 😉
Click to expand...
Well, and fix the inaccuracies which new extant findings have uncovered. From what I have read, they even knew that there were some inaccuracies with the Latin back then, but they translated from it anyway. I’d like to see a list of the inaccurate parts that need to be corrected, now that we know more. I’d also like to know how much of the Neo Vulgata was corrected and which verses were corrected in this same way. Remember that with the Vulgate there are not supposed to be morally inaccurate parts, but only textually inaccurate parts. You are right that they would have a much better base text if they simply revised the Douay Rheims!
 
mmortal03 said:
Well, and fix the inaccuracies which new extant findings have uncovered. From what I have read, they even knew that there were some inaccuracies with the Latin back then, but they translated from it anyway. I’d like to see a list of the inaccurate parts that need to be corrected, now that we know more. I’d also like to know how much of the Neo Vulgata was corrected and which verses were corrected in this same way. Remember that with the Vulgate there are not supposed to be morally inaccurate parts, but only textually inaccurate parts. You are right that they would have a much better base text if they simply revised the Douay Rheims!
Click to expand...
The updating of the text itself would take like… 1 month at the very most, and the compiling of the lectionary shouldn’t even take more than 1 month thereafter.
 
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.
 
Jerry-Jet said:
How much of the Douay Rheims is textually inaccurate?
Click to expand...
The DRV is more accurate than every single other English Translation of the Bible, Catholic or non-Catholic, in terms of both the Latin and the Greek. 😉
 
demerzel85 said:
I’d rather they just update the wordings in the Douay Rhiems 😉
Click to expand...
In this, thou hast answered rightly.

On second thought - I’d go so far as to keep the D-R as it is.

In this past Sunday’s second reading from Revelation 1, the phrase “Yes. Amen.” occurs in my “very favorite” (NOT!) translation, the NAB. I was a lector that day. I had peeked at the Douay-Rheims rendering at home. So, when I got to that phrase, I unabashedly proclaimed “Even so. Amen.”, right from the D-R.

Yes, my bad.
 
demerzel85 said:
The updating of the text itself would take like… 1 month at the very most, and the compiling of the lectionary shouldn’t even take more than 1 month thereafter.
Click to expand...
This may be true where you are, but here in the states, we have the US Council of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), so, we’d be talking like one month per chapter. :rolleyes:
 
Manfred said:
This may be true where you are, but here in the states, we have the US Council of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), so, we’d be talking like one month per chapter. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Well a group of lay people doing it and it’ll be reality 😛 Vatican II did call for active participation. And well where I am? Well the most common Bible that Catholics own is the GNB. So well hearing the JB at Mass is already way more advanced than what they read at home.
 
demerzel85 said:
The DRV is more accurate than every single other English Translation of the Bible, Catholic or non-Catholic, in terms of both the Latin and the Greek. 😉
Click to expand...
The better question should have been, how accurate is the source Latin texts that the Douay Rheims is based on. Those are known to have errors. The Douay Rheims may be morally and doctrinally accurate, but it has known textual errors (which I’d like to know more about) that could be corrected by looking at the originals that we now have.
 
Jerry-Jet said:
I’d love to see an imrpoved Douay Rheims. Will it ever happen?
Click to expand...
Well when the hierarches stop wasting time on demanding to allow homosexual clergy, Priestesses, female deacons, inclusive language, dumbing down the liturgy, using mis-translations of scripture etc, then maybe it would be a real prospect.
 
Jerry-Jet said:
I’d love to see an imrpoved Douay Rheims. Will it ever happen?
Click to expand...
This seems unlikely to me. What is the target audience who will buy it? Those who favor the older style of scripture are probably happy enough with the latest DR translation.

Another reason to doubt the odds of a revision of the DR is that unlike other translations discussed here, it has been out of copyright protection for many many years, without any notable effort to revise it.
 
Bob Sungenis - Catholic apologetics international is working on a revision of the DR version I think. I don’t know how long it’ll take.
 
This seems unlikely to me. What is the target audience who will buy it? Those who favor the older style of scripture are probably happy enough with the latest DR translation.
Click to expand...
I think people who have difficulty with the older archaic language would be the ones who would LOVE a revision, especially if we could spread the word and educate about its benefits.
Another reason to doubt the odds of a revision of the DR is that unlike other translations discussed here, it has been out of copyright protection for many many years, without any notable effort to revise it.
Click to expand...
I would guess that it is just that no one has gotten around to doing it. They placed their trust in the USCCB with the NAB and were let down. That took a while, and the Bible contains a ton of material to review, so there is always going to be a larger delay than for other literature for people to decide whether they like a translation or not.
 
It seems to me like revising the Douay Rheims should be easier because it is out of copyright.

There wouldn’t be alot of archaic language that would have to be changed and only the most eggregious examples of textual inaccuracies could be cleared up.

Such revising could be done WITHOUT inclusive language or liberal heresy.

I think the resulting translation would be a SLAM dunk!

And just so no one would get their feathers ruffled contentious veses where there was a big disagreement about the translation could offer alternative variants in the footnotes.

I don’t think such a project is an Impossible dream. Surely there are qualified intelligent Catholic bible scholars out there who even if they didn’t think it was perfect could polish up the Douay Rheims to make it as good as it possibly could be!
 
Jerry-Jet said:
It seems to me like revising the Douay Rheims should be easier because it is out of copyright.

There wouldn’t be alot of archaic language that would have to be changed and only the most eggregious examples of textual inaccuracies could be cleared up.

Such revising could be done WITHOUT inclusive language or liberal heresy.

I think the resulting translation would be a SLAM dunk!

And just so no one would get their feathers ruffled contentious veses where there was a big disagreement about the translation could offer alternative variants in the footnotes.

I don’t think such a project is an Impossible dream. Surely there are qualified intelligent Catholic bible scholars out there who even if they didn’t think it was perfect could polish up the Douay Rheims to make it as good as it possibly could be!
Click to expand...
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.

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top