Obvious anti-Catholicism in the KJV?

[JohnR77]

Even into the middle of the 16 century the other subjects were taught in Latin.

**Edmund Spenser 1552-1559 AD **went to an exceptional school were the headmaster was very advanced for that time. It is speculated, that possibly, even English was taught there.
See

defendingthebride.com/bb/latinbible.html

John

.

 

[Vico]

Using this verse to claim that a particular translation favors or does not favor Catholicism really is a non-starter. The problem is that the single word κεχαριτωμενη encompasses an entire compound/complex sentence in its meaning. There is no one best way to say this in English. “Full of grace” is not really accurate, but it does demonstrate one way. “Favored one” is another way, although it does not have the complete impact of the original. Neither translation is more or less Catholic than the other.

It is significant: if highly favored means state of grace since conception, then they are equivalent.

 

[old_sarge]

I have thoroughly enjoyed reading though all the posts regarding the KJV of the bible. One area I did not see mentioned is the reference to Easter versus Passover. Referred to as the ‘days of unleavened bread’ Peter was imprisoned, and set to be put to death after Easter. KJV only adherents will defend this till the death. However, the ‘days of unleavened bread’ are numbered and begin with Passover. I understand that the Greek pascha was translated to Passover, I would be interested in hearing the thoughts of those here. My own take was the translators wanted to replace a heathen holiday with the resurrection of our Lord. Just my opinion.

 

[Vico]

I have thoroughly enjoyed reading though all the posts regarding the KJV of the bible. One area I did not see mentioned is the reference to Easter versus Passover. Referred to as the ‘days of unleavened bread’ Peter was imprisoned, and set to be put to death after Easter. KJV only adherents will defend this till the death. However, the ‘days of unleavened bread’ are numbered and begin with Passover. I understand that the Greek pascha was translated to Passover, I would be interested in hearing the thoughts of those here. My own take was the translators wanted to replace a heathen holiday with the resurrection of our Lord. Just my opinion.

Acts 12:4 - πασχα is used in Textus Receptus (used for KJV) which is pasha but KJV uses Easter, a term which was not used until 325 A.D. Both the New King James and the King James 2000 use Passover.

 

[Manfred]

I have thoroughly enjoyed reading though all the posts regarding the KJV of the bible. One area I did not see mentioned is the reference to Easter versus Passover. Referred to as the ‘days of unleavened bread’ Peter was imprisoned, and set to be put to death after Easter. KJV only adherents will defend this till the death. However, the ‘days of unleavened bread’ are numbered and begin with Passover. I understand that the Greek pascha was translated to Passover, I would be interested in hearing the thoughts of those here. My own take was the translators wanted to replace a heathen holiday with the resurrection of our Lord. Just my opinion.

Methinks “Easter” is a most unfortunate choice of words there, since it is somewhat obvious that Passover and the Days of Unleavened Bread were what is meant.

I found a couple of other “infelicitous renderings” in the KJV; to wit, Jesus is called “captain” in Hebrews 2:10 and 12:2, which is as bad the the RSV’s rendering of “pioneer” therein.

Douay-Rheims-Challoner uses the designation “author”, far better to my sensibilities.

 

[robertericleech]

Methinks “Easter” is a most unfortunate choice of words there, since it is somewhat obvious that Passover and the Days of Unleavened Bread were what is meant.

I found a couple of other “infelicitous renderings” in the KJV; to wit, Jesus is called “captain” in Hebrews 2:10 and 12:2, which is as bad the the RSV’s rendering of “pioneer” therein.

Douay-Rheims-Challoner uses the designation “author”, far better to my sensibilities.

I don’t know if I’d consider it ‘infelicitous’ or just really literal, but you have to chuckle at:

2 Kings 18:27 But Rabshakeh said unto them, Hath my master sent me to thy master, and to thee, to speak these words? hath he not sent me to the men which sit on the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own p*** with you?

 

[Manfred]

I don’t know if I’d consider it ‘infelicitous’ or just really literal, but you have to chuckle at:

2 Kings 18:27 But Rabshakeh said unto them, Hath my master sent me to thy master, and to thee, to speak these words? hath he not sent me to the men which sit on the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own p*** with you?

Nope, I have no problem here, since Hebrew at times could be very explicit.

“Pioneer” has too much of an American Old West image here. Likewise, it’s awkward enough thinking of Jesus as “MY personal Lord and Savior”, as do evangelicals, without having to address Him as “Captain” Jesus. Terrible wording.

 

[robertericleech]

Nope, I have no problem here, since Hebrew at times could be very explicit.

“Pioneer” has too much of an American Old West image here. Likewise, it’s awkward enough thinking of Jesus as “MY personal Lord and Savior”, as do evangelicals, without having to address Him as “Captain” Jesus. Terrible wording.

Yes, those are both odd choices! The Knox translation of the Vulgate has: God is the last end of all things, the first beginning of all things; and it befitted his majesty that, in summoning all those sons of his to glory, he should crown with suffering the life of that Prince who was to lead them into salvation.

Have I mentioned I really like the Knox Bible?

 

[Manfred]

Yes, those are both odd choices! The Knox translation of the Vulgate has: God is the last end of all things, the first beginning of all things; and it befitted his majesty that, in summoning all those sons of his to glory, he should crown with suffering the life of that Prince who was to lead them into salvation.

Have I mentioned I really like the Knox Bible?

The Knox translation certainly has its devotees, but from my sampling of passages hither and thither, it’s not as familiar as a translation in the Tyndale-King James tradition.

Then again, neither do the Jerusalem and the New Jerusalem Bibles; talk about “out there”! Yet the former is approved for Lectionary use, albeit not in the USA any longer. But given a choice between the RNAB we now have in the USA for the Lectionary, I’d choose the NEW Jerusalem Bible over it ANY day.

I’d really love for someone on these Forums to update the Douay-Rheims-Challoner to rid it of words like “contumeliously”, punctiliously, holocaust, “phase” (for Passover!), “do penance” (for “repent”).

Trying to debate the choices of the textual bases of the various translations is enough to drive one insane. Let’s just tidy up one good translation, e.g., the Douay-Rheims-Challoner, for private reading and leave it at that. For the Lectionary, we really should be using the RSV-CE, but it, too, needs some tightening up (cf. my thread “RSV-CE Needs Correction” begun in 2005 or thereabouts).

 

[robertericleech]

The Knox translation certainly has its devotees, but from my sampling of passages hither and thither, it’s not as familiar as a translation in the Tyndale-King James tradition.

Then again, neither do the Jerusalem and the New Jerusalem Bibles; talk about “out there”! Yet the former is approved for Lectionary use, albeit not in the USA any longer. But given a choice between the RNAB we now have in the USA for the Lectionary, I’d choose the NEW Jerusalem Bible over it ANY day.

I’d really love for someone on these Forums to update the Douay-Rheims-Challoner to rid it of words like “contumeliously”, punctiliously, holocaust, “phase” (for Passover!), “do penance” (for “repent”).

Trying to debate the choices of the textual bases of the various translations is enough to drive one insane. Let’s just tidy up one good translation, e.g., the Douay-Rheims-Challoner, for private reading and leave it at that. For the Lectionary, we really should be using the RSV-CE, but it, too, needs some tightening up (cf. my thread “RSV-CE Needs Correction” begun in 2005 or thereabouts).

The Confraternity New Testament from 1941 is an excellent revision of the Challoner-Rheims NT, of course that’s just the New Testament…

What do people think of the NKJV? The Orthodox Study Bible, which is based on the NKJV, is very readable, with excellent footnotes. In most cases, the OSB footnotes are *far *more ‘orthodox’ than, say the footnotes in the New American Bible.

 

[Manfred]

The Confraternity New Testament from 1941 is an excellent revision of the Challoner-Rheims NT, of course that’s just the New Testament…

What do people think of the NKJV? The Orthodox Study Bible, which is based on the NKJV, is very readable, with excellent footnotes. In most cases, the OSB footnotes are *far *more ‘orthodox’ than, say the footnotes in the New American Bible.

The 1941 Confraternity NT was the version on which “I cut my teeth”. I still have a few copies of it around the house, but I don’t think it’s available anywhere online. I have the impression the USCCB wants it forgotten, since, after all, they’ve given us the NABRE, and who could ask for more, right? My regret is that work on the Confraternity OT was allegedly stopped dead in its tracks by Divino Afflante Spiritu and thus never saw the light of day.

Ever since it was announced, my biggest concern over the OSB is why they chose the NKJV, since that version does NOT have the APOCRYPHA. Furthermore the NKJV is no closer to the LXX than, say, the RSV which does have an Apocrypha.

 

[Vico]

The 1941 Confraternity NT was the version on which “I cut my teeth”. I still have a few copies of it around the house, but I don’t think it’s available anywhere online. I have the impression the USCCB wants it forgotten, since, after all, they’ve given us the NABRE, and who could ask for more, right? My regret is that work on the Confraternity OT was allegedly stopped dead in its tracks by Divino Afflante Spiritu and thus never saw the light of day.

Ever since it was announced, my biggest concern over the OSB is why they chose the NKJV, since that version does NOT have the APOCRYPHA. Furthermore the NKJV is no closer to the LXX than, say, the RSV which does have an Apocrypha.

Confraternity completed the translation of the Book of Genesis in 1948, and then completed the other books by 1969, before the 1970 NAB was published. Some translation were published multiple times. So if one wants a complete Confraternity OT, it requires these four volumes:

• Vol 1. Octateuch - Genesis to Ruth (1952)
• Vol 2. Historical Books - Samuel to Maccabees (1969)
• Vol 3. Sapiental Books - Job to Sirach (1955)
• Vol 4. Prophetic Books - Isaias to Malachias (1961)

All of them, except Genesis, were used with some formal name changes, in the 1970 NAB.

The OSB Old Testament is newly translated from the Greek text of the Septuagint and includes the Deuterocanon (Sirach, Tobit, Wisdom, Judith, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Baruch, longer versions of Daniel and Esther). The New Testament is from NKJV which uses the Greek Textus Receptus.

 

[Manfred]

Confraternity completed the translation of the Book of Genesis in 1948, and then completed the other books by 1969, before the 1970 NAB was published. Some translation were published multiple times. So if one wants a complete Confraternity OT, it requires these four volumes:

• Vol 1. Octateuch - Genesis to Ruth (1952)
• Vol 2. Historical Books - Samuel to Maccabees (1969)
• Vol 3. Sapiental Books - Job to Sirach (1955)
• Vol 4. Prophetic Books - Isaias to Malachias (1961)

All of them, except Genesis, were used with some formal name changes, in the 1970 NAB.

The OSB Old Testament is newly translated from the Greek text of the Septuagint and includes the Deuterocanon (Sirach, Tobit, Wisdom, Judith, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Baruch, longer versions of Daniel and Esther). The New Testament is from NKJV which uses the Greek Textus Receptus.

Thank you very much for clarifying the textual basis of the OSB. I had not realized the OT and Apocrypha had been translated anew from the LXX. I will have to see if any of the OT is online, but I doubt it.

As for the Confraternity OT: while all your volumes and dates are exactly correct, you should realize that the translation of these was not from the Vulgate as was the 1941 NT; this was a translation from the original languages, which, with some updating here and there, became the OT of the 1970 NAB.

Many Catholic Bibles published during the 1950s/1960s was very likely to be a hybrid of the Confraternity and Douay-Challoner OT, and the 1941 Confraternity NT.

I hate to say this but Catholics really do not have a TRULY high-quality Bible we an call our own.

 

[robertericleech]

I hate to say this but Catholics really do not have a TRULY high-quality Bible we an call our own.

That’s why I have like 12 different versions, haha

 

[Vico]

Thank you very much for clarifying the textual basis of the OSB. I had not realized the OT and Apocrypha had been translated anew from the LXX. I will have to see if any of the OT is online, but I doubt it.

As for the Confraternity OT: while all your volumes and dates are exactly correct, you should realize that the translation of these was not from the Vulgate as was the 1941 NT; this was a translation from the original languages, which, with some updating here and there, became the OT of the 1970 NAB.

Many Catholic Bibles published during the 1950s/1960s was very likely to be a hybrid of the Confraternity and Douay-Challoner OT, and the 1941 Confraternity NT.

I hate to say this but Catholics really do not have a TRULY high-quality Bible we an call our own.

Yes, I understand. Your opinion is that the Confraternity Old Testament translations, using texts other than the Vulgate, is not high-quality. This implies that the Papal encyclical of Pope Pius XII Divino Afflante Spiritu was flawed.13. We also, by this Encyclical Letter, desire to insure that the work may not only proceed without interruption, but may also daily become more perfect and fruitful; …

1. Wherefore this authority of the Vulgate in matters of doctrine by no means prevents - nay rather today it almost demands - either the corroboration and confirmation of this same doctrine by the original texts or the having recourse on any and every occasion to the aid of these same texts, by which the correct meaning of the Sacred Letters is everywhere daily made more clear and evident.
   w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_30091943_divino-afflante-spiritu.html

 

[CalCatholic]

The Confraternity New Testament from 1941 is an excellent revision of the Challoner-Rheims NT, of course that’s just the New Testament…

**What do people think of the NKJV? The Orthodox Study Bible, which is based on the NKJV, is very readable, with excellent footnotes. In most cases, the OSB footnotes are *far ***more ‘orthodox’ than, say the footnotes in the New American Bible./QUOTE]

I think a much better choice for Catholics is the new ‘Didache Bible’ which uses the RSV-2CE translation with theological/liturgical notes which are based upon the CCC!

 

[Manfred]

Yes, I understand. Your opinion is that the Confraternity Old Testament translations, using texts other than the Vulgate, is not high-quality. This implies that the Papal encyclical of Pope Pius XII Divino Afflante Spiritu was flawed.

Not exactly.

When the Confraternity NT was translated from the Vulgate, it had a certain dignity and beauty to it because of the regard the translators had for Sacred Scripture.

But it sure does seem to me that when Catholic scholars were encouraged to translate from the original languages, the English renderings, especially in the 1966 Jerusalem Bible and the 1970 NAB, became prosaic and flat, devoid of any beauty. In statistical terms, this indicates a correlation between use of original language texts and so-so English renderings.

But correlation does NOT imply causation.

In other words, the fact that most modern-day Catholic English translations of the Bible are bland and tend to be more paraphrastic than literal is not caused by use of original language texts, any more than a higher-quality English translation is caused by using the Vulgate as a source text.

 

[Vico]

Not exactly.

When the Confraternity NT was translated from the Vulgate, it had a certain dignity and beauty to it because of the regard the translators had for Sacred Scripture.

But it sure does seem to me that when Catholic scholars were encouraged to translate from the original languages, the English renderings, especially in the 1966 Jerusalem Bible and the 1970 NAB, became prosaic and flat, devoid of any beauty. In statistical terms, this indicates a correlation between use of original language texts and so-so English renderings.

But correlation does NOT imply causation.

In other words, the fact that most modern-day Catholic English translations of the Bible are bland and tend to be more paraphrastic than literal is not caused by use of original language texts, any more than a higher-quality English translation is caused by using the Vulgate as a source text.

I do not understand why you choose to contrast causation and correlation, because it does not seem to fit my comment to you. The translators priority was to achieve correct meaning: “which the correct meaning of the Sacred Letters is everywhere daily made more clear and evident.”

 

[old_sarge]

Thank you very much for clarifying the textual basis of the OSB. I had not realized the OT and Apocrypha had been translated anew from the LXX. I will have to see if any of the OT is online, but I doubt it.

As for the Confraternity OT: while all your volumes and dates are exactly correct, you should realize that the translation of these was not from the Vulgate as was the 1941 NT; this was a translation from the original languages, which, with some updating here and there, became the OT of the 1970 NAB.

Many Catholic Bibles published during the 1950s/1960s was very likely to be a hybrid of the Confraternity and Douay-Challoner OT, and the 1941 Confraternity NT.

I hate to say this but Catholics really do not have a TRULY high-quality Bible we an call our own.

I have noticed this lack of high quality as well. From a KJV perspective, the bibles published by Local Church Publishers are of very high quality, premium leather, heirloom quality. No notes, just holy scripture with a concordance in the back and some maps. I own the Executive Large Print, great for my aging eyes.

localchurchbiblepublishers.com/product/215e1b-mid-size-large-print-black-1-pieceblack-thread-executive/

On another note, here is a site comparing the LXX side by side to the KJV. I have found it very enlightening. One can also read the LXX with all the books, as well as the Geneva Bible.

ecmarsh.com/lxx-kjv/index.html

On the subject of the OSB, it would be nice if it were available in a premium leather edition,sans notes. Just pure scripture capturing the entirety of the Septuagint and the NT, again with no notes. A book to be handed down from generation to generation.

 

[Manfred]

I have noticed this lack of high quality as well. From a KJV perspective, the bibles published by Local Church Publishers are of very high quality, premium leather, heirloom quality. No notes, just holy scripture with a concordance in the back and some maps. I own the Executive Large Print, great for my aging eyes.

localchurchbiblepublishers.com/product/215e1b-mid-size-large-print-black-1-pieceblack-thread-executive/

On another note, here is a site comparing the LXX side by side to the KJV. I have found it very enlightening. One can also read the LXX with all the books, as well as the Geneva Bible.

ecmarsh.com/lxx-kjv/index.html

On the subject of the OSB, it would be nice if it were available in a premium leather edition,sans notes. Just pure scripture capturing the entirety of the Septuagint and the NT, again with no notes. A book to be handed down from generation to generation.

You DO understand that by “high-quality” translation I was referring to the accuracy and beauty of the wording, not the binding, right?