Presbyteros DR/ RSV-CE/ LV

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jeremy_Peter
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jeremy_Peter

Guest
Can someone explain why the RSV-CE and the Douay-Rheims renders the word “presbyteros” (Latin Vulgate) in James 5:14 as “priest”? I thought these were the elders and no priesthood was formed at this time??
 
Jeremy_Peter said:
Can someone explain why the RSV-CE and the Douay-Rheims renders the word “presbyteros” (Latin Vulgate) in James 5:14 as “priest”? I thought these were the elders and no priesthood was formed at this time??
Click to expand...
The Catholic Encyclopedia
The Christian Priesthood
In the New Testament bishops and priests are, according to Catholic teaching, the sole bearers of the priesthood, the former enjoying the fullness of the priesthood (summus sacerdos s. primi ordinis), while the presbyters are simple priests (simplex sacerdos s. secundi ordinis). The deacon, on the other hand, is a mere attendant of the priest, with no priestly powers. Omitting all special treatment of the bishop and the deacon, we here confine our attention primarily to the presbyterate, since the term “priest” without qualification is now taken to signify the presbyter.
Click to expand...
for more info: newadvent.org/cathen/12409a.htm

James 5:14 (NAB): “Is anyone among you sick? He should summon the presbyters of the church, and they should pray over him and anoint (him) with oil in the name of the Lord.”

The presbyters were teachers and had authority in the church (Acts 15:2, 22-23; 1 Tim 5:17)

They were also appointed:
Titus 1:5 (NAB): “For this reason I left you in Crete so that you might set right what remains to be done and appoint presbyters in every town, as I directed you,”

Today, these teachers are called “priests”
 
no problem 👍

Also, the RSV-2CE changes it to “elders”
yet another reason to prefer the RSV-CE :rolleyes:
 
Omyo12 said:
no problem 👍

Also, the RSV-2CE changes it to “elders”
yet another reason to prefer the RSV-CE :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Maybe it’s better to actually have the word as it was written instead of replacing it with an intended meaning. If Jerome wrote it like that, then why “update” it with a completely different word? I guess I’m a little disappointed and more of a purist than I thought. I guess there’s never going to be a perfect translation (except for the literal, and even that’s not perfect as there are different literal translations as well :(). Oh well, I guess that’s why more than one translation is better to have than just one 🤷
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top