Rsv-ce

[Jerry-Jet]

When more than 3/4 of the Catholic world believed in the Arian heresy did that mean that its scholars knew what they were talking about?

When over 90% of the theologians counseled Pope Paul VI to not be against contraception did they know what they were talking about?

Truth and the weight of current Catholic biblical shcolarship are not necessarily synonomous!

No matter what any other Catholic says or does in the whole universe I would be quite ashamed if I said I was Protestant!

Exactly how limited is the intellignence that says that “use” equals “total approval”?

And if the RSV is as great as the lovers here say it is–then maybe they should translate it back in to Latin and replace the Nova Vulgata as the juridicial text of the Latin rite of the Catholic C!

Oh RSV lovers answers this: who are better scholars–the scholars that produced the RSV or the scholars that produced the Nova Vulgata?

 

[tobinatorstark]

When more than 3/4 of the Catholic world believed in the Arian heresy did that mean that its scholars knew what they were talking about?

When over 90% of the theologians counseled Pope Paul VI to not be against contraception did they know what they were talking about?

Truth and the weight of current Catholic biblical shcolarship are not necessarily synonomous!

No matter what any other Catholic says or does in the whole universe I would be quite ashamed if I said I was Protestant!

Exactly how limited is the intellignence that says that “use” equals “total approval”?

And if the RSV is as great as the lovers here say it is–then maybe they should translate it back in to Latin and replace the Nova Vulgata as the juridicial text of the Latin rite of the Catholic C!

Oh RSV lovers answers this: who are better scholars–the scholars that produced the RSV or the scholars that produced the Nova Vulgata?

Jerry-Jet, you always make some really good points and I feel the same way you feel. If these people can’t answer these questions, which I doubt they will be able to, they well just go ahead and cry and whine about it. The solid proof of how accurate the Vulgate is, is widely documented. However, the RSV crowd can’t seem to give anyone proof on their claims of the texts that were used to be better and more accurate. They just want us to see things their way, but not want to see things our ways

 

[mccorm45]

When more than 3/4 of the Catholic world believed in the Arian heresy did that mean that its scholars knew what they were talking about?

When over 90% of the theologians counseled Pope Paul VI to not be against contraception did they know what they were talking about?

Truth and the weight of current Catholic biblical shcolarship are not necessarily synonomous!

No matter what any other Catholic says or does in the whole universe I would be quite ashamed if I said I was Protestant!

Exactly how limited is the intellignence that says that “use” equals “total approval”?

And if the RSV is as great as the lovers here say it is–then maybe they should translate it back in to Latin and replace the Nova Vulgata as the juridicial text of the Latin rite of the Catholic C!

Oh RSV lovers answers this: who are better scholars–the scholars that produced the RSV or the scholars that produced the Nova Vulgata?

Ok fine I will bite. Certainly in your world view, I will have to put aside the previous facts that have been presented that show the Church’s encouragement for using and translating from the “original languages” of Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. But of course, there is no reason to consider these, because they certainly don’t mean anything to you. Particularly since those of us in this camp are basically everyone in Catholic Biblical studies, including the current Holy Father. Therefore, I guess we will accept being lumped into the same group with Arians, Charles Curran, Fr. Richard McBrien, and some other heretics.

For an example of textual variants, try checking out Tobit 8:4 in the Douay-Rheims (Vulgate based) and the RSV/NRSV/NAB/JB (primarily on Greek). Once you see the difference, check out which one the Nova Vulgate chose to follow:

Et exierunt et clauserunt ostium cubiculi. Et exsurrexit Thobias de lecto et dixit ei: “ Surge, soror! Oremus et deprecemur Dominum nostrum, ut faciat super nos misericordiam et sanitatem ”. vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_vt_thobis_lt.html

Ultimately, I know that the next time I see any book on Catholic Biblical scholarship that uses the Douay-Rheims as its base translation will be the first time. There is an obvious reason for this. Yet for you, I am sure this is because all of these people are either stupid or closet Protestants.

So why argue about this? My conscience is clear and I don’t have to rely on my own made-up “magisterium”. I have the Chuch for that…which is very clear on this issue.

BTW: I find your tone about Protestants very unfortunate. Many of them truly love the Lord. Do they have the fulness of faith? No, certainly not. But many of them are living a greater Christian life than those of us who have the fulness of faith being in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. And since we “acknowledge one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins” I think we need to be careful how we characterize our Protestant brothers and sisters. Read Lumen Gentium lately?

 

[juliamajor]

Ok fine I will bite. Certainly in your world view, I will have to put aside the previous facts that have been presented that show the Church’s encouragement for using and translating from the “original languages” of Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. But of course, there is no reason to consider these, because they certainly don’t mean anything to you. Particularly since those of us in this camp are basically everyone in Catholic Biblical studies, including the current Holy Father. Therefore, I guess we will accept being lumped into the same group with Arians, Charles Curran, Fr. Richard McBrien, and some other heretics.

For an example of textual variants, try checking out Tobit 8:4 in the Douay-Rheims (Vulgate based) and the RSV/NRSV/NAB/JB (primarily on Greek). Once you see the difference, check out which one the Nova Vulgate chose to follow:

Et exierunt et clauserunt ostium cubiculi. Et exsurrexit Thobias de lecto et dixit ei: “ Surge, soror! Oremus et deprecemur Dominum nostrum, ut faciat super nos misericordiam et sanitatem ”. vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_vt_thobis_lt.html

Ultimately, I know that the next time I see any book on Catholic Biblical scholarship that uses the Douay-Rheims as its base translation will be the first time. There is an obvious reason for this. Yet for you, I am sure this is because all of these people are either stupid or closet Protestants.

So why argue about this? My conscience is clear and I don’t have to rely on my own made-up “magisterium”. I have the Chuch for that…which is very clear on this issue.

BTW: I find your tone about Protestants very unfortunate. Many of them truly love the Lord. Do they have the fulness of faith? No, certainly not. But many of them are living a greater Christian life than those of us who have the fulness of faith being in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. And since we “acknowledge one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins” I think we need to be careful how we characterize our Protestant brothers and sisters. Read Lumen Gentium lately?

I don’t know but it seems these guys are starting their own"Black Legend" on Protestants= all we need is a Catholic version of"Maria Monk" or 'Trail of Blood" or “Two Babylons”. do we really want to go down that dubious spiritual path? are we forgetting they are also a part of the body of Christ?

 

[Popes_Soldier]

Jimmy Akin disagrees

Good for Jimmy. Just because he uses it and endorses it Doesn’t mean I will use it or endorse it all. Just beacuse the Pope uses it, also doesn’t mean I will use it. I don’t even find the RSV-CE that great of a translation anyway. The day I use and endorse the RSV-CE will be the day when all moral standards become corrupt.

Isn’t that a bit over-dramatic? Equating immorality with reading the Bible translation which is quoted in the Catechism?

 

[tobinatorstark]

The Douay-Rheims follows that of the Biblia Sacra iuxta Vulgatam Clementinam, which is better known at CIementine Edition. It was used I believe from 1592-1979. The Nova Vulgata is overhaul of the Vulgate. The Nova Vulgata was started in 1907 and commissioned by Pope Pius X. There are many changes in the Nova Vulgata, as it doesn’t even include the apocrypha that was in the Clementine Edition. It is very unpopular among conservative Catholics. As far as the Nova Vulgata’s concern I wouldn’t even bother with the Nova Vulgata, but rather use the Clementine Edition that was use for 387 years. I guess I consider myself a conservative Catholic rather than Liberal or modern.

 

[Popes_Soldier]

The Douay-Rheims follows that of the Biblia Sacra iuxta Vulgatam Clementinam, which is better known at CIementine Edition. It was used I believe from 1592-1979. The Nova Vulgata is overhaul of the Vulgate. The Nova Vulgata was started in 1907 and commissioned by Pope Pius X. There are many changes in the Nova Vulgata, as it doesn’t even include the apocrypha that was in the Clementine Edition. It is very unpopular among conservative Catholics. As far as the Nova Vulgata’s concern I wouldn’t even bother with the Nova Vulgata, but rather use the Clementine Edition that was use for 387 years. I guess I consider myself a conservative Catholic rather than Liberal or modern.

Well, I consider myself the same. Do you think JPII was a Liberal or modern?
Have you read this article:
catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9404fea1.asp

BTW: I own a Douay-Rheims too.

 

[porthos11]

Jerry-Jet, you always make some really good points and I feel the same way you feel. If these people can’t answer these questions, which I doubt they will be able to, they well just go ahead and cry and whine about it. The solid proof of how accurate the Vulgate is, is widely documented. However, the RSV crowd can’t seem to give anyone proof on their claims of the texts that were used to be better and more accurate. They just want us to see things their way, but not want to see things our ways

No. We want you to respect the direction and opinion of the Church.

 

[tobinatorstark]

Well, I consider myself the same. Do you think JPII was a Liberal or modern?
Have you read this article:
catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9404fea1.asp

BTW: I own a Douay-Rheims too.

I would say the that John Paul was little bit between conservative and modern. As far as the link. I wish people would quit pointing me to that article. I didn’t get anything out of it the first time I read and I still don’t every time I read it. I am very particular on which Bible versions I read for the reason I believe why reinvent the wheel. If an edition of the Bible was good enough in Latin for 380 years and its English translation was good enough for 356 years then why change it. In the manner of overhauling the translation. For centuries were were to believe that the texts that Jerome used were accurate and now centuries later, “Oh those aren’t the most accurate, we’ve found more accurate, so we need to overhaul the Bible”. The Clementine Edition of the Vulgate and the Douay-Rheims works for me. The Nova Vulgata and RSV-CE works for some people. I am not saying that you shouldn’t read the RSV-CE if you want to, but I am not going to endorse it to Catholics. I recommend a Bible everyone, but which translation I recommend depends on what they are looking for in a translation.

 

[porthos11]

The Douay-Rheims follows that of the Biblia Sacra iuxta Vulgatam Clementinam, which is better known at CIementine Edition. It was used I believe from 1592-1979. The Nova Vulgata is overhaul of the Vulgate. The Nova Vulgata was started in 1907 and commissioned by Pope Pius X. There are many changes in the Nova Vulgata, as it doesn’t even include the apocrypha that was in the Clementine Edition. It is very unpopular among conservative Catholics. As far as the Nova Vulgata’s concern I wouldn’t even bother with the Nova Vulgata, but rather use the Clementine Edition that was use for 387 years. I guess I consider myself a conservative Catholic rather than Liberal or modern.

Liberal, like those raving modernists Cardinals Joseph Ratzinger and Francis Arinze?

As for proof that the present manuscripts are better, we can present disserations and research papers, but I can simply present this: Based on Divino Afflante Spiritu and Liturgiam Authenticam, which are authoritative for the 20th and 21st centuries, the former being an Encyclical, the latter an Instruction, the Church is clearly satisfied that the manuscripts are accurate and commands (not suggests) that they be used, with the Nova Vulgata as the determinant between equal variants.

Since the Church is satisfied, that’s proof enough for me. I am not smarter than the Church.

Why the Church’s opinions and commands do not matter to you or Jerry-Jet, however, is beyond me.

 

[tobinatorstark]

We don’t disagree with the opinions of the church. We just don’t see the RSV-CE as something that Catholics should read as we feel it is bringing Protestantism into the church. If you don’t like what we have to say then just don’t say nothing at all. We don’t cry because you don’t read this translation or that translation, but you seem to be crybabies because we don’t read and approve of the RSV-CE

 

[porthos11]

We don’t disagree with the opinions of the church. We just don’t see the RSV-CE as something that Catholics should read as we feel it is bringing Protestantism into the church. If you don’t like what we have to say then just don’t say nothing at all. We don’t cry because you don’t read this translation or that translation, but you seem to be crybabies because we don’t read and approve of the RSV-CE

Don’t kid yourself about not disagreeing with the Church. You voiced opinions against the critical editions, contrary to the Church. So don’t go around telling us that you don’t disagree. You clearly do, and we want to know why.

You’re using the objection that the manuscripts used were not accurate, clearly in conflict with the opinions of Church. You stick with Vulgate-onlyism based on its age, again clearly, in conflict with the Church.

Why do you oppose the Church?

 

[tobinatorstark]

I DO NOT OPPOSE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. I wanted to know what made the texts that RSV-CE more accurate than that of what Jerome used. I simply don’t care for the RSV-CE.

 

[juliamajor]

The Douay-Rheims follows that of the Biblia Sacra iuxta Vulgatam Clementinam, which is better known at CIementine Edition. It was used I believe from 1592-1979. The Nova Vulgata is overhaul of the Vulgate. The Nova Vulgata was started in 1907 and commissioned by Pope Pius X. There are many changes in the Nova Vulgata, as it doesn’t even include the apocrypha that was in the Clementine Edition. It is very unpopular among conservative Catholics. As far as the Nova Vulgata’s concern I wouldn’t even bother with the Nova Vulgata, but rather use the Clementine Edition that was use for 387 years. I guess I consider myself a conservative Catholic rather than Liberal or modern.

Old doesn’t mean truer as ‘modern’ doesn’t always mean better or conservative or liberal as being right.This isn’t that much different then Oldscholar belief the the AV should be the only one trusted- all others are wrong! if KJV onlyism sounds crazy to you just how do you think you sound to us!It’s like what a Fundamentalist is quoted to havesaid"If the KJV was good enough for Jesus it’s good enough for me" Scholarship moves on, new texts- new insights into the science of archaeology and philology- the Church has recognized the need for scholarship and studying of newer texts(yes they do exist) if you don’t like that recommendation then blame PiusXII-

 

[tobinatorstark]

I have nothing on Pope Pius XII. He was a good pope, but quit dwelling on the “Divino Afflante Spiritu” as the only encyclical in considering what translation to choose from. I know what KJV onlyism is and I am not a Vulgate-onlyist or a Douay-Rheims-onlyist either. There are plenty of other translations that are fit to read.

 

[porthos11]

I have nothing on Pope Pius XII. He was a good pope, but quit dwelling on the “Divino Afflante Spiritu” as the only encyclical in considering what translation to choose from. I know what KJV onlyism is and I am not a Vulgate-onlyist or a Douay-Rheims-onlyist either. There are plenty of other translations that are fit to read.

But you do not accept the original languages or the accuracy of today’s manuscripts, contrary to the desires of the Pope.

I will not quit, because DAS is an encyclical of the Holy Father, and it has not been superseded and you still refuse to accepts its commands in favor of original language studies.

 

[RedSoxFan]

Well this is one issue where people are obviously passionate about. Any chance that archaeology might turn up some of the sources that St. Jerome used that have since been lost to time?

I was also wondering are most modern protestant biblical scholars considering adding or using the dead sea scrolls to affect their canon? IE the Protestants adding Tobit and Sirach because they finally have it written in Hebrew, which was a major reason for the exclusion of it from many of their bibles.

 

[tobinatorstark]

But you do not accept the original languages or the accuracy of today’s manuscripts, contrary to the desires of the Pope.

I will not quit, because DAS is an encyclical of the Holy Father, and it has not been superseded and you still refuse to accepts its commands in favor of original language studies.

The current Pope has released only 2 encyclicals. Deus Caratas Est on Christian Love, and Spe Salvi on Saved by Hope. He will be releasing a 34d encyclical called Caritas in Veritate on Love in Truth

 

[Popes_Soldier]

Well this is one issue where people are obviously passionate about…

Actually, I find the whole conversation baffling. A translation is just a translation. Some are better than others, and none are perfect. Also: Each one usually gets at least one thing right that all the others get wrong. Read them all I say, but don’t freak out over it.

 

[porthos11]

The current Pope has released only 2 encyclicals. Deus Caratas Est on Christian Love, and Spe Salvi on Saved by Hope. He will be releasing a 34d encyclical called Caritas in Veritate on Love in Truth

Don’t try to throw us off; you know what I mean. DAS, which you have refused to accept, is an Encyclical of the Holy Father Pope Pius XII, and has not been superseded by anything else on that matter.