Scripture class - bible versions?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sheeniac
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Sheeniac

Guest
All,

My diocese has started a serious Bible class - 31 Saturdays a year for 4 years. This is the first year in the Diocese. I’m happy to be part of it.

I believe that the different translations of the Bible can teach us things. However, the instructor (has an MA in Biblical Studies and taught for 10 years in the Chicago Archdiocese) said that modern scholars (Catholic, Prots, Jews) do not use the Douay- Rheims and that most feel it was translated incorrectly in many places.

Now, I don’t mean modern is a bad way. I was wondering if that is truly an accurate statement. She did mention literal vs ‘inspirational’ approaches to translations, but this was a separate topic, so that wasn’t what she was referring to. She instructed us to stick with the more literal translations.

We have weekly homework and this week I used both my RSV-2CE and the D-R. I know I will get a note on my homework about it, and wanted to know that I stand on firm ground. I can see some places already (we’re starting in Exodus) where there are D-R parts that are not in the RSV-2CE.

Thanks for any assistance!
 
#1.Protestants never used the D.R.Bible.#2.Their Bible(KJV.)had the Deuterocanocal books up untill the mid 1800"s.Therse books were were taken out by the Church of England because they prove the Church teachings on The Commuion of Saints(2Macc.15:11-16,Praying for the dead(2Macc.12:39-46)etc.#3.The Jews never used the D.R.They did read and believe the Deuterocanicals up untill about 100A.D when a group of Rabies,to futher separate themselves from the Christians,excluded these books.What Bible does this teacher recommend?Does this person have the same authority as our Bishops?I don’t own a RSV but I do own the DR Challoner edition and the NAB.🙂
 
my recommendation for a parish group bible study, or one promoted by the diocese, is to use the translation approved for liturgical use --the lectionary–in that country, namely in the US, the NAB. Using any other version can lead to confusion unless the facilitators are ready and willing to explain how and why other translations have come about. In that context, it may be useful to compare various Catholic translations of certain passages - Luke 2 being one example – and explain how the different types of translation may differ, but in general a parish group, such as RCIA or a bible study, in the US should use the NAB.

there is no reason you cannot make the DR or RSV-CE or Jerusalem bibles available for comparison, but if everybody is not on the same page it just makes the class that much more confusing. I don’t know of any country where the DR is approved for the lectionary, but the other two are in many countries
 
I have had no problems with the NAB. That’s my version of choice, that’s my unsolicited 2 cents
 
Sheeniac said:
All,

My diocese has started a serious Bible class - 31 Saturdays a year for 4 years. This is the first year in the Diocese. I’m happy to be part of it.

I believe that the different translations of the Bible can teach us things. However, the instructor (has an MA in Biblical Studies and taught for 10 years in the Chicago Archdiocese) said that modern scholars (Catholic, Prots, Jews) do not use the Douay- Rheims and that most feel it was translated incorrectly in many places.

Now, I don’t mean modern is a bad way. I was wondering if that is truly an accurate statement. She did mention literal vs ‘inspirational’ approaches to translations, but this was a separate topic, so that wasn’t what she was referring to. She instructed us to stick with the more literal translations.

We have weekly homework and this week I used both my RSV-2CE and the D-R. I know I will get a note on my homework about it, and wanted to know that I stand on firm ground. I can see some places already (we’re starting in Exodus) where there are D-R parts that are not in the RSV-2CE.

Thanks for any assistance!
Click to expand...
Personally I use the Haydock for Bible Study, along with the other versions. When there are conflicts in the text it would be her obligation to explain why. The D-R is an english translation of the Latin Vulgate which is the official Bible of the Catholic Church.
 
It’s probably better for the class to use the version that everybody else is using. However, if you want to reference quotes from the Fathers, or from most later theologians, it’s probably useful to use the DR to bring in the older interpretations.

The Douay-Rheims is a good and useful Bible. It originally was a translation solely of the Latin Vulgate; but the Challoner and other earlier revisions brought in a lot of Hebrew and Greek Bible stuff. In fact, as the revisions went on. and as they influenced each other, the KJV and the DR got closer and closer together. 🙂

A lot of these interpretations are not wrong or incorrect, per se. They come from the Septuagint (Greek translation of the OT, used in Jesus’ time and quoted by Him), or from the Vulgate (translation into Latin of the Greek Septuagint and the Greek NT, but done with an eye to the Hebrew). Some of them are actually closer to the literal Hebrew than what we read in Bibles that translate straight over from Hebrew; or they emphasize a different shade of meaning than what is favored today. This doesn’t make them wrong – just different. In fact, the spectrum of different meanings is probably part of God’s Providence for us, keeping the Bible living and full of applicability for all possible situations.

Something you may find useful is a site called bible.cc. It’s a Protestant site, but it lists all sorts of Bible translations for the same verses, side by side (including Douay-Rheims). The super-useful bit is called “Chain Links”, and includes the literal meaning of the Greek and/or Hebrew. In this way, you can usually see where the differences between the DR and NAB come from.
 
As time has passed, translations have become less and less literal. A translation that is today said to be ‘literal’ would have been considered appallingly far from literal not so many years ago. Even the Challoner Douay Bible is much looser than the original Douai translation.

As for ‘errors’ in the Douai, these are generally not so much errors and differences in judgment as to how to translate the text. There are relatively few significant differences between the Latin source texts and the Hebrew and Greek source texts, at least that would effect the translation in a way that would be relevant to doctrine.
 
The RSV is far superior to the NAB in terms of accurately translating the Hebrew and Greek. This is not an absolute, as there are places the NAB gets it right where the RSV doesn’t. The NAB’s footnotes are misleading in some places if not flat out wrong. But it is a good Bible for general reading, IMO it reads as easy as any of them and much easier than the D-R.

A good teacher should know the strengths and weaknesses of any translation they use and where these are encountered, point them out.
 
Well I would say the basic problem you have is you are taking a class and don’t want to follow the instructor’s instruction.

The instructor was trying to be fairly flexible but allowed some leaway in what translation to use.

Now you want to turn that into a war.

The end result of which would be the instructor will just pick one that the instructor likes and say that students should use that one.

I would suggest it’s easier to learn if you don’t make a federal case out of everything.
 
Thanks for all the replies, but most people missed my point.

I was surprised at her remark about the D-R being inaccurate. The Bible I own is the RSV-2CE. She said that was fine to use. I am getting 2 more Bibles this weekend from someone else in the class - the NAB (which is recommended by the instructor although our workbook uses the RSV), and also a Catholic Study Bible.

It turns out one of my classmates has about8 Bibles, and she was surprised to find out they were almost all the same version! So I offered to buy one from her 🙂

I find the various translations interesting and thought provoking.

My shock was to have someone say that the D-R was inaccurate and no longer used by Bible scholars. I don’t know if believe that to be the full truth. Perhaps it is just an easier explanation and a discussion doesn’t get dragged into the mud (I would think the language alone tobe off-putting to the average person). She has no need to defend to me why she chooses a specific Bible.

The homework I turned in this week cited mainly the RSV-2CE and there were a couple of D-R cites included. If she reiterates her warnings, I’d like to be able to say something accurate and objective back. e.g Scott Hahn prefers the D-R… or - I’ve read many scholars like to compare the translations as well.

I am not questioning why wer’re not using the D-R for our class - I wouldn’t suggest it myself. Again, I am merely trying to understand if her dismissive comment on the D-R is truly representative of scholarly thought today.

Thanks!
 
Sheeniac said:
Thanks for all the replies, but most people missed my point.

I was surprised at her remark about the D-R being inaccurate. The Bible I own is the RSV-2CE. She said that was fine to use. I am getting 2 more Bibles this weekend from someone else in the class - the NAB (which is recommended by the instructor although our workbook uses the RSV), and also a Catholic Study Bible.

It turns out one of my classmates has about8 Bibles, and she was surprised to find out they were almost all the same version! So I offered to buy one from her 🙂

I find the various translations interesting and thought provoking.

My shock was to have someone say that the D-R was inaccurate and no longer used by Bible scholars. I don’t know if believe that to be the full truth. Perhaps it is just an easier explanation and a discussion doesn’t get dragged into the mud (I would think the language alone tobe off-putting to the average person). She has no need to defend to me why she chooses a specific Bible.

The homework I turned in this week cited mainly the RSV-2CE and there were a couple of D-R cites included. If she reiterates her warnings, I’d like to be able to say something accurate and objective back. e.g Scott Hahn prefers the D-R… or - I’ve read many scholars like to compare the translations as well.

I am not questioning why wer’re not using the D-R for our class - I wouldn’t suggest it myself. Again, I am merely trying to understand if her dismissive comment on the D-R is truly representative of scholarly thought today.

Thanks!
Click to expand...
I agree that the dismissive comment on the D-R is wrong. The DR is based on the Vulgate - which is still the approved Catholic version, and declared free of moral or theological error. The Vulgate, translated in 400 AD, also had access to many ancient Hebrew and Greek manuscripts now lost. The DR was revised by Bishop Challoner in the 18th century. see stjeromebiblicalguild.org/tlmdouayrheims2rev.pdf

What your instructor is doing is using the term “bible scholars” to lend an air of false legitimacy to her views. What “bible scholars” say and what the CHURCH says are often very different, because most “bible-scholars” today are Liberals and follow the “Historical-critical” method of biblical analysis. A method developed by protestant germans in the 19th Century. This means that analytically Liberal Bible scholars 1. )deduce (with no proof) that the bible was written not by the named authors, but by nameless editors, who made much of it up to serve their own purposes. (Read the NAB bible notes). 2.) That the medieval Hebrew version is “better” than the Vulgate and Septuagint for the OT, even though those latter versions are older and closer to the originals. 3.) That where two possible translations of a phrase are in conflict, the LEAST LIKELY of the one least likely to back up traditional Christian viewpoints, is the translatiuon that should be used.

Unfortunately a lot (but not all) of modern scholarly thought has swallowed the Liberal-Critical methodolgy wholesale and views everything through these glasses.

Really, a GOOD teacher should be glad to see alternative viewpoints brought forward to widen discussion.
 
New American Bible works for me. Easy to understand, good footnotes. I have no complaints.
 
Sheeniac said:
My diocese has started a serious Bible class - 31 Saturdays a year for 4 years. This is the first year in the Diocese. I’m happy to be part of it.

…the instructor (has an MA in Biblical Studies and taught for 10 years in the Chicago Archdiocese) said that modern scholars (Catholic, Prots, Jews) do not use the Douay- Rheims and that most feel it was translated incorrectly in many places.
Click to expand...
Sheeniac,
I’m curious about this new bible study program…is it something generally published or available?

Regarding the Douay Rheims bible, I really like it and often refer to it in conjuction with a more modern translation (the RSV-2CE in my case). It has helped many passages to come alive for me. There is much discussion centered around the Douay Rheims, as you’ve found out. I think the important thing to know is that it was declared free from doctrinal and moral errors at a time when bible translations were being ‘tailored’ so suit specific (human) agendas or viewpoints. But this is not the same thing as saying that the translation is technically perfect in all respects. Jimmy Akin has an article posted on Catholic Answers that you might find very useful:

catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0202bt.asp

I know that its been referenced before in many posts on this general subject. In the article, Mr. Akin writes “…ecclesiastical documents have acknowleged that the Vulgate is free of doctrinal and moral error. However, not containing doctrinal and moral error is not the same thing as being a perfect translation.”

Perhaps this is the type of information that your instructor is referring to. However, I think it would be foolish for any modern translator to blindly ‘write-off’ the Douay Rheims translation.
Sheeniac said:
…I am getting 2 more Bibles this weekend from someone else in the class - the NAB (which is recommended by the instructor although our workbook uses the RSV), and also a Catholic Study Bible.

The homework I turned in this week cited mainly the RSV-2CE and there were a couple of D-R cites included.
Click to expand...
Regarding the NAB and Catholic Study Bible, I suspect that you will find that they both contain the same NAB translation…so pay attention to that. You may want to only buy one of them from your friend or classmate.

As I mentioned above, I personally enjoy using the RSV-2CE, and I think your instructor would be hard-pressed to find legitimate reasons to criticize you for using it. After being initially skeptical of it, I subsequently found (my personal opinion) that it took a good relatively modern translation (the RSV-CE) and modified it to actually be more in line with the Douay Rheims in several instances.

Hope this helps,
rocketrob
 
Sheeniac said:
Thanks for all the replies, but most people missed my point.

I was surprised at her remark about the D-R being inaccurate. The Bible I own is the RSV-2CE. She said that was fine to use. I am getting 2 more Bibles this weekend from someone else in the class - the NAB (which is recommended by the instructor although our workbook uses the RSV), and also a Catholic Study Bible.

It turns out one of my classmates has about8 Bibles, and she was surprised to find out they were almost all the same version! So I offered to buy one from her 🙂

I find the various translations interesting and thought provoking.

My shock was to have someone say that the D-R was inaccurate and no longer used by Bible scholars. I don’t know if believe that to be the full truth. Perhaps it is just an easier explanation and a discussion doesn’t get dragged into the mud (I would think the language alone tobe off-putting to the average person). She has no need to defend to me why she chooses a specific Bible.

The homework I turned in this week cited mainly the RSV-2CE and there were a couple of D-R cites included. If she reiterates her warnings, I’d like to be able to say something accurate and objective back. e.g Scott Hahn prefers the D-R… or - I’ve read many scholars like to compare the translations as well.

I am not questioning why wer’re not using the D-R for our class - I wouldn’t suggest it myself. Again, I am merely trying to understand if her dismissive comment on the D-R is truly representative of scholarly thought today.

Thanks!
Click to expand...
We don’t even know what she meant. How can anyone determine if it’s representative of anything.

Instead of trying to clarify it here, the proper place was/is in the class.

Students get to ask questions and for clarification in most classes.

What she meant by inaccurate could be about anything, from archaic language which people read using today’s English to many other things.

Ask your teacher what she means by her statements.
 
Joe -

She has an MA in Biblical Studies. My intent was for those who have knowledge in this specific area to comment on this aspect. I’ve seen the point made in more than one of the extra books she’s assigned and have found none of their explanations remotely satisfying.

So I’m less interested in her personal opinion but rather the ideas in modern theological studies. She obviously has her reasons for believing as she does, and I am interested in both sides, not just hers. You know - there’s a greater intellectual issue here.

BTW - the term is instructor. In the US, teacher generally implies someone working with K-16, and it’s been 25 years since that’s happened for me.
 
40.png
Sheeniac:
We have weekly homework and this week I used both my RSV-2CE and the D-R. I know I will get a note on my homework about it, and wanted to know that I stand on firm ground. I can see some places already (we’re starting in Exodus) where there are D-R parts that are not in the RSV-2CE.
Click to expand...
Can you specify what you mean by “parts that are not in the RSV-2CE” There are many D/R that have some slight inadvertant omissions. But that is an editorial error.

As was already well stated, the D/R being a translation from the Clementine Vulgate (assuming you’re not using an original D/R edition from before 1700,) will not agree with the Greek and Hebrew texts that are the basis of modern translations. But the D/R is definitely a literal translation of the Vulgate text.

Pope Benedict XVI, in his new book Jesus of Nazareth has some enlightening things to say about the historical/critical methods for interpreting Scriptures. He says, these methods are indeed valuable resources, and should not be dismissed, while also warning us to understand the limits of the historical critical methods. In other words, one tool does not suffice when interpreting the Sacred Scriptures. So the Historical/Critical method cannot be put up on a pedestal as if it were the last word. It can (and should) contribute, strengthen and fortify the Faith traditions of the Catholic Church. When it is used to undermine, long standing beliefs, then it should be regarded with skepticism. In this same book he gives some examples of the limitations of the historical/critical method.🙂
 
rocketrob said:
Sheeniac,
I’m curious about this new bible study program…is it something generally published or available?
Click to expand...
It started in CO about 15 years ago or so. I do know that she was teaching in Chicago for 10 years. The main workbook is amazon.com/gp/product/0809195844/ref=ox_ya_oh_product . We have a total of 4 other books for the class, along with the Catholic Study Bible (NAB).

The handouts are what really drive understanding and context for the next week’s readings.
Regarding the Douay Rheims bible, I really like it and often refer to it in conjuction with a more modern translation (the RSV-2CE in my case).
Click to expand...
I believe we are on the same page. I am looking forward to the extensive notes in the NAB Study Bible. I think that by using several versions one can get a better picture of a given chapter.

I’ve already found the DR explanation of the hardening of the heart of Pharaoh to make much more sense then what was discussed in class. Indeed - after much reflection, I unfortunately can see a few similarities in myself with Pharaoh in his ongoing negotiations with God.
catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0202bt.asp
Click to expand...
…
Click to expand...
Perhaps this is the type of information that your instructor is referring to. However, I think it would be foolish for any modern translator to blindly ‘write-off’ the Douay Rheims translation.
Click to expand...
That very well could be. That was an insightful article - Jimmy Akins knows his stuff!

Thanks rocketrob!
 
I am not in any Bible study group but study the Sacred Scriptures on my own time. I use the New American Bible, The Catholic Bible-Personal Study Edition as my main reference. I also use the Navarre Bible. I buy the individual books as I go along. The Navarre Bible has the Vulgate text (Latin) that is why I like it as a reference. I have also the Collegeville Bible Commentary (text and commentaries) easy to understand and follow the Word of God, also available in individual books.

Your study group must have a good organizational structure if your group had projected to to complete the Bible in 4 years. I was wondering if the syllabus of your Bible study is available to the public and can be perused in the internet.

Good luck in your course. I am excited for you and your group. Always keep yourself and others motivated.

God bless. Live Jesus in our hearts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top