So which Bible is the most accurate . . . if such a thing exists?

[Salvatore123]

A recently published book in an upcoming series is found at Harvard Press. A link to it, along with a review, is: amazon.com/gp/product/0674055349/ref=oss_product

What this new series points out (correctly, I might add) is that even the Vatican is “at a loss” as to what is considered an accurate copy of the first translations of the books of the Bible that were first committed to writing as the Apostles wrote them.

In sum, Damasus commissioned St. Jerome to produce a Bible (known as the Vulgate) because of the large number of various Latin translations floating around (that we refer to as the “Old Latin Bible” - which is NOT the Vulgate).

We know that Jerome performed his job, but not quite as he was instructed. He did construct what we believe is a very accurate latin translation of the various Greek manuscripts of the NT in existence at that time.

For the OT, Jerome began with the Septuagint, but “left” it and began using the old Hebrew texts to “fill in” some blanks or to go back to the original language in places where he thought the original language (Hebrew and Aramaic) was better. (I will skip the debate over Jerome’s personal thoughts about including the deuteros - bible scholars will know that Jerome did not want them, and that Augustine did - and thus a “breach” between Jerome and quite a few of his former friends).

We also know that we have NO IDEA of what Jerome was looking at when he produced his Vulgate - THE “gold standard” in use by the Vatican until the Middle Ages and Protestant Revolt.

As I noted in another post, although many people, when they pull out their Baronius Press “Duoay Rheims” bible, think they are reading the DR that was originally produced in English by Father Martin and a few others at Duoay and then Rheims (and this is NOT a knock on Baronius Press), they are actually getting Challoner’s revision of the DR. One CAN purchase a copy of the DR AS IT WAS WRITTEN in the late 1500’s/early 1600’s (go to lulu.com), and you will be able to read (I have purchased the set) the DR in the old english as written by Father Martin, et al.

Aside from finding copies online or purchasing as I mentioned above, NO Duoay Rheims bible exists as, in fact, the DR that was produced at the time it was “commissioned”. The vast majority of what people have when they pull out their DR bibles are either Challoner’s (the most pervasive), Haydock’s, and Knox’s (which is, in itself, a new translation).

One must keep in mind: the Vatican has NEVER declared any particular bible to be “the most accurate rendering of the books of the bible as originally written”. Trent ONLY stated that the Vulgate was free from doctrinal and moral error and could thus be used as the bible in all respects.

The Vulgate that the Vatican used as its “official” latin bible until 1979, was actually one commissioned by Popes Sixtus and Clement - which explains it was referred to (Baronius has this latin bible available in an beautiful leather bound edition) as the “Sixto/Clementine” or “Clementine” Vulgate. But even THIS Vulgate (the one the Vatican used pre 1979) was not the one that first appeared after the papal commissioning. That first one (and later a second and third) were so full of errors (printing and otherwise) that redrafts were made until a fourth was decided as “accurate” and adopted for use by the Vatican.

It was not until 1979 that the Vatican updated the Vulgate to one produced in modern times. In 1986, the Vatican released the final version of the “Nova Vulgatum” - New Vulgate, and it serves as THE “official” latin text used by the Vatican (although, ironically, JPII used the RSV in English as the reference work for the Catechism released in the early 1990’s).

So, I believe, we are stuck with the following “facts”:

1. We have no idea WHAT Jerome looked at in producing his Vulgate.
2. Many “codexes” exist in the world so that we can produce a version of the OT, if we wanted to do so, that is accurate in the sense that it is produced from Hebrew/Aramaic texts that existed before Christ and that such texts, from various sources, are about 95% in agreement with one another as far as the wording.
3. NO known “old latin bible” texts exist.
4. We do NOT know what Father Martin, et al. were looking at when they produced their DR.
5. We DO have the DR produced by Father Martin, et al., but it is NOT what most people have in their hands today.
6. We DO have a New Vulgate that the Vatican uses, but we do NOT have an “official” english translation of it.

When one considers all of these together, it is somewhat a bit “depressing” in that we are walking around with bibles that we have no idea of what served as the true starting point for many of them

I do, however, think the new Harvard Press is as good as one can get, as it is sort of a “reverse translation” of the DR. HP basically took Challoner’s revision, updated it with modern spelling and punctuationition (but it did NOT change wording), and THEN produced a latin version of it.

I have been reviewing the first in the HP series and I must say it is an excellent read, both for scholarship and for everyday reading. I put the english version on par with the KJV, and that is saying quite a bit . . .

 

[geekborj]

A recently published book in an upcoming series is found at Harvard Press. A link to it, along with a review, is: amazon.com/gp/product/0674055349/ref=oss_product

What this new series points out (correctly, I might add) is that even the Vatican is “at a loss” as to what is considered an accurate copy of the first translations of the books of the Bible that were first committed to writing as the Apostles wrote them.

Truly, this is unfortunate for the “biblical” Christians.

Catholics believe that: (CCC#108) [T]he Christian faith is NOT a “religion of the book.” Christianity is the religion of the “Word” of God, a word which is “not a written and mute word, but the Word which is INCARNATE and LIVING.” If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, THROUGH the Holy Spirit, “open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures.”

The thing is that even if the Vatican would be “at a loss” as to which give an accurate copy of the first translations of the Bible, the Church will not be at loss because she believes the Holy Spirit who is the author of the Bible is with her. That, as promised by her Lord, Jesus sent to her “another Advocate to be with you always” [Jn 14:16] so “it[the Truth] remains with you, and will be in you” [v.17b] and “he[the Advocate, Holy Spirit] will teach you everything and remind you of all that (I, Jesus) told you.”

This is the reason why the Church is proud to recite in her Creed (core belief):
“I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, …”
Notice that the Holy Spirit is related to the Church. Nowhere in the Creed is the Bible mentioned at all! It is the Church that is the Body of Christ, who will be the “bulwark of truth” being able to understand those revealed in the context of the present, always and forever (not dead like the writings in a book).

 

[Barbkw]

Well…Judaism made the copying of the Torah a precise art, yet God formed a New Covenant with a handful of Jews who were best trained at net fishing and tax collecting.

God has a wonderful sense of humor and it attests to the power and works of the Holy Spirit within the Church and Christianity.

The message of salvation continues to work it’s way through the pages of Church history and through God’s Word.

 

[Salvatore123]

geek,

I agree with you to a point -

In seeing and reading many of the debates between those adhering to “sola scriptura” and those who do not, I have often seen the “anti sola scriptura” apologists to almost go overboard in that they seem to relegate the bible second to the Church.

As an orthodox Catholic, I realize that a compilation of books, without an interpreting authority such as the Church, would be dead, indeed.

But I fear that one can carry that argument too far . . .

I seriously doubt that the Vatican has taught, or would ever teach, that “the Bible is really not needed - what is needed is the Holy Father and the Magisterium of the Church, as it is from THOSE sources that we ‘get our religion’ or creed”.

I know the arguments against sola scriptura by heart (the primary one being that Christ never told anyone to write down anything). But remember, when He and his Apostles preached, did they not look to the WRITTEN OT books as “anchors” for their teaching?

In thinking about my post a bit more, I did not realize just how “sad” it is that we Catholics (and other Christians, for that matter) do not have a book that contains OT and NT based on sources (such as the various codexes) where there is a 95% “agreement” regarding the wording when comparing the various sources.

As an attorney, I can say that WITHOUT the ORIGINAL texts themselves, great weight would be given as evidence to the accuracy of a text when the sources of that text would be various writings that originated from different places and different times, and yet still were 95% in agreement with the wording amongst them.

As an example, I think that the Codex Sinaiticus is now considered to be THE “gold standard” as far as NT accuracy. It is very old, it was written very near the time Christ and the Apostles lived, and it matches with a high degree of accuracy other bits and pieces of various sources. And the remarkable thing about that particular Codex is that it is virtually an entire NT. The age and the “completeness” of it make it, without doubt, one of the most important biblical archaeological finds in recent history - and I would argue on part with the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Without getting into or trying to provoke an argument as to which bible is BETTER (note that my title of this thread uses the word “accurate” - NOT 'better"), I go back to an earlier thread I started months ago where I lamented the fact that we Catholics in America use a lectionary that has as its source the NAB - a bible that refers to Mary as “highly favored” than “full of grace”.

Now try to get around THAT fact when arguing with a protestant that the Blessed Mother WAS full of grace . . .

The immediate retort is along the lines, “well even the Bible passage you Catholics use at your Mass does not state that Mary was ‘full of grace’ . . .”

And you know what? He is correct

Perhaps one day the Church will do what Damasus did with Jerome, and what Sixtus and Clement did during the Protestant Revolt: commission a Bible that, based on archaeological finds of recent times, is pretty darned accurate regarding wording.

No, I don’t think that the Bible is superior to the Catholic Church and its Magisterium. By the same token, I don’t think we would have much of a Chuch if we did not have a Bible . . .

 

[Dave_Noonan]

1. We have no idea WHAT Jerome looked at in producing his Vulgate.

I think this is a little strong, but I know what you’re saying. We can look at critical editions of the Septuagint, the Massoretic Text, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the various manuscripts of the NT and make some intelligent guesses as to what Jerome might have been looking at. Of course we can’t always know for sure. But I don’t think the situation is totally hopeless.

The Vulgate is essentially what scholars call an “eclectic” text–meaning that a number of manuscripts were consulted to come up with a composite text that the translator thinks is sort of a “best of” what’s available. The New Testament (any version) is exactly this–it doesn’t follow one singular manuscript. That’s why we’re on our 27th edition of the Greek NT

1. Many “codexes” exist in the world so that we can produce a version of the OT, if we wanted to do so, that is accurate in the sense that it is produced from Hebrew/Aramaic texts that existed before Christ and that such texts, from various sources, are about 95% in agreement with one another as far as the wording.

We also have the Dead Sea Scrolls (so, a helpful source that’s not a codex). I have no idea about the percentage–seems a little high but I don’t really know who has studied this, or how one would even measure this since we don’t have the originals.

 

[Salvatore123]

Dave,

I apologize for not being clearer. The 95% figure I refer to is the percentage of “ancient” compilations that have identical wording.

Yes, the percentage is high, but keep in mind that although the OT is much older than the NT (and one would think, intuitively, that the NT would be easier to p(name removed by moderator)oint as far as accuracy), it is BECAUSE THE OT IS OLDER that we have a better sense of what the OT looked like in Jerome’s time and before. So many of them existed and so many copies were made.

 

[Salvatore123]

Dave,

If you (or anyone else reading this and has the time), go to this site: codexsinaiticus.org/en/

Click on “see the manuscript” tab and to to Luke 1:28. I was disappointed to read “highly favored” instead of “full of grace”.

This codex is the OLDEST known compilation of the entire NT - from early 4th century. In addition, it was written in Alexandrian Greek.

IF the original Luke DID say “highly favored” instead of “full of grace”, my opinion is: so be it. That does NOT change the fact and dogma that Mary WAS full of grace and why she was chosen by God to bear Jesus.

As a Catholic, I want the truth more than just support from words that may not be accurate. I realize that the words “full of grace” are not the SOLE basis for the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. But geez - they ARE CITED BY APOLOGISTS EXACTLY FOR THAT ARGUMENT WHEN THEY DEBATE PROTESTANTS!!!

We are using the NAB in America to actually teach our faithful each Sunday, and yet JPII used the RSV in compiling the Catechism.

Doesn’t this strike anyone else as a bit odd?

When I read ANY apologist’s arguments for Mary’s sinlessness, the FIRST argument is ALWAYS Luke 1:28 and the version that says “full of grace”. Now what happens if that version is not accurate - what, then, does a Catholic apologist use to argue in favor of the dogma?

You cannot say “well, we rely on the God-protected Magisterium of the Church”, because that is a premise that the Protestants do not believe. And if you don’t cite the Bible, then you will never have a meaningful debate with protestants because that is the ONLY thing they use.

 

[Salvatore123]

As a detailed discussion of what I was referring to generally above, consider the Annunciation by Gabriel to Mary. In Karl Keating’s famous apologetics work “Catholicism and Fundamentalism”, Mr. Keating BEGINS the “apologetics” argument regarding the Immaculate Conception with reference to exactly what I said above: the phrase “full of grace” told to Mary by Gabriel.

Aside from the different versions of the Annunciation in various bibles, I do have one problem with the logic of one of Mr. Keating’s arguments. In pointing out the various Annunciation wordings found in different bibles where “full of grace” is NOT stated, Mr. Keating says: “These translations are imperfect, since they give the impression that the favor bestowed on Mary was no different from that given other women in the bible.”

Logically, that is an incorrect statement. An interpretive conclusion (“the translations are imperfect”) CANNOT form the predicate for the argument that a statement upon which the conclusion is based is incorrect. In other words, logically, one cannot say that wording A of a verse is incorrect BECAUSE it leads to a conclusion that is better supported by the wording of verse B. The wording of a particular verse is either accurate or not, and the INTERPRETATION of that verse should have NO effect on whether the verse is accurate. One must always look to the source for a writing to determine whether the writing accurately reflects what was originally said or written. An interpretation of a writing cannot serve any role in determining whether the writing is accurate.

But not only do apologists look to the Annunciation in the Bible as liturgical “proof” for the Immaculate Conception. The actual dogmatic pronouncement of the Immaculate Conception, as found in the infallible decree Ineffabilis Deus, specifically references Luke 1:28 and the phrase “full of grace” as the primary liturgical language to support the dogma.

I think it fair to say that if the infallible decree of the Immaculate Conception references and cites a particular phrase (“full of grace”), then the phrase to which it refers must also be, by logical deduction, considered an infallible restatement of what was originally said (which in this case, what Gabriel actually told Mary).

Now, consider the various ways in which this phrase is rendered or omitted (all verses are Luke 1:28):

1. Rheims NT (as translated by Father Martin - NOT one of the revisions): “And the angel being entered in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, our Lord is with thee, blessed art thou among women”.
2. RSV: "And he came to her and said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!”
3. NAB: “Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you.”
4. NRSV: “And he came to her and said: ‘Greetings, favoured one! The Lord is with you.’”
5. Jerusalem Bible: “He went in and said to her, ‘Rejoice, so highly favored! The Lord is with you.’”
6. Good News Translation: "The angel came to her and said, “Peace be with you! The Lord is with you and has greatly blessed you!”
7. New Jerusalem Bible: “He went in and said to her, ‘Rejoice, you who enjoy God’s favour! The Lord is with you.’”
8. Christian Community Bible: "The angel came to her and said, “Rejoice, full of grace, the Lord is with you.”
9. Knox’s translation: “Into her presence the angel came, and said, Hail, thou who art full of grace; the Lord is with thee; blessed art thou among women.”
10. New Vulgate (promulgated by Vatican 1979/1986): “Et ingressus ad eam dixit: Ave, gratia plena Dominus tecum.” Translated: "And entering he said: “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you.”

Now, given our DUTY to spread the Word of God, and defend our faith (which includes dogmas such as the Immaculate Conception), how are we to do so if “we” cannot agree on such a simple phrase?

I think the above diverse verse-renderings demonstrate that these are no mere mis-translations. The majority are nothing more than what one “writer” thought sounded better and so he said so - no more, no less.

But can THIS be the manner in which we translate the Word of God? Leave it to the whim of whomever happens to be translating a particular passage on a particular day?

Some may think this is going overboard, but I truly believe that rendering translations based on what the translator THINKS sounds good to him or her is not only presumptuous, I think it is insulting to the Word of God.

*Dealing somewhat with this subject in a thread several months ago, I was “diverted” into a conversation about whether the Church should devote resources to rendering a translation of the Bible that it could legitimately call “the most accurate translation based on the available sources we currently have”. Not wishing to debate how the Church should spend its money, I respectfully submit that with the dearth of bible translations coming forth from the various protestant denominations on a seemingly yearly, regular basis, I think that it WOULD be a wise investment by the Catholic Church to devote some of its resources to rendering a bible in English (the predominant language spoken in the world other than the various Chinese dialects) that has, as its foundation, the most accurate translations we have available to us. In those instances where there are legitimate disagreements over the wording, simply do what translators have done for thousands of years: discuss the disagreement in the margin or in a footnote.

 

[James224]

Although what you say is true, The church has used Jerome’s Vulgate since around 400ad. Jerome did have more original manuscripts than anyone else and made corrections to many corrupt copies. He was probably one of the greatest Greek, Hebrew and Latin scholars in history. From the time of Christ until 400ad, through a very organic yet divine method, the inspired books and translation of them were separated from the uninspired and corrupt ones. This, in itself, was part of Tradition because it was done through the Church. Then, through Apostolic Tradition, the church fathers declared, in council, which books were part of the canon. Jerome did have differences with certain things but, in obedience, yielded to the authority of the church. So, it was based on the authority of the Church what the Word of God is and it doesn’t matter that the translations aren’t absolutely perfect because the translation doesn’t contradict the teaching of the church. I would rather go with Jerome simply because he did have many of the original manuscripts that no longer exist and because of his abilities and holiness. Also, since that time, there have been many great minds who have looked at, studied and accepted this version. I don’t think God would allow us to not have His Word for a thousand years. Modern translations aren’t only interested in the original text but also in translating for the modern man. The vernacular language changes so, sometimes, this is considered in these vernacular translations. The church, though, has the perogative to update the latin translation with new scholarship because, although the church didn’t originate scripture, it validates it. Of course, the Vulgate is the official translation. Why new translations of the vulagte came about? Some of it is due to honest mistakes in handwriting the texts and that sort of thing. A great book on this is by Fr Henry Graham. It’s a small book yet very good on showing how all this came about. The weakness of the book is that there are no footnotes. I don’t know why but the book makes sense. It’s a good read.

I also have a photographic reproduction of the original Douay-Rheims Version that I’ve had for years. It has the notes in the column and annotations at the end of each chapter. It’s harder to read because of the primitive typeset. It’s beautiful and I refer to it often. The notes are priceless.

 

[Salvatore123]

James,

Thank you for your comments. I tend to agree that Jerome’s Vulgate was probably the most accurate, considering he was very likely looking at only “once removed” translations (at least some of the time) when he compiled his bible.

I could not tell from your post, so I will ask: Are you aware that NO ONE has a copy of the Vulgate that Jerome produced?

The translation closest to the Vulgate is the original Duoay Rheims produced by Father Martin, et al. (which I referenced above in my earlier post and which you said you purchased as well). We ASSUME that the original DR was based on the Vulgate produced by Jerome, but historically, it appears even some revisions of the Vulgate occurred between the 4th and 16th centuries.

That is why I like the new Harvard Press series that is being put out (I received the first of the set this past weekend and it is hard to put it down). As I explained earlier, it worked in a reverse manner: it took the english translation we know as the DR and then constructed a latin version based on the english. The goal, as said by the editor, was to try to replicate - going backwards - the source of the english that the editors relied upon.

Definitely a novel approach . . .

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Dave,

I apologize for not being clearer. The 95% figure I refer to is the percentage of “ancient” compilations that have identical wording.

Yes, the percentage is high, but keep in mind that although the OT is much older than the NT (and one would think, intuitively, that the NT would be easier to p(name removed by moderator)oint as far as accuracy), it is BECAUSE THE OT IS OLDER that we have a better sense of what the OT looked like in Jerome’s time and before. So many of them existed and so many copies were made.

Actually I was just curious where you got the 95% and how this calculation was made. Because the manuscripts of some books (say Jeremiah) vary pretty wildly I can’t see how this could be the case. But I’m not rejecting it out of hand, just curious about the info.

 

[James224]

James,

Thank you for your comments. I tend to agree that Jerome’s Vulgate was probably the most accurate, considering he was very likely looking at only “once removed” translations (at least some of the time) when he compiled his bible.

I could not tell from your post, so I will ask: Are you aware that NO ONE has a copy of the Vulgate that Jerome produced?

The translation closest to the Vulgate is the original Duoay Rheims produced by Father Martin, et al. (which I referenced above in my earlier post and which you said you purchased as well). We ASSUME that the original DR was based on the Vulgate produced by Jerome, but historically, it appears even some revisions of the Vulgate occurred between the 4th and 16th centuries.

That is why I like the new Harvard Press series that is being put out (I received the first of the set this past weekend and it is hard to put it down). As I explained earlier, it worked in a reverse manner: it took the english translation we know as the DR and then constructed a latin version based on the english. The goal, as said by the editor, was to try to replicate - going backwards - the source of the english that the editors relied upon.

Definitely a novel approach . . .

I was not aware that Jerome’s Original Latin Vulgate was lost. I read about it on the New Advent Website after reading your email. From what New Advent says, it must have been lost early on. Obviously, all the copies made after Jerome’s Vulgate (with corruptions) were from Jerome’s Vulgate or, at least, based on it. So, it seems then, that the intention of the monks who made copies were trying to find the corruptions and correct them down through the centuries. Would you agree with that?

It’s interesting what you said about Harvard Press. Thanks for that info! I’ll keep that in mind. Do you know Latin?

Thanks again!

 

[Ron_Conte]

The most accurate Bible is the one that you prayerfully interpret in the light of Tradition and Magisterium.

 

[Salvatore123]

Ron,

What do you say to those who are part of the magisterium (bishops) of the Church who permit something such as an NAB translation that completely replaced Mary as “full of grace” with “highly favored” or “favored one”?

 

[Salvatore123]

And Ron, I asked you that question because, to me, this whole subject raises an issue that I do not know the answer to: When a particular translation of the Bible is given an imprimatur and nihil obstat, which “used to be” assurances we Catholics could rely upon, how can those “assurances” be considered accurate as far as “doctrine” when the phrase “full of grace” has been substituted for “highly favored one”?

That seems like a doctrinal change to me . . .

 

[germangreek]

When a particular translation of the Bible is given an imprimatur and nihil obstat, which “used to be” assurances we Catholics could rely upon, how can those “assurances” be considered accurate as far as “doctrine” when the phrase “full of grace” has been substituted for “highly favored one”?

That seems like a doctrinal change to me . . .

The nihil obstat and imprimatur assure us that the book - translation of the Bible, in this case - does not contravene Christian doctrine.

Whether “kecharitomene” is best rendered as “highly favored” or “full of grace” is not a doctrinal question. The scriptural support for the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception still requires a magisterial interpretation, and ultimately requires a lively appreciation of the meaning of the words in Greek and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

 

[germangreek]

For translational accuracy that has doctrinal implications, why does every rendering into English of the Lord’s prayer ask for “daily” bread, when the Greek word is “epiousion” in both Matthew and Luke, and which does not mean “daily”? The word would seem to render into English as “above being”; the Vulgate has “supersubstantialem” and the Douay has “supersubstantial” in Matthew and “daily” in Luke. What if we and all our separated brethren were to pray that our Father give us today our supersubstantial bread?

 

[Salvatore123]

germangreek,

I actually agree with what you say (at the risk of being characterized as heretical) regarding translations.

When Damasus commissioned Jerome to compiled one bible in the Latin language of the Church, he did NOT tell Jerome to render his own meanings of words. He wanted Jerome to select the best copies available of the “old Latin bible” floating around. Jerome, on his own, went further and obtained help from Hebrew scholars when compiling the OT.

I have absolutely NO problem with changing ANY prayer we have become accustomed to saying a certain way - so long as the new manner of saying it is, in fact, an accurate representation of the original way it was written by the biblical book’s author.

I do, however, differ with you to a degree regarding the wording of “full of grace” and “highly favored”. If the Greek means the former, then the dogma of the Immaculate Conception is firmly rooted in a biblical verse. If the original Greek meant the LATTER, well then I submit that, although I do not DISBELIEVE the dogma, I do not believe the Church would be able to continue to rely on Luke 1:28 as the basis for Mary being “full of grace”. And that is because that is the ONLY place in the entire bible that refers to Mary as without sin (which is the only thing that “FULL of grace” can mean).

 

[germangreek]

I do, however, differ with you to a degree regarding the wording of “full of grace” and “highly favored”. If the Greek means the former, then the dogma of the Immaculate Conception is firmly rooted in a biblical verse. If the original Greek meant the LATTER, well then I submit that, although I do not DISBELIEVE the dogma, I do not believe the Church would be able to continue to rely on Luke 1:28 as the basis for Mary being “full of grace”. And that is because that is the ONLY place in the entire bible that refers to Mary as without sin (which is the only thing that “FULL of grace” can mean).

Of course, the Church relies on the Greek, not on English translations, to understand her teaching. Translators should use the most accurate rendering of the original wording, not necessarily pick a rendering that would best support a preferred interpretation. Of course, if the original equally supports either rendering, then it might be reasonable to choose a version that best illuminates Church teaching. Ecumenical dialogue on the dogma will have to be conducted in Greek, though.

This is a problem for those of us who have to defend Christian doctrine from literalist Bible-thumpers, who might rightly respond, “Well, then, why does your own Church’s translation of the Bible say ‘highly favored’”? To which my response is, “Because those translators were heretics. I use the RSV.”

 

[Salvatore123]

germangreek,

Some of what you said made me think quite a bit and led me to what I think is a somewhat unfortunate conclusion (at least in the way I am concluding):

We know of Damasus’s commission to Jerome and we know Jerome produce the Vulgate.

But how do we know that the texts Jerome relied upon were representative of the texts that were written by the original authors of the books of the NT (or even the OT, for that matter)?

All the councils and the Church ever did were to infallibly declare the canon of the Bible, but not the wording of the books in that canon.

Will we Catholics EVER have a bible produced that we can be assured of as being accurate in every sense, and if not, what percentage (and I realize it would be a guess) do you think we could come close to representing the books of the bible as originally written?