The new douay rheims transalation - your thoughts

[Jerry-Jet]

No you need to review Catholic teaching–no translation except the Vulgate can be used in “all disputations”. What part of that do you not understand?

What part of John 3:16 do you not understand? Protestant versions of the bible say “shall” inherit eternal life. The Vulgate says “may” inherit eternal life.

That is a clear doctrinal difference.

What part of “Do penance or you will perish” do you not understand? Protestant versions never say “do penance” because they don’t believe in the concept of penance. The Vulgate says “Do Penance”. That is a doctrinal difference that does matter.

What part of the Lord’s Prayer or the Our Father do you not understand? In Matthew the Vulgate translates not “Daily Bread” as in Luke and in Protestant translations of the prayer in both Matthew and Luke but translates “Supersubstantial bread” in Matthew. That goes to the very heart of the Eucharist. Protestants don’t believe in “SuperSUBSTANTIAL bread”–they don’t believe in the change in SUBSTANCE that occurs during the Eucharist!

That is a doctrinal difference that does matter!

What part of Paul’s command to “Hold fast to the traditions that had been given” do you not understand? Protestant translations use “teachings” instead of “traditions” because they are unalterably opposed to the SacredTradition that is given by the Catholic magisterium.

That is a doctrinal difference that does matter!

What part of the anti-christ being those who don’t believe that Jesus “IS COME” in the flesh do you not understand? The only way that Jesus “IS COME” in the flesh–in the present tense"-- is in the Eucharist.

Protestant versions of the bible say Jesus “has come” or “is coming” because they can’t stand the thought of Jesus coming in the present tense in the flesh in the Eucharist!

That is a doctrinal difference that does matter.

And for all those people who will come back with the lame retort that Catholic doctrine is not built on scripture alone–that is true–but Catholic doctrine is built on three things–holy scripture–Sacred Tradition–and the teaching of the magisterium in union with the Pope.

None of those three legs can be thrown away–yet that is exactly what is done with Inaccurate translations of Holy Scripture!

Though we do not have a perfect bible we can have bibles that are free from doctrinal error!

Show me a bible that does not differ from the Vulgate on doctrinal matters and I would say that it might be worth possesing–indeed it could possibly be better than the Vulgate.

All translations that do err on doctrinal matters cannot be used in “all disputations” as the Vulgate can as declared by the Council of Trent!

The bottom line is that the words of the bible DO MATTER!

And people with no respect for Catholic doctrine or Sacred Tradition over the last two thousand years should not be trusted as scholars fit to translate God’s word!

 

[Canto]

What part of the anti-christ being those who don’t believe that Jesus “IS COME” in the flesh do you not understand? The only way that Jesus “IS COME” in the flesh–in the present tense"-- is in the Eucharist.

I knew of full of grace and stuff but not teachings instead of tradition and others that you mention. Can you think of any other examples to share with us. Very illuminating.

That is a doctrinal difference that does matter.

Show me a bible that does not differ from the Vulgate on doctrinal matters and I would say that it might be worth possesing–indeed it could possibly be better than the Vulgate.

This new Douay Rheims seems all the more necessary. And as I said before - if you go back to the Heb, Grk, Aramaic, are you going to get anything more accurate then using the Latin aided by the original languages?

 

[porthos11]

No you need to review Catholic teaching–no translation except the Vulgate can be used in “all disputations”. What part of that do you not understand?

What part of John 3:16 do you not understand? Protestant versions of the bible say “shall” inherit eternal life. The Vulgate says “may” inherit eternal life.

That is a clear doctrinal difference.

So? “Shall” inherit eternal life is does not support OSAS anyway. Other Vulgate passages use a similar grammatical construct and no way makes salvation hinge on a single event (e.g.Romans 10:9 DR). That does not make it doctrinally incorrect.

What part of “Do penance or you will perish” do you not understand? Protestant versions never say “do penance” because they don’t believe in the concept of penance. The Vulgate says “Do Penance”. That is a doctrinal difference that does matter.

“Repent or perish” is also theologically correct. It is therefore not a doctrinal error.

What part of the Lord’s Prayer or the Our Father do you not understand? In Matthew the Vulgate translates not “Daily Bread” as in Luke and in Protestant translations of the prayer in both Matthew and Luke but translates “Supersubstantial bread” in Matthew. That goes to the very heart of the Eucharist. Protestants don’t believe in “SuperSUBSTANTIAL bread”–they don’t believe in the change in SUBSTANCE that occurs during the Eucharist!

That is a doctrinal difference that does matter!

That’s not the what the Greek says. The proper Latin translation is quotidianum, not supersubstantialem, and the Liturgy of the Church clearly says so. When was the last time the Church ever prayed for “panem nostrum supersubstantialem?” “Daily” is not a doctrinal error. Supersubstantialem is a translation error. It refers first of all to temporal and spiritual goods in general, not just the Eucharist.

What part of Paul’s command to “Hold fast to the traditions that had been given” do you not understand? Protestant translations use “teachings” instead of “traditions” because they are unalterably opposed to the SacredTradition that is given by the Catholic magisterium.

Only the NIV uses “teachings.”

What part of the anti-christ being those who don’t believe that Jesus “IS COME” in the flesh do you not understand? The only way that Jesus “IS COME” in the flesh–in the present tense"-- is in the Eucharist.

Protestant versions of the bible say Jesus “has come” or “is coming” because they can’t stand the thought of Jesus coming in the present tense in the flesh in the Eucharist!

That is a doctrinal difference that does matter.

“Is come in the flesh” refers to the Incarnation, not the Eucharist, and is the preferred translation by Protestants as well.

All translations that do err on doctrinal matters cannot be used in “all disputations” as the Vulgate can as declared by the Council of Trent!

Try disputing with a Protestant with the Vulgate then get back to us.

And people with no respect for Catholic doctrine or Sacred Tradition over the last two thousand years should not be trusted as scholars fit to translate God’s word!

And Vulgate-only people who don’t bother to double-check anything against the other ancient sources are no better.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

And Vulgate-only people who don’t bother to double-check anything against the other ancient sources are no better.

In a world swirling with specious translations of the Bible purporting to be “more accurate,” it behooves any sensible and prudent Catholic to adhere more tightly to what is proven to be authentic by centuries of tradition, approval of Saints, Popes and Councils.

Modern translations have the burden of proof to justify their changes and amendments to known good texts. Until they can convince the faithful that their changes are for the better, they will never be accepted. It is useless, and worse, scandalous to insist that the faithful abandon known good texts for specious innovative texts because there are “tons of scholarship” behind it. That is not convincing, and never will be to people of Faith.

People of Faith can be reasonable, but they are not gullible the way modern translators seem to think. This was well understood by the college of Douay/Rheims, Bishop Challoner, and other translators that only made changes when a preponderance of evidence made the current text seem inaccurate or muddled. They never made wholesale changes that they thought would disturb (even the appearance of) the continuity of Church teaching and tradition, the way it is done now.

 

[BDewey]

Interesting. I’d like very much to review it. However, I’m not entirely clear as to its parentage: one of Challoner editions, Kenrick’s edition, the original 1582 edition…who’s? There’s quite a few editions that sprang from the original. Based upon others’ speculation…I doubt it’ll be very successful. Sounds like it’ll be the Catholic version of the NKJV…a resounding flop.

I do consider myself “somewhat” knowledgeable on this matter: I spent some years in the seminary for the Archdiocese of St. Louis. My master’s thesis was on the history of the Rheims NT, including its influence on the KJV. Since I’m at work on my lunch hour, I don’t have my research immediately available.

Being that I discerned my vocation is to marriage and not the priesthood, I left the seminary before ordination. The manuscript has been sitting on the shelf for a few years now collecting dust. Ironically (or Providentially), I decided to dust it off this past weekend and work on it again.

It was this thread that got me interested in this forum and this is my first post on this board.

 

[garysibio]

No you need to review Catholic teaching–no translation except the Vulgate can be used in “all disputations”. What part of that do you not understand?

Others have addressed the rest of your post much better than I could have so I won’t add to it but I wanted to comment on this portion. Where do you get this? I know what you said regarding Trent’s comments on the Vulgate but that refers to the Vulgate as it was in their time. It has changed in the interim so what Trent said about it then can no longer apply. There is nothing special about the Vulgate. It is just a translation into the Latin and is just as subject to error as any other translation. It does not enjoy any special protection from error. If it did it would not have had to be changed.

Gary

 

[porthos11]

In a world swirling with specious translations of the Bible purporting to be “more accurate,” it behooves any sensible and prudent Catholic to adhere more tightly to what is proven to be authentic by centuries of tradition, approval of Saints, Popes and Councils.

And sound Bible scholarship, as commanded by Divino Afflante Spiritu. I am simply holding on to the Church’s position decreed by Pope Pius XII, which clearly does not allow for Vulgate-onlyism.

Modern translations have the burden of proof to justify their changes and amendments to known good texts. Until they can convince the faithful that their changes are for the better, they will never be accepted. It is useless, and worse, scandalous to insist that the faithful abandon known good texts for specious innovative texts because there are “tons of scholarship” behind it. That is not convincing, and never will be to people of Faith.

No problem. I think they do a pretty good job of it. With the thousands of reliable manuscripts that we have, we have more to work on the St. Jerome ever did. Even a cursory reading of literal translations like the King James, RSV, and NAB can clearly show that we are closer to the Hebrew and Greek, unlike the DR which has too many Latinisms and free interpretative translations.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

What a crock! Anyone that thinks we have better original language texts now than St. Jerome had in his time is absolutely crazy!

Anyone that says that the King James–the RSV or the NAB are literal translations is likewise crazy!

Every translation is interprative!

I guess it comes down to who do you trust more–St. Jerome or the Protestant heretics who wrote the RSV or the Catholic liberals who wrote the NAB.

I’ll tell you what: if St. Pius XII were alive today and were forced to choose between the Vulgate, the Protestant RSV, the heretical King James or the ridiculous NAB he would take the Vulgate in a minute!

People from the liberal American mindset can’t understand such things–that’s OK–they’re as out of it as the Arians were–they don’t have a clue and don’t even know it!

 

[porthos11]

What a crock! Anyone that thinks we have better original language texts now than St. Jerome had in his time is absolutely crazy!

Proof, please, not rhetoric.

That St. Jerome had better sources is a myth. We’re the ones with the better sources nowadays. He indeed had access to manuscripts we don’t have, but we have access to more manuscripts he didn’t have. Moreover, he had no critical edition with the apparatus that is indispensable to straight translation today; and such apparati include the Vulgate.

I’ll tell you what: if St. Pius XII were alive today and were forced to choose between the Vulgate, the Protestant RSV, the heretical King James or the ridiculous NAB he would take the Vulgate in a minute!

Now you’re the one spewing crock. You have absolutely no knowledge of the Pope’s mindset, since you refuse to assent to his encyclical. Pope Pius already had awareness of the Vulgate vs. the critical manuscripts available in the early 20th century, and STILL he gave the critical manuscripts BETTER authority than the Vulgate. He said nothing about English translations.

Other than that, the Holy See does use these evil translatons. The evil RSV and NRSV is used in the Catechism, and Pope Benedict uses the evil RSV in the English translations of his writings. All official Vatican documents in English likewise use the evil RSV. But of course, the entire Holy See are dumb and crazy because Mr. Jet is smarter than them all.

So again, how much longer will you reject the Holy Father’s encyclical?

 

[AmbroseSJ]

That St. Jerome had better sources is a myth. We’re the ones with the better sources nowadays. He indeed had access to manuscripts we don’t have, but we have access to more manuscripts he didn’t have. Moreover, he had no critical edition with the apparatus that is indispensable to straight translation today; and such apparati include the Vulgate.

It’s not just quantity, it’s quality. St. Jerome had access to purer sources than the multiplicity of tainted ones available now.

 

[porthos11]

It’s not just quantity, it’s quality. St. Jerome had access to purer sources than the multiplicity of tainted ones available now.

Tainted, right, like the ancient papyri, 2nd-to 6th century Byzantine lectionaries, Greek patristic citations, uncials and parallel-language manuscripts that bear remarkable consistency such that it’s very easy to identify variant texts. This is especially true for the New Testament, all of which add up to the thousands.

If there’s any more of purity, it’s today’s NT manuscripts. St. Jerome had nothing approaching both the quantity and quality that we have today.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Trent approved of the old Latin Vulgate.

The Neo-Vulgate is neither an attempt at a new edit of the old Latin, nor is it a continuation or development within the Latin Scriptural tradition. The Neo-Vulgate rephrases the Latin substantially, and is based mainly on the Greek and Hebrew texts.

The Neo-Vulgate would make a poor source text for a translation into English because it is not part of the Latin Scriptural tradition, it has not been used extensively by the Church for hundreds of years as the Clementine Vulgate has been, and it loosely rephrases numberous passages. One cannot base a new translation on a text that is itself a paraphrase translation.

 

[garysibio]

I guess it comes down to who do you trust more–St. Jerome or the Protestant heretics who wrote the RSV or the Catholic liberals who wrote the NAB.

We have no way of knowing how old the manuscripts were which Jerome used. Keep in mind the era in which he was writing. He didn’t have museums and libraries to travel to. He basically had whatever he could get his hands on. So yes, it is quite easy to believe that we have better manuscripts today than were available to him.

Your use of the word heretic is off. A heretic is someone who left the Catholic Church. It is unlikely that any of the RSV authors were ever Catholic in the first place so they could not be heretics.

At any rate, Catholic scholars made some corrections to the RSV text, corrections which were later integrated into the Protestant version. Most of my copies of the RSV-CE have a list of these changes in the back.

It is also possible for a Protestant to make an accurate translation of the Bible as long as they don’t let their beliefs interfere with the translation.

Gary

 

[AmbroseSJ]

We have no way of knowing how old the manuscripts were which Jerome used. Keep in mind the era in which he was writing. He didn’t have museums and libraries to travel to.

You are looking at his era through modern eyes. The fact is there were plenty of libraries in the ancient Roman empire. Most Monasteries and Schools, not to mention private individuals had amazing and extensive libraries of yet more ancient manuscripts. St. Jerome, from his study in Palestine had very close ties with influential people in both Rome and Constantinople, and would have had access to manuscripts that would excite today’s archaeologists to a fevered pitch. He was operating out of the cultured and intellectual East, and would have had access to the best minds that could be consulted on any further questions Jerome would have had. Lastly, but far from least, St. Jerome is a canonized Saint of deep spiritual convictions, a lively Faith lived to such a heroic extent he was canonized and favored by Heaven with miracles and other favors. This qualification seems to fall on deaf ears in today’s secular environment.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Porthos: if the almighty RSV is as great as you say it is then why doesn’t Pope Benedict XVI CHANGE the juridicial text of the Latin rite of the Catholic church to the RSV?

Do you think pope John Paul II was retarded for endorsing it?

The issue is not Vulgate onlyism it is doctrinal correctness.

The Confraternity New Testament is not perfect but flowing from the Vulgate it is doctrinaly correcxt.

I haven’t read the Knox bible–is it doctrinaly correct?

I have no problem with Engish names or spellings over latin ones.

I have no problem with differences due to style because English does differ from both Latin and Greek–sometinmes you can’t get the exact word or phrase that will correspond to greerk or latin or rramic or Hebrew.

Ive no problem with the Potestant numbering system of verse of the bible.

I don’t even have any problem with SOME variants as found in the masoretic text–even St. Jerome himself translated the psalm a third time directly from the hebrew and some of his translations in that version of the psalm are closer to the Masoretic than his second attempt at translating the psalms which would eventually be in Vulgate versionsof the bible up to to the Clementine.

I’m just against PROTESTANT differences in translation when they contradict the doctrinal integrity of the text.

Im also against CATHOLIC differences in translation such as the NAB when they aldo contradict DOCTRINALY the Vulgate.

I have no problem with minor details Ibelieve that jesus and the disciples did drink from a cup and not a chalice for example.

i don’t even have a problem if a reliable ancient origal language text is found and a word is used that doesn’t fully support the doctrinal legacy of the Vulgate if it doesn’t conteradict it and if the people who come to that conclusion are CATHOLICS with some degree of Papal authority.

St. jerome was commissioned by the pope. I honest to gods believe the saint tried the best he could to thranslate the bible.

I don’t believe tha other non saints and non commissioned by the pope scholars are as sincere as St. Jerome or try as hard as Sint jerome to accurate convey what the bible was saying.

I’m not going to say that the saint was perfect–I do believe the Ecumenical council of Tent that the Vulgate doesd not err on matters of doctrine.

When any translation diametrically opposes the Vulgate on a matter of doctrine I simply don’t believe it!

I’m not intelligent enough to ascertain the differences in the Vulgate such as people like Ron Conte can.

All Iknow is that somewhere within the Vulgate tradition lies doctrinal perfection in translation.

I don’t hate the RSV. I just hate where it doctrinally opposes the Vulgate. Tere are far worse translations than the RSV and yes in places it is superior to translations such as the New Jerusalem Bible, the Catholic NRSV or the NAB.

i look forward to a third edition of the RSV if that ever happens.

Ialso wonder what differences the third edition of the New Jeruslam bible are–it’s in French–Iwonder if it will ever be translated into English.

Ultimately I wish the holy See would commission a translation of the bible into all even if the project took many many years to complete–and if there were variants that might be accurate but impossible to verify that they would be included in footnotes.

I don’t 't trust Bible Scholars–I would trust the Holy See if it came out with a bible that it said was as close accurate as they could accomplish.

That is far different than translations that it might acknowledge as “acceptable”. As long as Jesus’ command “Be ye perfect” applies that is what the Catholic church should always aim for in biblical translation.

 

[garysibio]

You are looking at his era through modern eyes. The fact is there were plenty of libraries in the ancient Roman empire. Most Monasteries and Schools, not to mention private individuals had amazing and extensive libraries of yet more ancient manuscripts. St. Jerome, from his study in Palestine had very close ties with influential people in both Rome and Constantinople, and would have had access to manuscripts that would excite today’s archaeologists to a fevered pitch. He was operating out of the cultured and intellectual East, and would have had access to the best minds that could be consulted on any further questions Jerome would have had. Lastly, but far from least, St. Jerome is a canonized Saint of deep spiritual convictions, a lively Faith lived to such a heroic extent he was canonized and favored by Heaven with miracles and other favors. This qualification seems to fall on deaf ears in today’s secular environment.

OK, I worded it badly. Museums and libraries existed but St. Jerome was not living near them. He did not have access to all of them. It wasn’t like he was living in Rome or Constantinople.

At any rate, it is absurd to think that a modern scholar does not have access to better manuscripts today.

Gary

 

[Jerry-Jet]

No–it is absurd not to acknowledge all the countless manuscripts that have been lost since the time of St. Jerome.

It is absurd not to acknowldege that some of the manuscripts that St. Jerome used we simply do not have anymore.

It’s a whole lot easier to find Civil War letters than it is Revolutionary War letters.

Are you telling me that someone who lived in the year 380 or 400 would have a harder time finding ancient critical texts than someone that lived today? That is quite ludicrous!

Are you also going to tell me that someone who is commissioned by the Pope in that time when people actually gave a hoot about the Pope’s authority would begrudge St. Jerome a manuscript if he asked for it–or comment on different variants that they possesed?

The bible was quite fresh in 380.

There were fewer available theological filters to look through at that time than after the Protestant Reformation.

Are you going to tell me that Protestant so called scholars are able to throw away all their biases when CHOOSING between variant texts? Who believes that?

But of course there’s a difference between the bible as viewed through the eyes of St. Jerome and the bible as viewed through the eyes of Catholic translators who published the Douay Rheims–not to mention the eyes of Challoner who revised it.

I trust the eyes of the primitive Latin Catholic Church of St. Jerome even more than the Hebrew eyes of his time period or the Greek eyes that came a few centuries before him.

The true bottom line is that the Vulgate’s lack of doctrinal errors trumps any doctrinaly erring and more accurate on non doctrinal details bible any day!

Perfect the Vulgate with original language texts and original language variants that do not contradict the Catholic Church’s witness to God’s word.

There is no such thing as Catholic bias because the Fullness of Truth is not biased!

 

[reggieM]

I would probably be good to define more carefully what you mean by “doctrinally correct”. I think what the Church means by that is that when it comes to defining and teaching doctrine, for use in officially promulgated Church teachings, the Church will use the Vulgate because that version has been given such a high degree of authority. It would then follow for the average reader to want to use that version also.

But that’s a different meaning from the word “orthodox” for example – which also means “doctrinally correct”. But a Bible translation can be orthodox (not containing any heresy), but also not be the best to use for formulating doctrine because the language is difficult to understand and maybe not as accurate or precise.

That version wouldn’t have heresies or false doctrine, but it would have something lacking.

 

[reggieM]

I haven’t read the Knox bible–is it doctrinaly correct?

As I said before there are two meanings (at least) to the term “doctrinally correct”. The Knox Bible is orthodox and does not contain heresy or false teaching – so it is doctrinally correct. But it would not be a good version for the Church to use in formulating doctrine because the language is more poetic at times.

Every translation requires some interpretation. Scholarship alone will not guarantee a good translation. Beyond that, I agree that we should trust the power of the Church to make rulings on Scripture – as guided by the Holy Spirit in a way that no scripture scholars can be.

I don’t 't trust Bible Scholars–I would trust the Holy See if it came out with a bible that it said was as close accurate as they could accomplish.

I agree with that. It wouldn’t be a matter of the Church exercising infallibility, but God directs and guides even the non-infallible teachings of the Church.

 

[porthos11]

Porthos: if the almighty RSV is as great as you say it is then why doesn’t Pope Benedict XVI CHANGE the juridicial text of the Latin rite of the Catholic church to the RSV?

Simple. The RSV isn’t written in Latin. Duh.

I have a better question for you. If the RSV is as evil as you say it is, why does Pope Benedict XVI, the CDF, and indeed the entire Holy See use it at all?

Do you think pope John Paul II was retarded for endorsing it?

Duh. Who said so. I’m taking issue with your hatred of modern English translations, not the endorsement of the Vulgate.

I have no problem with minor details Ibelieve that jesus and the disciples did drink from a cup and not a chalice for example.

Hello!? Anybody home? A chalice is a cup, for Pete’s sake.

i don’t even have a problem if a reliable ancient origal language text is found and a word is used that doesn’t fully support the doctrinal legacy of the Vulgate if it doesn’t conteradict it and if the people who come to that conclusion are CATHOLICS with some degree of Papal authority.

We already have thousands of NT manuscripts that do that.

St. jerome was commissioned by the pope. I honest to gods believe the saint tried the best he could to thranslate the bible.

No he did not. He did well on many parts, and was very sloppy on others.

I don’t believe tha other non saints and non commissioned by the pope scholars are as sincere as St. Jerome or try as hard as Sint jerome to accurate convey what the bible was saying.

I’d take a modern committee of ecumenical scholars over the translation of a single man any day.

I’m not going to say that the saint was perfect–I do believe the Ecumenical council of Tent that the Vulgate doesd not err on matters of doctrine.

Trent never declared the Vulgate free from linguistic error.

When any translation diametrically opposes the Vulgate on a matter of doctrine I simply don’t believe it!

No translation diametrically opposes the Vulgate. All your virulent examples show alternative translations, all of which have been doctrinally correct. They just sound less pious and that’s what gets your goat.

I’m not intelligent enough to ascertain the differences in the Vulgate such as people like Ron Conte can.

“Theologian” Ron Conte has not even faced up to my challenge showing where his (and your) opinions harmonize with Divino Afflante Spiritu. He simply disappeared off the radar on that thread.

All Iknow is that somewhere within the Vulgate tradition lies doctrinal perfection in translation.

And you’ll be hard pressed to find it, as opposed to the plethora of ancient manuscripts that allow a very close reconstruction of the Greek.

I don’t hate the RSV.

Hah. That’s a laugh.

I just hate where it doctrinally opposes the Vulgate. Tere are far worse translations than the RSV and yes in places it is superior to translations such as the New Jerusalem Bible, the Catholic NRSV or the NAB.

You have been shown time and again that the renderings of the RSV or other modern editions are not diametrically opposed to the Vulgate. They are sound translations that are doctrinally correct, even if they do not use Latinisms and “Catholic-sounding” language. That’s hardly the stuff heresy is made of.

I don’t 't trust Bible Scholars–I would trust the Holy See if it came out with a bible that it said was as close accurate as they could accomplish.

Pope Pius XII did. What makes you know better?