The new douay rheims transalation - your thoughts

[porthos11]

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

More foolish speculation. In the 1600 years since Jerome, many more ancient manuscripts have been found.

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

And people still fail to mention that we have much more manuscripts that he DID NOT have, plus the apparatus that allows for clean determination of variant readings.

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!

Yes, absolutely. That is very much possible and not ludicrous at all. Prime example: Jerome did not have the Dead Sea Scrolls.

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

And less manuscripts, and a lazy translator.

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?

Same accusation against Catholics. That’s why an ecumenical committee is the best translation body.

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

Which is in and of itself never a problem, without having to resort to uneducated guesses and vitriol without foundation.

 

[porthos11]

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.

And all of these cannot explain why Jerome did much sloppy work on certain books he did not accept. Moreover again, you fail to consider that we now have much more manuscripts and tools than he ever 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.

St. Jerome was also a vitriolic hothead who clearly did not share some opinions of his sainted contemporaries, and let it show in his translation work as well.

His sainthood does not guarantee accuracy.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

And all of these cannot explain why Jerome did much sloppy work on certain books he did not accept. Moreover again, you fail to consider that we now have much more manuscripts and tools than he ever had.

St. Jerome was also a vitriolic hothead who clearly did not share some opinions of his sainted contemporaries, and let it show in his translation work as well.

His sainthood does not guarantee accuracy.

My point is that St. Jerome’s translation is valuable for many reasons and remains valid today. I’m not arguing that it’s perfect. I’m just saddened at the way modern “enthusiasts” are so dismissive of a translation that has been cherished by the Catholic Church for one and a half millenia.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

The reason to hate Englsh translations is that they favor Protestant understandings of the sacred text over Catholic understandings of the sacred text.

The object of good translation is not to see how far one can go in using nebuolus or imprecise words that won’t ruffle Protestants out of a worship of a false ecumenism.

The object also is not to pat one’s self on the back for being supposedly neutral in bias or supposedly sophisticated in rejecting the church’s witness over the centuries to what the scripture truely says.

That’s about as stupid as people who engage solely in historical criticism.

The RSV is not Catholic! And it doesn’t matter how many Catholics try to push that mindset–they can be as numerous as the Arians and they can be as geographical as English speaking countries.

Look alot of Catholics believe other Catholics that say the RSV is good as gold–I’m not going to do that. I’m not going to join the love of the RSV crusade that certain people here have.

Don’t worry–Catholics who don’t know the truth aren’t going to die if they think for themselves as to whether Protestant renderings in the RSV or Catholic renderings in the Vulgate are correct.

Strict belief in the Vulgate will not bring people towards Hell.

Strict belief in the RSV without the mind of the Catholic Church can bring one towards Hell!

 

[Jerry-Jet]

If Catholics endeavored to spread the bible like the Gideons and placed vulgate derived translations of the bible in public places more people would be converted to the Catholic faith than would be the case than if they spread bibles that were the KJV, RSV, or the NAB.

If a person who was not Catholic strictly believed in the RSV without the mind of the catholic magisterium they might very well not believe in a priest giving absolution for sin.

If they committed a mortal sin and did not seek absolution and weren’t perfectly contrite for it they could die in a state of mortal sin and would go to hell.

If however they believed that the Vulgate might truely be the more accurate bible or word of God–even without believing in the Catholic church’s magisterium authority they might indeed be persuaded of the need for absolution and might seek it out and become Catholic!

If we truely do love those who are not formally united to the Catholic faith we should spread vulgate derived trasnslations of the bible so that even if they aren’t Catholic they might be persuaded to become Catholic.

I guarantee you that more people will become Catholic by reading Vulgate derived translations of the bible than will ever become Catholic by reading the RSV, KJV, or NAB.

 

[BDewey]

Wow! Step away from this thread for a couple days and a lot has happened!

My 2 cents:

First, if one carefully looks at the copyright info page in the 2nd edition CCC, it says that Scripture quotes are “adapted” from both the RSV and the NRSV. Which means that, they were utilized when they didn’t conflict from the Latin text of the typical edition. This directly implies that when they did, the quoted text used in the typical edition was followed. BIG difference! Why did they use the RSV? Despite what some folks like to believe, the RSV isn’t a bad translation at all. If anything, it is (currently) the most reliable English translation available, regardless of confessional politics and despite its obvious flaws (like preserving the archaic language of the KJV and RV/ASV). The NRSV was most likely utilized when matters of archaic language made the RSV unsuitable for use in the CCC. The obvious (and most severe) flaw of the NRSV is the gender-inclusive nonsense they used to ruin a perfectly good modernization of the RSV text.

Don’t dismiss the RSV. It is the only English translation of the Bible that is truly ecumenical: meaning that Catholics, Protestants & Orthodox alike accept it…no small feat! No other translation has achieved this and probably never will. It is a consensus text that we Catholics can effectively engage in apologetics with.

Concerning the NAB: it is a horrid translation and everybody knows it. In the seminary, we reluctantly used it mainly because it is the basis of the Lectionary and the texts of other liturgical rites. It is also omnipresent in most parishes. It cannot be avoided…thus it’s best to begrudgingly accept it and work around it. In Scripture classes, though, we’d frequently use the RSV (with the '71 NT).

Concerning the Ignatius 2nd edition RSV-CE: I think I’ll pass, thank you very much. The fact that its NT isn’t the '71 revision of the RSV disturbs me. I’ll stick with the '66 version (and the original) of the RSV-CE.

Concerning the Confraternity translation (NT): Although “officially” following Challoner, it was largely based upon newer critical versions of the Vulgate, and not just the Sixto-Clementine Vulgate, frequently consulting the Greek. The OT was basically a warmed-over Challoner revision because of Divino Afflante Spiritu and should not be relied upon. The Confraternity NT was a committee work and should be rightly regarded by the Vulgate/Douay-Rheims crowd as the pinnacle of that tradition. It is far more reliable than the KJV or any of the 16th century translations, but not as “reliable” as the RSV. Hence, the production of the '66 RSV-CE.

Concerning the Knox Bible: it is contemporaneous with the Confraternity, also a fresh translation from the most critical versions of the Vulgate with consultation of the Greek. However, it is the work of one man and thus is distinctly flavored with his own style. Take it or leave it. It did receive an Imprimatur, though, FWIW.

Concerning Jerome and his Vulgate: the reality is that we really don’t know what Jerome’s Vulgate looked like. So many hands were involved since the 4th century, we really have no idea what is “his” Vulgate was. Medieval scribes freely mixed his translation with Vetus Latina texts to such a degree that it’s impossible to isolate his work (it’s all Latin, right?). Already by his own time, the Vetus Latina was so corrupt, that even Augustine complained about it. So much so, that Pope Damascus commissioned him to correct it. We can never know Jerome’s pure text.

 

[Bible_Reader]

I just stumbled across an article that claimed they are having trouble getting an imprimatur from the US Bishop’s.

Robert Sungenis has indeed had significant problems in receiving imprimatur approval for his recent books. Those problems are summarized in the Wikipedia article on Sungenis.

Sungenis has been accused by a variety of organizations of maintaining an “extremely contentious, condemnatory, and antagonistic tone Sungenis is either unwilling or unable to contain when writing about anything Jewish” and “the false, bigoted and offensive content Sungenis often employs in making his arguments on Jewish issues, including even those of a theological nature.”

Sungenis also maintains that the Sun orbits the Earth, and that the Earth is at the center of the universe.

I think it is fair to say that Sungenis is well outside the norms of contemporary serious Catholic thought.

 

[BDewey]

Robert Sungenis has indeed had significant problems in receiving imprimatur approval for his recent books. Those problems are summarized in the Wikipedia article on Sungenis.

Sungenis has been accused by a variety of organizations of maintaining an “extremely contentious, condemnatory, and antagonistic tone Sungenis is either unwilling or unable to contain when writing about anything Jewish” and “the false, bigoted and offensive content Sungenis often employs in making his arguments on Jewish issues, including even those of a theological nature.”

Sungenis also maintains that the Sun orbits the Earth, and that the Earth is at the center of the universe.

I think it is fair to say that Sungenis is well outside the norms of contemporary serious Catholic thought.

Nice first post!

What does that have to do with this thread? Sounds like you have an axe to grind, considering your first post to this forum is on Sungenis specifically. If you do (or don’t), please state why (or why not). This, of course, is a matter of intellectual honesty. I read Sungenis’ works in the seminary. Although he made good points, felt a bit uneasy about where he was leading.

It should be clear by now that a “revised” Douay-Rheims Bible of that publishing house is just ultramontantist nonsense. If you want a good revision of the Douay-Rheims…go to the Confraternity Edition. It has a well-established history and has been proven to be reasonably reliable against modern translations.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

BDewey:

Concerning Jerome and his Vulgate: the reality is that we really don’t know what Jerome’s Vulgate looked like. So many hands were involved since the 4th century, we really have no idea what is “his” Vulgate was. Medieval scribes freely mixed his translation with Vetus Latina texts to such a degree that it’s impossible to isolate his work (it’s all Latin, right?). Already by his own time, the Vetus Latina was so corrupt, that even Augustine complained about it. So much so, that Pope Damascus commissioned him to correct it. We can never know Jerome’s pure text.

I’m confused. I understand that Pope Damasus commissioned Jerome with the correction of the Bible as the Old Latin texts were getting corrupted, but what Medieval scribes were tampering with Jerome’s text freely, and why were they re-inserting the then discounted vetus Latina? Is this well documented? Why would they even tamper with the Vulgate in the first place?

 

[BDewey]

I’m confused. I understand that Pope Damasus commissioned Jerome with the correction of the Bible as the Old Latin texts were getting corrupted, but what Medieval scribes were tampering with Jerome’s text freely, and why were they re-inserting the then discounted vetus Latina? Is this well documented? Why would they even tamper with the Vulgate in the first place?

As I said in my previous post. We can’t really know Jerome’s text. Well over 1500 years have progressed. It’s not a matter of “re-inserting” the VT. It’s more of a matter of not knowing what Jerome’s work was in the first place. I severely doubt that Jerome’s translation was annotated as such. There’s no “this is St. Jerome’s Vulgate…don’t mess with it” sort of inscription. To the majority of scribes in the medieval period, it was all just a Latin text to be copied. How could they differentiate between the Vetus Latina texts and the Jerome texts before them? It was all just Latin to them. That’s why we should rely upon modern critical texts of the Vulgate…they’ve already factored in such inconsistencies. That’s why you should use the Confraternity NT.

 

[Jolly_Joe]

Yes, things were a bit “loose” so you can see for instance that by the time of the Reformation, many if not most copies of the Vulgate contained the short Paul’s Epistle to the Laodiceans.

Or you see Erasmus complained about mightily because he did not include the Johannine Comma in his Greek text. Interesting isn’t it because that text is not contained in the best text of the Vulgate either. But had become so common, you see Erasmus really threatened by not including it, you see I believe it was the Council of Trent saying it could not safely be denied and earlier you see it showing up in Wycliffe’s translation taken from the Latin.

And I haven’t followed it all the way through but it appears to me there was a general trend of moving books from the appendix and into other places. If someone has references on that, I would appreciate it.

JJ

 

[AmbroseSJ]

BDewey:

To the majority of scribes in the medieval period, it was all just a Latin text to be copied. How could they differentiate between the Vetus Latina texts and the Jerome texts before them? It was all just Latin to them.

That does not seem satisfactory to me. First of all, if the scribes were just transcribing Latin text, with which they were supposedly unfamiliar, why would they be doing anything by way of making changes? Especially changes of replacing and changing the Vulgate texts with the Vetus Latina?

Secondly, since the Pope himself authorized and commissioned this translation, as the more or less “official” copy for the Western Church, how is it that later day copyists had no recollection of such an important text? I know for example Augustine had a few minor issues with it, although he acquiesced to Jerome’s reasoning ultimately. In other words, it was a known and important translation.

I don’t find it credible that the scribes were that ignorant and negligent. I don’t doubt that over the course of centuries, faults crept in incidentally, but accidentally. In other words, I believe the scribes would have always been doing their utmost to preserve what was their received copy of the Vulgate. That sometimes comments in the margin crept into the text, or interlinear notes crept into the text, or even that some actual text was moved back to the margin, and other such copyist problems happened is not far fetched at all. But I can’t believe that the Vulgate was so completely adulterated over time that we have no idea what Jerome’s Vugate looked like.

I severely doubt that Jerome’s translation was annotated as such.

Depending on the time and place you are thinking of, it may not have been necessary. But I doubt if monks, even in the darkest of the dark ages had no knowledge of St. Jerome, his writings, and especially his translation of the Vulgate.

Copying wasn’t so easy to do that a monkey could do it. There had to be an understanding of Latin, reading, and writing. Of course Latin was still a spoken language in the middle ages too, at least by the educated. If a Monastery had monkeys copying the Sacred Scripture, you can be sure it was recognized as trash by people of those times, and not salable. After all a good copy of the Sacred Scripture was a source of income to the Abbeys.

 

[Bible_Reader]

Nice first post!

What does that have to do with this thread? Sounds like you have an axe to grind, considering your first post to this forum is on Sungenis specifically. If you do (or don’t), please state why (or why not). This, of course, is a matter of intellectual honesty. I read Sungenis’ works in the seminary. Although he made good points, felt a bit uneasy about where he was leading.

Thanks for your kind words.

I apologize for not making a more complete post. I should have explained that the Douay-Rheims Bible in Modern English (look under “Future Releases”) which gave this thread its title is a project of Robert Sungenis.

More specifically, early posts in this thread discussed that Sungenis is not receiving imprimatur the considerable difficulties Sungenis faces in receiving an imprimatur for his works, and I had hoped my comments might help explain why Sungenis is regarded as being outside the norms of faithful scholarship. (Sungenis has been denied imprimatur both by his bishop and by the USCCB and has dropped the name “Catholic” from his organization’s name under threat of enforcement of Canon 300.)

I hope I do not have any “axe to grind” – I just joined the forum today, and I noticed this topic. I love classical languages, and thus have long admired the Douai-Rheims – particularly the original version which follows the Latin quite closely (and has notes with valuable insights). I thus was attracted to the title of this forum, but was surprised that it was about a translation of Sungenis. You are also correct that I regard Sungenis as a crank. As you suggest, he may at times make good points (even a broken clock is right twice a day). Speaking for myself, I do not find him to be a reliable guide.

With your warm welcome, I feel at home on this forum. I hope that I can learn about a wide variety of topics from this forum, and occasionally share my own thoughts.

I wish to end this note on a positive tone – this forum is full of some excellent advice on fine English translations of Scripture. The truth of the matter is that we today are in a golden age of Catholic Bible publication: we have a huge variety of approved translations and commentary in print – both traditional and historical-critical. Given my love for classical languages, you will not be surprised to hear that my favorite New Testament is a Greek-Latin edition. I also think this parallel edition in English is helpful.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Or you see Erasmus complained about mightily because he did not include the Johannine Comma in his Greek text. Interesting isn’t it because that text is not contained in the best text of the Vulgate either. But had become so common, you see Erasmus really threatened by not including it, you see I believe it was the Council of Trent saying it could not safely be denied and earlier you see it showing up in Wycliffe’s translation taken from the Latin.

This is a classic case of a comment or note creeping into the text. I doubt if there was any “looseness” which would explain its insertion. Rather it was an honest copyist mistake that could be explained because to the later copyist, it appeared to be a part of the text, although, in the original copy it was set apart in some perhaps unrecognizable way to the later copyist.

If anyone is familiar with the Psalms in the original Douay/Rheims Bible, you can see how this type of thing could easily happen.

 

[BDewey]

AbroseSJ:

I think you misunderstand what I was trying to say. I certainly agree with you concerning the care & dedication that the majority of medieval scribes had toward copying the Sacred Scriptures. The issue is that there simply is no neat delineation in the history of the Vulgate, no solid crisp lines that separate Jerome’s from the Vetus Latina. The use of the VL didn’t just stop when Jerome’s Vulgate came on to the scene. Also, with the absence of printing presses and modern forms of transportation, circulation of Jerome’s translation was quite uneven. That is why the Sixto-Clementine was commissioned after Trent…to finally establish a standard Latin text. Although Wikipedia is usually quite uneven, the entries on the Vulgate and the Vetus Latina are actually decent starting points. An excellent source for VL can be found here.

 

[BDewey]

Thanks for your kind words.

I apologize for not making a more complete post. I should have explained that the Douay-Rheims Bible in Modern English (look under “Future Releases”) which gave this thread its title is a project of Robert Sungenis.

More specifically, early posts in this thread discussed that Sungenis is not receiving imprimatur the considerable difficulties Sungenis faces in receiving an imprimatur for his works, and I had hoped my comments might help explain why Sungenis is regarded as being outside the norms of faithful scholarship. (Sungenis has been denied imprimatur both by his bishop and by the USCCB and has dropped the name “Catholic” from his organization’s name under threat of enforcement of Canon 300.)

I hope I do not have any “axe to grind” – I just joined the forum today, and I noticed this topic. I love classical languages, and thus have long admired the Douai-Rheims – particularly the original version which follows the Latin quite closely (and has notes with valuable insights). I thus was attracted to the title of this forum, but was surprised that it was about a translation of Sungenis. You are also correct that I regard Sungenis as a crank. As you suggest, he may at times make good points (even a broken clock is right twice a day). Speaking for myself, I do not find him to be a reliable guide.

With your warm welcome, I feel at home on this forum. I hope that I can learn about a wide variety of topics from this forum, and occasionally share my own thoughts.

I wish to end this note on a positive tone – this forum is full of some excellent advice on fine English translations of Scripture. The truth of the matter is that we today are in a golden age of Catholic Bible publication: we have a huge variety of approved translations and commentary in print – both traditional and historical-critical. Given my love for classical languages, you will not be surprised to hear that my favorite New Testament is a Greek-Latin edition. I also think this parallel edition in English is helpful.

I agree with you concerning Sungenis. I knew some of the issues involved, but not the whole story. Did some googling and I now have no argument. Thanks for the info! I wasn’t aware that he was so heavily involved in this apparently stillborn “translation” of the original Douay-Rheims. As I said in my first post in this thread, I anticipate it to go over as well as the NKJV.

Concerning you Scripture choices: excellent! I have the same parallel version myself. Although, some folks on this forum wouldn’t like it because it’s the Nova Vulgata. Also, good choice with the English parallel, I find it pretty handy.

 

[porthos11]

The reason to hate Englsh translations is that they favor Protestant understandings of the sacred text over Catholic understandings of the sacred text.

Even of the “Protestant” understandings better reflect the context or the sense of the text. Which is exactly what happened when Challoner allowed the KJV to influence his DR revision. He must have been a heretic too.

The object of good translation is not to see how far one can go in using nebuolus or imprecise words that won’t ruffle Protestants out of a worship of a false ecumenism.

Wrong. The object of a good translation is to best reflect what the original languages wanted to say.

The object also is not to pat one’s self on the back for being supposedly neutral in bias or supposedly sophisticated in rejecting the church’s witness over the centuries to what the scripture truely says.

Wrong. An accurate and unbiased translation will be the most effective evangelization tool especially for Protestants.

The RSV is not Catholic! And it doesn’t matter how many Catholics try to push that mindset

Like the Holy See, the CDF, CDW, and the Pope, for example. But then, you’re holier than all of them, so I guess they’re evil heretics too.

–they can be as numerous as the Arians and they can be as geographical as English speaking countries.

Look alot of Catholics believe other Catholics that say the RSV is good as gold–I’m not going to do that. I’m not going to join the love of the RSV crusade that certain people here have.

No, you are leading a vendetta against a particular translation for some strange reason.

Strict belief in the Vulgate will not bring people towards Hell.

True.

Strict belief in the RSV without the mind of the Catholic Church can bring one towards Hell!

False.

If a person who was not Catholic strictly believed in the RSV without the mind of the catholic magisterium they might very well not believe in a priest giving absolution for sin.

Wrong. John 20 most clearly states that truth and the RSV states it in no uncertain terms.

If however they believed that the Vulgate might truely be the more accurate bible or word of God–even without believing in the Catholic church’s magisterium authority they might indeed be persuaded of the need for absolution and might seek it out and become Catholic!

Yes, by reading John 20. In ANY decent Bible translation.

If we truely do love those who are not formally united to the Catholic faith we should spread vulgate derived trasnslations of the bible so that even if they aren’t Catholic they might be persuaded to become Catholic.

Wrong. They will simply throw the book back at you and accuse you of spreading a “corrupted” version.

I guarantee you that more people will become Catholic by reading Vulgate derived translations of the bible than will ever become Catholic by reading the RSV, KJV, or NAB.

Luther read the Vulgate and started the Protestant reformation.

No, they will become Catholic by reading the Bible regardless of translation and studying what the Church REALLY teaches and that is by reading the Catechism. Which uses the hated RSV and NRSV.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

AbroseSJ:

I think you misunderstand what I was trying to say. I certainly agree with you concerning the care & dedication that the majority of medieval scribes had toward copying the Sacred Scriptures. The issue is that there simply is no neat delineation in the history of the Vulgate, no solid crisp lines that separate Jerome’s from the Vetus Latina. The use of the VL didn’t just stop when Jerome’s Vulgate came on to the scene. Also, with the absence of printing presses and modern forms of transportation, circulation of Jerome’s translation was quite uneven. That is why the Sixto-Clementine was commissioned after Trent…to finally establish a standard Latin text. Although Wikipedia is usually quite uneven, the entries on the Vulgate and the Vetus Latina are actually decent starting points. An excellent source for VL can be found here.

Yes, sorry, I did misunderstand you.

 

[porthos11]

I guarantee you that more people will become Catholic by reading Vulgate derived translations of the bible than will ever become Catholic by reading the RSV, KJV, or NAB.

I’d also have you know that most Protestants who converted became Catholic through the reading of their own Bible translations. That would most likely be the NIV, KJV, or NKJV. They most likely never got hold of the DR, if ever, until after they became Catholic.

 

[garysibio]

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.

I don’t think that anyone is denying that we have lost manuscripts that existed in Jerome’s time and I know we have lost some that St. Jerome used. I don’t remember which book it is but Jerome said that he had a Hebrew manuscript of one of the deuterocanonical books of which no Hebrew manuscripts are known today.

However, it is also absurd to think that we haven’t turned up better manuscripts in the interim. It is very unlikely, for example, that the manuscript from which St. Jerome made his translation of Isaiah was as old ak the copy we now have from Qumran.

Does Jerome ever write that he searched out different manuscripts for the purposes of comparison or did he just use what he had available to him?

Gary