J
Jerry-Jet
Guest
I will never bow down and worship at the altar of the Protestant RSV!
If some Catholics don’t like that then pray for me!
If some Catholics don’t like that then pray for me!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
This is not about the RSV. Why you hate this one particular translation is beyond me, and quite frankly, I do not care.I will never bow down and worship at the altar of the Protestant RSV!
If some Catholics don’t like that then pray for me!
What is disturbing, however, is your refusal to accept the Church’s pronouncements that original language studies are to be continued and held in high esteem, even to the point of ignoring Pope Pius XII and insisting on your Vulgate-onlyism.
You simply are hard-headed, slow to listen to other opinions, no matter how learned or holy (like the Popes) and quick to brand as heretics those who do not agree with you even when it is most uncalled for.
G
garysibio
Guest
I don’t care which translation you prefer. Just stop trying to imply that the rest of us are in some state of spiritual deception because we don’t bow down at your D-R altar.I will never bow down and worship at the altar of the Protestant RSV!
If some Catholics don’t like that then pray for me!
Gary
R
reggieM
Guest
We also should not fall into the trap of believing that Sola Scriptura is an appropriate way to understand and communicate the Christian faith.
The Church won many converts and grew rapidly for a long period of time before the New Testament was collected in a single volume.
There’s a quote from an early martyr of Rome who says to his persecutors (Roman authorities attempted to destroy all copies of the Scriptures) that even if you destroyed every copy of the Scriptures, the Church of Christ would still live on and grow, and something like (I have to find the quote) that we would simply write the stories of Christ again and God would create new Scriptures for us to use.
That sounds like blasphemy to Sola Scripturist Protestants, but it’s something we can fully agree with.
Catholic parishes existed (and souls were saved) before St. Paul’s letters were even written (much less compiled and distributed).
The Church won many converts and grew rapidly for a long period of time before the New Testament was collected in a single volume.
There’s a quote from an early martyr of Rome who says to his persecutors (Roman authorities attempted to destroy all copies of the Scriptures) that even if you destroyed every copy of the Scriptures, the Church of Christ would still live on and grow, and something like (I have to find the quote) that we would simply write the stories of Christ again and God would create new Scriptures for us to use.
That sounds like blasphemy to Sola Scripturist Protestants, but it’s something we can fully agree with.
Catholic parishes existed (and souls were saved) before St. Paul’s letters were even written (much less compiled and distributed).
T
tobinatorstark
Guest
I am sure it will be as good as the original without ruining the text. Douay-Rheims has been my main Bible for 10 months. It would take a lot to destroy it
R
richardwy
Guest
Canto,
The only Bible I use is a Douay. I love the language as I love that it has been the Catholic English translation if you ingnore the time after WW2 or thereabouts.
I don’t buy that newer translations are better.
The only Bible I use is a Douay. I love the language as I love that it has been the Catholic English translation if you ingnore the time after WW2 or thereabouts.
I don’t buy that newer translations are better.
J
Jerry-Jet
Guest
I don’t buy the proposition that translations that differ from the Vulgate on matters of doctrine are superior.
I do believe that translations other than the Vulgate can be superior on non doctrinal matters.
I do believe that the Vulgate is not perfect and can be improved upon.
I do believe that ancient original language texts can be superior to the Vulgate on non doctrinal matters.
What I question is the translation choices by those who are trying to improve upon the Vulgate–when those choices are influenced by theological mindsets that are not in concert with what the Catholic Church has taught over the centuries.
I believe it would be quite possible with a minimum number of changes to make many translations of the bible not to conflict with the Vulgate on matters of doctrine.
I’m not smart enough to say that I would always know what a doctrinal difference would be and what a non doctrinal difference would be but I think the Catholic Church’s magisterium in union with the pope could do such a thing if it chose and if the people who owned the copyright to other translations did not object.
And I agree that it is possible for one to fully understand Catholic doctrine and not to be led astray by alternate translations that do not on the surface seem to be in concert with Catholic doctrine.
I just maintain that if that can be avoided in translation that is preferable.
Am I the only person in the world that thinks like that?
The bottom line is that the Vulgate is not 100% equivalent to the Word of God.
I support the Catholic Church’s efforts in always trying to discern the 100% Word of God.
Any changes in the English translation of the Douay Rheims bible that would bring it closer to that perfect ideal I would support–I would support that in any translation of the bible.
Could non Catholic scholars move any translation of the bible closer to that ideal? Yes.
Is it more possible for Catholic scholars–grounded in the tradition of the Vulgate and its doctrinal inerrancy when making translation choices regarding original language texts to be able to do that?
Yes!
I do believe that translations other than the Vulgate can be superior on non doctrinal matters.
I do believe that the Vulgate is not perfect and can be improved upon.
I do believe that ancient original language texts can be superior to the Vulgate on non doctrinal matters.
What I question is the translation choices by those who are trying to improve upon the Vulgate–when those choices are influenced by theological mindsets that are not in concert with what the Catholic Church has taught over the centuries.
I believe it would be quite possible with a minimum number of changes to make many translations of the bible not to conflict with the Vulgate on matters of doctrine.
I’m not smart enough to say that I would always know what a doctrinal difference would be and what a non doctrinal difference would be but I think the Catholic Church’s magisterium in union with the pope could do such a thing if it chose and if the people who owned the copyright to other translations did not object.
And I agree that it is possible for one to fully understand Catholic doctrine and not to be led astray by alternate translations that do not on the surface seem to be in concert with Catholic doctrine.
I just maintain that if that can be avoided in translation that is preferable.
Am I the only person in the world that thinks like that?
The bottom line is that the Vulgate is not 100% equivalent to the Word of God.
I support the Catholic Church’s efforts in always trying to discern the 100% Word of God.
Any changes in the English translation of the Douay Rheims bible that would bring it closer to that perfect ideal I would support–I would support that in any translation of the bible.
Could non Catholic scholars move any translation of the bible closer to that ideal? Yes.
Is it more possible for Catholic scholars–grounded in the tradition of the Vulgate and its doctrinal inerrancy when making translation choices regarding original language texts to be able to do that?
Yes!
R
Ron_Conte
Guest
The Catholic Public Domain Version is a new translation of the Bible from the Clementine Vulgate, using the Challoner Douai Rheims version as a guide.
It is over 80% completed, and is available online:
sacredbible.org/
Estimated date of completion is early 2009.
Anyone can print this version, use it online, edit it, or do whatever they want with it as it is in the public domain.
It is over 80% completed, and is available online:
sacredbible.org/
Estimated date of completion is early 2009.
Anyone can print this version, use it online, edit it, or do whatever they want with it as it is in the public domain.
J
Jerry-Jet
Guest
Ron Conte: if you were to translate an English version of the Nova Vulgata how much would it differ from the CPDV?
What do you think are the Nova Vulgata’s most grievous errors?
How much does the CPDV differ from the Douay Rheims Challoner New Testament and from the Confraternity New Testament?
Does the CPDV ever use the word penance?
What do you think are the Nova Vulgata’s most grievous errors?
How much does the CPDV differ from the Douay Rheims Challoner New Testament and from the Confraternity New Testament?
Does the CPDV ever use the word penance?
R
Ron_Conte
Guest
In some places it would be exactly the same. Some passages of the Neo-Vulgate are unchanged from the Clementine. But other passages are substantially freely rephrased. So in those places it would be substantially different in phrasing.Ron Conte: if you were to translate an English version of the Nova Vulgata how much would it differ from the CPDV?
The Neo-Vulgate takes numerous liberties in rephrasing many verses in the Latin, and wherever the Hebrew and Greek differ with the Latin, the Neo-Vulgate prefers the former. This makes the version discontinuous with the Latin scriptural tradition. Also, the Neo-Vulgate’s preference for a dynamic equivalency approach makes it unsuitable as a source text.What do you think are the Nova Vulgata’s most grievous errors?
I consult the Neo-Vulgate repeatedly for my translation as a way to get another perspective on the Latin, since the Neo-Vulgate often rephrases. It is useful for some purposes, but not for other purposes.
Wherever there are difficulties between the various language traditions, the norm is for the Latin text to take precedence over the Hebrew, Greek, etc. But since the Neo-Vulgate prefers the Hebrew and Greek over the Latin scriptural tradition whenever there are difficulties in the text, this norm becomes self-contradictory.
Most verses closely resemble the Challoner edition, since that edition was used as a guide and since that edition is also translated from the Latin with a similar translation approach (a fairly literal translation). But it is not merely an update of Challoner.How much does the CPDV differ from the Douay Rheims Challoner New Testament and from the Confraternity New Testament?
Yes, in the OT and NT, including in Acts, Revelation, some Epistles, Sirach, Leviticus, Ezekiel, Job, etc.Does the CPDV ever use the word penance?
F
ffny
Guest
Since many of you have mentioned Latin language editions, is there a worthwhile Vulgate available nowadays? e.g., amazon.com/Biblia-Sacra-Vulgata-Vulgate-Bible/dp/1598561782/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1212597352&sr=8-1
I’m not looking for anything perfect, just something that gets me a step prior to the English translation(s). (I don’t know Latin, but I’m trying to pick it up.)
Thank you.
I’m not looking for anything perfect, just something that gets me a step prior to the English translation(s). (I don’t know Latin, but I’m trying to pick it up.)
Thank you.
R
Ron_Conte
Guest
That link is to the Stuttgart Latin Bible, done by a Protestant Bible society in Germany; it is not a version that was ever in use in the Catholic Church; it is a version that speculatively tries to reconstruct the earlier Latin Bible, prior to the Clementine version.Since many of you have mentioned Latin language editions, is there a worthwhile Vulgate available nowadays? e.g., amazon.com/Biblia-Sacra-Vulgata-Vulgate-Bible/dp/1598561782/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1212597352&sr=8-1
I’m not looking for anything perfect, just something that gets me a step prior to the English translation(s). (I don’t know Latin, but I’m trying to pick it up.)
Thank you.
my site:
sacredbible.org/
has the Pope Sixtus V and Pope Clement VIII Vulgate in numerous different editions, as scans of pages and as searchable text.
this section of the site:
sacredbible.org/studybible/index.htm
has a line of Latin and a line of English translation.
It is all in the public domain.
H
Harmony1988
Guest
If it’s going to be something like the NIV then definitely no. The NIV looks like a story book.
And on top of that, it renders words very differently from the KJV AND the DRB. Even though I don’t really read the KJV when I have looked into the NIV from time to time I find that they differ radically from the KJV and DRB
And on top of that, it renders words very differently from the KJV AND the DRB. Even though I don’t really read the KJV when I have looked into the NIV from time to time I find that they differ radically from the KJV and DRB
B
Bible_Reader
Guest
This is a bit harsh, I think. The Stuttgart Bible collects many early manuscripts to try to determine the Jerome Bible (which certainly was used by the Church.) The techniques used are not that different from the techniques used to determine the Greek text of the New Testament given the thousands of surviving (and varying) manuscripts that we have.That link is to the Stuttgart Latin Bible, done by a Protestant Bible society in Germany; it is not a version that was ever in use in the Catholic Church; it is a version that speculatively tries to reconstruct the earlier Latin Bible, prior to the Clementine version.
The German Bible Society has heavy involvement from Catholics, and on this project several Catholics participated. Among other things, they restored the Jerome prefaces to the books. There is a fairly complete apparatus so a scholarly reader can see what sections he wishes to accept, and what sections he wishes to regard as excessively speculative.
I do find the Stuttgart Bible useful in my studies, although it has no official standing in the Church. Nonetheless, I see it frequently on the desks of Catholic Biblical scholars.
R
Ron_Conte
Guest
the Stuttgart has some scholarly value, but it does not have the standing of the Clementine edition, which was approved by the Pope and was used in the Church for several hundred years.
I object to the innummerable website that have a copy, or a partial copy, of the Stuttgart edition, but they represent it as if it were nothing other than Jerome’s Vulgate. They don’t mention the names of the editors, nor of the German Bible Society, nor ther source of the text (except the erroneous claim that it is Jerome’s).
I object to the innummerable website that have a copy, or a partial copy, of the Stuttgart edition, but they represent it as if it were nothing other than Jerome’s Vulgate. They don’t mention the names of the editors, nor of the German Bible Society, nor ther source of the text (except the erroneous claim that it is Jerome’s).
F
ffny
Guest
RE: Latin, Vulgate
R.Conte & BibleReader… thank you. It’s never easy, is it. I read Baronius has a Clementine (Latin)/DR (English) bible slated for this year. It would be nice if they just did the Clementine. Except for the Stuttgart you mention, I have not found an actual hard, published one (which would be nice to have on the bookshelf). I’ve checked E-Bay and other sites but those are too much for me ($ and value). Thanks again.
R.Conte & BibleReader… thank you. It’s never easy, is it. I read Baronius has a Clementine (Latin)/DR (English) bible slated for this year. It would be nice if they just did the Clementine. Except for the Stuttgart you mention, I have not found an actual hard, published one (which would be nice to have on the bookshelf). I’ve checked E-Bay and other sites but those are too much for me ($ and value). Thanks again.
B
Bible_Reader
Guest
Loreto has already published a very nice New Testament Clementine Vulgate/Rheims English.
Alternatively, you may want to download Michael Tweedale’s Clementine version from this site – the owner is a bit eccentric.
Alternatively, you may want to download Michael Tweedale’s Clementine version from this site – the owner is a bit eccentric.
R
Ron_Conte
Guest
The Tweedale edition, which I worked on as a proof-reader, is also available in print at lulu.com in either hard or soft cover. (search for Tweedale).
I’m attempting to get the Hetzenauer 1914 edition of the 1590 Clementine Vulgate completely online this summer. There is one section with scans of every page, and another section with searchable text. And it is all public domain.
1861 Vercellone edition, scans, already online.
Finally found a copy of the Leander van Ess edition, that compares the 1590, 92, 93, and 98 editions; that will take a while to complete.
I’m attempting to get the Hetzenauer 1914 edition of the 1590 Clementine Vulgate completely online this summer. There is one section with scans of every page, and another section with searchable text. And it is all public domain.
1861 Vercellone edition, scans, already online.
Finally found a copy of the Leander van Ess edition, that compares the 1590, 92, 93, and 98 editions; that will take a while to complete.
T
tee_eff_em
Guest
Try the American Classical League. Pricier than Tweedale, but includes cross reference notes and other materials.RE: Latin, Vulgate
R.Conte & BibleReader… thank you. It’s never easy, is it. I read Baronius has a Clementine (Latin)/DR (English) bible slated for this year. It would be nice if they just did the Clementine. Except for the Stuttgart you mention, I have not found an actual hard, published one (which would be nice to have on the bookshelf).
tee
R
Ron_Conte
Guest
Tweedale used Colunga extensively when preparing his edit.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.