The RSV-CE vs. the Douay Rheims

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mannyfit75
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
TheOneTrueFred said:
While I’ve never been a DR-only guy (though it *is *my personal preference), I have to say that’s probably the best articulated argument I’ve ever read against “free from doctrinal error” being the only test applied to our bibles.

However, the argument that still keeps me with vulgate-based bibles as my “trusted” version as opposed to just my favorite is that Jerome had access to much earlier texts, generations earlier than the numerous scribal errors & emendations that have made a critical text so necessary. Here’s hoping for the day we have billions of dollars to throw at a massive excavation project to track down the autographs 😉
Click to expand...
Things must be kept in balance. While Jerome may have had earlier texts, he was just one man. No matter how well he understood Greek and Hebrew, he may not have used the best word in the receptor language. This can be one advantage in having a commitee of translators who can suggest words that may better capture the nuances of the original language. I tend to think that the autographs will remain lost as they were likely destroyed in the early persecutions or just wore out. In any event, how would we recognize now that they were the originals?
 
SyCarl said:
While Jerome may have had earlier texts, he was just one man. No matter how well he understood Greek and Hebrew, he may not have used the best word in the receptor language.
Click to expand...
May have, might have, probably… these are the arguments employed by the Historical Critical academics. This is not a line of reasoning based on facts. This is your subjective opinion. Do you have any evidence or citations to support it?
 
Joel_Tunnah said:
May have, might have, probably… these are the arguments employed by the Historical Critical academics. This is not a line of reasoning based on facts. This is your subjective opinion. Do you have any evidence or citations to support it?
Click to expand...
The statement I made with “may have had earlier texts” was not denying that he had earlier texts. It would have been better worded say that “Even though he had earlier texts.”

Unfortunately all anyone can say about Jerome now is subjective opinion. Can anyone show what are how many texts he used or what the quality of them was? Can anyone prove that Jerome correctly translated every word from the texts he had with the “best” equivalent?
All I am really saying is that earlier texts is generally a good thing, a one man translation is not necessarily a good thing.
 
SyCarl said:
Unfortunately all anyone can say about Jerome now is subjective opinion. Can anyone show what are how many texts he used or what the quality of them was? Can anyone prove that Jerome correctly translated every word from the texts he had with the “best” equivalent?
All I am really saying is that earlier texts is generally a good thing, a one man translation is not necessarily a good thing.
Click to expand...
What you are doing is casting doubt on the judgement of the Church, St Jerome, and the Holy Spirit - all without even a single piece of evidence. Where are all these mistranslations you alude to? We eagerly await your scholarly analysis of the Vulgate.

And how funny that a protestant is arguing for the use of earlier texts. I thought christianity started in 1611?
 
Manfred said:
Careful!

The Psalms in the 1970 NAB (the non-inclusive version) and the 1963 Grail Psalter are not terrible.

It’s those in the 1991 NAB (inclusive version) and in the NRSV that are.
Click to expand...
Is the original NAB still in print, or is only the RNAB in print now?
 
Joel_Tunnah said:
What you are doing is casting doubt on the judgement of the Church, St Jerome, and the Holy Spirit - all without even a single piece of evidence. Where are all these mistranslations you alude to? We eagerly await your scholarly analysis of the Vulgate.

And how funny that a protestant is arguing for the use of earlier texts. I thought christianity started in 1611?
Click to expand...
I don’t know why you are taking offence at what I am saying. I am certainly not saying the Christianity started in 1611. I am not saying that the Vulgate is not a good translation. I am sure that it is and it is frequently consulted by modern translators. What I am saying is that we cannot say for certain that it is the best translation since nobody, pro or con, has any evidence as to what manuscripts Jerome used or whether he made any mistakes. I don’t think anyone would claim that Jerome was infallible though.
As for using earlier manuscripts, you will find that is the reason that most translations now differ from earlier versions, like the King James, as earlier manuscript evidence was used.
 
Hello Everyone,

I am a revert and picked up a NAB, I think it is the 1991 version (revised Psalms), and it has the NT copyright 1986. And the OT from 1970 all sort of confusing. Anyway; to my horror, reading in this thread that the NAB is horrid. I’d like to have the other Bible versions but can’t afford them all! I have found the text of the Douay-Rheims online as well as the NAB. But I can’t find the RSV-CE or the JB online. Does anyone know where I can find them. Thanks

Elizabeth
 
Joel_Tunnah said:
And how funny that a protestant is arguing for the use of earlier texts. I thought christianity started in 1611?
Click to expand...
Catholics arguing for D-R only or Vulgate only are the equivalent of Protestants arguing for KJV only.
 
ElizabethPH said:
Hello Everyone,

I am a revert and picked up a NAB, I think it is the 1991 version (revised Psalms), and it has the NT copyright 1986. And the OT from 1970 all sort of confusing. Anyway; to my horror, reading in this thread that the NAB is horrid. I’d like to have the other Bible versions but can’t afford them all! I have found the text of the Douay-Rheims online as well as the NAB. But I can’t find the RSV-CE or the JB online. Does anyone know where I can find them. Thanks

Elizabeth
Click to expand...
The JB is not available online. The RSV-CE is not available online either. The closest you can find is the ecumenical RSV with Apocrypha found here.
 
SyCarl said:
As for using earlier manuscripts, you will find that is the reason that most translations now differ from earlier versions, like the King James, as earlier manuscript evidence was used.
Click to expand...
Any version that relies on the Septuagint for its OT (Douay-Rheims), is using earlier sources than one that uses the Masoretic Text (King James).
 
Catholics who argue for the Vulgate only are still closer to the mark than Protestants arguing for KJV only because the Vulgate is closer to accurate, closer to the truth, and the witness of the Catholic Church that the Vulgate can be used in “All disputations” is more authoratative than any Protestant claim ever can be!

I don’t argue for Vulgate Onlyism–I will always echo Trent and argue for Vulgate superiority!

And I’ll tell you this–I’d rather not lose my soul to Hell with a doctrinally free of error bible than lose it to one that knows whether “the apple is red or green” but doesn’t know what is true concerning doctrine!

And while it is true that if a bible is Linguistically free from error that it will be doctrinally free from error–the real devil is in the details.

In other words say you have 10 ancient manuscripts. 10 of those have a word that would yield a Protestant rendering and 3 of those have a word that would yield a Catholic rendering.

There is no way with certainty to say which is correct but 3 of them are in concert with the Vulgate and what the Catholic Church has always taught.

I’m sorry but I’ll trust the Vulgate over the other 7 any day!

Take “Do peneance” versus “Repentance” for example. Is “Repentance” more linguistically technically accurate? Yes if seen only in the context of the Greek. Is it more accurate when viewed in terms of the Hebrew idiom and of the Old Testament practices of repenting in sack cloth and ashes? No!

Now of course you’ll get the Protestant RSV supporting Catholics arguing–well our doctrine of Penance does not depend only on how this is rendeered in scriptures because we’re not Sola Scripturaists and I would agree that that is true

Having said that what is authoratative and what should be trusted more–the witness of the Vulgate and the Catholic Church’s teachings over the centuries or a Protestant viewed technicaly accurate linguistic viewpoint?

I’ll tell you which–Trent said that the Vulgate could be use in “All disputations”!

Is this not a disputational point of doctrine?

Don’t tell me it is the same as if the “apple was red or green”!

And yes the Catholic Church can survive no matter how the verse is rendered because we do have the magisterium but just answer me this–Why is the Magisterium OK to deal with verses such as these that may be rendered in a Protestant way–and that is true–and I have no problem with that

But the Tradition and witness of the Vulgate over the centuries as used by that same Catholic magisterium over the centuries and its endorsement by an Ecumenical Counil–Trent–why that should be easily jettisoned?

You won’t go to Hell if you read versions other than the Vulgate if you do know what is correct doctrine but if you take Non Vulgate translations 100% at the very meaning of what their word choices are–they Will lead to doctrinal error when read outside of the teachings and doctrines of the Catholic Church over the centuries.

And of course they shouldn’t be read that way but shouldn’t we care enough about the souls of people who aren’t steeped in the doctrines of the Catholic Church over the centuries and with all charity give them a Catholic translation that doesn’t lead to those problems?

So no I’m not going to buy the Protestant RSV. It will always be Protestant!

I wont’ buy it when it talks about tradition–I won’t buy it when it speaks of Paul not granting absolution in the person of Christ but only of forgiving in the presence of Christ–I will not buy it when it says a young woman instead of a virgin will conceive–and I will not buy it when it doesn’t speak of Mary being Full of grace but only being highly favored or other such Satanic Protestant drivel.

And I don’t care how technically linguistically any of the arguments are about any of those verses based on any ancient textual variants.

If we believe that the magisterium does not teach error–we should also believe that the magisterium wasn’t blind to such doctrinal issues over the centuries.

I don’t buy the Protestant RSV because I don’t buy the fact that the Catholic Church also read from a wrong bible for all of those centuries.

Does thast mean the bible was perfect all those centuries? No! But it also wasn’t doctrinally wrong and the Protestant RSV is!

Now folks look forward to an extended reply because the people who do support Protestantism, inclusive language, and liberalism and frequent this forum do not like it when uninformed Catholic here such truth!

But just remember–if I really was so far off base–why would there be a need for a lenghty reply–and if the Vulgate was wrong on all these textual renderings that I have cited–why would the Ecumenical Council of Trent say that is was “free from doctrinal error” and could be used in all disputations"?

Prove that the RSV is doctrinally superior to the Vulgate! Prove that Trent is currently wrong!

You can’t!
 
The RSV-CE is here:

geocities.com/sacra_scriptura/eng_bible_index.html

And although you’re trying to use “DR-onlyist” as an insult, Laura, I don’t see it that way, when the alternatives are the bland and disrespectful NAB, and the non-Christian JB, NJB, RSV, and NRSV.

Besides, I don’t care what people use at home in private, and I would rather have the RSV-CE used in the liturgy than the ARNAB. But the thread is about RSV-CE vs. the Douay-Rheims, and faced with that choice, I’ll take the DR. So how does that make me a “DR-onlyist”?
 
Jerry-Jet said:
Come on Vulgate haters! Prove that the RSV is doctrinally superior to the Vulgate! Prove that Trent is currently wrong!
Click to expand...
Why should we be so concerned with doctrine in a Bible? As Catholics, we do not derive our doctrine from Scripture only. The Magisterium gives us our doctrine and explanation of it. The Magisterium also intreprets Scripture. Since we are not sola scriptura, why must we be sola vulgata?
 
We shouldn’t be Sola Vulgata but we also can not be Imperfetum Scriptura and Perfectum Sacred Tradition and Magisterium!

Catholic Doctrine stands on all three legs! You can’t pack the scriptures full of imperfect lies and expect the magistrium to make up for it–the magisterium draws its perfect interpretation from the Perfect word of God–not from non Catholic slandered word of God!

If you respect the Sacred Tradition and Sacred Magisterium legs of the stool you have to respect the Sacred Scripture leg of the stool that supports Catholic Doctrine!

And yes you can do that without being Sola Scripturaist!

You can’t do it by being Sacred Scriptura Indifferentist!

You know there really are reasons why the Nova vulgata is the juridicial text of the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church and the RSV in any edition isn’t!

Who knows? Maybe the people at the Holy See do really know what they’re talking about!
 
Jerry-Jet said:
We shouldn’t be Sola Vulgata but we also can not be Imperfetum Scriptura and Perfectum Sacred Tradition and Magisterium!

Catholic Doctrine stands on all three legs! You can’t pack the scriptures full of imperfect lies and expect the magistrium to make up for it–the magisterium draws its perfect interpretation from the Perfect word of God–not from non Catholic slandered word of God!

If you respect the Sacred Tradition and Sacred Magisterium legs of the stool you have to respect the Sacred Scripture leg of the stool that supports Catholic Doctrine!

And yes you can do that without being Sola Scripturaist!

You can’t do it by being Sacred Scriptura Indifferentist!
Click to expand...
Well said, Mr Jet. 👍
 
Joel_Tunnah said:
Any version that relies on the Septuagint for its OT (Douay-Rheims), is using earlier sources than one that uses the Masoretic Text (King James).
Click to expand...
How old is the oldest copy of the vulgate? Do we still have the copy(ies) St. Jerome hand-wrote himself?
 
Neil_Anthony said:
How old is the oldest copy of the vulgate? Do we still have the copy(ies) St. Jerome hand-wrote himself?
Click to expand...
wikipedia:
A number of early manuscripts witnessing to the early Vulgate still survive today. Dating from the 8th century, the Codex Amiatinus is the earliest surviving manuscript of the complete Vulgate Bible. The Codex Fuldensis, dating from around 545, contains most of the New Testament in the Vulgate version, but the four Vulgate gospels are harmonised into a continuous narrative derived from the Diatessaron.

Over the course of the Middle Ages, the Vulgate had succumbed to the inevitable changes wrought by human error in the countless copyings of the text in monasteries across Europe. From its earliest days, readings from the Vetus Latina were introduced. Marginal notes were erroneously interpolated into the text. No one copy was the same as the other as scribes added, removed, misspelled, or mis-corrected verses in the Latin Bible.

About 550, Cassiodorus made an attempt at restoring the Vulgate to its original purity. Alcuin of York oversaw efforts to make a corrected Vulgate, which he presented to Charlemagne in 801. Similar attempts were made by Theodulphus, Bishop of Orléans (787?-821); Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canterbury (1070-1089); Stephen Harding, Abbot of Cîteaux (1109-1134); and Deacon Nicolaus Maniacoria (about the beginning of the 13th century). The University of Paris assembled lists of “correctoria” - approved readings where variants had been noted. Unfortunately, many of the readings recommended are now known to be interpolations.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top