F
Future_Prodigy
Guest
thanks cranch… that helps too… im just interested in the DR as i have never heard it talked about before (being an anglican)… i am familiar with lots of toher bible versions but that
- Status
C
cothrige
Guest
Glad to help. As a former Anglican I can understand your bias, though I was raised high-church and so tended to deny being a protestant at all.
I will tell you that the Douay is basically my favorite bible. I am not one of the ultra-traditionalists who think it is the only real bible, but I do like the way it sounds, that much like the AV it tends to be a fairly literal translation, and that it avoids any inclusive language or other political translating choices. It isn’t perfect I suppose, and books like Daniel have their “extra” sections stuck onto the back of them so that they read out of original order, but I find this kind of thing much less troubling than ugly or inclusive language or the like. But it is an extremely nice translation and holds up very well today, and for those with an affinity for the AV it is a particularly satisfying read I think.
BTW, if you are looking to buy a very good copy, I would suggest Baronius press, baroniuspress.com, which I think was mentioned above. Their leather bound copies, one of which I purchased, are just fantastic. Well worth the price, and they just blow away the other copies one often finds which are just flimsy paperbacks or poorly constructed cardboard hardbacks.
Patrick
A
Andreas_Hofer
Guest
Forgive me for needing proof, but I just highly doubt that the Catholic Church made the DR its “official” text for liturgy, and there’s not really any such thing as an “official text” for personal use. Let me be more specific: I don’t doubt that the DR received ecclesiastical approbation, making it an “acceptable” or “approved” text, but I’m not aware of any indults to celebrate the Roman Rite in English before 1965, so all official - meaning the one that must be used - liturgical texts would have been the Latin books.
To get the idea of what an official text really implies, think of the statement of Trent that only the Vulgate could be used for theological disputation. That meant that while other editions might be perfectly fine and even approved for printing and distribution, there was one offical text for making theological arguments: the Vulgate. I think this would be the sense of the other poster’s question because otherwise it would express surprise at the Church having ever given sanction to a single English edition.
C
cothrige
Guest
Well, that is likely true in that there was no English in the actual liturgy used, and I should have been more clear in what I was thinking. I was going by the translations offered as I have seen them. For instance, in my pre-VII Little Office all the psalms and readings seem to be Douay. Of course the actual text is latin, but it is given in the English on the other side and I do think it is the Challoner version I have seen there. In an old Daily Missal I have (albeit a Canadian one I think
) it also seems that all the readings are given from the Douay. (Let me say that I have not systematically made comparisons, but have noticed that the texts I have read have been from that source.)So, I do not mean to imply that the actual liturgy is from the Douay. Of course not, but the English given seemed to be consistently from that source, so as to give an impression that it was the approved text in our country, in the manner that the NAB is today.
Yes, I would have to agree with the above completely. I did not mean to imply that the Douay ever had a status approaching that of the Vulgate, and even today the official liturgy is in Latin. There are only approved translations of the official text, and the same could be said of the Bible. The Douay, to my knowledge, was never seen as more than an approved translation, but it was virtually the only approved English translation in our Church. Sorry if I seemed to imply more than that.
Patrick
F
First_of_9
Guest
Sorry if I seem to be nitpicking, but the AV and DR are not Old English. They are totally Modern English, although the do contain archaic and obsolete style,usages, and words.
Old English (also known as Anglo-Saxon) predates the Norman invasion and resembles Dutch and German. It is very difficult to read without special training.
Between Modern and Old English is (wait for it!) Middle English.
Chaucer wrote in Middle English, which reflects the influence of Norman French and Latin on the language. If you think Elizabethan ere Modern English and be hard to understand, Just try Chaucer
F
Future_Prodigy
Guest
Sorry if I seem to be nitpicking, but the AV and DR are not Old English. They are totally Modern English, although the do contain archaic and obsolete style,usages, and words.
Old English (also known as Anglo-Saxon) predates the Norman invasion and resembles Dutch and German. It is very difficult to read without special training.
Between Modern and Old English is (wait for it!) Middle English.
Chaucer wrote in Middle English, which reflects the influence of Norman French and Latin on the language. If you think Elizabethan ere Modern English and be hard to understand, Just try Chaucer
thats embarassing lol… so is the AV considered middle english as well?So I guess to reframe my quesiton then… the vulgate was for years the official bible of the church? I never understood the significance of that either. I always saw it as a momentous acheivement that St. Jerome accomplished but other than that i did not know its significance.
You said todays official liturgy is in latin, is it sitll from the vulgate?
B
Beachcomber
Guest
Speaking of the Douay Rheims, I have a question.
I found it on-line and was checking it out; and my question is this: What does ‘Paraleponemon’ mean? I probably spelled it wrong; but the DR called 1,2 Chronicles by that name. Where did that come from?
(If this isn’t the proper thread for the question, feel free to move it.)
I found it on-line and was checking it out; and my question is this: What does ‘Paraleponemon’ mean? I probably spelled it wrong; but the DR called 1,2 Chronicles by that name. Where did that come from?
(If this isn’t the proper thread for the question, feel free to move it.)
M
mtr01
Guest
“Paralipomenon” is Greek for “things left out/omitted”, as these books are kind of a supplement to the books of Kings. It was the title of the books in the Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament, and the Church retained the title (since the Septuagint is the Old Testament version canonized by the Church).
A
Andreas_Hofer
Guest
If you’ll allow me to be a pedant, and I’ll allow myself only because I think this thread is providing a good chance to get our terminology clear and we all seem to be correcting each other about everything, I would make two clarifications.
One, less relevant to the thread, is that Chronicles is more of a post-exilic retelling of Kings than a kind of supplement. Much like Deuteronomy is a retelling of material from Exodus and Numbers. Presumably, though, the supplementary interpretation did obtain in some way when the books were named.
More relevantly, your comment about canonization brought us up to the same ambiguity we’ve found when talking about official versions, approved versions, etc. In a way, for instance, the Church “canonized” the Septuagint by adopting primarily (but not exclusively) that translation for use. In another sense, though, by the time the Church got around to setting the canon on an ecumenical level at Florence and Trent, the Septuagint hadn’t been in use in the Latin Church for over a millenium, and no specific edition of the Scriptures is mentioned as “*the *version” canonized. The Septuagint also, just like the earlier versions of the Vulgate, had variant readings within it, so was really a fairly tight but still non-identical grouping of editions.
A
Andreas_Hofer
Guest
The AV is modern English, just like Shakespeare. It seems like it must be a different form of the language, but it’s really just an old-fashioned version of the language we use today, as opposed to the earlier types of English that actually functioned differently.
So I guess to reframe my quesiton then… the vulgate was for years the official bible of the church? I never understood the significance of that either. I always saw it as a momentous acheivement that St. Jerome accomplished but other than that i did not know its significance.
You said todays official liturgy is in latin, is it sitll from the vulgate?
The Vulgate was, indeed, for roughly 400 years the official Bible of the Church for the purposes of disputation. The Reformation came on the heels of a swell of humanism that produced new translations based on the best Hebrew and Greek manuscripts available. When the theological issues at stake in the Reformation were being discussed, all of that Bible scholarship had the potential to cause so much argument about the best text that the real arguments wouldn’t get attention or else couldn’t be resolved because different parties would base their positions on different texts. So Trent made the Vulgate the only translation admissable for debate, ruling out not only other Latin editions but even Greek and Hebrew editions as well. The idea was not to say that the other editions were faulty or illegitimate, just to try to make debate as fruitful as possible. “The Vulgate” underwent revisions toward a more accurate text under subsequent popes. I think Divino afflante spiritu of Pope Pius XII ended the “official” status of the Vulgate.
Even during this supremacy of the Vulgate, though, it must be remembered that liturgically, it was not always the Vulgate that was employed. Certain texts in the Roman, Ambrosian, and other rites/uses might be drawn from different editions, like the Itala translation, because they were holdovers from ancient books compiled before the universal reach and supremacy of the Vulgate. Trent’s mandate about disputation did not apply to liturgical texts.
Nowadays, the Nova Vulgata (the Vulgate as revised under Pope John Paul II) is the standard by which all vernacular liturgical translations must be measured (as per LIturgiam Authenticam), so I presume it is the actual text employed in the lectionary, but I’m not sure about that. As for the other parts of the Mass that might still contain variant renderings, I don’t know if they were simply retained from the usus antiquior (the more ancient use, as the TLM may now be called) or were synchronized with the new Vulgate text.
C
cothrige
Guest
That’s an interesting thought. Is there a Latin lectionary for the current Mass, meaning the Ordinary form? I don’t think Latin, or any version of a Vulgate Bible (probably it would be the New Vulgate at this time rather than St. Jerome’s) plays any role in that book, but I may be wrong. I think it is just a matter of what each episcopal conference, with the Vatican, approves for their readings. As far as I know, in the U.S. it is straight from the NAB with modifications for specifically rejected renderings, i.e. inclusive language in the Psalms and so on. So, it would seem, that Latin is bypassed altogether regarding the scriptures in Mass, though again I may be way off on that one, and would be quite interested if anyone can clarify that.
Patrick
A
Andreas_Hofer
Guest
Every single vernacular edition of the Mass is used by indult - a priest/diocese needs (ultimate) permission from Rome to do so - and, more or less faithfully, translated from the one official version of the Mass, in Latin. Despite the fact that everyone thinks of the ordinary use of the Roman Rite as being in the vernacular, this is just because most people experience it in the vernacular; the actual language of the ordinary use is Latin, just as it is in the extraordinary use.
M
mtr01
Guest
Thanks for pointing this out, I was going for brevity in my response, and was not precise in my words. I should have said the Septuagint is the basis for the Catholic Canon of the OT.
B
Beachcomber
Guest
Thank you very much. Now it makes sense.
- Status