What s the best translation

[mtr01]

Go to the top of the class!

Yes. It seems to me that what we have is a bunch of casuists and theologasters who, for lack of something better to do, are trying to reinvent the wheel.

St Jerome received a splendid education at Rome and was the greatest Biblical scholar of his age. His dates are ca.340 - ca. 420. In other words, he was 1600 years closer to the sources than we are.

I think that one proof of his superiority is found in the Vulgate Apocalypse 22:1 - “BEATI, QUI LAVANT STOLAS SUAS IN SANGUINE AGNI.” For this Challoner’s 1582 Rheims NT gives: “Blessed are they that wash their robes IN THE BLOOD OF THE LAMB.”

Here Jerome’s Vulgate gives us the vitally important phrase - IN THE BLOOD OF THE LAMB - a phrase necessary to complete the sense but which doesn’t seem to occur anywhere else.

Without this phrase we are left with " Blessed are they who wash their clothes" which makes it sound as if a trip to the laundromat will suffice to get us into the Kingdom! Check your translations and you’ll see what I mean.

I find it very interesting that the New Vulgate doesn’t include “in sanguine Agni”. But then again I could say alot of things about the new Vulgate. I just hope I get to see a newer edition that is more faithful to Jerome’s in my lifetime.

For anyone who’s interested, you can get the text of the Clementine Vulgate (not the new one) online at The Clementine Vulgate Project. There is an online search engine, and you can download a program which displays the Vulgate alongside the parallel Douay translation for free. Definitely worth the time to download!!

 

[romano]

[snips]
I find it very interesting that the New Vulgate doesn’t include “in sanguine Agni”.

Not only the New Vulgate. Everyone. I can’t find it anywhere except in Jerome.

But then again I could say alot of things about the new Vulgate. I just hope I get to see a newer edition that is more faithful to Jerome’s in my lifetime.

Me too!

For anyone who’s interested, you can get the text of the Clementine Vulgate (not the new one) online at The Clementine Vulgate Project. There is an online search engine, and you can download a program which displays the Vulgate alongside the parallel Douay translation for free. Definitely worth the time to download!!

Many thanks for this great link.

 

[romano]

[snip]
. . . .The BEST is the DOUAY - RHEIMS BIBLE …it is not a version …it is the Bible. The DR NT was done in 1588 and the DR OT was done in 1609. I have it in two volumes.

Are you talking about the Haydock edition? That’s the only one I know in two volumes.

 

[philipmarus]

I use the RSV_CE and DR. I dislike some of the renderings in the NAB somewhat but I won’t go into here. What I want is a Leather (or imitation Leather) RSV-CE Bible. Why Can’t I have this? I use the Ignatius Bible but I hate its binding, small size, no margins, and blue cover. Why Can’t I have a RSV-CE bound like the St. Joseph’s edition of the NAB. Anybody know where I can have what I want?

 

[Freddy_Medina]

philipmarus:

I use the RSV_CE and DR. I dislike some of the renderings in the NAB somewhat but I won’t go into here. What I want is a Leather (or imitation Leather) RSV-CE Bible. Why Can’t I have this? I use the Ignatius Bible but I hate its binding, small size, no margins, and blue cover. Why Can’t I have a RSV-CE bound like the St. Joseph’s edition of the NAB. Anybody know where I can have what I want?

Check this site out:
scepterpublishers.org/product/index.php?FULL=156

You might like it.

 

[philipmarus]

Thanks Dude. You’re Awesome. I ordered me one. Just what I’ve been wanting for a long time.

 

[Axion]

otm:

Here we go again. It would really help if you would define your terms of “modernist” and “liberal”. With no disrespect, I have the feeling that you may be referring to any and all (or almost all) biblical scholarship occuring in the last 150 years…

I have the feeling, and I hope that I am wrong, that the position you take would be what one could call a literalist position, one that the Church does not take absolutely.

My particular position on the modernist and liberal (name removed by moderator)uts into modern Catholic bible translations is this:

1. They follow a school of thought that was Liberal Protestant in origin, and which is subversive of Catholicism. However they have had a big (name removed by moderator)ut into both the NAB and the Jerusalem Bible.
2. They tend to work on the assumption that the Bible texts handed down to us are not generally the work of the Traditional Authors (Moses, John, Peter etc), but have been cobbled together at later dates by groups of shadowy editors and redactors.
3. They present their **theories ** on these matters as proven facts in the notes to their translations. This attacks the belief of readers, by giving the (false) impression that the texts are unreliable and the result of dishonesty.
4. They tend to favour the Masoretic Hebrew Old Testament texts over the much older and more reliable Vulgate and Septuagint Greek texts, which are the historic texts of the Church. This creates a difference between OT and NT translations of the same passage, and again chucks out Christian continuity by supposing (against the evidence) that the texts maintained by the Jews are somehow “better” than the Christian ones.
5. And most importantly. The notes do not consistently support Catholic teaching. Instead of Catholic teaching we get Liberal theories about “manuscript q” or the “Yahwist” and “Elohist” manuscript traditions. Where the notes should bring out the spirituality of the verses and linking them solidly with Catholic doctrine, instead there is Liberal theory, and sometimes teaching at variance with doctrine.
6. Passages and verses are sometimes mangled or removed to fit in with Liberal theory - which likes to go for the most difficult variant reading. So “peace on Earth and Goodwill to men.” gets mangled into something with virtually no meaning. Verses get deleted without warning, and the story of the woman taken in adultery is given a “health warning”. In addition, the translation is twisted so that the Virgin is called “highly favoured” to fit in with the Protestant tradition, rather than “Full of Grace” - which is the more accurate translation.

50 or 60 years ago and longer, much less of the theological research and debates filtered down to the folks “in the pew”. One could argue whether that was better or worse than today’s situation, where every technical statement and arguement is available to all. .

By all means let those who want to, read the self-serving and self-defeating debates of the bible critics. But don’t put them in our bibles as “facts”. What we want from our bibles is faithful spiritual notes, and explanations of matters of fact.

A refreshing Catholic Bible translation that offers this approach is the Christian Community Bible, produced for the 3rd World, but which deserves a far wider readership in the west.

 

[nike248]

As far as I know, the Douay Rheims Bible. St Jerome, who’s responsible for it, had access to manuscripts that are no longer available and were much closer to the originals. Hope this helps.

 

[Genesis315]

In addition, the translation is twisted so that the Virgin is called “highly favoured” to fit in with the Protestant tradition, rather than “Full of Grace” - which is the more accurate translation.

When I first encountered this in the NAB I was appalled. How could any good Catholic let the words to the “Hail Mary” of all things be changed?!? Why on earth was this ever even given the stamp of approval by the Church? I don’t care how good the rest of the translation might be, you can’ change the “Hail Mary”! Even though the DR can be tough to read, it’s all I use now.

(as you can see by my screen name I like the DR for other reasons as well . Our Lady wouldn’t have wanted the Miraculous Medal struck the way it was if “she shall crush” was not a worthwhile translation)

 

[romano]

Genesis315:

When I first encountered this in the NAB I was appalled. How could any good Catholic let the words to the “Hail Mary” of all things be changed?!?

No good Catholic could.

Why on earth was this ever even given the stamp of approval by the Church?

The Church clearly has fallen into the hands of those who would destroy it.

 

[VRWC]

Church Militant:

YUP! That’s the DR Challoner from Tan.
Barronius has a great leather bound edition for about $50.00. I want one.
here’s the site:baroniuspress.com/

Pax vobiscum,

That’s the one I have, the one in your link. It is easily my favorite.

 

[Church_Militant]

VRWC:

That’s the one I have, the one in your link. It is easily my favorite.

Thanks that’s really good to know 'cos I just ordered one of those for a new convert buddy of mine whose in prison. He was A/C until we met and began to talk…I love the workings of the Holy Spirit…
Pax vobiscum,

 

[SFH]

My vote goes to the New Vulgate edition, but I assume you want a Catholic English translation.

Here’s the problem:

Only the NAB and DR quote Isaiah as “a virgin shall conceive.” The JB and RSV-CE use some variant of “young woman.” In the case of the RSV, the choice of “young woman” was largely dictated by some of the translators’ rejection of the Virgin Birth. The RSV-CE and NAB also remove the christological references in Genesis (e.g., “the nations will bless themselves by you” instead of “in you and your seed (Christ), all the nations of the earth will be blessed”). The Confraternity translation of Genesis retains the christological references.

Only the RSV-CE and DR quote Luke as “full of grace.” The JB and NAB use some variant of “highly favored.” Now the Greek word uses the past imperfect superlative (i.e., “thou that wast and remainest most graced”). The most graced one can be is “full of grace” so the RSV-CE and DR are much more accurate in this respect.

Liturgiam Authenticam, recently issued by the Vatican, calls for Aramaic or Hebrew words to be retained in the translation where the Sacred Writer retains them. For example, “Amen, amen, I say to you,” “whoever says to his brother ‘raca’,” “alleluia.” St. Augusting makes the same point. Unfortunately, the RSV-CE does not follow this directive. It translates “Amen” as “Truly,” “raca” as “insults his brother,” and “alleluia” as “Praise the Lord.” The NAB and DR maintain the Aramaic or Hebrew words in these places.

The DR on the other hand translates St. Jerome’s Latin translation of the Psalms from the Greek Septuagint instead of St. Jerome’s Latin translation of the Psalms from the Hebrew (some Vulgates contain St. Jerome’s translation of the Greek and others contain his translation of the Hebrew). As a result, you don’t get “The Lord is my shepherd” (St. Jerome’s translation from the Hebrew). Instead, you get “the Lord rules me” (St. Jerome’s translation from the Greek). The DR New Testament departs from the Vulgate and New Vulgate in many places too (e.g., “wise men” instead of “magi,” “penny” instead of “denarius,” “hall” instead of “praetorium,” etc.).

The NAB New Testament uses inclusive language as does the Revised Psalms, which I really don’t like. The NAB’s translation of Genesis is from the 1970s. The earlier translation of Genesis from the 1950s (the Confraternity translation) is stylistically more in keeping with the rest of the NAB Old Testament, but you can’t get that in a NAB anymore.

My favorite translation is the Confraternity Edition, but it was never completed. The Old Testament of the Confraternity Edition became the NAB (with the exception of Genesis and Psalms) and the Confraternity New Testament was scrapped when the NAB New Testament came out.

Sadly, the challenge issued by Liturgiam Authenticam and Divino Afflante Spiritu remains unanswered and ignored in the Catholic English-speaking world.

 

[gcc_catholic]

I have a 1950 Douay OT/Confraternity NT Bible, and I too like the Confraternity translation very much. What I wonder is why, since it sounds like they finished the Confraternity translation completely (albeit in pieces) or came very close, did they not publish it as a single ‘Confraternity Bible’ and tweak the translation as necessary, rather than start all over again re-translating the New Testament?

 

[Fogny]

Exporter:

The question was,“Which is the BEST translation?”

Translation of WHAT?

Since the VULGATE has been the Catholic Bible for at least 1600 years, you want a translation of the VULGATE.

The BEST is the DOUAY - RHEIMS BIBLE …it is not a version …it is the Bible. The DR NT was done in 1588 and the DR OT was done in 1609. I have it in two volumes.

Hello,

The Douay Rheims Bible in print since 1750 or so is the Bp Challoner version which is similiar to the style of the King James version which is not a bad thing. I prefer the Bp Challoner version as it is the Catholic bible. I will say the language of the KJV psalms is beautiful though and I do enjoy the psalms in the KJV.
The original Douay Rheims is impossible to find in print except in antiquarian copies. The original provides copius notes of the Jesuits pertaining to the Catholic translation and rebukes the Protestant views, as this was during the Protestant rebellion.The notes are of great interest and it is a pity that they are not readily available.

Fogny

 

[SFH]

gcc_catholic:

I have a 1950 Douay OT/Confraternity NT Bible, and I too like the Confraternity translation very much. What I wonder is why, since it sounds like they finished the Confraternity translation completely (albeit in pieces) or came very close, did they not publish it as a single ‘Confraternity Bible’ and tweak the translation as necessary, rather than start all over again re-translating the New Testament?

Part of the problem was that the New Testament was based on the Vulgate and used “thee” and “thou.” After Pius XII issued Divino Afflante Spiritu, the CCD translated the Old Testament from the original languages (without thee’s and thou’s). By the time they finished the Old Testament in 1969, they decided to retranslate Genesis (a big mistake in my opinion) and translate the New Testament from the original languages (without thee’s and thou’s). You may recall the earlier NAB translation of the New Testament (“astrologers from the East,” “no room in the place where travelers lodged,” “I solemnly assure you”). In 1986, they revised the New Testament to make it sound more like the 1939 Confraternity translation that was based on the Vulgate (e.g., “magi from the east,” “no room in the inn,” “Amen, I say to you”). Unfortunately, the 1986 translation also adopted inclusive language (e.g., “one does not live on bread alone”), adopted a more contemporary style (cf. “he did not have relationship with her” in NAB NT and “Adam had relationship with his wife” in NAB OT with “Adam knew Eve his wife” in Conf. OT), and continued the earlier NAB NT practice of translating “full of grace” as “favored.” The current NAB is a jumbled mess of literary styles reflecting the span of years over which the translation was made (1950-1990s).

Neither the RSV-CE nor the NAB follow the spirit or the letter of Liturgiam Authenticam and Divino Afflante Spiritu. And I sometimes get the depressing feeling that no one out there is listening.

 

[Danw]

philipmarus:

I use the RSV_CE and DR. I dislike some of the renderings in the NAB somewhat but I won’t go into here. What I want is a Leather (or imitation Leather) RSV-CE Bible. Why Can’t I have this? I use the Ignatius Bible but I hate its binding, small size, no margins, and blue cover. Why Can’t I have a RSV-CE bound like the St. Joseph’s edition of the NAB. Anybody know where I can have what I want?

I actually e-mailed Ignatius Press asking them for just about what you have described. I received an answer that a new printing with “cleaner text” is due out in the Spring. I haven’t seen it yet.

Maybe if more would write to Ignatius Press, they would listen.