Where do catholic protestant bibles differ in translation, not canon

[porthos11]

Remember that it is not the Latin “persona” that is being translated—persona is a translation—but the Greek “proswpw” which is not so cut and dry. While I don’t agree with your harsh characterization of motives, I will note that you can add the NAB and the RSV-2CE to the “in the presence” camp.

Don’t forget the JB and NJB too, both of which render it as “presence.”

I’ve already pointed out on other threads that the term prosopon is translated in many ways depending on context, not doctrine.

Prosopon simply means appearance (that is, form, manifestation) or presence in Greek. Can’t blame the translators, even Catholic ones, for striving for accuracy rather than convenience. If one counter-checks “prosopon” throughout the NT you will get really ridiculous renderings if they had been translated as “person”. This is because “person” is not the first meaning of the term.

“Person” in 2 Cor 2:10 here is not the correct or at least, precise, translation. “Presence” is. This may not necessarily affirm the Latinism “in persona Christi” but neither does it deny in any way the role of the priest in absolution, but to do that, I look to John 20, not here.

 

[Nancie_Lew]

We all know that Catholic Bibles have more books, and that is NOT the subject of this thread. I am curious where protestant and catholic bibles differ in translation. I do not consider the NWT to be protestant, but cultic. So, please stick to mainline protestant translations.

An example, of what I am looking for is “young woman” ( RSV )vs “virigin” in Isaiah 7:14.

another example that you may think of is “highly favored” vs “full of grace” in Luke.

If I were comparing say the NWT vs mainline translations, then “a god” vs God in John 1:1 or maybe the addition of the word “other” in Col 1 would come to mind.

I would like this thread to concentrate on mainline protestant translations vs mainline catholic translations only.

Please give an example and explain simply why it matters.

Thanks

I know there is one Catholic Bible (can’t think of the name of it) which says in Genesis 3:15 that “She (Mary) shall bruise your head (Satan) and you (Satan) will bruise her (Mary) heel”. This implies that Mary is the redeemer of mankind rather than Jesus.

The correct passage is “And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel”.

 

[lak611]

I know there is one Catholic Bible (can’t think of the name of it) which says in Genesis 3:15 that “She (Mary) shall bruise your head (Satan) and you (Satan) will bruise her (Mary) heel”. This implies that Mary is the redeemer of mankind rather than Jesus.

The correct passage is “And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel”.

Many other translations say “it” rather than “he”.

 

[porthos11]

Many other translations say “it” rather than “he”.

The Vulgate and DR has “she” but even St. Jerome’s original Vulgate had “he” here.

The Hebrew is less clear, but the context points more towards a collective use of the pronoun, hence, “it”, that is, the descendants of the woman as a whole, the race. It points to the natural enmity between man and snakes.

The “he” came from the Septuagint, and received Messianic meaning. This was what St. Jerome used. The “she” in the extant Vulgate manuscripts most likely came from a copyist error reflecting other pre-Vulgate Latin renderings.

I can accept “it” here, following the Hebrew; I prefer “he” following the LXX and St. Jerome. I do not like “she” in this passage, but I don’t reject it either.