Which Catholic Bible would you like to see used as the liturgical Bible in the United States?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Holly3278
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Manfred said:
Ain’t that the truth, though? “Fallible decisions”, for sure, and in some cases guided by economic considerations, e.g., USCCB holds the copyright to the (R)NAB.

Let’s review:

USA: (R)NAB;
Great Britain and many other places: The Jerusalem Bible;
Canada: NRSV.

I thought I read somewhere that only in India were they still using the RSV-CE. Good for them!

I can’t believe there are actually folks who prefer - for the Liturgy - the informality of the JB.
Click to expand...
Ignatius’ RSV-2CE has been approved by the Antilles Bishops Conference: ignatius.com/ViewProduct.aspx?SID=1&Product_ID=2812&Category_ID=185&
 
Ruthie said:
Unless I’m mistaken (which is far from impossible), the Vatican uses the RSV-2CE for its English translation.
Click to expand...
We hear this a lot, although usually wrt the original RSV-CE (1965-66). But i’ve yet to see substantial evidence of this. In fact, in Spe Salvi, Benedict XVI asserted that the better translation of the Greek “hypostasis” in Hebrews 11:1 is “substance”.

[7] For the Fathers and for the theologians of the Middle Ages, it was clear that the Greek word hypostasis was to be rendered in Latin with the term substantia. The Latin translation of the text produced at the time of the early Church therefore reads: Est autem fides sperandarum substantia rerum, argumentum non apparentium—faith is the “substance” of things hoped for; the proof of things not seen.
Guess which English version renders the word as “substance”.

“Now, faith is the substance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things that appear not.”

I hope you guessed the Douay-Rheims.
 
mccorm45 said:
Ignatius’ RSV-2CE has been approved by the Antilles Bishops Conference
Click to expand...
I stand with Ron Conte on this: “A Bishops’ Conference does not necessarily make the best decision about which text to use.”
 
Manfred said:
We hear this a lot, although usually wrt the original RSV-CE (1965-66). But i’ve yet to see substantial evidence of this. In fact, in Spe Salvi, Benedict XVI asserted that the better translation of the Greek “hypostasis” in Hebrews 11:1 is “substance”.

[7] For the Fathers and for the theologians of the Middle Ages, it was clear that the Greek word hypostasis was to be rendered in Latin with the term substantia. The Latin translation of the text produced at the time of the early Church therefore reads: Est autem fides sperandarum substantia rerum, argumentum non apparentium—faith is the “substance” of things hoped for; the proof of things not seen.
Guess which English version renders the word as “substance”.

“Now, faith is the substance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things that appear not.”

I hope you guessed the Douay-Rheims.
Click to expand...
I believe I had a response to some of my questions about the RSV-2CE by Fr. Fessio: catholicbibles.blogspot.com/2008/11/response-from-fr-fessio-i-think.html

It deals with the editorial process of the new edition, along with how it was handled with Rome.
 
Here’s a radical idea: Why not translate the Nova Vulgata into English and use it for mass?
 
What a shame common sense doesn’t always prevail.

If a translation of the Nova Vulgata was handled correctly, it would be a near perfect Catholic Bible version.

We can only dream! Imagine a world where all Catholic Liturgies employed the same version of scripture!
 
And I have to say I disagree with those who claim the JB is informal!
 
Eucharisted said:
Since the Church knows better than me which Bible should be used, I believe the Bible to be used should be the Bible which the Bishops haven chosen - which, unless I’m mistaken, is the NAB.
Click to expand...
It was not the “Church” but the liturgical reformers who coose the NAB, which is so flat a translation that nobody, but nobody else uses it. As a lector I have to struggle to make many of the readings intelligible. A test is that the text is very, very hard to memorize. Compare its rendering of the “23rd” Psalm with almost any other version. It is as though the translators were aming at banality. William F. Buckley really panned it when it first came out, I thought he was overreacting–until I first read it.
 
The Nova Vulgata has substantial flaws which would make it a poor source text for any translation:
  1. some large sections of text were lightly edited from the Clementine Vulgate (good); but other large sections of text were loosely rephrased relying more on the Hebrew and Greek than on the Latin. It seems that there were two schools of thought on how to prepare the NV, and they used different approaches on different sections of text.
  2. The sections that are loosely translated into Latin would make for a poor source text. Loose translations have a usefulness as an end-use text. But they make a poor source text because if one wishes for a literal translation, it cannot be acheived because the source is already loosely translated, but if one wishes for a loose translation, the end result is a loose translation of a loose translation, which would then have an unacceptable loss of accuracy.
  3. The NV substantially rephrases certain verses in accord with political correctness, without any basis in the Latin, Greek, or Hebrew. For example:
1 Tim
11 Mulier in tranquillitate discat cum omni subiectione;
12 docere autem mulieri non permitto neque dominari in virum, sed esse in tranquillitate.

Notice that the word ‘silentio’ found in the 1590, 92, 93, and 98 Vatican texts is changed into ‘tranquillitate’.

I think some of you favor the NV merely because it is ‘approved’, and not because of its own merits.
 
Ron Conte: do you think the Nova Vulgata made any improvements anywhere in regard to the Latin text?

And what constitutes the REAL Vulgate? Who decides what the REAL Vulgate text is?

Is it what some people thought it was during Trent or is it what St. Jerome actually wrote?

Or can the REAL Vulgate be improved beyond the time of Trent?

And wouldn’t an English translation of the Nova Vulgata at least be superior to any other English translation of the bible?

Would such a translation be more “official” than the NAB?

I’m not saying it would be perfect–I am saying that it would be better than anything else out there.

Do you agree or disagree?

Would an English translation of the Nova Vulgata be superior to the Confraternity New Testament–yes or no?

Would an English translation of the Nova Vulgata be superior in the Od Testament versus the Od Testament of say the Douay Rheims Challoner Od Testament–yes or no?

Would your translation of the Vulgate be superior to all of these–yes or no and why?
 
Jerry-Jet said:
Ron Conte: do you think the Nova Vulgata made any improvements anywhere in regard to the Latin text?

And what constitutes the REAL Vulgate? Who decides what the REAL Vulgate text is?

Is it what some people thought it was during Trent or is it what St. Jerome actually wrote?

Or can the REAL Vulgate be improved beyond the time of Trent?

And wouldn’t an English translation of the Nova Vulgata at least be superior to any other English translation of the bible?

Would such a translation be more “official” than the NAB?

I’m not saying it would be perfect–I am saying that it would be better than anything else out there.

Do you agree or disagree?

Would an English translation of the Nova Vulgata be superior to the Confraternity New Testament–yes or no?

Would an English translation of the Nova Vulgata be superior in the Od Testament versus the Od Testament of say the Douay Rheims Challoner Od Testament–yes or no?

Would your translation of the Vulgate be superior to all of these–yes or no and why?
Click to expand...
I understand your concern for an English Translation of the Nova Vulgata. The Vulgate is considered to be error free in doctrinal and moral issues. Back when the council of Trent occurred the Clementine Vulgate hadn’t been released. When the Sixtus edition was released and ultimately the Clementine soon after, these editions followed suite of previous Vulgate editions from Jerome on. I don’t know what these editions names were. The Nova Vulgata has very good intentions. I am sure that it shifted gears after Divino Afflante Spiritu as the project started years before and was finally released 36 years after Divino Afflante Spiritu. It did however depart from the traditional Vulgate. Some see the changes like we had been lied to for 1579 years. An English translation in my opinion would be a cross between the NAB and the RSV-CE. I personally don’t like some of the changes that the Nova Vulgata made. Yes I think the Vulgate can be improved on, but must remember not to diminish the quality of its text. I would say that an English or Latin text would be superior to the Clementine nor do I see the Clementine superior to the Nova Vulgata. The version that Ron Conte is working on is fine, but it wouldn’t be superior. As the word of God, it needs to be as accurately as possible. I have observed examples where Conte has preserved the text of the Vulgate.
 
do you think the Nova Vulgata made any improvements anywhere in regard to the Latin text?

I don’t know of any clear improvements in the NV over the Clementine text.

And what constitutes the REAL Vulgate? Who decides what the REAL Vulgate text is? Is it what some people thought it was during Trent or is it what St. Jerome actually wrote? Or can the REAL Vulgate be improved beyond the time of Trent?

Trent was not referring to any one edition, but to the Latin Scriptural tradition which goes back to the early Church. So for a Latin text to qualify as an old and vulgate text as Trent stated, it would have to be continuous with the Latin Scriptural tradition: the Clementine is, the NV is not.

And wouldn’t an English translation of the Nova Vulgata at least be superior to any other English translation of the bible? Would such a translation be more “official” than the NAB?

It would would be inferior to the other English Catholic translations because large sections of the text would then be a translation of a loose translation. Trent gave the Latin Scriptural tradition a special place in the Scriptural life of the Church. But no such place is given to editions merely because they are ‘official’ or ‘approved’.

I’m not saying it would be perfect–I am saying that it would be better than anything else out there. Do you agree or disagree?

You have stated no reason that it would be better, other than your assumption that whatever is approved is better.
*
Would an English translation of the Nova Vulgata be superior to the Confraternity New Testament–yes or no?*

No, because large sections of the text would be a translation of a loose translation.

Would an English translation of the Nova Vulgata be superior in the Od Testament versus the Od Testament of say the Douay Rheims Challoner Od Testament–yes or no?

No, for the same reason.

Would your translation of the Vulgate be superior to all of these–yes or no and why?

My translation would be superior to an English translation of the Neo-Vulgate, because my translation is a fairly literal translation of a source text that meets the criteria of Trent for a text that is continuous with the Latin Scriptural tradition going back to the early Church. A translation of the NV would have large sections of text that were either a literal translation of a loose translation, or a loose translation of a loose translation, which is not useful.

If translating the NV is such a compelling idea, why has no one done so? No one thinks that the NV would be useful as a source text for translations.

My translation has certain advantages over other English Catholic translations: it is more literal than most, inclusive language is avoided, the source text is the Clementine Vulgate, and yet it is a readable text (less awkward than the Douai, but still fairly literal). It does not take liberties with the text, and does not maky any accomodation for political correctness.

It is good to have some translations from the Latin, as well as some from the Hebrew or Greek. The current near complete abandonment of the Latin as a source text is problematic since it ignores the place that Trent gave to the Latin Scriptural tradition. And the NV represents a break from that tradition.

Loose translations have a certain usefulness, in that they are more approachable, easier to understand, and so are good for beginners or children. The current tendency for translations to be ever more loosely translated and to take ever more liberties with the text is appauling.
 
Ron Conte: Do you think that John Paul II erred in making the Nova Vulgata the juridicial text of the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church?
 
Jerry-Jet said:
Ron Conte: Do you think that John Paul II erred in making the Nova Vulgata the juridicial text of the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church?
Click to expand...
Yes. Do you think that temporal decisions by the Pope are infallible?

Why do you think that he made the right decision?
 
I don’t think that making the Nova Vulgata the juridicial text of the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church is an exclusively temporal decision as it touches on faith and morals.
 
Jerry-Jet said:
I don’t think that making the Nova Vulgata the juridicial text of the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church is an exclusively temporal decision as it touches on faith and morals.
Click to expand...
The approval of the NV falls under the temporal authority, since it is a decision of the prudential order (i.e. deciding about particular facts, such as the suitability of the NV to replace the CV as the ‘juridical text’). Such an approval is not a teaching on faith or morals, but a decision.

Temporal decisions of the Church are always in some way related to faith and morals, but this does not remove them from the realm of prudential judgment. Such decisions are fallible and do not fall under the infallibility of the Pope or of the Magisterium.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top