Today I kindly received a review copy of the paperback NABRE by Saint Benedict Press. I will offer a review of that edition in the coming days. Until then, if you are interested in finding out a verse rendering in the NABRE let me know.
So here are three verses I am curious how they are rendered in NABRE:
Isaiah 9:5 Genesis 3:14 Genesis 1:27
I am patiently awaiting the St. Benedict with the durahyde cover but it does not seem to be off the press yet. I saw their durahyde RSV-CE in a Catholic bookstore Friday and was impressed. It is also supposed to outlast leather...
I am looking forward to a NAB with a better Psalter and OT; I hope it compliments well as an alternate translation in my RSV-CE2 Study Bible groups at Church.
Isaiah 9:5: Uses the same language as the original NAB
Genesis 1:27: "God created mankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them"
Genesis 3:14-15: "Because you have done this, cursed are you among all the animals, tame or wild; On your belly you shall crawl, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life. I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; they will strike at your head, while you strike at their heel."
*** The Genesis 3:15 is sure to bring about a lot of discussion. There is a considerable textual note on this, which is a bit too long for me to post at the moment.***
Yes, Gen 3:15 will cause controversy because this verse reveals the lie about this "new" translation. The changes in this verse are not about advances in scholarship or new discoveries in science or developments in our understanding of the original languages and texts - these changes are all about modern American gender politics and western elitist bias.
Tobit 8:5-9: 'She got up, and they started to pray and beg that they might be protected. He began with these words: blessed are you, O God of our ancestors; blessed be your name forever and ever! Let the heavens and all your creation bless you forever. You made Adam, and you made his wife Eve to be his helper an support; and from these two the human race has come. You said ' it is not good for the man to be alone; let us make him a helper like himself.' Now, not with lust, but with fidelity I take this kinswoman as my wife. Send down your mercy on me and on her, and grant that we may grow old together. Bless us with children.'. They said together, 'Amen,Amen!'. Then they went to bed for the night.'
It reads better than the NAB, especially v. 7. Interestingly "Bless us with children" was not in the Confraternity/NAB, nor is it in the Douay, KJV, NRSV, the New Vulgate, or the Italian CEI... I'm not finding it anywhere, actually. I wonder why they put that there.
It truly is a beautiful passage, and it is truly a shame that many Christians don't have it in their Bibles.
I would like it to be, but I still need some time to read it. I will say that one of the major issues of the previous edition was the revised Psalms. From what I have read so far, the NABRE Psalms are much, much better.
(Fred, I will get those for you once I get a chance to look them up.)
Tim -- your troll is playing games with you. The Vulgate Sirach is based on a different verse division than the Greek Sirach -- Vulgate Sirach 24:34 = Greek Sirach 24:24. For a description of the correspondence between the Vulgate and Greek verse division, look at this table.
Furthermore, this particular verse exists only in the later GKII manuscript, not in the earlier OG=GKI manuscript. The standard critical edition of the Greek manuscript is the Gottingen edition by Joseph Ziegler (1965); Ziegler puts these later GKII additions in a smaller font.
The NRSV translation of the verse is Do not cease to be strong in the Lord, cling to him so that he may strengthen you; the Lord Almighty alone is God, and besides him there is no savior and the NETS translation is nearly identical.
It seems that the NABRE draws upon the Septuagint in the sneak peeks I have seen. Any indication of this in the new introduction to the OT?
We must be careful to realize that the Vulgate OT (both by St. Jerome and the ones we have now) are an interpretation, a translation, made by men. It is not divinely inspired as is the original text in the original languages. If the NABRE translators choose to favor the Septuagint in places, that may be more accurate in revealing the original meaning of the Hebrew text.
The problem with the Isaiah text mentioned from the D-R is that it could be misconstrued as prophecying a literal reign of Christ on earth at his Second Coming, which the Church has declared to be a false teaching. This false notion is a real problem for some Jewish people who have accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. Some are actually looking for a literal 1000 year reign of Jesus in an earthly Jewish kingdom. They do not realize that Jesus reigns now and is physically present now in the Catholic sacraments.
What on earth are you talking about buddy? Where are the original texts? An 11th century Masoretic fabrication is not an original text. An handful of 5th century Greek texts are not the Septuagint. For every ancient manuscript we have, Jerome had hundreds at his disposal. Plus he was a greater saint and orthodox scholar than any possible team that could be assembled on earth today.
Your whole interpretation of the reason for the deliberate mistranslation of the passage from Isaiah is insane.
Ben Sirach 44:1: 'I will praise the godly, our ancestors, in their own time.'
Psalm 81:8-9: 'in distress you called and I rescued you; i answered you in secret with thunder; at the waters of Meribah I tested you. Listen, my people, I will testify against you if only you will listen to me, Israel!'
Song of Songs 7:2-4: 'How beautiful are your feet in sandals, O noble daughter. Your curving thighs like jewels, the product of skilled hands. Your valley a round bowl that should never lack mixed wine. Your belly, a mound if wheat, encircled with lilies. Your breasts are like two fawns, twins of gazelle. Your neck like a tower of ivory; your eyes, pools in Heshbon by the gate of Beth-rabbim. Your nose like the tower of Lebanon that looks toward Damascus.'
If "God-Hero" isn't gone, I should probably assume that one of the places where I actually prefer the current NAB's rendering, the song of Exodus 15, has probably been completely changed ;)
Could you please give that a glance-over to see if much is different, especially at the beginning?: "I will sing to the Lord, for he is gloriously triumphant; horse and chariot he has cast into the sea"
Regarding the variation among different translations in the Deuterocanonicals (Sirach, Tobit, etc.):
There is a lot of variation from Bible to Bible in translations of the Deuterocanonicals. I find the following four Bible translation tools invaluable:
(1) Oxford's The Parallel Apocrypha. This is an incredible resource, with parallel versions of the Greek text and seven English translations (King James, Douai, Knox Bible, Good News Bible, NRSV, NAB, and NJB). (All of these except the King James have imprimatur, of course.) This allows one to see how different translations approach the text, sometimes in radically different ways. It also has a set of introductory essays that discuss the format of the Deuterocanon and how different faith traditions (Jewis, Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Anglican, Mainline Protestant, and Evangelical Protestant) each approach these books. If this volume sounds too good to be true, then sadly it is -- the book is out of print (but easily available used.)
(2) Oxford's New English Translation of the Septuagint -- perhaps the best Bible translation to emerge from the last decade, and without a doubt the most scholarly presentation of the Septuagint in English. Of particular interest is that it covers the many, many variations among different manuscripts in the Septuagint -- at times, providing parallel translations of different texts.
(3) Logos' electronic version of the Gottingen Septuagint -- by far the best critical edition of the Septuagint, and linked with many electronic tools. (Drawback: expensive; be sure to request an academic discount.)
(4) Logos' electronic version of the Anchor Yale Bible Commentary series of the Deuterocanon (the pale yellow volumes) -- while some volumes are better than others, overall this this series is both a highly academic and still readable coverage of the Deuterocanon. (Drawback: expensive; be sure to request an academic discount.)
Just the first of these four resources by itself could clear up several questions that have arisen in this comment thread. The first two books are can be found for not too much money are likely to be useful for many decades. I recommend these two books (and, if one can afford them, all four resources) to any serious Bible student.
I own the NETS which as you say is a wonderful presentation of the LXX. I have gained quite a bit by simply reading the book intros that the NETS provide.
I may have to seek out the Parallel Apocrypha, though.
I am not trying to advocate any one interpretation of Scripture over another, I am just saying that the Vulgate, the Septuagint, and the Masoretic texts we have are indeed interpretations. I found the variant reading in question from Isaiah in a translation of the Septuagint.
I love the Douay-Rheims Bible, but I cannot vouch for St. Jerome's personal holiness during his life on earth or his manuscript collection because I never met the man. I know he is in Heaven now with God because he is a canonized saint.
All I know is what I have studied about the Latin from the Jerome/Vulgate tradition. Jerome basically composited a bunch of Old Latin manuscripts, he edited some with Greek and Hebrew texts, and others not. He did have access to other manuscripts that are lost but their quantity and quality is unknown. It seems, compared to many ancient texts we now have, that the Vulgate Deuterocanonicals aren't very accurate to what the original texts might have been. But of course no one knows that for sure because neither we, nor St. Jerome had an "original text."
Given this, it seems kind of silly to me to say that one translation is "right", and another "wrong", although I do like to examine different translations and discuss the merits or drawbacks of each.
From the reprint of the 1582 Rheims New Testament and 1635 Douay Old Testament.
The purpose for the translation of the Douay-Rheims Bible is written in the Preface to its New Testament. It was "for the more speedy abolishing of a number of false and impious translations put forth by sundry sectes, and for the better preservation or reclaime of many good soules endangered thereby.., no other bookes in the world being so pernicious as hereticall translations of the Scriptures, poisoning the people under colour of divine authoritie..." It is stated in the introduction to the Old Testament that enemies of the Church during the 16th century were "corruptly turning the Scriptures into divers tongues, as might best serve their owne opinions."
In this 20th century, Bibles appear, claiming to be "diligently compared with the original Hebrew and original Greek manuscripts.'' This is fallacious, since such are not known to be in existence, and were not known to be in existence in the 16th century. "Hebrew" manuscripts extant in the 16th century were anti-Christian Masoretic fabrications, which were not true to the old Latin Vulgate. The Preface to the Rheims New Testament states that "most of the auncient Heretikes were Grecians, & therfore the Scriptures in Greeke were more corrupted by them, as the auncient fathers often complaine." Sixteenth century Greek manuscripts were neither as old nor as authoritative as the Latin Vulgate of the 4th century, some of them having been recently constructed by enemies of Christianity for the purpose of altering the text of Holy Scripture. Especially, the reader is urgently referred to the third page of the translators' introduction to the Old Testament, beginning with the words: "But here an other question may be proposed: Why we translate the Latin text, rather then the Hebrew, or Greke..."
The year 1558 A.D. marks the beginning of increasing hardships in England for followers of the Vulgate1. Some were forced to flee to the European mainland for safety. Some went to Douay, France, where a college had been founded for the training of missionaries to return to England. It was there, ten years later, that Gregory Martin began to translate from the Latin Vulgate into English. First, the Old Testament was translated, then the New Testament. The college was forced to move from Douay to Rheims, where in 1582 A.D., the New Testament was published in a single volume, subsequently known as the "Rheims Testament." For want of means, the Old Testament was not published until the first volume appeared in 1609 A.D., and the second in 1610 A.D. These volumes were for distribution in England. However, stringent Penal Laws in England forbade the entrance and ownership of such literature, which was considered inimical to the government and highly treasonable.
One year later, in 1611 A.D., the Protestant King James Version, also known as the Authorized Version, was issued; but the Catholic Douay-Rheims was not allowed legal entry until the 18th century. The King James Version was permitted to stand without the contest of comparison with the Vulgate or the Douay-Rheims translation.
For slavishness to the Vulgate, the Douay Bible has been suppressed by Scripture's enemies. The Rheims Testament was reprinted twice at Antwerp - in 1600 and 1621 A.D. - and a fourth edition was issued, at Rouen in 1633 A.D. The Old Testament was reprinted in two volumes in 1635 A.D. Then, in the 18th century, Bibles appeared, erroneously called The Douay-Rheims. The Catholic Encyclopedia of 1909 A.D. states: "Although the Bibles in use at the present day by the Catholics of England and Ireland are popularly styled the Douay Version, they are most improperly so called; they are founded, with more or less alteration, on a series of revisions undertaken by Bishop Challoner in 1749-52 ... The changes introduced by him were so considerable that, according to Cardinal Newman, they almost amounted to a new translation. So, also, Cardinal Wiseman wrote, 'To call it any longer the Douay or Rheimish Version is an abuse of terms. It has been altered and modified until scarcely any verse remains as it was originally published. ' In nearly every case Challoner's changes took the form of approximating to the Authorized Version..."
The audacious determination to dissolve Christ from the Old Testament is plain in the Authorized Version, where names of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, are removed more than 100 times. 21 times the name Christ is deleted, where it appears in the Vulgate and Douay. This is true of the name Jesus, 1 time, in Hab. 3:18 (as also in Jude 5); of The Just One, 25 times; of Saviour, 15 times; of Dominator, 13 times; of The Holy One, 5 times; of The Strong One, 6 times; of The Son of Man, 5 times; of My Deliverer, 2 times; of our Lord, 7 times; of the Lamb; of our Redeemer; of The Meek One; of The Noble One; and of The Orient. Discovery of these deletions are sufficient cause for a reproduction of the Douay-Rheims Bible.
There are fourteen portions of the Old Testament, which by St. Jerome and the Church until the 16th century A.D., were not considered canonical Holy Scriptures, but were accepted only as apocryphal writings. At the Council of Trent (1545-1563 A.D.) eleven of the fourteen writings were elevated to the level of God's Word. The other three portions were set aside to be discarded. The Douay Old Testament has interspersed through its text eleven of these portions; but the other three are courteously appended at the end of the second volume. The Council of Trent ordered a revision of the Latin Vulgate, which was not accomplished until 1590-92 A.D. The publication of the Rheims Testament ante-dated the Vulgate revision.
This reprinting is of the 1582 A.D. Rheims Testament, and of the 1635 A. D. reprint of the Douay Old Testament, reproduced in a 10 per cent reduction from original actual size, making available, once again, by the grace of God, the most faithful English text of Holy Scripture, as translated from the sole authoritative source, the Latin Vulgate.
Thank you for the reference to the original D-R Bible. I know there were reasons behind this 16th century Bible to be translated from the Latin. I actually did an intresting study with the textual notes in the New King James Bible NT and the D-R. It was very obvious that the Sixto-Clementine Vulgate is closer to the modern critical text of the NT than the Textus Receptus that the Protestants were using at that time.
In these modern times, translators have access to multitudes of manuscript discoveries in the original languages, many of which pre-date Jerome. These have been agonized over in great detail by many scholors for many years using a critacal apparatus to discover the subtle additions (and sometimes changes) that were made to them over the centuries. What results is critical texts in the original languages that have a higher fidelity than the 16th century version of the Vulgate, and worthy to be translated by the Church into vernacular languages, including an improved Latin version.
I do think that the D-R Challoner shines in places if one can understand the old english and handle the sometimes awkward sentence structure. But from the perspective of evangalism and group devotions, it is essential to have a Bible that people can understand when read or spoken.
I now have a copy of the NABRE. It is the large print edition in paperback from Catholic Book Publishing. It is only available the the Religious Ed. Congress in Anaheim, CA (as far as I know), it is not on their website yet. It only set me back 13 dollars (incl tax). So far my first impression are that the Psalms are greatly improved, I have not had much time reading anything else. I am looking for to spending some time with the NABRE and decide if it is going to become my #1 Bible, not that I won't have a #2 and #3 Bible also.
Hi, Tim:
ReplyDeleteSo here are three verses I am curious how they are rendered in NABRE:
Isaiah 9:5
Genesis 3:14
Genesis 1:27
I am patiently awaiting the St. Benedict with the durahyde cover but it does not seem to be off the press yet. I saw their durahyde RSV-CE in a Catholic bookstore Friday and was impressed. It is also supposed to outlast leather...
I am looking forward to a NAB with a better Psalter and OT; I hope it compliments well as an alternate translation in my RSV-CE2 Study Bible groups at Church.
Jonny,
ReplyDeleteIsaiah 9:5: Uses the same language as the original NAB
Genesis 1:27: "God created mankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them"
Genesis 3:14-15: "Because you have done this, cursed are you among all the animals, tame or wild; On your belly you shall crawl, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life. I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; they will strike at your head, while you strike at their heel."
*** The Genesis 3:15 is sure to bring about a lot of discussion. There is a considerable textual note on this, which is a bit too long for me to post at the moment.***
Yes, Gen 3:15 will cause controversy because this verse reveals the lie about this "new" translation. The changes in this verse are not about advances in scholarship or new discoveries in science or developments in our understanding of the original languages and texts - these changes are all about modern American gender politics and western elitist bias.
ReplyDeleteBC
Hi Timothy,
ReplyDeleteHow does NABRE render Matthew 6:9-13?
~Mike
Hi Tim,
ReplyDeleteI'm curious - how does the NABRE render the whole Bible?
Michael,
ReplyDeleteThe NABRE New Testament is the same as the current NAB. The NT was revised first, back in the mid-80's.
Colleague,
ReplyDeleteHopefully well! :) Probably not so well for some people.
How about Isaiah 66:11?
ReplyDeleteIs 66:11: 'so that you may nurse and be satisfied from her consoling breast; that you may drink with delight at her abundant breasts!'
ReplyDeleteHi Timothy,
ReplyDeleteHow is Tobit 8:5-9 in the NABRE?
Francesco,
ReplyDeleteA very wonderful passage! One read at my wedding:
Tobit 8:5-9: 'She got up, and they started to pray and beg that they might be protected. He began with these words: blessed are you, O God of our ancestors; blessed be your name forever and ever! Let the heavens and all your creation bless you forever. You made Adam, and you made his wife Eve to be his helper an support; and from these two the human race has come. You said ' it is not good for the man to be alone; let us make him a helper like himself.' Now, not with lust, but with fidelity I take this kinswoman as my wife. Send down your mercy on me and on her, and grant that we may grow old together. Bless us with children.'. They said together, 'Amen,Amen!'. Then they went to bed for the night.'
What do you think?
Tim,
ReplyDeleteDo you foresee yourself making this your primary translation? Why or why not?
Hi Timothy,
ReplyDeleteIt reads better than the NAB, especially v. 7. Interestingly "Bless us with children" was not in the Confraternity/NAB, nor is it in the Douay, KJV, NRSV, the New Vulgate, or the Italian CEI... I'm not finding it anywhere, actually. I wonder why they put that there.
It truly is a beautiful passage, and it is truly a shame that many Christians don't have it in their Bibles.
Francesco,
ReplyDeleteYes, I looked as well in some other Bibles and could not find anything that included that phrase either. Hmmmm.....
Colleague,
ReplyDeleteI would like it to be, but I still need some time to read it. I will say that one of the major issues of the previous edition was the revised Psalms. From what I have read so far, the NABRE Psalms are much, much better.
(Fred, I will get those for you once I get a chance to look them up.)
Fred,
ReplyDeleteAre there not other more obvious verses to choose from than these?
Is 16:1: "Send them forth, hugging the earth like reptiles, from Sela across the desert, to the mount of daughter Zion."
ReplyDeleteBen Sirach 24:34 is not in the NABRE as listed, but at times they re-arrange verses so it may be somewhere else.
Perhaps some of our textual critics may be able to help on these issues.
Isn't trolling a capital sin? It should be.
ReplyDeleteTim -- your troll is playing games with you. The Vulgate Sirach is based on a different verse division than the Greek Sirach -- Vulgate Sirach 24:34 = Greek Sirach 24:24. For a description of the correspondence between the Vulgate and Greek verse division, look at this table.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, this particular verse exists only in the later GKII manuscript, not in the earlier OG=GKI manuscript. The standard critical edition of the Greek manuscript is the Gottingen edition by Joseph Ziegler (1965); Ziegler puts these later GKII additions in a smaller font.
Thus, the NRSV puts this verse in a footnote and the NETS puts this verse in italics/brackets. See the introduction to the NETS translation for a discussion of the textual situation.
The NRSV translation of the verse is Do not cease to be strong in the Lord, cling to him so that he may strengthen you; the Lord Almighty alone is God, and besides him there is no savior and the NETS translation is nearly identical.
Yes. Dismissed.
ReplyDeleteHi Tim,
ReplyDeleteIt seems that the NABRE draws upon the Septuagint in the sneak peeks I have seen. Any indication of this in the new introduction to the OT?
We must be careful to realize that the Vulgate OT (both by St. Jerome and the ones we have now) are an interpretation, a translation, made by men. It is not divinely inspired as is the original text in the original languages. If the NABRE translators choose to favor the Septuagint in places, that may be more accurate in revealing the original meaning of the Hebrew text.
The problem with the Isaiah text mentioned from the D-R is that it could be misconstrued as prophecying a literal reign of Christ on earth at his Second Coming, which the Church has declared to be a false teaching. This false notion is a real problem for some Jewish people who have accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. Some are actually looking for a literal 1000 year reign of Jesus in an earthly Jewish kingdom. They do not realize that Jesus reigns now and is physically present now in the Catholic sacraments.
How about Sirach 44:1?
ReplyDeleteHow about Psalm 81:8
ReplyDeleteand Song of Songs 7:2-4?
ReplyDeletere tobit 8:9, Douay-Rheims (Challoner) has "but only for the love of posterity." Might this also be construed as "bless us with children?"
ReplyDeleteJonny,
ReplyDeleteWhat on earth are you talking about buddy? Where are the original texts? An 11th century Masoretic fabrication is not an original text. An handful of 5th century Greek texts are not the Septuagint. For every ancient manuscript we have, Jerome had hundreds at his disposal. Plus he was a greater saint and orthodox scholar than any possible team that could be assembled on earth today.
Your whole interpretation of the reason for the deliberate mistranslation of the passage from Isaiah is insane.
Michael,
ReplyDeleteThat is an interesting thought considering Tobit. I am hopin to hear back from the USCCB on this text.
Ben Sirach 44:1: 'I will praise the godly, our ancestors, in their own time.'
ReplyDeletePsalm 81:8-9: 'in distress you called and I rescued you; i answered you in secret with thunder; at the waters of Meribah I tested you. Listen, my people, I will testify against you if only you will listen to me, Israel!'
Song of Songs 7:2-4: 'How beautiful are your feet in sandals, O noble daughter. Your curving thighs like jewels, the product of skilled hands. Your valley a round bowl that should never lack mixed wine. Your belly, a mound if wheat, encircled with lilies. Your breasts are like two fawns, twins of gazelle. Your neck like a tower of ivory; your eyes, pools in Heshbon by the gate of Beth-rabbim. Your nose like the tower of Lebanon that looks toward Damascus.'
If "God-Hero" isn't gone, I should probably assume that one of the places where I actually prefer the current NAB's rendering, the song of Exodus 15, has probably been completely changed ;)
ReplyDeleteCould you please give that a glance-over to see if much is different, especially at the beginning?: "I will sing to the Lord, for he is gloriously triumphant; horse and chariot he has cast into the sea"
Mike,
ReplyDeleteIf I get a chance tomorrow I will look over EX 15 in more detail. However, I checked and Exodus 15:1 is exactly the same as the original NAB.
Regarding the variation among different translations in the Deuterocanonicals (Sirach, Tobit, etc.):
ReplyDeleteThere is a lot of variation from Bible to Bible in translations of the Deuterocanonicals. I find the following four Bible translation tools invaluable:
(1) Oxford's The Parallel Apocrypha. This is an incredible resource, with parallel versions of the Greek text and seven English translations (King James, Douai, Knox Bible, Good News Bible, NRSV, NAB, and NJB). (All of these except the King James have imprimatur, of course.) This allows one to see how different translations approach the text, sometimes in radically different ways. It also has a set of introductory essays that discuss the format of the Deuterocanon and how different faith traditions (Jewis, Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Anglican, Mainline Protestant, and Evangelical Protestant) each approach these books. If this volume sounds too good to be true, then sadly it is -- the book is out of print (but easily available used.)
(2) Oxford's New English Translation of the Septuagint -- perhaps the best Bible translation to emerge from the last decade, and without a doubt the most scholarly presentation of the Septuagint in English. Of particular interest is that it covers the many, many variations among different manuscripts in the Septuagint -- at times, providing parallel translations of different texts.
(3) Logos' electronic version of the Gottingen Septuagint -- by far the best critical edition of the Septuagint, and linked with many electronic tools. (Drawback: expensive; be sure to request an academic discount.)
(4) Logos' electronic version of the Anchor Yale Bible Commentary series of the Deuterocanon (the pale yellow volumes) -- while some volumes are better than others, overall this this series is both a highly academic and still readable coverage of the Deuterocanon. (Drawback: expensive; be sure to request an academic discount.)
Just the first of these four resources by itself could clear up several questions that have arisen in this comment thread. The first two books are can be found for not too much money are likely to be useful for many decades. I recommend these two books (and, if one can afford them, all four resources) to any serious Bible student.
Theophrastus,
ReplyDeleteI own the NETS which as you say is a wonderful presentation of the LXX. I have gained quite a bit by simply reading the book intros that the NETS provide.
I may have to seek out the Parallel Apocrypha, though.
Hi Don Rodwin,
ReplyDeleteI am not trying to advocate any one interpretation of Scripture over another, I am just saying that the Vulgate, the Septuagint, and the Masoretic texts we have are indeed interpretations. I found the variant reading in question from Isaiah in a translation of the Septuagint.
I love the Douay-Rheims Bible, but I cannot vouch for St. Jerome's personal holiness during his life on earth or his manuscript collection because I never met the man. I know he is in Heaven now with God because he is a canonized saint.
All I know is what I have studied about the Latin from the Jerome/Vulgate tradition. Jerome basically composited a bunch of Old Latin manuscripts, he edited some with Greek and Hebrew texts, and others not. He did have access to other manuscripts that are lost but their quantity and quality is unknown. It seems, compared to many ancient texts we now have, that the Vulgate Deuterocanonicals aren't very accurate to what the original texts might have been. But of course no one knows that for sure because neither we, nor St. Jerome had an "original text."
Given this, it seems kind of silly to me to say that one translation is "right", and another "wrong", although I do like to examine different translations and discuss the merits or drawbacks of each.
Jonny. This may help you :
ReplyDeleteFrom the reprint of the 1582 Rheims New Testament and 1635 Douay Old Testament.
The purpose for the translation of the Douay-Rheims Bible is written in the Preface to its New Testament. It was "for the more speedy abolishing of a number of false and impious translations put forth by sundry sectes, and for the better preservation or reclaime of many good soules endangered thereby.., no other bookes in the world being so pernicious as hereticall translations of the Scriptures, poisoning the people under colour of divine authoritie..." It is stated in the introduction to the Old Testament that enemies of the Church during the 16th century were "corruptly turning the Scriptures into divers tongues, as might best serve their owne opinions."
In this 20th century, Bibles appear, claiming to be "diligently compared with the original Hebrew and original Greek manuscripts.'' This is fallacious, since such are not known to be in existence, and were not known to be in existence in the 16th century. "Hebrew" manuscripts extant in the 16th century were anti-Christian Masoretic fabrications, which were not true to the old Latin Vulgate. The Preface to the Rheims New Testament states that "most of the auncient Heretikes were Grecians, & therfore the Scriptures in Greeke were more corrupted by them, as the auncient fathers often complaine." Sixteenth century Greek manuscripts were neither as old nor as authoritative as the Latin Vulgate of the 4th century, some of them having been recently constructed by enemies of Christianity for the purpose of altering the text of Holy Scripture. Especially, the reader is urgently referred to the third page of the translators' introduction to the Old Testament, beginning with the words: "But here an other question may be proposed: Why we translate the Latin text, rather then the Hebrew, or Greke..."
The year 1558 A.D. marks the beginning of increasing hardships in England for followers of the Vulgate1. Some were forced to flee to the European mainland for safety. Some went to Douay, France, where a college had been founded for the training of missionaries to return to England. It was there, ten years later, that Gregory Martin began to translate from the Latin Vulgate into English. First, the Old Testament was translated, then the New Testament. The college was forced to move from Douay to Rheims, where in 1582 A.D., the New Testament was published in a single volume, subsequently known as the "Rheims Testament." For want of means, the Old Testament was not published until the first volume appeared in 1609 A.D., and the second in 1610 A.D. These volumes were for distribution in England. However, stringent Penal Laws in England forbade the entrance and ownership of such literature, which was considered inimical to the government and highly treasonable.
One year later, in 1611 A.D., the Protestant King James Version, also known as the Authorized Version, was issued; but the Catholic Douay-Rheims was not allowed legal entry until the 18th century. The King James Version was permitted to stand without the contest of comparison with the Vulgate or the Douay-Rheims translation.
(Continued in Next Post)
(Continued from Previous Post)
ReplyDeleteFor slavishness to the Vulgate, the Douay Bible has been suppressed by Scripture's enemies. The Rheims Testament was reprinted twice at Antwerp - in 1600 and 1621 A.D. - and a fourth edition was issued, at Rouen in 1633 A.D. The Old Testament was reprinted in two volumes in 1635 A.D. Then, in the 18th century, Bibles appeared, erroneously called The Douay-Rheims. The Catholic Encyclopedia of 1909 A.D. states: "Although the Bibles in use at the present day by the Catholics of England and Ireland are popularly styled the Douay Version, they are most improperly so called; they are founded, with more or less alteration, on a series of revisions undertaken by Bishop Challoner in 1749-52 ... The changes introduced by him were so considerable that, according to Cardinal Newman, they almost amounted to a new translation. So, also, Cardinal Wiseman wrote, 'To call it any longer the Douay or Rheimish Version is an abuse of terms. It has been altered and modified until scarcely any verse remains as it was originally published. ' In nearly every case Challoner's changes took the form of approximating to the Authorized Version..."
The audacious determination to dissolve Christ from the Old Testament is plain in the Authorized Version, where names of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, are removed more than 100 times. 21 times the name Christ is deleted, where it appears in the Vulgate and Douay. This is true of the name Jesus, 1 time, in Hab. 3:18 (as also in Jude 5); of The Just One, 25 times; of Saviour, 15 times; of Dominator, 13 times; of The Holy One, 5 times; of The Strong One, 6 times; of The Son of Man, 5 times; of My Deliverer, 2 times; of our Lord, 7 times; of the Lamb; of our Redeemer; of The Meek One; of The Noble One; and of The Orient. Discovery of these deletions are sufficient cause for a reproduction of the Douay-Rheims Bible.
There are fourteen portions of the Old Testament, which by St. Jerome and the Church until the 16th century A.D., were not considered canonical Holy Scriptures, but were accepted only as apocryphal writings. At the Council of Trent (1545-1563 A.D.) eleven of the fourteen writings were elevated to the level of God's Word. The other three portions were set aside to be discarded. The Douay Old Testament has interspersed through its text eleven of these portions; but the other three are courteously appended at the end of the second volume. The Council of Trent ordered a revision of the Latin Vulgate, which was not accomplished until 1590-92 A.D. The publication of the Rheims Testament ante-dated the Vulgate revision.
This reprinting is of the 1582 A.D. Rheims Testament, and of the 1635 A. D. reprint of the Douay Old Testament, reproduced in a 10 per cent reduction from original actual size, making available, once again, by the grace of God, the most faithful English text of Holy Scripture, as translated from the sole authoritative source, the Latin Vulgate.
Hi again Ron,
ReplyDeleteThank you for the reference to the original D-R Bible. I know there were reasons behind this 16th century Bible to be translated from the Latin. I actually did an intresting study with the textual notes in the New King James Bible NT and the D-R. It was very obvious that the Sixto-Clementine Vulgate is closer to the modern critical text of the NT than the Textus Receptus that the Protestants were using at that time.
In these modern times, translators have access to multitudes of manuscript discoveries in the original languages, many of which pre-date Jerome. These have been agonized over in great detail by many scholors for many years using a critacal apparatus to discover the subtle additions (and sometimes changes) that were made to them over the centuries. What results is critical texts in the original languages that have a higher fidelity than the 16th century version of the Vulgate, and worthy to be translated by the Church into vernacular languages, including an improved Latin version.
I do think that the D-R Challoner shines in places if one can understand the old english and handle the sometimes awkward sentence structure. But from the perspective of evangalism and group devotions, it is essential to have a Bible that people can understand when read or spoken.
I now have a copy of the NABRE. It is the large print edition in paperback from Catholic Book Publishing. It is only available the the Religious Ed. Congress in Anaheim, CA (as far as I know), it is not on their website yet. It only set me back 13 dollars (incl tax). So far my first impression are that the Psalms are greatly improved, I have not had much time reading anything else. I am looking for to spending some time with the NABRE and decide if it is going to become my #1 Bible, not that I won't have a #2 and #3 Bible also.
ReplyDeleteI am curious. How does the NABRE translate Sirach 18:14-17?
ReplyDelete