FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: RSV-Catholic Version
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
what do y'all think of it?  I heard it was the most "accurate Translation". I got a very beatiful one for my birthday.

It is a pretty good translation. I think Lumen would agree. :D I know it translates directly from the Hebrew and Greek, and I believe it is also a Catholicization of the Protestant RSV. I have a RSV-CE myself too.
 
EDIT: The RSV-CE is also I think the common Bible used in Europe as well. I know that Scott Hahn also uses as well probably some other Catholic Biblical scholars.
Quote:It is a pretty good translation. I know it translates directly from the Hebrew and Greek


The original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts are gone. Not a papyrus sheet exists. What is claimed as "original" Hebrew and Greek are copies of copies of copies, ad infinitum, some containing "translations" and "interpretations" and side notes, by the copiers (Monks) who were subject to errors, etc. Perhaps the only person in possession of the true copy of the original manuscripts to whose commission was entrusted the translations was St. Jerome, who translated the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic into Latin, The Vulgate Bible, the only true translation declared by the Catholic Church. And the English translation of the Vulgate is the Douay-Rheims.

"Directly from the Greek and Hebrew" might be a correct proposition, but this Greek and Hebrew are not what came from the pen of the holy Evangelists, and Apostles.
St. Jerome didn't have the original manuscripts either.  His translation was not, by the way, the first Latin Bible.  And are you claiming that St Jerome's Latin translation of the Septuagint and the Greek New Testament is more accurate than the Greek scriptures that have always been preserved in the original language by the Greek Christians?  The idea that an English Bible can be Catholic only if it is an English translation of a Latin translation is nonsense. 
I would tend to agree.
 
It is true that whatever English and Greek manuscripts we have today are not the originals; but they are pretty ancient in their own right.  Read up on the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus, for example; it's not like they only date back to the 1800s.
 
And the argument used in favor of St. Jerome and against the "original" manuscripts can also be used against the Vulgate.  If we don't have the actual original manuscripts of the Apostles, neither do we have the original manuscript of St. Jerome - we have copies of copies of copies of copies.
 
The point is almost irrelevant, though.  Take the RSV-CE, the Douay Rheims, the King James, and, just for fun, the Jerusalem Bible, and compare them side by side.  I think you'll find that in 9 times out of 10, the only differences are colloquial, and are not major.
 
I would love to do an updated version of the Douay Rheims someday; not so much to update the old words like "thee" and "thou" to "you," but more to smooth out some of the sentence structures and clear up some of the ambiguous pronouns and personal pronouns.
 
Someday ...
spasiisochrani Wrote:St. Jerome didn't have the original manuscripts either. His translation was not, by the way, the first Latin Bible. And are you claiming that St Jerome's Latin translation of the Septuagint and the Greek New Testament is more accurate than the Greek scriptures that have always been preserved in the original language by the Greek Christians? The idea that an English Bible can be Catholic only if it is an English translation of a Latin translation is nonsense.

I didn't say St. Jerome had the original masnuscripts.... I said:

Quote:the true copy of the original manuscripts

In 382 AD, St. Jerome was commissioned by Pope St. Damasus to "to produce a translation of the Bible to replace the Old Latin Bible, which had become corrupted through copyists' errors. He had access to the best extant manuscripts -- which were much closer to the original manuscripts in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic (I don't think he took the first extant copy and said I'll work on this, butr rather examined every available copy there was). In many cases the New Testament scriptural texts were within a few generations of the original manuscripts penned by the Apostles." The Vulgate was completed in 405 AD. I am going by the Council of Trent's solemn proclamation of the Vulgate to be the approved text of the Bible of the Church. Trent said the Vulgate translation was the most accurate; I didn't make that claim as you are trying to imply. None of us have the authority to make such infallible statements. If you cannot accept Trent's word for it, that's your problem.

In another post recently a comparison was made of the language in Genesis 3:15 from the various Bibles available today, just to give an example of how widely and diversely a translator can come up his translation and interpretation.  To go one further, take the verse in Luke 1:28 --

"28 And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women." (DRBO - Challoner)
28. And the Angel being entered in, said unto her, HAIL full of grace, our Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. (1582 Rheims)

But how is this verse read in the newer Bibles? I have not examined ALL of them but in the ones that I have, not one of these new translations addressed Our Lady as "FULL OF GRACE."  Rather, "most favored daughter," etc., is the Angel's salutation. There have been weak exegetical explanations for these translations, but the Greek word for "grace" is not translated "highly favored."

Quote:The idea that an English Bible can be Catholic only if it is an English translation of a Latin translation is nonsense.

Nonsense? Are you an authority? What are your credentials? It is a modernist thought to state that the Catholic Church's approbation of the Douay-Rheims translation is not acceptable, and regard as proper, for example, the exegesis of a Fr. Raymond Brown as having the true word of God, if that is what you are arguing.


lumengentleman Wrote:

I would love to do an updated version of the Douay Rheims someday; not so much to update the old words like "thee" and "thou" to "you," but more to smooth out some of the sentence structures and clear up some of the ambiguous pronouns and personal pronouns.

Someday ...

Have you read the Catholic Apologetics Study Bible? It's awesome.
Quote:Trent said the Vulgate translation was the most accurate
The council fathers said this:
Quote:Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod ... ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever.
Pope Pius XII, later commenting on the meaning and intention of Trent, said:
Quote:And if the Tridentine Synod wished "that all should use as authentic" the Vulgate Latin version, this, as all know, applies only to the Latin Church and to the public use of the same Scriptures; nor does it, doubtless, in any way diminish the authority and value of the original texts.
For there was no question then of these texts, but of the Latin versions, which were in circulation at that time, and of these the same Council rightly declared to be preferable that which "had been approved by its long-continued use for so many centuries in the Church." Hence this special authority or as they say, authenticity of the Vulgate was not affirmed by the Council particularly for critical reasons, but rather because of its legitimate use in the Churches throughout so many centuries; by which use indeed the same is shown, in the sense in which the Church has understood and understands it, to be free from any error whatsoever in matters of faith and morals; so that, as the Church herself testifies and affirms, it may be quoted safely and without fear of error in disputations, in lectures and in preaching; and so its authenticity is not specified primarily as critical, but rather as juridical.
Wherefore this authority of the Vulgate in matters of doctrine by no means prevents - nay rather today it almost demands - either the corroboration and confirmation of this same doctrine by the original texts or the having recourse on any and every occasion to the aid of these same texts, by which the correct meaning of the Sacred Letters is everywhere daily made more clear and evident. Nor is it forbidden by the decree of the Council of Trent to make translations into the vulgar tongue, even directly from the original texts themselves, for the use and benefit of the faithful and for the better understanding of the divine word, as We know to have been already done in a laudable manner in many countries with the approval of the Ecclesiastical authority. (Divino Afflante Spiritu, 21-22)
Therefore, it is incorrect to say that the Council of Trent declared the Vulgate to be the most accurate.  Authentic, free of error in matters of faith and morals, fit for public use ... absolutely.  But the most accurate, the best translation, to the exclusion of other translations made from the original languages ... well, that's not what the Council said or intended to say.
Quote:that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever (quote from Trent).

Quote:Trent said the Vulgate translation was the most accurate (my statement)

Well, let me qualify some of the redundancy, as in the above quotes. If it is accurate, then the admonition "under any pretext whatever, no one dare or presume to reject it," is logically correct and justifiable. Well, then, if the text wasn't accurate.., as we understand it from the following meaning:

1 : free from error especially as the result of care;
2 : conforming exactly to truth or to a standard : EXACT
(Merriam-Webster)

As for the superlative most, this is what I meant:
"to a very great degree" (as in most persuasive>
lumengentleman Wrote: 
I would love to do an updated version of the Douay Rheims someday; not so much to update the old words like "thee" and "thou" to "you," but more to smooth out some of the sentence structures and clear up some of the ambiguous pronouns and personal pronouns.
 
Someday ...

The Confraternity of Christian Doctrine produced an updated version of the Douay Rheims for the U.S. in the 1940s and 1950s.  This is the version that was used for the readings from the pulpit was I was in grade school in the early 1960s.  It was a very nice translation, and its use was entirely abandoned in the 1960s because it was based on the Vulgate rather than being a direct translation from the Greek.  The Confraternity Version should be easily available from used bookstores.  The New Testament was translated first, and the Old Testament was published in stages so some of the earlier Confraternity Version bibles contain some books in the Confraternity Version and the remaining Old Testament books in the Douay Challoner Version. 
 
Also, in England, Monsignor Knox produced a translation from the Vulgate in the 1940s, which is a very nice, although somewhat less literal, version.  The Knox Version is also easily available from used bookstores.  It is not a revision of the Douay Rheims, as is the Confraternity Version, but is a fresh translation from the Latin Vulgate.  Msgr. Knox translated from the Vulgate rather than from the original Greek because, at the time, the liturgical regulations for the Latin Rite prescribed that the Vulgate was the liturgical standard, and the vernacular readings at Mass had to be translated from the Vulgate.
Pages: 1 2