FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Why no modern English trad Bible translation?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
(04-23-2017, 11:33 PM)Mark Williams Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-17-2017, 11:21 PM)aquinas138 Wrote: [ -> ]Pesh**ta

?  ???

the two letters that have been asterisked instead of shown are "it."  The forum's automatic language filter did that.
(04-23-2017, 11:58 PM)Credidi Propter Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-23-2017, 11:33 PM)Mark Williams Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-17-2017, 11:21 PM)aquinas138 Wrote: [ -> ]Pesh**ta

?  ???

the two letters that have been asterisked instead of shown are "it."  The forum's automatic language filter did that.

Ah.
Quote:There are plenty of decent Catholic translations into English : Knox, RSV-CE, Jerusalem Bible (not the NJB), Confraternity, etc.). Why are these so insufficient that the Challoner needs to be redacted to modern language?

I currently use the Knox. It's good but I prefer a more word-to-word (formal equivalence) translation.

With regards to the RSV-CE and the Jerusalem Bible: I have contemplated using these translations. However, I was told many years ago by the man who pretty much introduced me to trad Catholicism that a Bible translation is only a proper Catholic Bible translation if it translates St Luke 1:28 as "full of grace", caritas in 1 Corinthinans 13 as "charity", and Genesis 1:28 as "increase and multiply", rather than "be fruitful". I have not yet found any other source that backs up these claims, but they are what is keeping me from switching to the RSV-CE or the Jerusalem. Plus I like the traditional names like Elias, Micheas, Aggaeus that the pre-Vatican II translations have.
There's also the Confraternity Bible.

"The hard-to-find 1941 revision of the Challoner-Rheims Version by the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine (Roman Catholic). Pocket-sized edition of the New Testament with readings from the Gospels and Epistles throughout the year. The translation is smooth, traditional, and reverent. There are also footnotes which aid in understanding the text. Blue flex vinyl with a ribbon marker."

https://www.amazon.com/Testament-Challoner-Rheims-Confraternity-Christian-Doctrine/dp/0933932774/ref=sr_1_6?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1493030907&sr=1-6&keywords=Confraternity+Bible
I used to own a Douay-Confraternity Bible many years ago, but I sold it after I had left the Church. They seem to be quite rare here.
(04-24-2017, 06:26 AM)MichaelNZ Wrote: [ -> ]
Quote:There are plenty of decent Catholic translations into English : Knox, RSV-CE, Jerusalem Bible (not the NJB), Confraternity, etc.). Why are these so insufficient that the Challoner needs to be redacted to modern language?

I currently use the Knox. It's good but I prefer a more word-to-word (formal equivalence) translation.

With regards to the RSV-CE and the Jerusalem Bible: I have contemplated using these translations. However, I was told many years ago by the man who pretty much introduced me to trad Catholicism that a Bible translation is only a proper Catholic Bible translation if it translates St Luke 1:28 as "full of grace", caritas in 1 Corinthinans 13 as "charity", and Genesis 1:28 as "increase and multiply", rather than "be fruitful". I have not yet found any other source that backs up these claims, but they are what is keeping me from switching to the RSV-CE or the Jerusalem. Plus I like the traditional names like Elias, Micheas, Aggaeus that the pre-Vatican II translations have.

The only way it will have "full of grace" as a translation of Luke 1:28 is if it is translated from the Vulgate, which virtually no modern translation is. "Highly favored" is not an incorrect translation of the Greek, by the way. I think MagisterMusicae is basically right - why reinvent the wheel? There's no money in doing so - Trad-land has its fair share of "Douay-Rheims-only" types, and the general public wouldn't care.
DR and RSV-CE are the ones i have
I don't mind the Good News Bible. In fact it's my favorite for the OT. Douay Rheims still my fave for the NT tho. Apparently it's very literal to the greek, so I trust it the most for the NT.
(04-24-2017, 02:44 PM)aquinas138 Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-24-2017, 06:26 AM)MichaelNZ Wrote: [ -> ]
Quote:There are plenty of decent Catholic translations into English : Knox, RSV-CE, Jerusalem Bible (not the NJB), Confraternity, etc.). Why are these so insufficient that the Challoner needs to be redacted to modern language?

I currently use the Knox. It's good but I prefer a more word-to-word (formal equivalence) translation.

With regards to the RSV-CE and the Jerusalem Bible: I have contemplated using these translations. However, I was told many years ago by the man who pretty much introduced me to trad Catholicism that a Bible translation is only a proper Catholic Bible translation if it translates St Luke 1:28 as "full of grace", caritas in 1 Corinthinans 13 as "charity", and Genesis 1:28 as "increase and multiply", rather than "be fruitful". I have not yet found any other source that backs up these claims, but they are what is keeping me from switching to the RSV-CE or the Jerusalem. Plus I like the traditional names like Elias, Micheas, Aggaeus that the pre-Vatican II translations have.

The only way it will have "full of grace" as a translation of Luke 1:28 is if it is translated from the Vulgate, which virtually no modern translation is. "Highly favored" is not an incorrect translation of the Greek, by the way. I think MagisterMusicae is basically right - why reinvent the wheel? There's no money in doing so - Trad-land has its fair share of "Douay-Rheims-only" types, and the general public wouldn't care.

No, "full of grace" is an accurate translation of the original Greek. It's just that the Greek "full of grace," isn't as dramatic as gratia plena.
(04-24-2017, 02:44 PM)aquinas138 Wrote: [ -> ]"Highly favored" is not an incorrect translation of the Greek, by the way.

Maybe not grammatically, since "graced" and "favoured" are similar, but to call our Lady simply "highly favoured" is theologically wrong, and denies her immaculate Conception. And St Jerome didn't believe in sola Scriptura.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13