FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Protestant Translations of the Bible
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
(08-10-2019, 11:47 AM)Bonaventure Wrote: [ -> ]Notice what was left out?

The footnote?

* [9:29] This kind can only come out through prayer: a variant reading adds “and through fasting.”
(08-10-2019, 01:36 PM)Sequentia Wrote: [ -> ]Then you have this (somewhat outdated) list of “approved” English translations posted on the USCCB website: http://www.usccb.org/bible/approved-tran.../index.cfm

I don’t see the Douay-Rheims on that list do you? Especially since the DR is probably the most important English translation made available to Catholics in modern times. But the NIV (the Psalms at least) used by thousands or millions of Protestants worldwide is suddenly “approved” for personal/private use for English-speaking Catholics?

That list also doesn’t include the 1966 Jerusalem Bible, the RSV: CE, RSV:2CE, NLT-Catholic edition, the New Jerusalem Bible, the CTS New Catholic Bible, Catholic Living Bible, and probably a whole host of other obscure translations I didn’t list.

1983 - Present

The 1983 Code of Canon Law entrusts to the Apostolic See and the episcopal conferences the authority to approve translations of the Sacred Scriptures in the Latin Catholic Church (c. 825, §1).  Prior to 1983, Scriptural translations could be approved by the Apostolic See or by a local ordinary within a diocese.  

What follows is a complete list of the translations of the Sacred Scriptures that have received the approval of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops since 1983.     

In addition to the translations listed below, any translation of the Sacred Scriptures that has received proper ecclesiastical approval ‒ namely, by the Apostolic See or a local ordinary prior to 1983, or by the Apostolic See or an episcopal conference following 1983 ‒ may be used by the Catholic faithful for private prayer and study. 
(08-10-2019, 06:27 PM)Paul Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-10-2019, 11:47 AM)Bonaventure Wrote: [ -> ]Notice what was left out?

The footnote?

* [9:29] This kind can only come out through prayer: a variant reading adds “and through fasting.”

That we but one example off the top of my head. I could go on. Nor do all modern versions contain that footnote.
(08-10-2019, 08:35 PM)Bonaventure Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-10-2019, 06:27 PM)Paul Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-10-2019, 11:47 AM)Bonaventure Wrote: [ -> ]Notice what was left out?

The footnote?

* [9:29] This kind can only come out through prayer: a variant reading adds “and through fasting.”

That we but one example off the top of my head. I could go on. Nor do all modern versions contain that footnote.

Paul's catch was a good one. Apparently the Greek manuscripts vary, so the omission isn't necessarily nefarious.
(08-10-2019, 09:55 PM)Filiolus Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-10-2019, 08:35 PM)Bonaventure Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-10-2019, 06:27 PM)Paul Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-10-2019, 11:47 AM)Bonaventure Wrote: [ -> ]Notice what was left out?

The footnote?

* [9:29] This kind can only come out through prayer: a variant reading adds “and through fasting.”

That we but one example off the top of my head. I could go on. Nor do all modern versions contain that footnote.

Paul's catch was a good one. Apparently the Greek manuscripts vary, so the omission isn't necessarily nefarious.

Although that does raise the question of who's deciding which manuscript is better, and why. Good reason to stick with the Vulgate.
Quote:Many of the Eastern Catholic Churches (including my own parish) use the NKJV or KJV in the liturgical readings for the English translations of their liturgies. Obviously the KJV/NKJV are not Catholic translations, or “approved” ones at least. 

This is where I get a little bit confused. 

My understanding is that there are certain translations which shouldn't be used because the translators have tampered with them to conform to sectarian beliefs. Now, I know that Protestants will just lob this back at us, but that really isn't the question.

Aside from being made by a Protestant, what is it about a Protestant bible that makes it deficient? We've already gone over the removal of the Duerterocanonical books (though most Protestant bibles before the modern era had them, King James Version included)

If other Catholics are using these books liturgically then hypothetically they would be fine for use (but, I suppose that the same argument could be made for the Novus Ordo and the New American Bible.)

Quote:Bonaventure: That we but one example off the top of my head. I could go on. Nor do all modern versions contain that footnote.

Filiolus: Paul's catch was a good one. Apparently the Greek manuscripts vary, so the omission isn't necessarily nefarious.


Paul: Although that does raise the question of who's deciding which manuscript is better, and why. Good reason to stick with the Vulgate.

Bonaventure, I checked two Protestant translations that I have in my possession. The New American Standard Bible did not have the reading about feasting included in the text and from what I could see made no mention of it in the notes. However, the NIV, oddly enough, did. 


Also, since we are dissecting this passage, I did a quick search of the original King James Version, which includes the reading about the fasting. 

Paul, I think this gets to the heart of the question. Why are there variant readings in the Greek? Is this what makes the Protestant translations deficient?

And what makes the Vulgate superior over a Greek manuscript? I love Jerome, I would trust him over any modern "scholar", but he is just a translator.
(08-12-2019, 09:42 AM)Alphonse il Segundo Wrote: [ -> ]And what makes the Vulgate superior over a Greek manuscript? I love Jerome, I would trust him over any modern "scholar", but he is just a translator.

Jerome himself would never have claimed his translation was superior to the Greek. He was insistent that scriptural study should return to the source languages, which is why he promoted the Hebrew Old Testament over the Septuagint. This is the principle followed by pretty much every modern translation, but modern scholarship really does give insight into which manuscripts are more "true", because it can show which are older, links between manuscripts, etc. It's just true that we have more resources than Jerome did.

Besides which, there are clear problems with Jerome's Latin translations of the Hebrew. The Vulgate is without error related to faith or morals. But that doesn't mean it's the best translation of the source manuscripts. This is why so many Catholics have been using the NRSV-CE, and I don't blame them for it at all. Personally, I still read the Vulgate itself or the Douay Rheims, because I know there won't be anything un-Catholic in them.
(08-12-2019, 10:08 AM)Filiolus Wrote: [ -> ]Jerome himself would never have claimed his translation was superior to the Greek. He was insistent that scriptural study should return to the source languages, which is why he promoted the Hebrew Old Testament over the Septuagint. This is the principle followed by pretty much every modern translation, but modern scholarship really does give insight into which manuscripts are more "true", because it can show which are older, links between manuscripts, etc. It's just true that we have more resources than Jerome did.

I didn't mean to imply that Jerome would have claimed that. I am saying that there is a sizable portion of people who seem to take the KJV only position and transpose it onto the Latin Vulgate.

I personally would love to read the Bible in Greek, but the only editions I can find are published by Protestant groups. I don't think there would be anything wrong in those manuscripts, in se. After all, they should have the same origin as we do.

And I'll push back on the claim that we have better resources today than did Jerome. The reasoning that I have heard is that Jerome had the benefit of being a native speaker of Latin and having access to living communities of Greek speakers and Jews who studied Hebrew. Add to this that he would most certainly have had access to manuscripts that have been lost to us since then.

Quote:Besides which, there are clear problems with Jerome's Latin translations of the Hebrew. The Vulgate is without error related to faith or morals. But that doesn't mean it's the best translation of the source manuscripts. This is why so many Catholics have been using the NRSV-CE, and I don't blame them for it at all. Personally, I still read the Vulgate itself or the Douay Rheims, because I know there won't be anything un-Catholic in them.

Would you explain the problems? I have heard that the Psalter can get a bit clunky since Jerome made a literal word for word translation.
(08-10-2019, 11:47 AM)Bonaventure Wrote: [ -> ]As an aside, it should be noted that it wasn't just the Protestants who have messed with the translations of the Bible.

For example, compare/contrast the following Douay-Rheims translation of Mark 9:26-29 with that of the latest USCCB-approved version.
When I first read this, I wasn't sure what you meant.  But after a little research I found that some people think later Catholic translations, after Douay-Rheims, reflects the liberal direction the Church has been going for the better part of a century. 

Now I have to buy another Bible.  Thanks.
(08-12-2019, 01:26 PM)jack89 Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-10-2019, 11:47 AM)Bonaventure Wrote: [ -> ]As an aside, it should be noted that it wasn't just the Protestants who have messed with the translations of the Bible.

For example, compare/contrast the following Douay-Rheims translation of Mark 9:26-29 with that of the latest USCCB-approved version.
When I first read this, I wasn't sure what you meant.  But after a little research I found that some people think later Catholic translations, after Douay-Rheims, reflects the liberal direction the Church has been going for the better part of a century. 

Now I have to buy another Bible.  Thanks.

The Latin Vulgate seems to be quite clear, at least to me, in regards to the 28th verse of Mark, Chapter 9:

"28 et dixit illis hoc genus in nullo potest exire nisi in oratione et ieiunio."

I don't see how in good conscious, later (i.e., post VCII) translations could skip the et ieiunio (i.e., and fasting), or even relegate it to a footnote.  Couple that with the now non-existent rules regarding fasting in the Church, which is only two days out of the year, and it really isn't fasting anyway.  In that regard, I stand by my position that it wasn't only Protestants who have messed with translations.
Pages: 1 2 3