(03-03-2011, 08:29 PM)Dust Wrote: Can we revive The Index starting with all the blasphemous "bible translations" out there, or would the list just get too long?

A modern revival would likely put all traditional books in the Index, the DR included.
Whoever cracked the joke about a woman of worth possibly being a prostitute, I'm still laughing. On the phone, so I have trouble seeing for sure who made that crack.

Now in regards to some of the comments about having now trouble following the DR, these are excellent comments. When I first started reading Scripture, the DR did slow me down a little. But, that was a good thing because it taught me to savor every word and meditate while I read. It doesn't take a person long to get used to the style, and shouldn't Sacred Scripture being written in a style that is elevated? Just like Latin brings out the soul of the Church? But, I guess the modernists won't be happy until the Bible sounds like a dime store novel.

Side note, After reading the DR for many years, I can even read the original English translations with ease. But, the old NAB is like fingernails on a chalkboard as well. And the RSV-CE also messed with Gen 3,15.
This topic is defiantly moving up on the “silliest things to argue about” list.

I have Logo’s Libronix Digital Library’s “Catholic Scholars Pack” (which is unfortunately a discontinued product).

I opened six bibles: Douay-Rheims (Bishop Challoner revision), New American, New Jerusalem, King James, Revised Standard, and New Revised Standard.

I ran a search for the word “holocaust”, with 286 returns, and that word ONLY appears in the DR and the NAB, not the others.

I ran a search for “burnt offering”, with 336 returns, and that phrase appears in ALL six bibles, including the DR.

Going back to a parallel list of the DR and NAB, where a verse in either included the word “holocaust”, it appears the translators of both works used the word / phrase “holocaust” and “burnt offering” interchangeable (the NAB uses “holocaust” 262 times, the DR 243 times).

Two examples, out of a large multitude that could be given:
Exodus 29:18 the DR uses “burnt offering” and the NAB uses “holocaust”.
St. Mark 12:33 the DR uses “holocaust” and the NAB uses “burnt offering”.

I don’t have time to go back and look at the underlying Hebrew, Greek, or Latin word(s) where “holocaust” and “burnt offering” are used (which is a fun thing that can be done with the Libronix Digital Library software).  However, as the KJV and RSV (as well as the New Jerusalem and NRSV) use the phrase “burnt offering” exclusively (the word “holocaust” does not appear anywhere in those editions), one might surmise one of two things:

1.  There are different Latin (DR) or  Hebrew / Greek (NAB) words in the original texts, and the DR and NAB translators used either “holocaust” or “burnt offering” to translate those different words; OR
2. The translators of the DR and NAB just decided to “mix it up” (and as shown by the two scriptural examples I gave, the respective translators weren’t consistent in how they chose to “mixe it up”).  I am a bit curious as to if St. Jerome used different Latin words or phrases in these incidences (the Libronix Digital Library “Catholic Scholars Pack” does have the Vulgate, as well as the Hebrew and Greek bibles), but taking time for that research will likely need to wait until a deep snowed in day next winter.

I have no clue as to why a decision was made to revise the NAB translations, but I really have better things to do than to engage in wild speculation.  Likewise, I probable am prone to think that the U.S. bishops have better things to do than worry about revising the NAB, as it seems adequate to its purpose now, and they should have more pressing things to worry about.  That said, given that the KJV uses “burnt offering” exclusively in places where the DR and NAB randomly use either “burnt offering” or “holocaust”, and as King James (and his translation team) hardly had any concern for “what the Jews might think”, I seriously doubt they had any “political correctness” issues for using “burnt offering” rather than “holocaust”.  I seriously doubt that is the situation today.  Most likely it is a case of being more consistent in presenting the text (as has been shown, both the DR and the NAB rather randomly use either “burnt offering” or “holocaust” in what is seemingly the same context, and every other major English language bible, including the Catholic New Jerusalem, uses “burnt offering” rather than “holocaust” in all incidences), and that seems to be the situation now.  Though, I still think the bishops might have better things to worry about at the moment.

Oh, moneil you are so right on and gave me a good chuckle. I notice in many of the psalms the Latin is holocustias, or something like that and is often translated as burnt offerings in the Challoner. Some rainy day I'll have to look at my PDF file I have of the original DR.

But, let this be a lesson as to how easy it is to jump the gun in the Post Counciliar Church.

And yes, that includes this idiot (me) who also has a keyboard and internet access!

Well done, moneil.
Of course that only applies to this holocaust business. And I'm not sure if this new translation removes every reference to it or not, I kind of got sidetracked. Imagine that!

Suffuce it to say the DR is still the superior version and we have seen lots of silly changes over the years.

But again, great point, moneil.
On to the next “issue”: Proverbs 31:10

NAB: When one finds a worthy wife, her value is far beyond pearls.
RSV: A good wife who can find? She is far more precious than jewels.
NRSV: A capable wife who can find? She is far more precious than jewels.
Jerusalem: The truly capable woman—who can find her? She is far beyond the price of pearls.
KJV: Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies.
Douay-Rheims: Who shall find a valiant woman? far, and from the uttermost coasts is the price of her.

The Vulgate uses the word “mulierem”.  I have no facility with Latin but the sources I consulted translate that phrase as woman.  The adjective “fortem” is translated as “strong, powerful, mighty”.

The OP mentions “"Poem on the Woman of Worth" (which I presume is a title of a section).  It will be interesting to see how the actual verse is translated.

That being said, since many here think “wife” is a better context for the verse than “woman”, maybe you’ll should be reading the NAB (old version, of course) rather than the DR ;D: (my way of saying that if some “trads” are going to critique modern Catholic translations of the scriptures, and imply or state the superiority of the DR, they should at least be aware of what the DR actually says :bronxcheer: ).

Personally, I like the sound of “valiant woman” (DR), or even more “virtuous woman” (KJV) (I’m thinking the new NAB verse will perhaps be rendered “worthy woman”; sounds better to my ears than “woman of worth”, and it would be consistent with the current sentence structure).  In any case the Vulgate says “mulierem” and the DR (as well as KJV and the Catholic New Jerusalem) say “woman”.

Though I’m neither a Latin nor a biblical scholar, in all of the above citations it seems to me that “worthy” (NAB), “virtuous” (KJV), and “valiant” (DR) are “odd” renditions of “fortem” (Vulgate).

If one is not going to use “strong”, powerful”, or “mighty” for “fortem”, as an alternative “capable” (NRSV, New Jerusalem) seems “closer” to my ears.
Quote:Be real... Calling a woman a "woman of worth" instead of a "wife"? Who calls anyone a "woman of worth"? What does that mean anyway? Woman of worth? How much is she worth? Does this signify a prostitute?

Proverbs 31:10
NAB: When one finds a worthy wife, her value is far beyond pearls.
RSV: A good wife who can find? She is far more precious than jewels.
NRSV: A capable wife who can find? She is far more precious than jewels.
Jerusalem: The truly capable woman—who can find her? She is far beyond the price of pearls.
KJV: Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies.
Douay-Rheims: Who shall find a valiant woman? far, and from the uttermost coasts is the price of her.

The DR, in this verse, calls her a valiant woman (I have a very strong suspicion that if the phrase valiant woman were used alone in the fishtank, many here would consider it a femi-nazi expression).

Interestingly, the NAB says her value is far beyond pearls, rather poetic, me thinks, yet the DR says … from the uttermost coasts is the price of her.  Is it inferring a “mail order bride” here ??? .
Now, onto the more controversial translation of Isaiah 7:14

NAB: Therefore the Lord himself will give you this sign: the virgin shall be with child, and bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.
DR: Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son and his name shall be called Emmanuel.
New Jerusalem: The Lord will give you a sign in any case: It is this: the young woman is with child and will give birth to a son whom she will call Immanuel.
RSV: Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanu-el.
NRSV: Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.
KJV: Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Vulgate: propter hoc dabit Dominus ipse vobis signum ecce virgo concipiet et pariet filium et vocabitis nomen eius Emmanuhel

The translates “virgo” as maiden| young woman| girl of marriagable age; virgin| woman sexually intact

Septuaginta: διὰ του̂το δώσει κύριος αὐτὸς ὑμι̂ν σημει̂ον, ἰδοὺ ἡ παρθένος ἐν γαστρὶ ἕξει καὶ τέξεται υἱόν, καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτου̂ Εμμανουηλ,

The Logos Greek dictionary translates “παρθένος” as a maiden, virgin, girl; virgin, chaste.
Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon:
3933 παρθένος [parthenos /par•then•os/] Of unknown origin; 14 occurrences; AV translates as “virgin” 14 times. 1 a virgin. 1A a marriageable maiden. 1B a woman who has never had sexual intercourse with a man. 1C one’s marriageable daughter. 2 a man who has abstained from all uncleanness and whoredom attendant on idolatry, and so has kept his chastity. 2A one who has never had intercourse with women.

Hebrew: לָכֵן יִתֵּן אֲדֹנָי הוּא לָכֶם אוֹת הִנֵּה הָעַלְמָה הָרָה וְיֹלֶדֶת בֵּן וְקָרָאת שְׁמוֹ עִמָּנוּ אֵל׃
Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon
5959 עַלְמָה [`almah /al•maw/] From 5958; Seven occurrences; AV translates as “virgin” four times, “maid” twice, and “damsels” once. 1 virgin, young woman. 1A of marriageable age. 1B maid or newly married.

It would appear, from a variety of sources, that both “virgin” and “young woman” (as well as maiden, damsel and chaste, and that the Greek could refer to either a male or a female) are acceptable and accurate translations of “virgo”, “παρθένος”, and עַלְמָה

Not long ago I listened to a talk on the radio by Father John Corapi on how Catholics need to read scripture.  I need to paraphrase from memory, but 1.  Scripture needs to be read and understood in light of the Church’s Tradition and Doctrine; 2.  Scripture needs to be “in context” (i.e., be careful of taking a verse or word and getting carried away with discerning a meaning, without understanding the whole context of the section).  3.  The bible needs to be read “in its totality”, which is to say that to understand the meaning and context of a verse, it must be read in the context of how that particular “topic” is treated or mentioned through out the bible.  An example would be that to understand the “application” of the dietary laws of the Old Testament one also would be cognizant of those regulations having been eliminated by the Council of Jerusalem, as recorded in the Acts of the Apostles.  And again, any “personal understanding” of what a text might mean is always tested against the Church’s Tradition and Doctrine, and the magisterial interpretation of that text.

That all being said, I have no scholarly background to discern whether “virgin” or “young woman” would be the best or most appropriate translation for Isaiah 7:14, but either appear to accurately express the meaning of the underlying Hebrew, Greek or Latin word, and I really don’t see how belief in the virginal conception of Jesus is undermined by one or the other.  But, that’s just my opinion.
mulier in Latin connotes a wife by the fact it means an older woman (i.e., a woman past the marrying prime) as opposed to femina which means a woman in general. Virgo is used for a young woman not yet married.  Puella used for a pre-pubescent girl, or as a "pet name" for a wife.

mulier -eris f. [a woman; a wife , matron].

virgo, virginis f. maiden, young woman, girl of marriageable age; virgin, woman sexually intact;

puella f. girl, (female) child/daughter; maiden; young woman/wife; sweetheart; slavegirl;

The problem with messing with the translations is that the Fathers understood the implications and uses of the words.  To call a married or betrothed woman a "virgo" would almost necessarily mean she was a virgin.  It would make no sense to call a married woman that otherwise.  For that one would use mulier or uxor.  If they meant a young wife in an affectionate or familiar manner, they would use puella.

If it says mulier, it generally implies a wife who is the head of a household.  I.e., a matron.  In proverbs, the context is clear that she is talking about a good wife and mother.

Virgo as young woman undermines it because we don't have a notion in English of mulier vs. virgo vs. etc. except as "maid" and "matron", and to us a young woman is not necessarily a virgin and an older woman is not necessarily married.  Those were the default understandings back then.

Also, the Protestants who want to deny the virginity of Mary and say, for example, James was the brother of Jesus claim the appropriate translation is "young woman".  Probably this translation is offered as false ecumenism.

It's bullcrap from the Modernists.
How can you capture a boogie if you do not attack from the back?

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)