Which Bible?
#31
(01-29-2012, 08:23 PM)SaintAndrew Wrote:
(01-29-2012, 07:15 PM)knittycat Wrote:
(01-29-2012, 06:11 PM)kingtheoden Wrote: KC-

The Douay Rheims is the most accurate translate from the Latin Vulgate, which is completely without error.  Personally I would suggest the Haydock edition because it has comprehensive commentaries.  It is extremely scholarly and routs erroneous interpretations.

I think the going price is $110, so it is not an impulse buy.  There are less expensive Douay Rheims editions that would be nonetheless useful!

But I can dream ;)
I bought mine like this for $35.
Believe me, the demons of Hell despise this edition like nothing else.....................................
[Image: catalog1865.jpg]

I just got this edition for my birthday.  LOVE IT!!!
Reply
#32
Quote:Douay-Rheims is probably the closest English version to the Vulgate

Which one?  There's the Challoner, the Haydock, the Clementine (which the Latin Mass uses), and there's the 1582 Rheims New Testament (the true English version of the Vulgate), followed by the 1609 Douai.  I have the 1582 New Testament.  Interestingly, this Rheims Bible annotates John 3:5 on Baptism of Desire and Blood, agreeing with St. Thomas Aquinas and the Scholastics.

Here's some interesting notations about the D-R:

Quote:Although the Bibles in use in the twentieth century 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. His object was to meet the practical want felt by the Catholics of his day of a Bible moderate in size and price, in readable English, and with notes more suitable to the time. He brought out three editions of the New Testament, in 1749, 1750, and 1752 respectively, and one of the Old Testament in 1750. 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 sense remains as it was originally published". In nearly every case Challoner's changes took the form of approximating to the Authorized Version, though his three editions of the New Testament differ from one another in numerous passages. The best known version published in England in modern times was perhaps Haydock's, which was first issued at Manchester in fortnightly parts in 1811-12. The Irish editions are mostly known by the names of the bishops who gave the imprimatur: as Dr. Carpenter's New Testament (1783); Dr. Troy's Bible (1791); Dr. Murray's (1825); and Dr. Denvir's (1836) — the last two of which have often been reprinted, and were circulated largely in England and Ireland. Around the turn of the century, the issue of the sixpenny New Testament by Burns and Oates of London, by its large circulation, made the text adopted therein — Challoner's of 1749 — the standard one, especially as the same was adopted in Dr. Murray's and Dr. Denvir's Bibles. In America an independent revision of the Douay Version by Archbishop Kenrick (1849-59) was much used.

Perhaps the "worst" of the new Catholic editions is the NAB.  One way to find out if the Bible is "Catholic" go to the verse where the Angel Gabriel greets Mary as "full of grace."  If it's not there, you can be certain there are other errors as well.
Reply
#33
(01-30-2012, 11:51 AM)Vincentius Wrote: Perhaps the "worst" of the new Catholic editions is the NAB.  One way to find out if the Bible is "Catholic" go to the verse where the Angel Gabriel greets Mary as "full of grace."  If it's not there, you can be certain there are other errors as well.

It is not necessarily an error, but it must be explained. "full of grace" is the clearest translation of the Latin, whereas the Greek can be translated differently because it is a single word. However, the theological significance of the unique greeting should be clearly marked, Noe and Abraham and David found favour with God, but Mary was full of grace.
Reply
#34
(01-30-2012, 12:12 PM)su Wrote:
(01-30-2012, 11:51 AM)Vincentius Wrote: Perhaps the "worst" of the new Catholic editions is the NAB.  One way to find out if the Bible is "Catholic" go to the verse where the Angel Gabriel greets Mary as "full of grace."  If it's not there, you can be certain there are other errors as well.

It is not necessarily an error, but it must be explained. "full of grace" is the clearest translation of the Latin, whereas the Greek can be translated differently because it is a single word. However, the theological significance of the unique greeting should be clearly marked, Noe and Abraham and David found favour with God, but Mary was full of grace.

We can debate this until we are blue in the face but the Greek "Kecharitomene" (full of grace") is not the same as "highly favored daughter."  Noe, Abraham, et al., were born with Original Sin.  Mary was not.  Full of grace means "sinless." That's a vast difference, nothing comes close enough to the definitrion which St. Luke wrote.  Mary herself most probably recounted (over and over) to the very curious Apostles what she had experienced at the Annunciation and what St. Luke wrote was exactly her words, inspired by the Holy Ghost.  This is what we Catholics regard as the inerrancy of the Bible, denied by many (I can refer you to Fr. Raymond Brown, of NAB fame who denied many of the historical stories of the Bible).  The Protestants deny that Mary was without sin, so therefore, to state "Hail, full of grace" as the Angel's salutation would go against their belief.

How much of the stories in the Scriptures did the Evangelists and other Apostes know but through Mary, who was there with them every minute after Our Lord ascended to Heaven.  If you were there, wouldn't you have asked her many many things about her Son?  Of course!  What we mostly know about Him comes from her.  The Presentation, Simeon's prophecy, the child Jesus lost for three days, the wedding at Cana, etc., etc.   I can point out a lot of errors in the new English translations, and I ask, why the heck are the Catholics following the Protestant versions?   Many almost word for word


Edited to ADD: 

Quote:  FULL OF GRACE

                          By Fr. William Most

To defend the translation Full of grace, we note that the Church
always uses that- but that goes back to the Vulgate of St.
Jerome. Can we defend that? Yes.

St. Luke wrote .

This is a perfect passsive participle, and as such, is very
strong. It is of the verb . The verbs in normally
mean to put a person or thing into the state indicated by the
root. That root here is , which means favor or grace. But
if we translate favor, we must keep firmly in mind that it does
not mean God just sits there and smiles, giving nothing, so the
person does something by his own power. That would be Pelagian.
So it is best to use grace.

Very importantly, the word is used in place of a personal name.
That is comparable to our English pattern of saying e.g., he is
Mr. Tennis - meaning the ultimate in the category of tennis.

So she is Miss Grace - the ultimate in the category of grace.
Reply
#35
(01-30-2012, 12:48 PM)Vincentius Wrote: We can debate this until we are blue in the face but the Greek "Kecharitomene" (full of grace") is not the same as "highly favored daughter."  Noe, Abraham, et al., were born with Original Sin.  Mary was not.  Full of grace means "sinless." That's a vast difference, nothing comes close enough to the definitrion which St. Luke wrote.  Mary herself most probably recounted (over and over) to the very curious Apostles what she had experienced at the Annunciation and what St. Luke wrote was exactly her words, inspired by the Holy Ghost.  This is what we Catholics regard as the inerrancy of the Bible, denied by many (I can refer you to Fr. Raymond Brown, of NAB fame who denied many of the historical stories of the Bible).  The Protestants deny that Mary was without sin, so therefore, to state "Hail, full of grace" as the Angel's salutation would go against their belief.

How much of the stories in the Scriptures did the Evangelists and other Apostes know but through Mary, who was there with them every minute after Our Lord ascended to Heaven.  If you were there, wouldn't you have asked her many many things about her Son?  Of course!  What we mostly know about Him comes from her.  The Presentation, Simeon's prophecy, the child Jesus lost for three days, the wedding at Cana, etc., etc.   I can point out a lot of errors in the new English translations, and I ask, why the heck are the Catholics following the Protestant versions?   Many almost word for word

We do not follow sola scriptura, nor should we pretend to.

The fact is that the Church has approved various translations, and some of those translations using different wording. To deny the authority of the Church by claiming that it is an error is an error.

Reply
#36
(01-30-2012, 12:55 PM)su Wrote: We do not follow sola scriptura, nor should we pretend to.
The fact is that the Church has approved various translations, and some of those translations using different wording. To deny the authority of the Church by claiming that it is an error is an error.

Wait, are you trying to claim that the Church exercises infallibility in the vernacular translations of the Bible? 
Reply
#37
(01-29-2012, 05:20 PM)MarkA Wrote:
(01-29-2012, 04:50 PM)Tim Wrote: Here's a St. Joseph Textbook edition Confraternity Version used from Amazon.  This is one of the best for reading and learning, and they are only a few bucks plus shipping.

http://www.amazon.com/Holy-Bible-Textboo...B000HS71IY

tim

Last month I bought a used Confraternity Version from the Catholic Book Publishing Company published in 1957 and it's great!  The translation is supposed to be almost as good as D-R, but much easier to read.  The only downside is many of the versions have only the New Testament.  There's also this new version which is The Old Testament Confraternity-Douay Version and The New Testament Confraternity Version:
http://www.sinagtala.com/single_bibles_c...ybible.htm
or this other option for a new book - New Testament (Confraternity Pocket Edition):
http://www.scepterpublishers.org/product...p?FULL=565

The key is to catch one in the 60s era. This had a lot of the revisions before they scrapped the work and started over for the NAB. My 62 version has about 80% in new translation.

Here is the run down:

NT: 1941

Genesis to Ruth - 1952
The Sapiential Books (Job to Sirach) - 1955
The Prophetic Books (Isaia to Malachia) - 1961 (published as Volume Four)
Samuel to Maccabees (1 Samuel to Esther; 1 Maccabees to 2 Maccabees) - 1969

I don't know if they changed any of the notes before 1969, but my version is solid. I love this Bible. It adds much clarity to the understanding of the text in my opinion.
Reply
#38
I use the Orthodox study Bible.  The NT uses the NKJV as a frame and then it was corrected anywhere it differed from the original Greek.  The OT is translated directly from the Septuagint.  It also includes a few other OT books that are used liturgically in the Byzantine rite, but are not found in any Latin Catholic Bible.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)