Why no modern English trad Bible translation?
#71
(03-07-2021, 11:21 PM)austenbosten Wrote: Also mentioning what St Pius X Catechism says on Protestant Bibles...this was before the time of Vatican 2, which now we are in the age of Vatican 2, we can have things like a GNT-CE and RSV-CE, and ESV-CE translations.  I think the only reason we don't have a KJV-CE is simply because their is the Douai-Rheims and the RSV-CE which is about as close as you can get.  I think there's fear that a KJV would simply overshadow the DR, since the DR really isn't used anymore except for Catholics who wish to have Early Modern English reading of the Bible that is approved for Catholics.

The Catholic Editions of those Bibles are approved by the Church, with changes made to ensure orthodoxy (like "full of grace" instead of "highly favoured"). A KJV-CE wouldn't be a bad thing, if we could count on today's bishops to guarantee its orthodoxy. But the DR is useful because it's a translation of the Vulgate, which the Council of Trent said was without error in faith and morals, and the Vulgate is the Bible used in the liturgy (except some of the Psalms, which are an older translation).

(03-07-2021, 11:21 PM)austenbosten Wrote: Well didn't Missale Romanum overrule Quo primum? In that case, isn't this really a case of discipline?

It could have, but didn't, even if almost all the bishops acted like it did. The decree of the Council of Trent is disciplinary, and probably covered by canon law now, which also requires translations of Scripture to be approved.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Paul's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply
#72
Please don't take this as an affront to the Douai-Rhiems.  While I like how the KJV prose is structured, it doesn't mean I'm anti-DR.

Also I said the Lectionary of the Divine Worship comes out of the KJV, which upon discovery is not true.  The Anglican Ordinate apparently uses the RSV-CE, to the chagrin of many traditional former-Anglicans who have come to love the language of the KJV.


RSV-CE
1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. 2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. 3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.4 Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, 5 Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; 6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; 7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.


DR
If I speak with the tongues of men, and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. [2] And if I should have prophecy and should know all mysteries, and all knowledge, and if I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. [3] And if I should distribute all my goods to feed the poor, and if I should deliver my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. [4] Charity is patient, is kind: charity envieth not, dealeth not perversely; is not puffed up; [5] Is not ambitious, seeketh not her own, is not provoked to anger, thinketh no evil;
[6] Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth with the truth; [7] Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.



KJV
If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.  2 And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.  3 If I give away all I have, and if I deliver my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.  4 Love is patient and kind; love is not jealous or boastful;  5 it is not arrogant or rude. Love does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful;  6 it does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the right.  7 Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.


Sorry it's a miserable shame there is no KJV-CE.  It strikes me as pathetically petty that the modernist ESV and GNT gets the dubious "thumbs-up" but the KJV is poo-pooed.  Even though the Eastern Orthodox correctly call the KJV a more faithful translation than the RSV and
Reply
#73
(03-08-2021, 08:42 AM)austenbosten Wrote: Please don't take this as an affront to the Douai-Rhiems.  While I like how the KJV prose is structured, it doesn't mean I'm anti-DR.

KJV
If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.  2 And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.  3 If I give away all I have, and if I deliver my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.  4 Love is patient and kind; love is not jealous or boastful;  5 it is not arrogant or rude. Love does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful;  6 it does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the right.  7 Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

Interesting that you should choose that passage. I don't think "love" is a good translation there, and the (over)use of this at weddings shows why. The original Greek is agape, which is love of one's fellow man because he is your fellow man, tying in with our Lord's two commandments to love God and neighbour, but in modern English, 'love' is the romantic emotion and all about the feeling of being 'in love'. 'Charity' might not be perfect, either, since nowadays it calls to mind giving to the poor, and agape is more than that, but it's closer, and care for the poor is more associated with religious virtue, and since it's a more unusual word these days, it might get people wondering what it means and look into it more, whereas everyone thinks they know what love is. Especially at weddings.

True, there are approved translations that also use 'love', but like you said, a lot of modern translations are of questionable orthodoxy.
[-] The following 2 users Like Paul's post:
  • austenbosten, jovan66102
Reply
#74
(03-07-2021, 11:21 PM)austenbosten Wrote: So while the KJV may not have a "Catholic Edition," 

Honestly it sort of does. The Challoner revision of the D-R reads almost identically to the KJV. When most trads reference the D-R they are talking about the revision and not the original translation, which I find funny because then they will immediately condemn the KJV despite reading a version of the D-R which is heavily dependent on it.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Florus's post:
  • austenbosten
Reply
#75
(03-08-2021, 10:50 AM)Florus Wrote: Honestly it sort of does. The Challoner revision of the D-R reads almost identically to the KJV. When most trads reference the D-R they are talking about the revision and not the original translation, which I find funny because then they will immediately condemn the KJV despite reading a version of the D-R which is heavily dependent on it.

Nothing funny about it. The Challoner verson has been approved by the Church. The KJV has not, and when it comes to Scripture, approval by the Church matters far more than literary merit. Not everything in the KJV is wrong, but since it's unapproved, the average layman won't know what's correct and what isn't, and so the Church prohibits it.
[-] The following 2 users Like Paul's post:
  • austenbosten, jovan66102
Reply
#76
(03-08-2021, 11:06 AM)Paul Wrote:
(03-08-2021, 10:50 AM)Florus Wrote: Honestly it sort of does. The Challoner revision of the D-R reads almost identically to the KJV. When most trads reference the D-R they are talking about the revision and not the original translation, which I find funny because then they will immediately condemn the KJV despite reading a version of the D-R which is heavily dependent on it.

Nothing funny about it. The Challoner verson has been approved by the Church. The KJV has not, and when it comes to Scripture, approval by the Church matters far more than literary merit. Not everything in the KJV is wrong, but since it's unapproved, the average layman won't know what's correct and what isn't, and so the Church prohibits it.

But here's the thing.  The Church no longer "forbids" certain books from being read, it seems the Church is more concerned not that one reads wrong material, but that they shouldn't get the wrong ideas presented in it.

If it's not sinful for a faithful Catholic to read Darwin's Origin of the Species and not deviate from his belief in the account of Genesis, then neither should a Catholic feel the same towards the KJV.  As long as the translation of the KJV doesn't deviate from the teaching of the Church, I don't see harm in reading the KJV either for literature or scholarly work.

But yes, the KJV is not an "official" Bible of the Church and thus cannot be treated as a Catholic Bible, but I don't think it ceases to practically be a Bible if it has the deuterocanonical books.  The closest you can get to a KJV version and it be official would be Douai-Rheims or the Protestant-based RSV-CE.
Reply
#77
(03-08-2021, 11:23 AM)austenbosten Wrote: But here's the thing.  The Church no longer "forbids" certain books from being read, it seems the Church is more concerned not that one reads wrong material, but that they shouldn't get the wrong ideas presented in it.

It does, even if there's no longer a particular list. The Index retains its moral force, since falsehood is against the natural law, and there's a very real danger of Catholics reading Protestant Bibles and wrongly interpreting them, or questioning the faith ("full of grace" and "a virgin shall conceive" are a couple examples concerning our Lady; there's also 'elders' vs 'priests' in some of the Epistles, and many more). Maybe it's not a sin for someone who knows his faith to look up a passage in the KJV or another version to see how the Protestants translate it, but as a version for general Scripture reading, Catholics shouldn't be encouraged to read non-approved versions. The Church gave us the Bible, not the other way around, and it's the Church, not Scripture, which is 'the pillar and ground of the truth'. The KJV might be good literature, but there's nothing beautiful about heresy, and the KJV was written to promote heresy.
[-] The following 3 users Like Paul's post:
  • ChairmanJoeAintMyPresident, jovan66102, SeeTheLight
Reply
#78
(03-08-2021, 11:23 AM)austenbosten Wrote: The Church no longer "forbids" certain books from being read

The Church no longer forbids eating meat on Fridays outside of Lent, if one lives in the United States.

But many of us decide to keep the custom of abstinence on every Friday, not out of nostalgia, but because we acknowledge that we are not inherently holier than people who lived a hundred years ago. We need the penance just as much as they did--or even more.

It's not a leap to follow the same logic regarding heretical literature. I'm no holier or smarter than the people who lived 100 years ago, who were forbidden from reading heretical literature.
Reply
#79
(03-08-2021, 11:53 AM)Paul Wrote:
(03-08-2021, 11:23 AM)austenbosten Wrote: But here's the thing.  The Church no longer "forbids" certain books from being read, it seems the Church is more concerned not that one reads wrong material, but that they shouldn't get the wrong ideas presented in it.

It does, even if there's no longer a particular list. The Index retains its moral force, since falsehood is against the natural law, and there's a very real danger of Catholics reading Protestant Bibles and wrongly interpreting them, or questioning the faith ("full of grace" and "a virgin shall conceive" are a couple examples concerning our Lady; there's also 'elders' vs 'priests' in some of the Epistles, and many more). Maybe it's not a sin for someone who knows his faith to look up a passage in the KJV or another version to see how the Protestants translate it, but as a version for general Scripture reading, Catholics shouldn't be encouraged to read non-approved versions. The Church gave us the Bible, not the other way around, and it's the Church, not Scripture, which is 'the pillar and ground of the truth'. The KJV might be good literature, but there's nothing beautiful about heresy, and the KJV was written to promote heresy.
This may be well outside the scope of this thread, but your last sentence begs, for me, this question:  What is it in the KJV (and by extension, the NKJV?) that is heretical that is not in the DR?  I honestly don't know and ask purely out of my ignorance--not trying to troll or argue.  Also, how do we know that it "was written to promote heresy"?  

Thanks!!
“But all will be well, and all will be well, and every kind of thing will be well.” ~Julian of Norwich

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug."~Mark Knopfler (?)

"No matter who you are somebody thinks you're a heretic. Wear it like a badge of honor........... :LOL:"~Silouan

The fact that I "like" a post is not necessarily an endorsement or approval of its content.
Reply
#80
(03-08-2021, 12:55 PM)J Michael Wrote: This may be well outside the scope of this thread, but your last sentence begs, for me, this question:  What is it in the KJV (and by extension, the NKJV?) that is heretical that is not in the DR?  I honestly don't know and ask purely out of my ignorance--not trying to troll or argue.  Also, how do we know that it "was written to promote heresy"?  

Thanks!!

This page lists a whole bunch of attacks on the Blessed Virgin, the priesthood, hell, etc. I'm sure there's more.

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/scri...ersion.htm
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)