Posted on 09/22/2013 6:08:10 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Heresy straight from the pit of hell.
All the manuscripts have mistakes—if they had one that they could be sure had every letter exactly as it was first written by the author of that book they would use it, but each surviving manuscript is the product of repeated recopying and the copyists inevitably made mistakes in their work. The same problem exists for the texts of all the other ancient authors—Homer, Plato, Cicero, etc. The editors do the best they can to restore the original text but at times they cannot be sure how the text originally read.
Likely you have in mind John 1:1c which the NWT renders “...the Word was a god..”
Did someone forget a /sarcasm tag?
The Revised English Bible is an update to the New English Bible. Like it, it does a ‘thought for thought’ translation, which often borders on a paraphrase. I liked the NEB, but sometimes felt a need to double check what it said.
I’d go with the NASB for a detailed study, or the NLB for reading 1 Corinthians, for example, in one sitting.
“Vulgate — from where do you think you got your Bibles?
Douay Rheims”
Well, not from the Vulgate. The last major translation into English from it was the Wycliffe Bible.
And the modern DR is the revision made around 1750, which took the KJV and adjusted passages to make it agree with Catholic theology.
Do you actually know what Bible was printed on the Gutenberg press?
It was the Catholic Bible.
You may want to re-check facts.
RE: Likely you have in mind John 1:1c which the NWT renders “...the Word was a god..”
Yes, is that accurate translation?
The NLT is my favorite translation just to read.
Do you actually know what Bible was printed on the Gutenberg press?
It was the Catholic Bible.
You may want to re-check facts.
My facts are not wrong. The first and ONLY major translation into English of the Vulgate was Wycliffe’s, which was brutally suppressed by the Catholic Church in England.
The DR version sold today is the revision made in the 1700s, largely a minor rewording of the KJV to make the KJV agree with Catholic theology.
“Much of the text of the 1582/1610 bible, however, employed a densely latinate vocabulary, to the extent of being in places unreadable; and consequently this translation was replaced by a revision undertaken by bishop Richard Challoner; the New Testament in three editions 1749, 1750, and 1752; the Old Testament (minus the Vulgate apocrypha), in 1750. Although retaining the title Douay–Rheims Bible, the Challoner revision was in fact a new version, tending to take as its base text the King James Bible [4] rigorously checked and extensively adjusted for improved readability and consistency with the Clementine edition of the Vulgate.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douay-Rheims_Bible
The Catholic Church bitterly opposed vernacular translations for hundreds of years. The rich were allowed Bibles, but the commoners were not.
Accurate? Yeah, I think so with the caveat that it is quite literal in translating the Greek.
“The Catholic Church bitterly opposed vernacular translations for hundreds of years. The rich were allowed Bibles, but the commoners were not.”
That’s completely false. First of all, commoners struggled to buy and produce Bibles simply because of the cost. The fact that most people could not read was also a huge problem in producing, buying and selling books. Second, the Church never “bitterly opposed vernacular translations for hundreds of years”. The particular churches in France and England opposed two translations - Wycliffe’s and the one used by Albigensians - because they were being used by heretics to spread heresy. Even then translations were allowed - they were just expected to be examined by the bishop or someone he appointed.
Also, I think we might have to be more careful in the future about assuming that Wycliffe translated the whole Bible. As Cardinal Gasquet wrote many years ago:
Passing now to the translation of the Bible itself, it will probably be a surprise to many to learn that only “the New Testament portion,” as Sir E. Maunde Thompson has pointed out, can be said even “probably” to be due “to the hand of Wyclif himself.” The rest it is tolerably certain owes nothing to his pen. Of the second, or revised version of the whole Scriptures, the same high authority says: “Wyclif himself, who above others would be conscious of defects, may have commenced the work of revision. He did not, however, live to see it accomplished.”1 So far, then, as Wyclif personally is concerned, the New Testament portion of the version, which goes under his name, is all that can be said to be even probably his work. The part taken by Wyclif’s immediate followers will be treated of later; but first it is well to understand precisely upon what evidence even the probability of Wyclif’s having had anything to do with the translation of the New Testament is based.
1 Thompson, ul sup. p. xix. Blunt, Plain Account nf the English Bible (pp. 17-19) says: ‘’ There is scarcely any contemporary evidence, except that of his bitterest opponent, that Wyclife was really the author of this translation, but there can be no doubt that tradition is to be believed when it associates his name with it. . . . The popular idea of Wyclife sitting alone in his study at Lutterworth, and making a complete new translation of the whole Bible with his own hands is one of those many popular ideals which will not stand the test of historical inquiry.”
End paste
I don’t know off hand if the modern literature directly contradicts what Thompson said above.
I like the NABRE too (the 2011 NAB). They did a very good job with the Old Testament. Now they’re revising the New Testament. It will take 8 to 10 years. Anyway I really like the revised OT. The Psalms are great (taken from the Vulgate no less!).
If you ever want to buy a hardcopy NABRE this is probably one of the top three out there: http://www.firesidebibles.com/ShopBibles/StudyBibles/LargePrintBibles/Product-The-NEW-Catholic-Answer-Bible-Librosario-NABRE-Burgundy-LARGE-PRINT_2649.aspx
I love my Kindle version. I can make the print large and bright and hyperlink to the notes. I make my own notes and highlights.
The Catholic Church DID oppose vernacular translations, as I’ve shown you before. And I never claimed Wycliffe translated the entire Bible himself, but that translation IS known as the Wycliffe translation - as you know.
Owing to lack of culture among the Germanic and Romanic peoples, there was for a long time no thought of restricting access to the Bible there. Translations of Biblical books into German began only in the Carolingian period and were not originally intended for the laity. Nevertheless the people were anxious to have the divine service and the Scripture lessons read in the vernacular. John VIII in 880 permitted, after the reading of the Latin gospel, a translation into Slavonic; but Gregory VII, in a letter to Duke Vratislav of Bohemia in 1080 characterized the custom as unwise, bold, and forbidden (Epist., vii, 11; P. Jaff;, BRG, ii, 392 sqq.). This was a formal prohibition, not of Bible reading in general, but of divine service in the vernacular.
With the appearance, in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, of the Albigenses and Waldenses, who appealed to the Bible in all their disputes with the Church, the hierarchy was furnished with a reason for shutting up the Word of God. The Synod of Toulouse in 1229 forbade the laity to have in their possession any copy of the books of the Old and the New Testament except the Psalter and
86
such other portions as are contained in the Breviary or the Hours of the Blessed Mary. “We most strictly forbid these works in the vulgar tongue” (Harduin, Concilia, xii, 178; Mansi, Concilia, xxiii, 194). The Synod of Tarragona (1234) ordered all vernacular versions to be brought to the bishop to be burned. James I renewed thin decision of the Tarragona synod in 1276. The synod held there in 1317 under Archbishop Ximenes prohibited to Beghards, Beguines, and tertiaries of the Franciscans the possession of theological books in the vernacular (Mansi, Concilia, xxv, 627). The order of James I was renewed by later kings and confirmed by Paul II (1464-71). Ferdinand and Isabella (1474-1516) prohibited the translation of the Bible into the vernacular or the possession of such translations (F. H. Reusch, Index der verbotenen, i, Bonn, 1883, 44).
In England Wyclif’s Bible-translation caused the resolution passed by the third Synod of Oxford (1408): “No one shall henceforth of his own authority translate any text of Scripture into English; and no part of any such book or treatise composed in the time of John Wycliffe or later shall be read in public or private, under pain of excommunication” (Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, vi, 984). But Sir Thomas More states that he had himself seen old Bibles which were examined by the bishop and left in the hands of good Catholic laymen (Blunt, Reformation of the Church of England, 4th ed., London, 1878, i, 505). In Germany, Charles IV issued in 1369 an edict to four inquisitors against the translating and the reading of Scripture in the German language. This edict was caused by the operations of Beghards and Beguines. In 1485 and 1486, Berthold, archbishop of Mainz, issued an edict against the printing of religious books in German, giving among other reasons the singular one that the German language was unadapted to convey correctly religious ideas, and therefore they would be profaned. Berthold’s edict had some influence, but could not prevent the dissemination and publication of new editions of the Bible. Leaders in the Church sometimes recommended to the laity the reading of the Bible, and the Church kept silence officially as long as these efforts were not abused.
III. The Roman Catholic Church since the Reformation:
Luther’s translation of the Bible and its propagation could not but influence the Roman Catholic Church. Humanism, through such men as Erasmus, advocated the reading of the Bible and the necessity of making it accessible by translations; but it was felt that Luther’s translation must be offset by one prepared in the interest of the Church. Such editions were Emser’s of 1527, and the Dietenberg Bible of 1534. The Church of Rome silently tolerated these translations.
1. Action by the Council of Trent.
At last the Council of Trent took the matter in hand, and in its fourth session (Apr. 18, 1546) adopted the Decretum de editione et usu librorum sacrorum, which enacted the following: “This synod ordains and decrees that henceforth sacred Scripture, and especially the aforesaid old and vulgate edition, be printed in the most correct manner possible; and that it shall not be lawful for any one to print, or cause to be printed, any books whatever on sacred matters without the name of the author; or in future to sell them, or even to possess them, unless they shall have been first examined and approved of by the ordinary.” When the question of the translation of the Bible into the vernacular came up, Bishop Acqui of Piedmont and Cardinal Pacheco advocated its prohibition. This was strongly opposed by Cardinal Madruzzi, who claimed that “not the translations but the professors of Hebrew and Greek are the cause of the confusion in Germany; a prohibition would produce the worst impression in Germany.” As no agreement could be had, the council appointed an index-commission to report to the pope, who was to give an authoritative decision.
2. Rules of Various Popes.
The first index published by a pope (Paul IV), in 1559, prohibited under the title of Biblia prohibita a number of Latin editions as well as the publication and possession of translations of the Bible in German, French, Spanish, Italian, English, or Dutch, without the permission of the sacred office of the Roman Inquisition (Reusch, ut sup., i, 264). In 1584 Pius IV published the index prepared by the commission mentioned above. Herein ten rules are laid down, of which the fourth reads thus: “Inasmuch as it is manifest from experience that if the Holy Bible, translated into the vulgar tongue, be indiscriminately allowed to every one, the rashness of men will cause more evil than good to arise from it, it is, on this point, referred to the judgment of the bishops or inquisitors, who may, by the advice of the priest or confessor, permit the reading of the Bible translated into the vulgar tongue by Catholic authors, to those persons whose faith and piety they apprehend will be augmented and not injured by it; and this permission must be had in writing. But if any shall have the presumption to read or possess it without such permission, he shall not receive absolution until he have first delivered up such Bible to the ordinary.” Regulations for booksellers follow, and then: “Regulars shall neither read nor purchase such Bibles without special license from their superiors.” Sixtus V substituted in 1590 twenty-two new rules for the ten of Pius IV. Clement VIII abolished in 1596 the rules of Sixtus, but added a “remark” to the fourth rule given above, which particularly restores the enactment of Paul IV. The right of the bishops, which the fourth rule implies, is abolished by the “remark,” and the bishop may grant a dispensation only when especially authorized by the pope and the Inquisition (Reusch, ut sup., i, 333). Benedict XIV enlarged, in 1757, the fourth rule thus: “If such Bible-versions in the vernacular are approved by the apostolic see or are edited with annotations derived from the holy fathers of the Church or from learned and Catholic men, they are permitted.” This modification of the fourth rule was abolished by Gregory XVI in pursuance of an admonition of the index-congregation, Jan. 7, 1836, “which calls attention to the fact that according to the decree of 1757 only such versions in the vernacular are to be permitted as have been approved by the apostolic see or are edited with annotations,” but insistence is placed on all those particulars enjoined by the fourth rule of the index and afterward by Clement VIII (Reusch, ut sup., ii, 852).
3. Rules and Practice in Different Countries.
In England the reading of the Bible was made by Henry VIII (1530) to depend upon the permission of the superiors. Tyndale’s version, printed before 1535, was prohibited. In 1534 the Canterbury convocation passed a resolution asking the king to have the Bible translated and to permit its reading. A folio copy of Coverdale’s translation was put into every church for the benefit of the faithful, and fastened with a chain. In Spain the Inquisitor-General de Valdes published in 1551 the index of Louvain of 1550, which prohibits “Bibles (New and Old Testaments) in the Spanish or other vernacular” (Reusch, ut sup., i, 133). This prohibition was abolished in 1778. The Lisbon index of 1824 in Portugal prohibited quoting in the vernacular in any book passages from the Bible. In Italy the members of the order of the Jesuits were in 1596 permitted to use a Catholic Italian translation of the Gospel-lessons. In France the Sorbonne declared, Aug. 26,1525, that a French translation of the Bible or of single books must be regarded as dangerous under conditions then present; extant versions were better suppressed than tolerated. In the following year, 1526, it prohibited the translation of the entire Bible, but permitted the translation of single books with proper annotations. The indexes of the Sorbonne, which by royal edict were binding, after 1544 contained the statement: “How dangerous it is to allow the reading of the Bible in the vernacular to unlearned people and those not piously or humbly disposed (of whom there are many in our times) may be seen from the Waldensians, Albigenses, and Poor Men of Lyons, who have thereby lapsed into error and have led many into the same condition. Considering the nature of men, the translation of the Bible into the vernacular must in the present be regarded therefore as dangerous and pernicious” (Reusch, ut sup., i, 151). ...
http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/encyc/encyc02/htm/iv.v.lxi.htm
“The Catholic Church DID oppose vernacular translations, as I’ve shown you before.”
Nope. The particular churches opposed translations by heretics - and as far as I know that happened twice: 1) in England for Wycliffe’s translation and 2) with the Albigensian used translation.
And citing Schaff no longer makes sense when we know better now. Read Andrew Gow, for instance:
“The Bible in the Germanic Languages (Middle Ages),” in: The New Cambridge History of the Bible vol. II, eds. E. Ann Matter and Richard Marsden. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011 (forthcoming; 7,500 words).
“The Contested History of a Book: The German Bible of the Later Middle Ages and Reformation in Legend, Ideology, and Scholarship,” in: The Journal of Hebrew Scripture 9,13 (2009), 1-37. www.arts.ualberta.ca/JHS/abstracts-articles.html#A115 (16,700 words)
“Challenging the Protestant Paradigm. Bible Reading in Lay and Urban Contexts of the Later Middle Ages.” in: Thomas Heffernan, ed., Scripture and Pluralism. The Study of the Bible in the Religiously Plural Worlds of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. Leiden: Brill, 2005
And what you posted from Schaff does not say vernacular Bibles could not be produced. It merely says they had to have the permission of the proper authority.
I have the NABRE on a Kindle as well. My Kindle, however, is older and not as adaptable as newer models. Still, it works for me. I really do like paper Bibles, however.
Thanks for the reminder....I’ve used it before and just now realized that they had an app for my phone. I have another bible app on my phone but I like this one because I can check out different versions on the fly.
I love the NKJV. In my opinion they succeeded in preserving most of the beautiful language of the King James, which has been such a treasure to the English-speaking world, while fixing some of the obvious problems with that version, and losing the archaic verb forms and such like.
And Thomas Nelson Company’s notes are first rate.
But if folks want to explore many different versions, they’re only a click away.
http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/
It says what it says, and anyone can read for themselves what the Catholic Church did and why.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.