/christianity/ - Christian Theology

>>5610

why don't you go a bit further with Douay-Rheims ?

KJV had even version published specifically for slaves, so i would try to go a bit down the road.

Douay is not as simple english as KJV, but it gets easier by time.

>The Whole Revised and Diligently Compared with the Latin Vulgate by Bishop Richard Challoner A.D. 1749-1752 Holy Bible, Douay-Rheims.

>The First Part Of The Old Testament - First Published by the English College at Douay A.D. 1609 & 1610

>The Second Part Of The Old Testament - First Published by the English College at Douay A.D. 1609 & 1610

>The New Testament - First Published by the English College at Rheims A.D. 1582

Here you go frendo:

https://archive.org/download/TheHolyBibleDouay-rheimsTranslationChallonerRevision1749-1752/DouayRheimsOtPart1.pdf

https://archive.org/download/TheHolyBibleDouay-rheimsTranslationChallonerRevision1749-1752/DouayRheimsOtPart2.pdf

https://archive.org/download/TheHolyBibleDouay-rheimsTranslationChallonerRevision1749-1752/DouayRheimsNt.pdf

>>5661

>That's not further, that's a giant step backwards

tell me more about this opinion.

>not the most reliable greek and hebrew manuscripts.

that is your opinion.

>the roman church believes exactly this and forbade for cnturies anyone from reading a Bible in their tongue without special permission from daddy. This translation only exists because the arguments of the reformers won out

anything to back this up with?

i'll just past here the reason for Vulgate translation from the Douay-Rheims itself.

There is more text on corruptions in greek translations (interited by KJV), but that text is not possible to digitize, so perhaps later.

—–

NOVV to give thee also intelligence in particular, most gentle Reader, of such thinges as it behoueth thee specially to knovv concerning our Translation: Vve translate the old vulgar Latin text, not the common Greeke text, for these causes.

1. It is so auncient, that it vvas vsed in the Church of God aboue 1300 yeres agoe, as appeareth by the fathers of those times.

2. It is that (by the common receiued opinion and by al probabilitie) vvhich S. Hierom aftervvard corrected according to the Greeke, by the appointment of Damasus then Pope, as he maketh mention in his preface before the foure Euangelistes, vnto the said Damasus: and ’in Catalogo in fine,’ and ‘ep. 102.’

3. Consequently it is the same vvhich S. Augustine so commendeth and allovveth in an Epistle to S. Hierom.

4. It is that, vvhich for the most part euer since hath been vsed in the Churches seruice, expounded in sermons, alleaged and interpreted in the Commentaries and vvritings of the auncient fathers of the Latin Church.

5. The holy Councel of Trent, for these and many other important considerations, hath declared and defined this onely of al other latin translations, to be authentical, and so onely to be vsed and taken in publike lessons, disputations, preachings, and expositions, and that no man presume vpon any pretence to reiect or refuse the same.

6. It is the grauest, sincerest, of greatest maiestie, least partialitie, as being vvithout al respect of controuersies and contentions, specially these of our time, as appeareth by those places vvhich Erasmus and others at this day translate much more to the aduantage of the Catholike cause.

7. It is so exact and precise according to the Greeke, both the phrase and the word, that delicate Heretikes therfore reprehend it of rudenes. And that it follovveth the Greeke far more exactly then the Protestants translations, beside infinite other places, we appeale to these.

Tit. 3,14. ‘Curent bonis operibus praeesse.’

‘proissasthai.’ Engl. bib. 1577, ‘to mainteine good vvorks.’ and Hebr. 10, 20. ’Viam nobis initiauit,’ ‘enekainisen.’ English Bib. ‘he prepared.’ So in these vvordes, ‘Iustificationes,’

‘Traditiones,’ ‘Idola’ &c. In al vvhich they come not neere the Greeke, but auoid it of purpose.

8. The Aduersaries them selues, namely Beza, preferre it before al the rest. (Inpraefat. no. Test an. 1556.) And againe he saith, that the old Interpreter translated very religiously. (Annot. in 1. Luc. v. 1.)

9. In the rest, there is such diuersitie and dissension, and no end of reprehending one an other, and translating euery man according to his fantasie, that Luther said, If the vvorld should stand any long time, vve must receiue againe (which he thought absurd) the Decrees of Councels, for preseruing the vnitie of faith, because of so diuers interpretations of the Scripture. And Beza (in the place aboue mentioned) noteth the itching ambition of his fellovv-translators, that had much rather disagree and dissent from the best, then seeme them selues to haue said or vvritten nothing. And Bezas translation it self, being so esteemed in our countrie, that the Geneua English Testaments be translated according to the same, yet sometime goeth so vvide from the Greeke, and from the meaning of the holy Ghost, that them selues which protest to translate it, dare not folow it.

For example, Luc. 3,36. They haue put these wordes, ‘The sonne of Cainan,’ which he wittingly and wilfully left out: and (Act. 1,14.) they say, ‘Vvith the vvomen,’ agreably to the vulgar Latin: where he saith, ‘Cum vxoribus,’ ‘vvith their vviues.’

>>5664

cont..

10. It is not onely better then al other Latin translations, but then the Greeke text it self, in those places where they disagree.

The proofe hereof is euident, because most of the auncient Heretikes were Grecians, & therfore the Scriptures in Greeke were more corrupted by them, as the auncient fathers often complaine. Tertullian noteth the Greeke text which is at this day (1 Cor.

15,47) to be an old corruption of Marcion the Heretike, and the truth to be as in our vulgar latin,

‘Secundus homo de caelo caelestis,’ ’The second man from heauen heauenly.’ So reade other auncient fathers, and Erasmus thinketh it must needes be so, and Caluin him self folovveth in ’Instit. li. 2. c. 13.

parag. 2.’ Againe S. Hierom noteth that the Greeke text (1 Cor. 7, 33) which is at this day, is not the

‘Apostolical veritie’ or the true text of the Apostle: but that which is in the vulgar Latin, ’Qui cum vxore est, solicitus est quae sunt mundi, quomodo placeat vxori, & diuisus est.’ ’He that is vvith a vvife, is careful of vvorldly things, hovv he may please his vvife, and is deuided or distracted.’ The Ecclesiastical historie called the Tripartite, noteth the Greeke text that now is (1 Io. 4, 3) to be an old corruption of the auncient Greeke copies, by the

Nestorian Heretikes, & the true reading to be as in our vulgar Latin, ‘Omnis spiritus qui soluit IESVM, Ex Deo non est.’ ’Euery spirit that dissolueth IESVS, is not of God:’ and Beza confesseth that Socrates in his Ecclesiastical historie readeth so in the Greeke.

But the proofe is more preganant out of the Aduersaires them selues. They forsake the Greeke text as corrupted, and translate according to the vulgar Latin, namely Beza and his scholers the English translatours of the Bible, in these places.

Hebr. chap. 9. vers. 1. saying, ’The first couenant,’

for that vvhich is in the Greeke. ‘The first tabernacle.’ vvhere they put, ‘couenant,’ not as of the text, but in an other letter, as to be vnderstood, according to the vulgar Latin, vvhich most sincerely leaueth it out altogether, saying, ’Habuit quidem & prius iustificationes &c.’ ‘The former also in deede had iustifications &c.’ Againe, Ro. 11, vers. 21.

They translate not according to the Greek text,

’Tempori seruientes,’ ‘seruing the time,’ vvhich Beza

sayth must needes be a corruption: but according to the vulgar Latin, ‘Domino seruientes,’ ‘seruing our Lord.’ Againe, Apoc. 11, vers. 2. they translate not the Greeke text, ‘Atrium quod intra templum est,’

’the court vvhich is vvithin the temple:’ but cleane contrarie, according to the vulgar Latin, vvhich Beza saith is the true reading, ’Atrium quod est foris templum,’ ‘the court vvhich is vvithout the temple.’

Onely in this last place, one English Bible of the yere 1562, folovveth the errour of the Greeke. Againe, 2

Tim. 23 vers. 14. they adde, ‘but,’ more then is in the Greeke, to make the sense more commodious and easie, according as it is in the vulgar Latin. Againe, Ia. 5, 12. they leaue the Greeke, and folovv the vulgar Latin, saying, ‘lest you fall into condemnation.’ “I doubt not (saith Beza) but this is the true and sincere reading, and I suspect the corruption in the Greeke came thus &c.” It vvere infinite to set dovvne al such places, vvhere the Aduersaries (specially Beza) folovv the old vulgar Latin and the Greeke copie agreable therevnto, condemning the Greeke text that novv is, of corruption.

>>5668

>That's not an opinion, maybe you misunderstand me.

yes, i misunderstood.

sorry.

i have few versions of DR and all come from around the same year - 16th, 17th century.

some of them is not possible to digitize easily.

i'm not aware of DR translation made in 20th century.

i've also tried reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wycliffe's_Bible, but that's far too incomprehensible for me, yet. learning latin would be probably faster than to understand the translated meaning.

>>5670

>Either way, you're doing yourself a disservice by using it. Reading a translation of a Latin translation is inherently worse than reading a direct to English translation;

as it is a matter of opinion, i don't think so. DR is translation from latin compared with hebrew and greek sources.

>The translators justified their preference for the Vulgate in their Preface, pointing to accumulated corruptions within the original language manuscripts available in that era, and asserting that Jerome would have had access to better manuscripts in the original tongues that had not survived.

it also contains translations of rejected books, which i do enjoy:

>Several unrevised books of the Vetus Latina also commonly became included in the Vulgate; these are 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah; while 3 Esdras in Vulgate manuscripts witnesses a wholly different (and possibly earlier) translation of the Greek than that found in Vetus Latina manuscripts. Medieval Vulgate bibles might further include the Prayer of Manasses, 4 Esdras, the Epistle to the Laodiceans and Psalm 151. Jerome himself translated all books of the Jewish Bible from the Hebrew (having separately translated the book of Psalms from the Greek Hexapla Septuagint); and further translated the books of Tobias and Judith from Aramaic, the additions to the book of Esther from the Common Septuagint and the additions to the book of Daniel from the Greek of Theodotion.

i also found this deleted passage here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douay%E2%80%93Rheims_Bible. so it's not anything specific to DR:

>>the roman church believes exactly this and forbade for cnturies anyone from reading a Bible in their tongue without special permission from daddy.

>This adds to More and Gardiner the opposite argument, that previous versions in standard English had improperly imputed clear meanings for obscure passages in the Greek source text where the Latin Vulgate had often tended to rather render the Greek literally, even to the extent of generating improper Latin constructions. In effect, the Rheims translators argue that, where the source text is ambiguous or obscure, then a faithful English translation should also be ambiguous or obscure, with the options for understanding the text discussed in a marginal note. Underlying this philosophy of translation (and unique to the original version of the Douay-Rheims for English Bibles) is the belief that the Bible is intentionally difficult to understand, and was never meant to be read, or understood, by the lay-person. The translators and Church at that time held that the sole purpose for the lay reading of Holy Scripture was to read those parts that were clearly understandable as examples of living a good life.

>so, that people must read them with licence of their spiritual superior, as in former times they were in like sort limited. such also of the Laitie, yea & of the meaner learned Clergie, as were permitted to read holie Scriptures, did not presume to inteprete hard places, nor high Mysteries, much lesse to dispute and contend, but leaving the discussion thereof to the more learned, searched rather and noted the godlie and imitable examples of good life and so learned more humilitie, obedience…

also interesting:

>The translators excluded the apocryphal Psalm 151, this unusual oversight given the otherwise "complete" nature of the book is explained in passing by the annotations to Psalm 150 that "S. Augustin in the conclusion of his … Sermons upon the Psalms, explicateth a mysterie in the number of an hundred and fieftie[.]" which again reflects the Catholic Hermetic philosophy of the translators and the College of Douay that the Bible contains mysteries that are hidden to the common man. This philosophy is most evident in the annotations such as the aforementioned annotation to Psalm 150 and on the annotations to the Psalms generally "For the whole Sacred Bible is a Sealed Booke, and not rightly understood til the seal, or lock be opened[.]"

i'm not here to argue about superiority of one over the other as i haven't done my decades of research into this.

i'm using more translations myself, as certain passages are really obscure, so it's good to have multitude of options.

>>5675

but there are good arguments why DR exists.

>Similarly, many advocates of Douay and King James-only views share the common dilemma that neither of the versions frequently cited are actually the translations in their original, archaic english forms. Douay's revision by Bishop Challoner was considered by some to be an even more significant update than the modern spellings seen in future copies of King James, though it did retain many of the customary renderings as mentioned.

i don't understand why would anyone voluntarily lock himself in, into single version of bible. it's like drinking milk from single vendor your whole life without experiencing a possible joy of another brand or a milk from farm directly. it's such a bullshit thinking i cannot withstand. putting your whole life into so called one true officially approved translation, because some corrupted meat said so. good luck.