Jerome's Corruptions in the Vulgate

[Aloysius]

in the 3rd century there remained very old manuscripts of the scriptures (NT I mean). Jerome became the official translator in Rome and as such had those available to him.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 23 2005, 12:27 PM']RESPONSE:

I'm just comparing and contrasting the verses found in the  on-line Vulgate and the New American Bible and the New Revised Standard version.
[right][snapback]655704[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
You are comparing them with the Douay-Rheims, not the Vulgate. The Jerome Vulgate was not the one declared free of error either. It had been revised since the time of Jerome.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Jul 23 2005, 11:39 AM']in the 3rd century there remained very old manuscripts of the scriptures (NT I mean).  Jerome became the official translator in Rome and as such had those available to him.
[right][snapback]655711[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

"The Dead Sea Scrolls were written in Hebrew. The books of Tobit, Leviticus, and Job were written in Aramaic. They have found a few manuscripts that were written in Greek. All of the books of the Old Testament, except Esther, Nehemiah, and some of the minor prophets, have been discovered in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The group who created the Dead Sea Scrolls were Essenes"

These, then, would probably be considerably older than the manuscripts Jerome used. Hence modern translations may reflect older texts than Jerome used. These don't have the corruptions Jerome added.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Jul 23 2005, 11:39 AM']in the 3rd century there remained very old manuscripts of the scriptures (NT I mean).  Jerome became the official translator in Rome and as such had those available to him.
[right][snapback]655711[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

And regarding the dating of the New Testament manuscripts, there is this:

"In the 30's and 60's of the twentieth century a number of other, very important manuscripts have become available. We owe this to the efforts of two wealthy book collectors, Chester Beatty and Martin Bodmer. These manuscripts are of a special class for two reasons. They are written on papyrus and date from well before the fourth century. The earliest papyrus manuscripts come very close to the time when the New Testament was written. Of course, manuscripts on papyrus were known before, but these dated from a much later period and tended to be rather fragmentary. For almost all New Testament books we now have manuscripts earlier than the fourth century."

[Aloysius]

but then the same thing goes to go back to whether the 77 translators of the Septuagint had older manuscripts than the dead sea scrolls... which they very likely did.

It's really hard, if not impossible, to show beyond reasonable doubt anything in regards to these translations. you really cannot know unless you've personally seen an original manuscript, but those don't exist anymore.

without faith in the Roman Catholic Church you cannot hope to believe in any specific translation of the Bible. There simply does not exist the correct manuscripts to efficiently prove anything about the original manuscripts.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 23 2005, 01:19 PM']RESPONSE:

And regarding the dating of the New Testament manuscripts, there is this:

"In the 30's and 60's of the twentieth century a number of other, very important manuscripts have become available. We owe this to the efforts of two wealthy book collectors, Chester Beatty and Martin Bodmer. These manuscripts are of a special class for two reasons. They are written on papyrus and date from well before the fourth century. The earliest papyrus manuscripts come very close to the time when the New Testament was written. Of course, manuscripts on papyrus were known before, but these dated from a much later period and tended to be rather fragmentary. For almost all New Testament books we now have manuscripts earlier than the fourth century."
[right][snapback]655749[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
so did Jerome... Jerome had manuscripts from before the 3rd century, very very likely before the 2nd century as those were housed in Rome during the time.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='thedude' date='Jul 23 2005, 12:12 PM']You are comparing them with the Douay-Rheims, not the Vulgate.  The Jerome Vulgate was not the one declared free of error either.  It had been revised since the time of Jerome.
[right][snapback]655738[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

(1) Vatican 1, Session 3, Chaper 2: The complete books of the old and the new Testament with all their parts, as they are listed in the decree of the said council and as they are found in the old Latin Vulgate edition, are to be received as sacred and canonical.

(2) Preface in Tan Books' 1989 Edition

"The Douay-Rheims Bible is a scrupulously faithful translation into English of the Latin Vulgate Bible which St. Jerome (342-420) translated into Latin from the original languages. The Vulgate quickly became the Bible universally used in the Latin Rite (by far the largest rite of the Catholic Church). "

So you are arguing that someone other than Jerome interpolated the Vulgate???

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 23 2005, 01:29 PM']RESPONSE:

(1) Vatican 1, Session 3, Chaper 2: The complete books of the old and the new Testament with all their parts, as they are listed in the decree of the said council and as they are found in the old Latin Vulgate edition, are to be received as sacred and canonical.

(2) Preface in Tan Books' 1989 Edition

"The Douay-Rheims Bible is a scrupulously faithful translation into English of the Latin Vulgate Bible which St. Jerome (342-420) translated into Latin from the original languages. The Vulgate quickly became the Bible universally used in the Latin Rite (by far the largest rite of the Catholic Church). "

So you are arguing that someone other than Jerome interpolated the Vulgate???
[right][snapback]655759[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
The books translated in the Vulgate were canonical and the translation was widely used. I never said otherwise. Timeline:
1. Jerome translated the Vulgate
2. Scholars after him edited his translation
3. The Church declares the revised Vulgate free of error

The Douay-Rheims, despite being a good translation, was never declared free of error. TAN Books is an American publisher, not the infallible Magisterium.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='thedude' date='Jul 23 2005, 12:43 PM']The books translated in the Vulgate were canonical and the translation was widely used.  I never said otherwise.  Timeline:
1. Jerome translated the Vulgate
2. Scholars after him edited his translation
3. The Church declares the revised Vulgate free of error

The Douay-Rheims, despite being a good translation, was never declared free of error.  TAN Books is an American publisher, not the infallible Magisterium.
[right][snapback]655776[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

I believe that the Church declared the old Latin Vulgate free from error. The TAN edition claims to be a "scrupulously translation into English of the Latin Vulgate."

Are you trying to claim that the TAN edition introduced the errors I pointed out, and these were not in the Vulgate approved by Vatican I, Session 3, Chapter 2 quoted above?

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 23 2005, 01:54 PM']RESPONSE:

I believe that the Church declared the old Latin Vulgate free from error. The TAN edition claims to be a "scrupulously translation into English of the Latin Vulgate."

Are you trying to claim that the TAN edition introduced the errors I pointed out, and these were not in the Vulgate approved by Vatican I, Session 3, Chapter 2 quoted above?
[right][snapback]655793[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
The Clementine Vulgate was the one declared free of error. It's predecessor was the Sistine Vulgate. They were the product of the Council of Trent's recommendation that the Vulgate be revised. Jerome himself produced three different versions of the Vulgate.

The original Douay-Rheims was translated from the Jerome Vulgate, not the Clementine Vulgate (the Clementine Vulgate didn't exist yet). The Douay-Rheims itself was revised in 1700's, and is significantly different from the original (which a modern English speaker would have a hard time reading). This revised version was not a retranslation, Bishop Challoner merely changed the archaic language into modern English and compared it with the original Greek and Hebrew.
This is the Douay-Rheims you are reading, and it was not translated from the Clementine Vulgate that is "free from error."

TAN didn't introduce any errors, it just published the pre-existing Challoner Revision of the Douay-Rheims.

Edited July 23, 2005 by thedude

[LittleLes]

[quote name='thedude' date='Jul 23 2005, 03:36 PM']The Clementine Vulgate was the one declared free of error.  It's predecessor was the Sistine Vulgate.  They were the product of the Council of Trent's recommendation that the Vulgate be revised.  Jerome himself produced three different versions of the Vulgate.

The original Douay-Rheims was translated from the Jerome Vulgate, not the Clementine Vulgate (the Clementine Vulgate didn't exist yet).  The Douay-Rheims itself was revised in 1700's, and is significantly different from the original (which a modern English speaker would have a hard time reading).  This revised version was not a retranslation, Bishop Challoner merely changed the archaic language into modern English and compared it with the original Greek and Hebrew.
This is the Douay-Rheims you are reading, and it was not translated from the Clementine Vulgate that is "free from error."

TAN didn't introduce any errors, it just published the pre-existing Challoner Revision of the Douay-Rheims.
[right][snapback]655956[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


RESPONSE:

Always a delight to watch you folks get into the "infallibility" mode when error is proved to exist. The TAN edition has a 1859 (before the 1869 Vatican Council) and a 1989 preface. The book hasn't changed. I believe it has the same imprimatur. So this was the recognized Catholic bible during the First Vatican Council.

But "infallibly" it contains Jeromes' interpolations just like the on-line version does now, since corrected in the New American Bible and the New Revised Standard Version .

If you recall, I made no claim of infallibility. You raised that issue. I only pointed out that error exists. Which was proven. This is demonstrated by comparing the Douay Rheims Vulgate with the NAB and NRSV (made from the earliest available tests in the original languages). Please note that he NAB contains an imprimatur, and I've been told that the NRSV, although non -Catholic, has been granted one too.

So I'll sum it up simply. The Vulgate contains mistranslations introduced for doctrinal reasons. Simple enough?

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 23 2005, 08:56 PM']RESPONSE:

Always a delight to watch you folks get into the "infallibility" mode when error is proved to exist. The TAN edition has a 1859 (before the 1869 Vatican Council) and a 1989 preface. The book hasn't changed. I believe it has the same imprimatur. So this was the recognized Catholic bible during the First Vatican Council.

But "infallibly" it contains Jeromes' interpolations just like the on-line version does now, since corrected in the New American Bible and the New Revised Standard Version .

If you recall, I made no claim of infallibility. You raised that issue. I only pointed out that error exists.  Which was proven. This is demonstrated by comparing the Douay Rheims Vulgate with the NAB and NRSV  (made from the  earliest available tests in the original languages). Please note that he NAB contains an imprimatur, and I've been told that the NRSV, although non -Catholic, has been granted one too.

So I'll sum it up simply. The Vulgate contains mistranslations introduced for doctrinal reasons. Simple enough?
[right][snapback]656128[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
It was not the "recognized" Bible, as if the whole universal church revolves around the English language. Again, imprimaturs don't mean everything. [b]It is a fact that the DR was translated from a Vulgate other than the Clementine[/b]. [b]The only Bible approved by Vatican I was the Clementine Vulgate[/b]. The Vatican I council had nothing to do with the Douay-Rheims. You can't even read the Clementine Vulgate and there is no English translation of it. Your whole case is pointless, as the Douay-Rheims Challoner Revision is not an infallible text.
This topic is closed as far as I'm concerned, as your arguements have been thoroughly shown to have no basis, unless you can prove to me that the Clementine Vulgate has an error.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='thedude' date='Jul 23 2005, 09:29 PM']It was not the "recognized" Bible, as if the whole universal church revolves around the English language.  Again, imprimaturs don't mean everything.  [b]It is a fact that the DR was translated from a Vulgate other than the Clementine[/b].  [b]The only Bible approved by Vatican I was the Clementine Vulgate[/b].  The Vatican I council had nothing to do with the Douay-Rheims.  You can't even read the Clementine Vulgate and there is no English translation of it.  Your whole case is pointless, as the Douay-Rheims Challoner Revision is not an infallible text.
This topic is closed as far as I'm concerned, as your arguements have been thoroughly shown to have no basis, unless you can prove to me that the Clementine Vulgate has an error.
[right][snapback]656208[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


RESPONSE:

You argument continues to be beside the point. Are you claiming that Jerome's interpolation of Tobias does not exist in his original Vulgate?

I have presented three errors in Jerome's Vulgate (actually the English translation of the Vulgate). That proves the point. Sorry, Dude

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 23 2005, 10:43 PM']RESPONSE:

You argument continues to be beside the point. Are you claiming that Jerome's interpolation of Tobias does not exist in his original Vulgate?

I have presented three errors in Jerome's Vulgate (actually the English translation of the Vulgate). That proves the point. Sorry, Dude
[right][snapback]656231[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Even if the point is proven, it has no point. I think we all couldn't care less if Jerome errantly translated the Vulgate. It was not declared free from error by the Church, I don't see why it matters.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 23 2005, 05:34 AM']Jerome has poor Tobias pray for three nights before consumating his marriage to support Jerome's view of the exclusively procreative purpose for sex. Translating from the original Heberew texts, both the New American Bible and the New Revised Standard Version have dropped Jerome's interpolation, and Tobias consumates his marriage on the first night saying Tob 8:6 'It is not good for the man to be alone."  Jerome omited this passage! 
[right][snapback]655532[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Well, if you were getting married to a woman who had a track record of having her husbands die on their wedding nights before getting the chance to consummate their marriage, wouldn't you be a little hesitant, too?????