importância da vulgata.pdf

8/13/2019 Importncia da Vulgata.pdf

1/130

2001 TAN Books and Publishers, Inc.All Rights Reserved


2/130

WHICH BIBLE

SHOULDYOU READ?

You shal l not add to th e wor d th at I speak to you , nei ther shal l you take awayf r om i t : keep t he commandmen ts of t he

L or d your God whi ch I command you. Deuteronomy 4:2



3/130



4/130

WHICH BIBLE

SHOULDYOU READ?

By

Thomas A. Nelson

TAN BOOKS AND PUBLISHERS, INC.Rockford, I llinois 61105

Ever y wor d of God i s f i r e tr i ed : he i s a buckl er to th em th at hope i n h im . Ad d not an y th i ng to h i s wor ds, l est th ou be r epr oved , and found a l i ar .

Proverbs 30:5-6



5/130

Copyright 2001 by Thomas A. Nelson.

ISBN 0-89555-689-8

Library of Congress Control No.: 00-134741

Printed and bound in the United States of Amer-ica.

TAN BOOKS AND PUBLISHERS, INC.P.O. Box 424

Rockford, I llinois 61105

2001


6/130

Dedicated toThe Blessed Virgin Mary,

full of grace,

Mother of fair love, and of fear, and

of knowledge, and of holy hope,

Who shall crush the head of Satan.



7/130



8/130

vii

Contents

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ixAbbreviations of the Bibles Used . . . . xivIntroduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv

Which Bible Should You Read?

The Importance of theL a t in Vu l ga te B i bl e . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

The Stature of the Vulgate andDouay-Rheims Bibles . . . . . . . . . . . 4

The Method of Translating Employed

in the New Bibles . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

Three Fundamental Mistakes . . . . . . . 101. Which Authoritative Original

To Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112. Incorrect Choice of Words . . . . . . 173. Interpreting Rather than

Translating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20Sample Problem Passages . . . . . . . . . 22She Shall Crush Thy Head . . . . . . 23I Am the Mother of Fair Love . . . . 28Wheresoever the Body Shall

Be . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Let All Your Things Be Donein Charity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Amen, Amen, I Say to You . . . . . . 37Being of One Mind One Towards

Another . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39



9/130

And the Gates of Hell Shall NotPrevail against I t . . . . . . . . . . . 43

How Shall This Be Done . . .? . . . 47J udas Betrayal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50Peace on Earth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53What Does I t Profit . . .? . . . . . . . 66Power to Be Made the Sons

of God . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

I Will Begin To Vomit Thee out ofMy Mouth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88A Synopsis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

Wh i ch B i bl e Shou l d You Read? viii


10/130

PREFACE

Wh i ch B i bl e shou l d you r ead?That is animportant question everyone should askhimself. For version differs from version ofSacred Scripture by so much that one hasto recognize that they cannot all be accu-

rateif indeed, logically speaking, any oneof them is. Therefore, which one should aperson choose to use for his own personalstudy of Gods Holy Word?

In order to shed some light on this ques-tion the reader is asked initially to considera most unusual letter that was mailedto this publisher in 1985, a letter whichdescribes one persons singular, prayerfulquest to discover that one Bible translationwhich is the best version to read in Eng-

lish. It was written by a nun who gave uspermission to reprint it, and it is givenhere i n toto , just as it came to us. I t isaddressed to the Publisher as a result ofher reading a promotional sales letter thecompany mailed out in 1985, which out-

lined briefly the chief reasons for employ-ing the traditional English Catholic Bible,called the Douay-Rhe ims . Here is herunusual story.

ix



11/130

A Testimony

October 20, 1985Dear Mr. Nelson:

Your Letter in regard to the Douay-Rheims Version of the Bible was absolutelyfascinating. And after I finished, I wishedthat I could read more. Have you thought

of doing a full length work on the subject?You write so beautifully.

But on the mystical side, I thought Imight share my own story with you:

I grew up in the Methodist Church, butwas hungry for a deeper spirituality, par-ticularly contemplative. In 1962 I studiedwith a Hindu guru and later also studiedother areas of Eastern contemplation. I wasfascinated with Eastern mysticism and con-templation and never would have thought

of leaving it. But J esus just scooped me uplike a little lamb about his shoulders, andI converted to Catholicism in 1972. So thatwas ten years in which I was immersed inNew Age circles and Eastern mysticism.(In fact, my guru gave me the name ofShiva Kumari, and I d had it changedlegally, which is why Cardinal OConnorleft it as it was when he pronounced myvows as a hermit nun.)

Wh i ch B i bl e Shou l d You Read? x


12/130

When I first converted to Catholicism 14years ago, I was so lost! I had no idea there

was such a thing as left wing and rightwing [in the Catholic Church]. I justwanted to learn the teachings of the Faith.But one priest said one thing; someone elsesaid the opposite; and I became terriblyconfused. So I turned back to prayer.

Then I went to bookstores, but since Ihad no concept of that which was orthodoxand that which was not, I bought booksindiscriminately and became even moreconfused! So I turned back to prayer.

Through prayer and continually throwingmyself upon the Lord, depending whollyupon Him, looking to Him in all my needand confusion, He has led me out of thedarkness into the L ight. I look back nowover those many years and am absolutelyamazed at how He has led me! But I thinkthe Douay-Rheims story is most awesome:

When I first converted and was goingfrom one Catholic bookstore to another, Ipicked up different versions of the Bible,

not having the foggiest notion as to whichwould be the best. I finally concluded thatthey must all be good, so I got copies ofeach. And I already had the K i ng J ames Version from my Protestant days.

Preface xi


13/130

(Im sitting here trying to think how I cancapsulize 20 years of spiritual growth and

transformation which enabled me to be ableto listen to the Lord on that mystical leveland allow Him to guide memost of it isgrace thoughall glory and honor to Him!)

What happened was odd indeedwhen Ipicked up the N ew Amer i can Ver si on , itwas dry like sawdust. There was no life init; I mean mystical life. (I m having such adifficult time verbalizing this, since it wasall interior guidance on a mystical level.)So I stopped trying to read the N ew Am er -

ican . Then I tried another version, and thewords literally swam on the page. I thoughtI might be suffering from some sort of eyestrain, so I stopped reading that version.

Finally, someone suggested the Douay-

Rhe ims . I d never even heard of such a

thing, but wrote down the words and wentimmediately to a bookstore that carried it.(I guess this was about 10 years ago.) Theminute I touched the Douay-Rhe ims , Iknew this was it! I stood there in the book-

store, turning it about in my hand (withoutever opening it) just feeling that wonderfulsensation of life which seemed to be cours-ing through it. (I ve never told this story to

Wh i ch B i bl e Shou l d You Read? xii


14/130

anyone! They would think I was completelyoff-the-wall!)

I got my Douay-Rhe ims home, and oh,what a happy day! I ve loved that book asthough it were not a book at all, becausethat sensation of life has never left it.Whenever I touch it, and certainly when Iread it, everything comes alive with Godslight, love and guidance.

A couple of years ago, a man said I oughtto read the St. J osephs version, and I saidI intended to stick to my Douay-Rheims with a tone that sounded as though I were

defending my best friendand I couldntgive any rational explanation as to why Ifelt that way. I never doubted that it wasthe hand of the Lord; its just that I hadntreally given it any thought until I read yourletter. Then all these incidents flooded backinto my memory, and I was struck withwonder!

God bless you,

Sister Shiva Kumari

Preface xiii


15/130

Abbreviations of the BibleVersions Used in this Tract

Catholic

DRB Douay-Rheims BibleNAB New American Bible

CRSV Catholic Revised Standard VersionJ B J erusalem Bible

Protestant

K J V K ing J ames VersionNKJ V New King J ames VersionNIV New International VersionNRSV New Revised Standard VersionNASV New American Standard VersionNEB New English Bible


16/130

INTRODUCTION

The present little book is an unabashedapologia* for the traditional Catholic Biblein English, called the Douay-Rheims . Thefirst edition of this present little workwas actually a sales letter promoting the

Douay-Rh eim s B i bl e by explaining to read-ers why the Douay-Rheims is the mostaccurate and most reliable version of theBible in English.

This version of Sacred Scripture wasfirst published in the New Testament atRheims in Northern France in 1582 and atDouay in Flanders (Northwestern France)in 1609-1610 in its entirety. (These werethe times of the penal laws in Englandunder Elizabeth I , when it was a capital

crime to practice the Catholic faith. Thus,the work of rendering into English a properBible translation had to be carried out onthe Continent.) It was later revised (1749-1751) by Bishop Richard Challoner (1691-1781), Coadjutor Roman Catholic Bishop of

London from 1741 and Vicar Apostolic from1758. A slight revision was made in 1859

*Apologia is used here in the sense of adefense.

xv



17/130

by Mgr. F. P. Kenrick, Archbishop of Balti-more, which is commonly used in the

United States, though other Douay-Rheims versions have been in use. The current edi-tion in print by TAN was issued in 1899 bythe J ohn Murphy Co. of Baltimore, Mary-land, under the official approbation of HisEminence, J ames Cardinal Gibbons, dated

September 1, 1899, wherein he stated: Wehereby approve of the publication byMessrs. J ohn Murphy Co. of the CatholicBible, which is an accurate reprint of theRheims and Douay edition with Dr. Chal-loners notes.

From the first edition of the Douay- Rhe ims B ib le in 1609-1610 until 1941,there was no other English Catholic Biblein use, and even until approximately 1960the readings from the pulpit in most

Catholic churches in the U.S. continued tobe from the Douay-Rhe ims because thereexisted a popular, large-print lectionary ofthe Epistles and Gospels for each Sundayof the year that was in common use in mostCatholic parishes in this country; it used

the Douay-Rheims translation. Therefore,one might say that the universal use of theDouay-Rhe ims Bib le lasted from BishopChalloners revisions in 1749-51 untilapproximately 1960, roughly some 210

Wh i ch B i bl e Shou l d You Read? xvi


18/130

years. But, if one were to begin from theoriginal issue date of the first edition of the

Douay-Rheims in 1610 until 1960, the timespan of the effective, universal life of thisversion is 350 years.

Thus, the on ly Catholic version of theBible in use in the English-speaking worldfor 330 years (c. 1610-1940) was the

Douay-Rheims , which continued to be usedfor pulpit readings for about 20 yearsmore. There was a hiatus of its availabil-ity for about 10 years, until 1971, whenthe Douay-Rhe ims was first issued by

TAN. Even during th is period (1960-1971),however, there were other English editionsof the Douay-Rheims available here andthere from older inventories.

The important point to consider fromthis brief historical sketch is that for 330

years (1610-1940), English-speaking Cath-olics had no oth er English Catholic Biblethan the Douay-Rheims , and therefore, ifthis version is not accurate, then all themany millions of Catholics who used itsince 1610as of this writing a time span

now of 390 yearshave been deceived intheir study of Scripture. They have not, ineffect, had an accurate version of GodsHoly Word. The Holy Ghost, in otherwords, had let them down, had failed them

In t roduct ion xvii


19/130

in their Scripture study; they have been, toa fairly large degree, deluded by a bad

bible.The above is also a correct line of rea-

soning if we compare the Douay-Rheims version with the three modern CatholicBibles currently in use, namely, The N ewAm er i can B i bl e (1970, which was partially

revised and reissued in 1986), The Cathol i c Revi sed Standar d Ver si on (1966, originallya Protestant Version dating from 1946 and1952) and the J er usa l em B i b le (1966). I fany one of these three translations of Scrip-ture is correct (and they all differ amongthemselves), then the Douay-Rheims issimply inaccurate. But , if the Douay- Rheims is accurate, then these newCatholic versions contain many inaccuratepassages and should not be used. A num-

ber of comparisons between the Douay- Rheims and these newer Catholic versionsshall be made further along in this work.

These comparisons shall also include sev-eral popular Protestant versions.

In this little tract we shall study in

depth 11 famous passages from the NewTestament and mention two from the OldTestament. The rationale for this approachin using mainly New Testament passagesis to eliminate any objections based on the

Wh i ch B i bl e Shou l d You Read? xviii


20/130

original Hebrew texts of the Old Testa-ment, the reasoning being this: I f the

translators of these new Bibles cannottranslate correctly even the extant origi-nal Greek text of the New Testamentforthe New Testament was written in thatlanguage*then how are we to trust themto translate accurately the ancient Hebrew

texts, which by reason of age and antiquityare far more arcane and often are far morepoetic and filled with double and tripleentendre?

Here a word needs to be said about theuse of Hebrew in the Old Testament of theBible. The ancient Hebrew in which mostof the Old Testament was written is anancient Semitic language that has comedown to us from time immemorial. Some

think Hebrew was the language spoken byman at the time of the multiplication oflanguages, caused by God as a curse onmankind because of mans trying to buildthe Tower of Babel. (Genesis 11:1-9).

In the course of the centuries, Hebrew

In t roduct ion xix

*I t has been commonly held that St. MatthewsGospel was written in Aramaic. However, nocopy of the Aramaic has survived. Current think-ing holds that it is not certain that he did not infact write his Gospel in Greek.


21/130

was discontinued as a spoken languageabout the time of the Babylonian Captivity

in the 6th century B.C. (599-536)when itwas superseded by Aramaic. Thereafter,Hebrew was only written. Nonetheless, theHebrew of the Old Testament texts dis-plays a great fixity over a number of cen-turies that is admirable and quite

unparalleled in most other languageswhich tend to mutate more. This relativestability of Hebrew was inspired, no doubt,by Almighty God to preserve the integrityof the Old Testaments original language.

As a result of Alexander the Greats 4th-century conquest (334-323 B.C.) of the landof I srael, Egypt and Mesopotamia, amongother areas, the spread of Greek influenceand language by the 3rd century B.C.caused Ptolemy I I Philadelphus, K ing of

Egypt (284-247 B.C.), to bring to Alexan-dria, Egypt, 72 Hebrew scholars to trans-late the Lawpresumably the Pent-ateuch, or first five books of the BibleintoGreek (284 B.C.). This version becameknown as the Septuagint (from the sev-

enty -two scholars) and is one of the basicversions of Scripture; the entire Greek textof Old Testament Scripture is presumednot to have been the work of the original72 men, but to have been completed during

Wh i ch B i bl e Shou l d You Read? xx


22/130

many following years. Nonetheless, theGreek of the Septuagintcalled ko ine (pro-

nounced ko inay )is the Greek spoken atthat time by the J ews of Alexandria, Egypt,and the Greek Septuagint text of the Old

Testament is one of the most venerable andaccurate texts of the Old Testament wehave.

Most of the Old Testaments 45 bookswere originally written in Hebrew, and itis generally thought all of the New Testa-ments 27 books were written in Greek,save for St. Matthews Gospel, which wasthought for many years to have been orig-inally written in Aramaic, though the Ara-maic text has been lost to history, even ifthis is so.

Approximately 150 A.D., a version of theentire Bible in Latin was assembled, called

the Ol d I ta l a (Vetus I ta l a ) . I t was in gen-eral use until St. J erome translated theBible into Latin (390-405), this latter beingcalled the L at in Vu l ga te , which was writtenin the vulgar or common Latin tongue.

This version soon superseded the Old I t al a

version and is now considered an august,sacred translation in its own right, havingreceived the approbation, not only of nearly16 centuries of continuous use, but also for-mally by the Council of Trent (1545-1563),

In t roduct ion xxi


23/130

that it is free from doctrinal error. (Seepage 4.) The Vulgate has served the WesternCatholic Church ever since and was usedexclusively until modern vernacular trans-lations began to appear in the 15th and16th centuries.

Wh i ch B i bl e Shou l d You Read? xxii

which means, as Pope Pius XI I has stated,


24/130

WHICH BIBLESHOULD YOU READ?

The Importance of theLatin Vulgate Bible

To begin, the Douay-Rhe ims Bib le isan absolutely faithful translation into Eng-lish of the La t i n Vu lga te B ib le , which

St. J erome (342-420) translated into Latinf r om th e or i gi n a l l anguages. The Vulgatequickly became the only Bible universallyused in the Western Church, or the LatinRite (by far the largest rite of the CatholicChurch, spread virtually worldwide). St.

J erome, who was one of the four GreatWestern Fathers of the Catholic Church,was a man raised up by God to translatethe Holy Bible into the common Latin ofhis day.

He was Greek-speaking from birth, andbeing an educated man, he also knewLatin perfectly, speaking it as we do Eng-lish; he also knew Hebrew and Aramaicnearly as well (he studied Hebrew, e.g.,

1



25/130

from approximately age 26 as a penance).He even learned Chaldaic just so he could

check the translation of the Book of Dan i el (the only biblical book written in that lan-guage), which he had commissioned some-one else to translate for him. He lived atBethlehem and was near enough to theRabbinical school at Caesarea-Philipi thathe could consult with one of the learnedRabbis, who agreed to help him with hisHebrewthough rendering such help wasactually forbidden in J ewish custom. Hebecame so good at translating Hebrew that

at the age of 70 or so he translated thebook of Tobias in one night. Besides beinga towering linguistic genius, he was also agreat Saint, and he had access to ancientHebrew and Greek manuscripts of the 2ndand 3rd centuries which have since perishedand are no longer available to scholars today.

St. J eromes translation, moreover, was(wherever possible) a careful, word-for-word rendering of the original texts intoLatin. To quote one writer, His sources

being both numerous and ancient, hisknowledge of the languages a living knowl-edge, his scholarship consummate, he wasa far better judge of the true shade ofmeaning of a particular word than any

Wh i ch B i bl e Shou l d You Read? 2


26/130

modern scholar . . . (Ronald D. Lambert,Exper imen t in Heresy , T r iumph Mag .,

March, 1968). Or, one might add, than anymodern scholar cou l d ever hope to be!

Truly, God raised up for the Church thisgreat, great man, that He might, throughhim, give us a faithful rendering of HisDivine Word into Latinwhich was, untilonly 200 years ago, the universal languageof all Western Christendom and which isstill today the official language of theCatholic Church. Latin, moreover, as withGreek, is still taught in most major colleges

and universities in the Western World,which makes the Vulga te easily accessibleto scholars throughout the world yet today.

St. J eromes La t i n Vu lga te B ib le hasbeen read and honored by the WesternChurch

for almost 1600 years ! I t was

declared by the Council of Trent (1545-1564) to be the official (literally authen-tic) version of the canonical Scriptures,that is, the Bible of the Catholic Church.Hear what that Sacred Council decreed:

Moreover, the same Holy Council . . .ordains and declares that the old LatinVulgate Edition, which, in use for so manyhundred years, has been approved by theChurch, be in public lectures, disputations,

I m por tan ce of th e L at i n V ul gate 3


27/130

sermons and expositions held as authentic,and that no one [may] dare or presume

under any pretext whatsoever to reject it.(Fourth Session, April 8, 1546).

As Pope Pius XI I has stated in his 1943encyclical letter On The Pr omot i on of B i b- l i ca l Stu d i es, this means that the Vulgate,interpreted in the sense in which theChurch has always understood it, is freefrom any error whatsoever in matters of faithand morals; so that, as the Church herselftestifies and affirms, it may be quotedsafely and without fear of error in disputa-

tions, in lectures and in preaching . . .(Par. 21). No other Biblenot even theN ew Vul gate , promulgated in 1979, and notyet available in Englishhas beenendorsed by the Church in this manner!

The Stature of theVulgateand Douay-RheimsBibles

The reason that the Douay-Rheims Bibleisso important is that it is the only English Bible

that is a faithful, word-for-word translation ofthe Latin Vulgate of St. J erome. Thisabsolute fidelity to the Vulgate hasalways been its claim, and no onedenies that it is so!The obvious conclu-



28/130

sion to be drawn from these basic facts isthat the D ou a y-R h ei m s B i b l e is there-

fore the best and safest translation ofthe Holy Bible into English!

Personally speaking, this writer has beenreading the Douay-Rheim s B i ble for over 30years and can attest that it literally bris-tles with meaning, that it is replete, verseafter verse, with wonderful shades andnuances of meaning, such that no humanbeing could possibly have written withoutbeing aided by Almighty Godand whichsubtleties the modern translators have

often translated out of their versions. Asingle phrasesometimes only a wordcan deliver a key insight to the personreading the Douay-Rheims . This writer hasnever experienced anything similar whilereading any other version. I n comparison,all other versions seem prosaic and flat.

This characteristic makes an extremelystrong argument by itself that the Douay- Rheims is an accurate translation of theBible as it existed in its original lan-

guageseven though the Douay-Rheims isin large part a translation of a translation(i.e., English from Latin). But the wonder-ful subtleties of the Douay-Rheims arealmost all lost in the other versions.

Statu r e of th e Vu l gate/ D ouay 5


29/130

Which Bible should you read? I treally devolves to this: I f God does not

guide the translation of the Bible, much ofits meaning can easily be lost in transla-tionwhich this writer believes has infact happened to the English versionsother than the Douay -Rhe ims. It is thefirm opinion of this writer that God hassafely guided St. J erome and the transla-tors of the Douay-Rheim s B i b le , for whichreason the latter is such a pithy transla-tion, and so pregnant and charged withmeaning at every turn. Comparable to the

exclamations directed at the chief priestsand Pharisees by the ministers sent toapprehend J esus, who had heard Our LordHimself: Never did man speak like thisman (John 7:46); this writer is convinced,from repeated, careful, studied reading ofthe Douay-Rheim s B i b le , that we can say,no human being, unaided by divine inspi-ration, could have written such a book asthe Douay-Rhe ims Bib le , something hecould never say of any other version he has

read. The Douay-Rheims Bible sponta-neously elicits from the human heart theexclamation: T h i s is Sacred Scripture!

St. J erome and the other ancient trans-lators rendered their translations of Scrip-



30/130

ture as much as possible in a word-for-wordor expression-for-expression manner from

the original manuscripts. They did not tryto interpret their own understanding i n t o the Bible and thereby translate for us what t h ey under stood the mean i ng to be, as themodern biblical translators often seem tohave done. (This practice is fatal to anaccurate translation of the Bible and inthis writers opinion is the primary reasonwhy there are so many versions of theBible.) Rather, the ancient translatorstranslated the texts exactly as they found

them and let the chips fall as they may.The Douay-Rheims Bib le , in its own

right, is j u st su ch a t r ansl a t i on into Eng-lisha word-for-word, you might say slav- i sh ly faithful translation of the Vulgate , theauthentic Bible of the Catholic Church (Itis the Council of Trent that used the wordauthentic.) But its translation was madeby comparing it also to the transcripts ofthe original languages (wherever this waspossible) and to the Greek Septuagint of

the Old Testament.Moreover, thousands of Catholic Saints

were raised on the L a t in Vu l ga te and theDouay-Rheim s B i b le . Our Catholic literaryheritage overflows with quotations from

Statu r e of th e Vu l gate/ D ouay 7


31/130

the Vulgate and the Douay-Rheims trans-lation. But in the new bibles, the familiar

wording of the Douay-Rheims is often gone,in some verses totallyand many timesalso the meaning!

Furthermore, the notes in the Douay- Rheim s B i b le are in total accord with thepronouncements of the Church on the truemeaning of the Scriptures. Th i s cannot be sai d of al l t he moder n bi bl es. (The Prefaceto the N ew Am er i can B i bl e (NAB, 70), e.g.,states that some of its collaborators werenot even Catholics!)

Without the Douay-Rheim s B i b le s beinguniversally available and used, our Cath-olic Scriptural traditions in English will belost to our children and grandchildren,as well as to future generations in theChurch!

Therefore, it is the considered opinion ofthis writer that, if one wants the true Wordof God in the English languageofficiallyguaranteed by the Catholic Churchhe orshe must go to the Douay-Rheim s B i b le .

The Method of TranslatingEmployed in the New Bibles

At this point, it is of paramount impor-



32/130

tance to explain the method of translatingthe Sacred Scriptures which the modern

Catholic translatorsfrom the evidence oftheir translationswould seem to haveemployed, a method which has resulted inrenderings of Scripture into such un fam i l - i a r language as to make a person some-times wonder whether or not he is actuallyreading the Bible.

For the purposes of this booklet, discus-sion of the modern Catholic versions of theBible will be confined to and refer specifi-cally to the three most widely used trans-

lations, viz., the N ew Amer i can B i bl e of1970 (which is used in the Catholic liturgyin America), and also occasionally of 1986(here referenced as NAB, 70 or NAB, 86) ;the Catholic Edition of the Revi sed St an -

dard Vers ion(CRSV, 66), and the

J er u sal em B i b l e of 1966 (J B, 66). But,because many Catholics are now using theN ew K i ng J ames Ver si on (NK J V, 85), theN ew I n t er nat i ona l Ver si on (NIV, 78), theN ew Revi sed Standar d Ver si on (NRSV, 89),

the New Amer ican Standard Vers ion (NASV, 77) or the New Eng l i sh B ib le (NEB, 76), these five will also be consid-ered.

M eth od of T r ansl at i ng th e N ew B i b les 9


33/130

Three Fundamental Mistakes

In researching this subject, the presentwriter soon concluded that the translatorsof the three modern Catholic bibles cur-rently most in useand indeed of all themodern translations reviewedhave madethree fundamental mistakes:

F i r s t , they have bypassed St.J eromes Latin Vulgate version ofScripture in favor of translating tran-scriptions of texts in the original lan-guages which are not considered astrustworthy by the translators of the orig-inal Douay-Rheim s B i b le as is the Vulga te .

Second , they have often employedword meanings for their translationswhich, though correct in some sense ofthe words, are often incorrect for the

particular use in which they occur inthe Bible.

T h i r d , and probably worst of all, themodern translators seem to have readthe original language versions of the

Bible, decided in their own mindswhat the meaning is, and translatedt h a t meaning into English, rather thanwhat the Bible actually says.

Let us explain the ramifications of these



34/130

three fundamental mistakes:

1. Which AuthoritativeOriginal To Use?

First, we do not possess a n y originalmanuscripts of a n y of the books of theHoly Bible.The passage of time and thedeterioration of materials have causedthese to be lost to us. Moreover, the textswe do have of the Hebrew and the Greekoriginal languages do not completely agreeamong themselves as well as do the texts

we have of the Latin Vulgate of St. J erome.Sometimes the question is raised: Why

translate from a translation (i.e., from theLatin Vulgate), rather than from the origi-nal Greek and Hebrew? This question wasalso raised in the 16th century when theDouay-Rheims translators (Fr. GregoryMartin and his assistants) first publishedthe Rheims New Testament. They gave tenreasons, ending up by stating that theLatin Vulgate is not onely better then al

other Latin translations, but then theGreeke text itselfe, in those places wherethey disagree. (Preface to the Rheim s N ewTestament , 1582). They state that both theHebrew and Greeke Editions are fouly cor-

Whi ch Au th or i ta t i ve Or i gi na l ? 11


35/130

rupted . . . since the Latin was truly trans-lated out of them, whiles they were more

pure; and that the same Latin hath beenfarre better conserved from corruptions.(Preface to the Douay Ol d Testamen t , 1609facsimile edition published by Gordon Win-rod, Our Saviors Church and Latin School,Gainesville, Mo., 1987).

What is the reason? There were alwaysfar more copies of the Vulgate made, and ithas therefore been much easier to detectcopyists errors. I t must be rememberedhere that printing from moveable type was

not invented until approximately the 1430sand not really employed very much untilthe 1440s, when J ohann Gutenbergprinted a calendar in 1448 and the firstBible at Mainz, Germany in the 1450s.Prior to that, the Bible, as with all books,had to be reproduced by handwriting.

Also, it was commonly believed by theFathers of the Church that the J ews didcorrupt the text of the Bible in order todestroy the arguments of the Christians,

(cf. Hugh Pope, O.P., Eng. Ver si ons of t he B ib le , 1952, p. 655, n. 15). They would havedone this in order to disclaim Our Lord asthe Messias. For example, in the Old Tes-tament prophet Aggeus, 2:8 (Haggai 2:7 in



36/130

the new bibles), we find a prophecy aboutOur Lord as the Messias which reads, And

I will move all nations: AND THE DESIREDOF ALL NATIONS SHALL COME: and I willfill this house with glory: saith the Lord ofhosts. (DRB, emphasis in original).

Let us now hear what the N ew Amer i can B i b l e has: I will shake all the nations, andthe treasures of all the nations will comein, And I will fill this house with glory,says the LORD of hosts. (NAB, 70 & 86).

The two other Catholic versions have basi-cally the same translation, as also do the

NEB, the NASV and the NRSV; only theNIV agrees with the Douay-Rheims ; theNKJ V almost does.

The Desired of all nations refers toChrist. I will move all the nations (DRB)would seem to refer to Gods grace movingthem to be disposed to accept Christ whenHe comes to them through the CatholicChurch. On the other hand, and the trea-sures of all the nations shall come in(NAB, 70 & 86) appears to indicate there

will be a worldwide empire that shakesdown the nations to extort from themtheir wealth. Thus, a far different meaningis rendered from what the Douay-Rheims B i b l e has.



37/130

I n any case, for modern scholars to goback to the transcriptions of the Hebrew

and Greek, in which various books of theBible were originally written, and maketranslations from these (not always reli-able) transcriptions that are fundamentallydifferent in hundreds of d i f ferent casesfrom the translation rendered by St.

J erome nearly 1600 years ago (and faith-fully translated by the Douay-Rheims ) is todemand of any sensible Catholic today toreject their work completely and out ofhandand for this reason only. For if a

Catholic does not reject these newtranslations of the Bible, then hereally has rejected the nearly 1600years of Catholic biblical interpreta-tion, based on the L a t i n V u l ga t e B i b l e ,and has accepted in their stead one or allof the many truncated, ersatz biblical ren-derings of the modern Bible translators.

Rather, and far more sensibly, Catholicsshould reject these questionable newbibles (bibles that are seemingly always

being updated and corrected in ever newereditions) and return to the traditionaltranslation of Scripture based on St.

J erome, which in English is the Douay- Rheim s B i b le .



38/130

One should remember the status of St.J eromes translation of the Bible for the

Catholic Church: His translation is, forworking purposes, in effect, THEBIBLE as far as the Church is con-cerned, for it was the only Bible in uni-versal use by the Latin Rite of the CatholicChurch for some 1600 years. And i t i s s t i l l t h e on l y au t hen t i c B i bl e of t h e Cat hol i c Chu rch for use in sermons, lectures andtheological discussions, as declared by theCouncil of Trent! (The Church has not clar-ified yet what is the status of N ew Vu l gate ,

completed in 1979, which has not yet beentranslated into English.)

I f the new bibles are correct in the count-less ways they differ from St. J eromestranslation, then his translation is terriblyflawed; therefore, the Latin Rite of theRoman Catholic Church simply has not hadthe Bible properly translated for more than1600 years! But such a situation is sim-ply preposterous in the True Church ofGod, which is guided by the Holy

Ghost. For Scripture, with Tradition, formsone of the two sources of the Catholic Faith.

Therefore, on the basis of concluding thatthe Catholic Church must have alwayshad the correct translation of Scripture



39/130

its being Gods Church, and Sacred Scrip-ture being, with Tradition, one of the two

sources of the supernatural True Faiththen we are forced to concede that St.J eromes translation is accurate (espe-cially as far as doctrine goescf. the quotefrom Pius XI I on page 4), and that the newtranslations that differ from it so pro-foundly are notat least to the extent thatthey do differ from it! One simply cannotescape this conclusion.

What is of paramount importance con-cerning the translation of the original

Hebrew and Greek is that St. J erome hadfar more texts of the original language ver-sions to work with than scholars havetoday. I t is commonly acknowledged thathe had many texts that simply no longerexist.

Of particular importance was the Hexa- p l a, assembled by Origen (c.185c.254), asix-column Bible dating from about 240A.D., giving the existing two Hebrew andfour Greek versions of Scripture; it was a

work kept at Caesarea in Palestine, nearwhere St. J erome worked on the Bible.

Moreover, St. J erome was a fairlywealthy man, and he collected texts andpaid copyists to copy them for him as often



40/130

as he came across anything worthwhile. Hesimply had far more to work with than

scholars have today, as far as texts go. Fur-ther, he was 1600 years closer to the orig-inal languages than modern scholars. Andhe was bilingual, speaking Greek frombirth and Latin from his youth.

2. Incorrect Choice of Words

Second, regarding the meanings ofthe words used by the original biblicalwriters, who is going to be a better judge

of the exact meanings of the variousHebrew and Greek words employed inScripture: St. J erome, who was Greek-speaking from birth, who knew Latin aswell as most of us know English, and whoknew Hebrew almost as well, who was alsoa towering linguistic genius, a great Saint,a holy Doctor of the Church, and one of thefour Great Western Fathers of the Church;or, is it going to be the modern scholars,who have to learn their ancient Latin,

Greek and Hebrew from grammars and lex-icons, from dictionaries and from professorswho (presumably) do not speak the lan-guage natively either and who themselveshave thus had to learn itand so forth,

I n cor r ect Choi ce of Wor ds 17


41/130

back through time, during the course ofsome 1600 years? The far safer bet is St.

J erome!On th i s second poi n t , concerning which

meaning of the original words of Scriptureto use in making translations, one shouldconsider momentarily the English wordgrace and its various meanings. I t canmean supernatural life, unmerited divineassistance, a prayer said before meals,an instance of human kindness, pardon,a reprieve, to be in ones favor, ease andsuppleness of movement, a charming

trait, a title of address (e.g., YourGrace), etc. The same problem exists in theancient languages, Greek and Hebrew, inwhich the Bible was originally written.

The translators of the modern Catholicbibles in question would seem to be choos-ing the wrong meaning to words in many,many instances. Granted, they generally dohave one of the correct meanings of a givenword in question, but have they chosen thecorrect meaning of the word in every

instance? From the results of their trans-lations, it would seem notand this can beseen merely by the crazy way the passagesoften read when they get done.

Again, consider the word gracein



42/130

Greek, charis. As one conservative Catholicprofessor of Hebrew, Greek and Latin told

this author, by the time St. Paul wrote, theGreek word char is already had its specifi-cally Christian theological meaning ofgrace. And St. J erome corresponded to St.Pauls meaning by translating char i s intoLatin as gra t ia , which in English becomesgrace.

(Let us remember that the Septuagintthe Old Testament Bible in Greek, datingfrom c i rca 284 B.C.had been renderedinto that language some 300 years before

St. Paul wrote, and therefore the meaningsof the words St. Paul and the other New

Testament writers used in the originalGreek of the New Testament were alreadywell established in most cases.)

But the translators of theN ew Am er i can B i b l e , for example, render L u k e 1:28

which traditionally reads, Hail, full ofgrace, the Lord is with thee: blessedart thou among women (DRB)as,Rejoice, O highly favored daughter! . . .

(NAB, 70. The NAB, 86 has Hail, favoredone!).

I t does not take any particular men-tal acumen to distinguish the differencebetween being full of grace and highly

I n cor r ect Choi ce of Wor ds 19


43/130

favored. Favor or favored is one of themeanings for char is , but not the one

intended by St. Luke in Scripture. A per-son may be highly favored with any num-ber of talents and abilities, or with goodlooks or plenty of money, and so forth. Butdoes that mean he or she is therefore fullof grace? We understand Our Lady to befull of grace in the sense of beingabsolutely full of Gods divine life (Sancti-fying Grace), so that there is no sin in hersoul whatsoever. What a difference inmeanings!

3. Interpreting Rather thanTranslating

A n d t h i r d l y , concerning the methodof translating employed by the trans-lators of the modern Catholic Bibles,this writer believes it can be demonstratedclearly where they are mistaken; and th i s poi n t a l one br i ngs i n to quest i on the val ue of th ei r ent i r e wor k.

The ancient translators of the SacredScripture, by and large, did literal, word-for-word translations of the Bible. I t wastheir policy to be faithful to every wordand to every shade of meaning of every



44/130

wordused in the Bible. This included the72 Hebrew scholars who translated the Old

Testament into Greek at Alexandria,Egypt, about 284 B.C.; the translator(s) ofthe Old I t a l a (Vet u s I t al a ) Latin Bible ofabout 150 A.D.; and of course, St. J erome,who did the L a t i n Vu l ga te B i bl e and whofinished his work about 405 A.D. The sameis true of the original Douay-Rheims com-mission (1582-1610), of Bishop RichardChalloner (1748-1751), and of Mgr. Kenrick(1859).

However, the translators of the modern

Catholic biblesin the judgment of thiswriter, after reading their translations andcomparing them to the Douay-Rheims , theVu lga te and the Greek of the New Testa-mentare proceeding according to the fol-lowing method:

They read a text in the current tran-scriptions of the original languages,decide what THEY THINK it means,and then translate THEIR interpreta-tion into English!The result is that the

English is sometimes (not always!) easierto understand, but it is not necessarilywhat the Bible says; rather, it is THEIRINTERPRETATION AND THEIR UN-DERSTANDING OF WHAT THE BIBLE

I n t er pr et i ng Rather t han T r ansl a t i ng 21


45/130

SAYS! And often the difference from theVulgate and DRB, the traditional Catholic

versions, is glaring.

Sample Problem Passages

At this point let us consider some exam-ples of the devastating results to SacredScripture from these threewhat thiswriter believes to bemistakes of thetranslators of the modern Catholic editionsof the Bible. One should remember thatthese mistakes, as maintained here, are

1) the use of transcriptions fromancient texts that are questionableand that disagree with the L a t i n V u l - g a t e of St. J erome, 2) the wrongchoice of meanings of words in certainspecific cases (though these poorly chosenmeanings would be legitimate meaningswhen used in other contexts), and 3)translating their INTERPRETATIONof what the Bible means, as opposed totranslating what the Bible actually says.



46/130

She Shall Crush Thy Head . . .

InGenesis

3:15 (Douay-Rheim s B i b le

) weread Gods judgment against Lucifer for hispart in Original Sin, as well as Godsprophecy concerning him: I will putenmities between thee and the woman,and thy seed and her seed: she shall

crush thy head, and thou shalt lie inwait for her heel. (DRB).

All three modern Catholic translationsare fundamentally different from theDouay-Rheims , but all basically agree witheach other. First in order is the translationof the N ew Amer i can B i bl e , the one used inthe Catholic liturgy today:

I will put enmity between you and thewoman, and between your offspring and

hers; He will strike at your head, while youstrike at his heel. (NAB, 70 and 86). Thisrenders a very different meaning indeedfrom the Douay-Rheims version. Now readhow the other versions render this passage:

I will put enmity between you and thewoman, and between your seed and herseed; he shall bruise your head, and youshall bruise his heel. (CRSV, 66).

I will make you enemies of each other:

She Shal l Cr ush Thy H ead . . . 23


47/130

you and the woman, your offspring and heroffspring. I t will crush your head and you

will strike its heel. (J B, 66).I will put enmity between you and the

woman, between your brood and hers. They[note the plural] shall strike at your head,and you shall strike at their heel. (NEB,76).

And I will put enmity between you andthe woman, and between your offspringand hers; he will crush your head, and youwill strike his heel. (NIV, 78).

And I will put enmity between you and

the woman, and between your seed and herSeed; He shall bruise your head, and youshall bruise His heel. (NK J V, 85).

I will put enmity between you and thewoman, and between your offspring andhers; he will strike your head, and you willstrike his heel. (NRSV, 89).

And I will put enmity between you andthe woman, and between your seed andher seed. He shall bruise you on the head,and you shall bruise him on the heel.

(NASV, 77).

Note how the Douay-Rheims makes per-fect sense, but the others are confusing.(The words literally swim on the page.)



48/130

All of the English versions other than theDouay-Rheims translate this verse in a very

similar manner: The J B takes the pronounto be neuter, it (seemingly an indecisivecop-out), and the NEB takes it to beplural, referring to the womans brood.But most take the pronoun to be masculine,referring to Our Lord as the one to bruiseor crush the head of the serpent, ratherthan she, referring to Our Lady. Somemay think this a small difference, but infact, it is very great indeed. For, from thisprophecy in the Douay-Rheims comes a

longstanding Catholic tradition that towardthe End of Time the Blessed Virgin Marywill crush the head of Satan, after her devo-tees have promoted her honor and devotionand directed countless prayers for her inter-cession during a long period of time. Thisancient tradition, which is based on Gene-si s 3:15, is in danger of being relegated tothe scrap-heap if we accept these non-traditional translations.

Consider what Bl. Pius IX (Pope, 1846-

1878) wrote on this score in his bull Inef- f ab i l i s Deus , declaring the dogma of theImmaculate Conception of the Blessed Vir-gin Mary (December 8, 1854). After citingthe writings of the Fathers of the Church



49/130

and other learned writers, he concludes:Hence, just as Christ, the Mediator

between God and man, assumed humannature, blotted the handwriting of thedecree that stood against us, and fastenedit triumphantly to the cross, so the mostholy Virgin, united with Him by a mostintimate and indissoluble bond, was, withHim and through Him, eternally at enmitywith the evil serpent, and most completelytriumphed over him, and thus crushed hishead with her immaculate foot.

The Douay-Rhe ims , following the Vu l -

gate , is the only English Bible that trans-lates this passage with sh e shall crushand thou shalt lie in wait for her heel, thereference being to Blessed Virgin Marysultimately defeating the devil and his min-ions in a great spiritual battle, with thefinal victory being attributed to her inter-cession. Now this is exactly the traditionalCatholic translation of this passage. More-over, translated this way, the text makesperfect sense; translated the new way, it is

confusing! One should stop here to readthe passage again from the Douay-Rheims on page 23, paragraph 1, and see hownicely the meaning flows when it refers tothe woman in both clauses, plus how mean-



50/130

ingful the second clause is compared to thesecond clause in all the other translations.

In light of these new translations of Gen-esis 3:15, what is to become of this Catholictradition about the role of the Blessed Vir-gin Mary in defeating the devil?a tradi-tion reinforced, it might be added, by OurLadys apparition to St. Catherine Labourin 1831, wherein she gave us the MiraculousMedal, whose image presents her standingon the world and crushing the head of a ser-pent with her foot. The truth of this appari-tion is reinforced by the presence of St.

Catherines beautiful, incorrupt body in theChapel of the Daughters of Charity, at 140rue de Bac in Paris, of which order she wasa member. Hundreds of thousands of pil-grims visit this chapel every year to viewher body, which is on open display andwhich is a phenomenal, on-going testimonyto the truth of this apparitionand ulti-mately to the truth of the Catholic traditionthat she, the Blessed Mother, shall crushthe serpents head!

This prophecy of Genesis 3:15 is alsodepicted by millions of statues and picturesthroughout the world which represent thisprophesied event. Are we and our (at least)1600-year-old tradition wrong in this re-



51/130

gard, and are the modern biblical exegetesand translators right? Has the Church

been misguided on this important pointthese many centuries? Was the Holy Ghostasleep on the job and let this little trans-lation error slip by Him? Or, has AlmightyGod for His own good reasons allowed themodern translators to be led astray . . . andwith them the poor souls who have to siftfor Scriptures meaning through the tail-ings of their translations?

I Am the Mother of Fair Love . ..

Now, let us consider Ecclesiasticus 24:24-31 (Si rach in the new bibles), verses theChurch has used for centuries in herSacred Liturgy for the various feasts of OurLady at Mass. The most famous part is asfollows:

I am the mother of fair love, and of fear,and of knowledge, and of holy hope. In me

is all grace of the way and of the truth, inme is all hope of life and of virtue. Come over t o m e, al l ye t h at desi r e m e, and be f i l l ed w i th m y fr u i ts. For m y spi r i t i s sweet above honey and my inheri tance above



52/130

honey an d th e honeycom b. My memory isunto everlasting generations. They th at eat

m e, sha l l yet hu nger : and th ey th at d r i n k m e, sha l l yet th i r st . H e th at har keneth to m e, shal l not be con founded : and they th at work by me, sha l l not s in . They thatexplain me shall have life everlasting.(DRB).

Now, how do the other Catholic biblestranslate this passage? Well . . . you see. . . they do not exactly! Save for the J B,they leave out four verses entirely from

this passage (the non-italicized words)! Theitalicized part is included in the NAB (70and 86) and the CRSV (with differentwording for each version, of course); therest is omitted in the NAB 70 and 86 andin the CRSV. All together, Chapter 24 ofEccl esi ast i cus (S i r ach ) has some 16 fewerverses in the NAB (70 and 86) and 13fewer verses in the CRSV than the Vulga te and DRB! (The J B has the full 47.) Accord-ing to these modern translators, apparently

the Church for all these centuries waswrong for using these verses that, accord-ing to them, are not even part of authenticScripture! One is forced to ask himself,How much do they expect us to swallow

I Am the M oth er of Fai r L ove . . . 29


53/130

before we say, Enough already!One is reminded of the solemn decree of

the Council of Trent issued in 1546: I fanyone does not accept as sacred andcanonical the aforesaid [72] books in theirentirety and with all their parts, as theyhave been accustomed to be read in theCatholic Church and as they are containedin the old Latin Vulgate Edition, andknowingly and deliberately rejects theaforesaid traditions, let him be anathema.(Canons and Decrees of the Counci l of T ren t , Sess. IV, Decree concerning the

Canonical Scriptures, April 8, 1546).

Wheresoever the BodyShall Be . . .

A very unusual verse appears inMat thew 24:28, which occurs in the midstof Our Lords description and propheciesabout the consummation of the world.(This verse is in the Gospel reading for theLast Sunday after Pentecost in the Tradi-

tional Latin Rite Liturgy.) Our Lord hasbeen describing all the terrible things thatare to come to pass at that time, whenseemingly out of the blue appears thisincredible verse: Wheresoever the body



54/130

shall be, there shall the eagles also begathered together. (DRB). (Ma t t . 24:28).

What does it mean? Cast in the futuretense, it is a prophecy: body refers to: theEucharistic Body of Christ, which at theEnd of Time will not be found just every-where. For we know that Antichrist willtake away the Perpetual Sacrifice (cf.Danie l 8:11-14), and we know that theGreat Apostasy will have occurred that wasmentioned by St. Paul in 2 T hessal on i ans 2:3. Also, we know that Our Lord asked theApostles, But yet the Son of man, when he

cometh, shall he find, think you, faith onearth? (Lu ke 18:8), which would imply ananswer of No and that therefore the Masswould be very scarce. But where the Massi s found, where the Eucharistic Body ofChrist

i slocated, there shall the eagles,

the Saints of the Catholic Church, be gath-ered together, for these people aloneunderstand sp i r i t ua l l y , and in the eyes ofGod they soar above the rest of mankindlike eagles with sharp eyesight and a wide

perspective of the true meaning of humanexistence; whereas, most people, interestedonly in the things of this world, grovelabout on the ground, hindered by a spiri-tual myopiaif not indeed being totally

Wher esoever the Body Sh al l Be . . . 31


55/130

blind to the true meaning of mans exis-tence. (Such is also very much the gist of

St. Alphonsus Liguoris traditional analysisof this verse in Chapter 21 of Vi si ts to th e B l essed Sacr am en t . St. Alphonsus1696-1797was a Doctor of the Church.)

The eagle, moreover, feeds on livingflesh. And what did Our Lord say of HisEucharistic Body: My flesh is meatindeed (John 6:56); I am the livingbread which came down from Heaven(John 6:51); etc. Plus, the eagle is a warbird and the sign of the soldier. Now the

Catholic Church on earth is the ChurchMilitant, the Church fightingas soldiersof Christ.

All this meaning comes forth out of oneshort, compact verse of Scripture! And aperson can see from this one short verse

just how very rich, how poetic, how incred-ibly powerful the Bible can be, even in Eng-lish . . . when properly translated!

But now, how do the new bibles translatethis beautiful and consoling prophecy of

Our Lord? J ust consider the following:

Where the carcass lies, there the vul-tures gather. (NAB, 70).

Wherever the corpse is, there the vul-



56/130

tures will gather. (NAB, 86).Wherever the body is, there the eagles

will be gathered together. (CRSV, 66).Wherever the corpse is, there will the

vultures gather. (J B, 66).Wherever there is a carcass, there the

vultures will gather. (NIV, 78).Wherever the corpse is, there the vul-

tures will gather. (NRSV, 89).For wherever the carcass is, there the

eagles will be gathered together. (NK J V,85).

Wherever the corpse is, there the vul-

tures will gather. (NASV, 77).Wherever the corpse is, there the vul-

tures will gather. (NEB, 76).

Gone is the prophecy! Gone is the poetry!Gone the beautiful symbolism! Gone arethe consolation and the hope! And in theirplace? At best a trite little truism. Butwhen read in the context of Mat thew 24,these new translations, save for the CRSV,have no meaning at all. Worded in the tra-

ditional way, however, the verse is rich andredolent with meaning, as seen above.

Only the Catholic Edition of the RevisedS tand ar d Ver si on translates the passagecorrectly; whereas, all the others do not.

Wher esoever the Body Sh al l Be . . . 33


57/130

(However, the CRSV makes errors in otherpassages, as we shall observe further

along.)St. J eromes L at i n Vu l gat e translates

this verse: Ub icumque (Wherever) fue r i t (it will be) corpus (the body) i l l i c (there)congregabuntur (shall be gathered) et (also)aqu i lae (eagles). I t is pretty hard to mis-take aqu i lae ; it simply means eagles. TheGreek original says: hpou en (Where-soever) e (shall be) t (the) ptma (body),ekei (there) sunach thsontai (shall be gath-ered) hoi (the) aeto(eagles). Aetophros in

Greek, for example, means a standard-bearer, literally, the eagle-bearer, theone who carries the eagle (comparable toChristophros, Christ-bearer, from whichwe have the name Christopher).

Ancient armies would not have beencaught dead mounting a vulture on theirstandards. I f aetoi were vultures, theGreek-speaking St. J erome would surelyhave called them vultures. I f we todayknow what vultures are, you can be sure

St. J erome did! He was a man so eminenthe was almost elected Pope when hisfriend, Pope St. Damasus I (366-384), died.



58/130

Let All Your Things BeDone in Charity

But there are other instances as wellwhich show the glaring differences betweenthe Douay-Rh eim s Ver si on and the threemodern Catholic versions of the Bible.Consider the following:

The N ew Am er i can B i bl e , the Jerusalem B i b l e and the Cath ol i c Rev i sed Stan dar d Version (being new Catholic bibles) allsubstitute the word love for charity, forexample, in 1 Cor i n th i ans 16:14, St. Paulsays, Let all your things be done incharity. (DRB). Whereas, the otherssay,

Do everything with love . (NAB, 70).Your every act should be done with

love . (NAB, 86).Let all that you do be done in love .

(CRSV, 66).Let everything you do be done in love .

(J B, 66).

Let all t ha t you do be done with love .(NK J V, 85).Do everything in love . (NIV, 78).Let all that you do be done in love .

(NRSV, 89).

L et Al l . . . Be Done i n Char i ty 35


59/130

Let all that you do be done in love .(NASV, 77).

Let all you do be done in love. (NEB,76). (Emphasis added to all quotes above.)

In Latin, it reads: Omn i a (all [things])vestra (your) i n (in) char i ta te (charity) f ian t (let [them] be done). (L at i n Vu l ga te ). InGreek, it reads: Pnta (all things) hum on (your) en (in) agpe (charity) gi nst ho (let[them] be done). (L iddell-Scotts Lexicon of1889 gives love as the translation foragpe, but in the sense of esp. bro ther ly

l ove, cha r i t y ; th e l ove of God for man and of m an for God . N.T.Page 4). Therefore,charity best translates this type of love.

The Greek word for human love is ph i la,for sexual love is r os, but for divine loveit is

agpe; now, St. Paul used

agpe, which

St. J erome translated as char i tas, which inEnglish is char i t y . The Greek ph i l abecomes in Latin amor and in English love .Charity in the Catholic sense is divinelovelove of God for man, love of man for

God, and love of man for his fellow men,out of love for Godand charity, more-over, has a connotation of being temperedwith justice and truth; and when referringto man, it includes his being in the state of



60/130

Sanctifying Grace. The English word love,however, simply does not convey this fuller

meaning.One has to wonder how so many versions

of the Bible can all agree to be wrong onthe translation of this one common word inthe Biblebut a word denoting the mostimportant Christian virtue, namely char i ty .

Amen, Amen, I Say to You . . .

The Hebrew word amen has beenbrought over into Greek, into Latin and

into English, because there is simply noequivalent to it in any other language. I thas a meaning of solemnly calling thehearer to witness the truth of what isabout to be said, and in the New Testa-ment only Our Lord used it. The

Douay- Rh eim s Ver si on retains it, but the modernCatholic versions bend over backwards tot r ans la te it, although it is truly untrans-latable and is already a bona fide Englishword. Witness John 8:58:

Amen, amen I say to you, beforeAbraham was made, I am. (DRB). Nowconsider the three new Catholic versionsand the Protestant versions:

Amen , Amen , I Say t o You . . . 37


61/130

I solemnly declare it: before Abrahamcame to be, I AM. (NAB, 70).

Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abra-ham was, I am. (CRSV, 66).

I tell you most solemnly, before Abra-ham ever was, I Am. (J B, 66).

Most assuredly, I say to you, beforeAbraham was, I AM. (NK J V, 85).

I tell you the truth, . . . before Abrahamwas born, I am. (NIV, 78).

Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abra-ham was born, I am! (NASV, 77).

Very truly, I tell you, before Abraham

was, I am. (NRSV, 89).In very truth I tell you, before Abraham

was born, I am. (NEB, 76).

Amen, amen, I say to you has a powerthe other translations do not even ap-proach. (By the way, notice the powerfulcontrast in the Douay-Rhe ims Bib le between was made, regarding Abraham,and I am, regarding God; the other trans-lations miss this subtlety also. The Greek

genesthacomes from ggnomai and meansto come into being, according to L iddell-Scott, p. 164, and thus to be made, whichSt. J erome translates as f ieret (to come tobe), meaning literally, was made. That is



62/130

why the Douay-Rheims translates this verbas was made.

Now consider the 1986 version of theN ew Amer i can B i bl e : Amen, amen, I say toyou, before Abraham came to be, I AM.(NAB, 86). This new version is almostidentical to the Douay-Rhe ims , except totranslate genesthaas came to be, ratherthan was made. Apparently the N ewAm er i can B i bl e translators have been lis-tening to some criticism of their work.

Being of One Mind OneTowards Another

Now let us look at Romans 12:16 whereSt. Paul says, Being of one mind onetowards another. (DRB). The four newCatholic versions say,

Have the same attitude toward all.(NAB, 70).

Have the same regard for one another.(NAB, 86).

L ive in harmony with one another.(CRSV, 66).

Treat everyone with equal kindness.(J B, 66).

Bei ng of On e M i nd . . . 39


63/130

The five Protestant versions read asfollows:

Be of the same mind toward oneanother. (NK J V, 85).

L ive in harmony with one another.(NIV, 78).

L ive in harmony with one another.(NRSV, 89).

Be of the same mind toward oneanother. (NASV, 77).

Care as much about each other as aboutyourselves. (NEB, 76)

The N ew K i ng J ames Ver si on and the N ewAm er i can Stan dar d V er si on are compara-ble to the Douay-Rheims and the rest areidentical to each other.

The Greek is clearer than the Latin inthis verse and is easier to translate. TheLatin is very compressed and takes a goodknowledge of that language to see themeaning, which is much clearer in theoriginal Greek. The Vulgate reads: I d i p -

sum (The same thing) inv icem (mutually,reciprocally, one to another) sentientes (thinking, feeling). J ust three Latinwords! In Greek it reads: T (The) a u t (same) ei s (towards) al l -l ou s (one another)



64/130

ph r ono un tes (being of a mind, being like-minded).

Both the Greek original and the Latin ofSt. J erome use a participle (being mindedthe same, thinking the same), ratherthan the imperative (or commanding) formof the verb, which is used in all the Englishtranslations above, except the Douay- Rheims , which retains the participial formof the verb (being). This change from theparticiple to the imperative form of the verbis a pure invention on the part of the mod-ern translators. I f the original uses a par-

ticiple, the translation should also use it. I fone will look at the Greek transliterationgiven above, he will see that it matches vir-tually perfectly with the Douay-Rheims translation. This is an excellent example ofthe extreme precision with which theDouay-Rheim s B i ble is translatednot justfrom the L a ti n Vu l ga te alone, but from theGreek original as well. This verse is some-thing of a snarl to translate from the Latin,but the Douay-Rheims does it admirably,

retaining both the meaning and the word-ing of the Greek original.

The three Catholic translations are alldifferent! Is it the same book being trans-lated? There is a BIG difference between

Bei ng of On e M i nd . . . 41


65/130

our being of one mind one towardsanother and the other translations. T he

f i r st i s mu tua l , a fact clearly indicated inthe Greek original and in St. J eromesVulga te ; it pertains to the way Christiansare to behave toward each other, since weare one body in Christ. (Rom . 12:5).

Christians are enjoined by St. Paul inEphesians 4:3-6, to keep the un i t y of theSpirit . . . One body and on e spirit . . . inon e hope . . . One Lord, on e faith, on e bap-tism. One God and Father of all . . .(DRB). (Emphasis added). I n other words,

there is only One Body of Christ, only oneTrue Religion of Godthere cannot bemany. Therefore, the clear meaningimplied in Romans 12:16 is that t h er e i s on l y one T r ue Chu r ch ! And we Christiansshould be of one mind, one towardsanother because we are all of one belief,one philosophy and one theology, all mem-bers of the Mystical Body of Christ.

The Douay-Rhe ims translation here ex-presses the concept perfectly because it

translates the original Greek perfectly.From this short passage alone, one canbegin to understand the ramifications ofthese seemingly little changes made inthe modern English bibles.



66/130


67/130

. . . and the gates of Hades shall notoverpower it. (NASV, 77).

. . . and the powers of death shall neverconquer it. (NEB, 76).

Not one of these eight versions uses theword Hell, substituting instead, death,netherworld, underworld, or Hades;whereas, the Douay-Rheims Bib le usesHell without shame or apology. I f a trans-lation does not call Hell Hell, how ar e peopl e supposed to know the B i bl e i s sayi ng Hell?

The La t i n Vu lga te reads as follows: . . . t (and) por tae (gates) i n fe r i (of thelower world, or Hell) non (not) praevale- bun t (shall prevail) adversus (against) eam(it). In Greek it reads: . . . ka(and) plai (the gates)

hdou(of Hell, Hades)

o u(not)

katischsousin (shall prevail against) a u t es(it).

The question in this passage comes downto how to translate correctly the Greekword hdou (which means, Hell or Hades)

and the Latin in fer i (of the lower world,or Hell). Obviously, it is wrong to trans-late these two words as death, for inGreek the word for death is t hnatos, andin Latin mor s, m or t i s (death). I t is also



68/130

incorrect to use the word Hades, whichdepicts the state to which the souls of the

dead go in the conception of the Greeks andRomans of the pre-Christian era; andHades is definitely not an equivalent tothe Christian concept of Hell, which entailsa state of everlasting damnation, separa-tion from God forever, an unquenchablefire, and unimaginable torment at thehands of the devils.

Hades, the underworld, the netherworld,on the other hand, represent a state of gen-eral sorrow and sadness at not being alive

and at being separated from ones lovedones in the world. The idea of Hades wasindistinct in the minds of the pre-Christian(non-I sraelite) ancients, who had not yetreceived the revelation of Christ.

The Christian concept of Hell and thepre-Christian concept of Hades are vastlydifferent indeed, and whereas the Greekand Latin words for our Christian notionof Hell are the same as those which repre-sent the pre-Christian conception of the

afterlife in the lower world, their transla-tion has to be taken in the Christian con-ception of Hell, because they appear in theChristian, divinely inspired Scripture.Hdes (Vulg. i n fe rnus ) in the New Testa-

And the Gates of H el l . . . 45


69/130

ment always designates the Hell of thedamned. (Hell, Cath. Encyclopedia,

1910, Vol. VI I , p. 207). Therefore, the onlyway to translate these words from theGreek original and from the Latin is by theEnglish word Hell. It is Hell they referto and it is Hell they should becalled!

I t is a dreadful mistake and a terribledisservice for modern translators to useunderworld, netherworld, or Hades torepresent the Christian concept of Hellbecause Hades (etc.) is the meaning of the

word for the pre-Christian ancient peoples.And it is a travesty to call it death.Netherworld indeed! The Catholic notionof Hell reflected on even momentarily issufficient to put the fear of God into justabout anyone! Netherworld leaves oneunmoved. And the gates of hell shall notprevail against it is an open prophecy thatthe devils will try their utmost to destroyChrists Church, the vehicle of salvation forall mankind, but that they will fail. Yet all

this understanding is gone from the mod-ern translations of this passage. Any priestor bishop who can recommend these newbibles, knowing this type of glaring errorexists in them, will have to answer to Our



70/130

Lord for the souls he has thereby allowedto be deceived!

How Shall This Be Done . . .?

In Lu ke 1:34 we read, And Mary saidto the angel: How shall this be done,because I know not man? (DRB).

Shall be done in Greek is estai, a sim-ple future tensethe sentence reads: Ps(How) stai (shall be done) t ou to (this), epe(because) nd r a (man) o (not) ginsko (Iknow)? St. J erome in the L a t i n Vu l gat e

translates it, Quomodo (in what manner,how) f iet (shall be done) i s t ud (this), quo- n i am (because) v i r um (man) non (not)cognosco (I know). (In Biblical terminol-ogy, the verb to know can refer to theintimate relations between a man and awoman.)

Now watch what the modern linguisticmagicians do:

How can this be since I do not know

man? (NAB, 70).How can this be, since I have no rela-

tions with a man? (NAB, 86).But how can this come about, since I am

a virgin? (J B, 66).

H ow Shal l T h i s Be Done . . .? 47


71/130

How can this be, since I have no hus-band? (CRSV, 66). (Consider the absolute

silliness of this versionespecially today,when the illegitimacy rate in the U.S. isover fifty percent.)

Now let us consider the five Protestant ren-derings:

How can this be, since I am a virgin?(NASV, 77).

How will this be, Mary asked theAngel, since I am a virgin? (NIV, 78).

How can this be, since I am a virgin?(NRSV, 89).

How can this be, since I do not know aman? (NK J V, 85).

How can this be? said Mary; I am s t i l l a virgin. (NEB, 76, emphasis added).

Notice that changing How shall this bedone to How can this be makes Maryappear to doubt the Angels words as didZachary when told that his wife would bear

a son in her old age. (Luke 1:5-20). In fact,Scripture later records that St. Elizabethpraised Our Lady precisely because she d i dbelieve the Angel: And blessed art thouthat hast believed, because those things



72/130

shall be accomplished that were spoken tothee by the Lord. (Luke 1:45, DRB). Also

note that in the original Greek no men-tion is made about Marys being a virgin,let alone, s t i l l a virgin. The originalGreek simply says, I know not man,which means that she is a virgin and canimply that she plans to remain such.

This verse is another example of pureinvention on the part of the translators;introducing can for shall alters theentire tone of the verse. But the mostamazing aspect is that these new transla-

tions all ape one another in their error ofintroducing the word can with nothing inthe original Greek to warrant their devia-tion from what Scripture actually says here(not to mention their adding the wordsvirgin, still a virgin, etc.). Their con-trivances are an insult to a persons intel-ligence and a blasphemy against AlmightyGod in His Revealed Word. (After all, it isH i sWord, not theirs!)The New EnglishBible would go so far as to imply that Mary

planned some day to marry and have chil-dren; whereas, our Catholic Traditions saythat she had already made a vow of vir-ginity, and of f ic ia l Catholic Traditionteaches that she did in fact remain a virgin

H ow Shal l T h i s Be Done . . .? 49


73/130

all her life. What will become of ourCatholic traditions if they are implicitly

contradicted by the very Bible translationsauthorized by our bishops, for who wouldknow that these new renderings are oftenonly approx ima te translations, save onefamiliar with the original language?

J udas Betrayal

Let us now consider a brief passage fromthe arrest of J esus. When J udas and thecrowd came to apprehend J esus in the

Garden of Gethsemane, J esus asked J udasa question, as recorded in Mat thew 26:50.In the Cath ol i c Revi sed Standar d Ver si on it reads, Friend, why are you here?(CRSV, 66). In the N ew K i ng J ames Ver -

sionit goes, Friend, why have you come?

(NK J V, 85).But in the Vulgate it is simply: Amice

(Friend), ad (to) qu id (what) venist i (haveyou come)? In Greek it reads, H eta i r e (Companion, Friend), eph (to) h (what)

pr ei (are you come)? Eph is a form of ep,used here with the accusative case (a directobject); epwith the accusative has a dualmeaning. I t can mean to a place or state(To what have you come?), or for a pur-



74/130

pose (What have you come for?). Boththe L a t i n Vu l ga te and the Douay-Rheims

B ib le preserve this subtle ambiguity of theGreek, leaving the symbolic meaning also still presentas one can well imagine theinfinite intelligence of Our Lord instillinginto this question. But the other newCatholic translations and the NIV, NRSVand NASV make this verse into an imper-ative sentence.

Friend, do what you are here for! (NAB,70).

Friend, do what you have come for.(NAB, 86).

My Friend, do what you are here for.(J B, 66).

Friend, do what you came for. (NIV, 78).Friend, do what you are here to do.

(NRSV, 89).Friend, do what you have come for.

(NASV, 77).Friend, do what you are here to do.

(NEB, 76).

Not a one of these translations isrendering what Scripture says!Theyare all rewording this verse into either aprosaic question or an imperative sentence

J udas Betr ayal 51


75/130


76/130


77/130

praise:Glory to God in the highest; and on

earth, peace to men of good will.(DRB).

The ways this verse is translated in thevarious modern versions contain two exam-ples of typical problems the translators facewhen they depart from St. J eromes La t i n Vu l ga te B i b le . The first of these problemsis exemplified by the translation of thisverse in the original K ing J ames Version of1611, which translation is then repeated bythe NK J V, seemingly because this verse

the way the K J V rendered it is so famous.In both the K J V and NKJ V it reads:

Glory to God in the highest, and onearth peace, good will toward men.(K J V and NKJ V, emphasis added).

This translation conveys a fundamentallydifferent concept from that of the DRB andL a t i n Vu l ga te . The K J V and NK J V implythat there is now an open divine accord

and peace with mankind, whereas theDRB, reflecting the La t in Vu lga te ofSt. J erome, says, peace to men of goodwillwith the implication ofonly to menof good will.



78/130

Which is right? How did the K ing J amesCommission arrive at this translation?

(And is that sufficient reason for the NK J Vto retain it?) For the NK J V is the only ver-sion that does retain this translationamong the 10 versions compared here. (St.

J erome in his L at i n Vu l ga te obviously doesnot agree with this translation either.)

To answer these two questions, let usfirst consider the L at i n Vu l gate translationand then the edition of the original Greekavailable to us today:

In Latin, the words are verbatim the

same as in the DRB: Glor ia (Glory) i n (in)a l t i ss im is (the highest) Deo (to God), et(and) i n (on) te r ra (earth) pax (peace)homin ibus (to men) bonae (of good) vo lun- ta t is (will).

And in the Greek, they are again wordfor word the same: Dxa (Glory) en (in)hupsstoi s (the highest) The (to God) ka(and) ep (on) ges (earth) ei rne (peace) en(to) an t h r poi s (men) e udokas (of goodwill). (Cf. L iddell-Scott, e udoka, p. 324.)

The difference in translation in the K J Vand NK J V from the DRB and all othermodern translations cited here, plus in theL a t in Vu l ga te , comes down to the caseof

Peace on Ear th . . . 55


79/130

the Greek word e udokas, which is a pos-sessive (i.e., genitive) case form, as given

here. But some Greek texts have e udokasas e udoka, which is a nominative caseform, i.e., the case of the subject of a sen-tence. The K J V and NK J V are based onthis other Greek version. Therefore, theK J V and NK J V are considering e udokaeither an appositive of the subject of thesentence (i.e., a repeat), or the second halfof a compound subject: . . . peace, good willtoward men. The DRB translates e udokasas ofgood will, which is how St. J erome

translates it (bonae vol un tat i s ).However, one should note well that both

the K J V and NKJ V translate e udokas (i.e.,e udoka to them) as good wi l l . Thisagrees with the DRB, but it is in con-tradistinction to all the other moderntranslations compared here, other than theDRB. (This is an important point which weshall discuss later in this section.)

This discrepancy in the Greek text is anexample of the reason the Douay-Rheims

Bible translators adopted a policy of trust-ing St. J eromes Latin Vulgate over theGreek versions when there occurs a differ-ence in the ancient texts, because in theirwords, the Vulgate is more pure then the



80/130

Hebrew or Greeke now extant and thesame Latin hath bene farre better conserved

from corruptions. (Preface to the Douay Old Testament ). (This greater fidelity in the Vu l - gate was due in large part to there being farmore copies made of the Vulgate than of theGreek and Hebrew bibles.)

Here, it seems to this writer, we need todefer to St. J erome and to trust in Godsprovidence that the Greek text he trans-lated from was correct and that he trans-lated it correctly. From numerous passagesin both the Old and New Testaments, for

example, one can clearly see that God dis-tinguishes between the just (the good,those in the state of sanctifying grace)and the unjust (mortal sinners) in Hisrelationship to human beings. He does nothold out

opengood will to mortal sinners,

but dire warnings (and even threatenedpunishments) that they should changetheir ways. From this fact alonei.e., thedisagreement between the message ofpeace, good will to men (K J V, NK J V) and

the warnings to and strictures against sin-ners in the rest of the Bibleit would seemfar wiser to accept St. J erome (and hiswording of peace to men of good will), forhe was Greek-speaking from birth, was



81/130

closer than we to the writing of the NewTestament by (now) some 1,600 years, and

had many manuscripts to work from thatare no longer extant.

The point is not really hard; it comesdown to this: trusting St. J erome and theHoly SpiritSt. J erome because he wasGreek-speaking, a genius, a Saint (he trans-lated on his knees in prayer and humilityand was obviously singled out by God to dowhat he did) and the Holy Spirit becauseHe allowed THIS translation to stand from409 to 1611, before it was challenged by the

Protestants with the K J V. One has to askhimself: Were all those Catholic centurieslost in the darkness of ignorance about thisScripture passage until enlightened by theProtestants? Or, did the Catholic Churchhave it right all along?

Now let us consider the second problem:what the other versions do with e udokas(of good will) in this verse.

Every other version in English cited

here has something quite different from ofgood will that we find in the Douay- Rhe ims , the L a t i n Vu l gat e , and the Greekoriginaland even from the K J V andNK J V. Here are these modern transla-



82/130

tions:

Glory to God in high heaven, peace onearth t o t h ose on whom h i s favor r est s .(NAB, 70, emphasis added).

Glory to God in the highest, and onearth peace to t hose on whom h i s favor rests . (NAB, 86, emphasis added).

Glory to God in the highest heaven, andpeace to m en who en j oy h i s favou r . (J B,66, emphasis added).

Glory to God in the highest, and onearth peace am ong men w i t h whom he i s

pleased. (CRSV, 66 and NASV, 77,emphasis added).

Glory to God in the highest heaven, andon earth peace among those whom he favors! (NRSV, 89, emphasis added).

Glory to God in the highest, and onearth peace to men on whom his favor rests . (NIV, 78, emphasis added).

Glory to God in highest heaven, and onearth his peace for men on whom h i s favor rests . (NEB, 76, emphasis added).

What leads to the wide disparity amongtranslations of this passage between theDRB on the one hand and all these othersis that the Greek noun eu d ok a (s) is



83/130

just plain hard to translate. The Greek- E ngl i sh L exi con by Liddell-Scott gives two

meanings for e udoka: satisfaction orapproval. However, neither one of thesefits the context of the sentence, nor do theyagree with the L a t i n Vu lga t e , the Douay- Rheim s B i b le , or even the K ing J ames Ver-sions. To translate the verse . . . peace tomen of satisfaction or . . . peace to men ofapproval would be stupid, so the moderntranslators did not do this. I t is the opin-ion of this writer that they were stumped,that the correct English translation for the

word as used in this passage simply is notfound in todays Greek-English lexicons,and therefore, as an intelligent way out oftheir problem, they would seem to havegone to those famous passages in the New

Testament where God the Father, at J esusbaptism and transfiguration, says, This ismy beloved Son, in whom I am wellpleased (Mat t . 3:17, and Ma t t . 17:5, DRB),plus other similar passages, and built up ameaning out of the verb form of e udokas

which they knew the meaning of.The Greek form of the verb for am well

pleased is e udkesa, which is very similarin form to the noun e u doka. Thus, in theopinion of this writer, they improvised



84/130

translations such as . . . on whom his favorrests (NAB, 70 and 86, NIV, 78 and NEB

76), . . . who enjoy his favor (J B, 66),. . . with whom he is pleased (CRSV andNASV), and . . . among t

importância da vulgata.pdf

Documents