How valid Catholic bibles are?


#1

The Vulgate is translated from the Septuagint which is Greek, isn't it more sure to be valid if it's from Hebrew texts? So Protestant bibles are more valid? As I read a bit, that they're from Masoteric texts which are Hebrew?


#2

[quote="souldiver, post:1, topic:334636"]
The Vulgate is translated from the Septuagint which is Greek, isn't it more sure to be valid if it's from Hebrew texts? So Protestant bibles are more valid? As I read a bit, that they're from Masoteric texts which are Hebrew?

[/quote]

Since Catholic Bible are not based upon the Vulgate, your questions don't really have anything to do with whether or not Catholic Bibles are less "valid" than those used by Protestants.

According to direction from the Holy See (the Vatican) all modern translations must be based on the best textual witness available from the original tongues, namely Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Whenever possible they are to be made in cooperation with Protestants so that all Christians can use them. The New Revised Standard Version and the New American Bible Revised Edition are just two examples.

Some Protestants believe Catholics hold Jerome's 4th century Vulgate as the official Catholic Bible. There is no such "official" Bible. Jerome's work, though noteworthy, was not the first Latin rendition used by Catholics or the last. These days when a Latin text of Scripture is used, the Nova Vulgata is referred to. It is a Latin text based on the best scholarship based on the original language texts.

Tell me, where did you get the idea that Catholic Bibles were based on the Vulgate? Does your religion teach this or is this of your own invention? Now that you know the truth, how does this affect your current beliefs about Catholic Bibles?


#3

Masoretic text comes from 9th and 10th century manuscripts. The LXX as we know it, comes from 4th century manuscripts.

The Latin was a critical text where Jerome compared the Greek, Hebrew, and Old Latin manuscripts for the best reading.

So given that errors work themselves into the text often (by transmission) but hardly ever work themselves out of the text, an earlier text will be better than a later text.

When given a choice between a regular old text and a critical edition old text, the critical one will be higher quailty.

Ergo, the highest quality is the Vulgate.


#4

[quote="DelsonJacobs, post:2, topic:334636"]
Since Catholic Bible are not based upon the Vulgate, your questions don't really have anything to do with whether or not Catholic Bibles are less "valid" than those used by Protestants.

According to direction from the Holy See (the Vatican) all modern translations must be based on the best textual witness available from the original tongues, namely Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Whenever possible they are to be made in cooperation with Protestants so that all Christians can use them. The New Revised Standard Version and the New American Bible Revised Edition are just two examples.

Some Protestants believe Catholics hold Jerome's 4th century Vulgate as the official Catholic Bible. There is no such "official" Bible. Jerome's work, though noteworthy, was not the first Latin rendition used by Catholics or the last. These days when a Latin text of Scripture is used, the Nova Vulgata is referred to. It is a Latin text based on the best scholarship based on the original language texts.

Tell me, where did you get the idea that Catholic Bibles were based on the Vulgate? Does your religion teach this or is this of your own invention? Now that you know the truth, how does this affect your current beliefs about Catholic Bibles?

[/quote]

It's my understanding that the Clementine Vulgate is the 'official' Bible?


#5

Hi Souldiver

If you look at the translation notes you will see most modern translations use both Masoretic and Septuagint as source texts. For example it is common to translate Isaiah 7:14 as 'The virgin *will conceive and give birth to a son'. The use of *virgin *as opposed to *young girl comes from the Septuagint and reflects Matthew's own use of the Septuagint. An exception to the latter example is the Catholic Bible (based on the Jerusalem Bible) used in the mass in the UK - that uses the less precise term 'maiden' rather than 'virgin', better reflecting the ambiguity in the Hebrew text. The Jerusalem Bible uses the Masoretic text as its primary source and sticks quite rigidly to the Hebrew text apart from when the Hebrew is missing or unclear. Compare that with the 'Protestant' NIV and you'll see the NIV borrows from the stronger Septuagint Greek language and translates the verse as 'virgin' as Matthew does*.

It is generally considered that the large majority of quotes from scripture in the Gospels come from the Septuagint rather than the Hebrew, so the Septuagint seems to have the imprimatur of the evangelists which is of note, I think.

Finally remember that the Masoretic texts are not the original Hebrew texts. They come from about the 10th century when vowel pointing was added to the original Hebrew. They are also not a single codex - there are at least two major codexes of Masoretic text. So if someone says 'we should use the Masoretic text' you might ask 'which one?'.

A good bible will have foot-notes saying where the Masoretic and Septuagint texts differ. Perhaps rather than saying we should use one or the other we can welcome the fact that we have multiple lines of translation as a strength rather than a weakness, and be prepared to look at both.

God bless +

Michael

  • The Hebrew hā·‘al·māh may be translated as young girl, virgin, maid or maiden.

#6

[quote="souldiver, post:1, topic:334636"]
The Vulgate is translated from the Septuagint which is Greek, isn't it more sure to be valid if it's from Hebrew texts? So Protestant bibles are more valid? As I read a bit, that they're from Masoteric texts which are Hebrew?

[/quote]

All modern bibles attempt to get back the original text.


#7

[quote="capablanca911, post:4, topic:334636"]
It's my understanding that the Clementine Vulgate is the 'official' Bible?

[/quote]

Today there is no "official" Bible version for the Catholic Church.

While the* Clementine Vulgate* of 1592 became the standard Bible text of the Roman Rite of the Roman Catholic Church until 1979, when the Nova Vulgata was instituted, in 1948 following Pope Pius XII's encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu, the standard for official Bible translation was to be the original language texts.

However, according to the instruction Liturgiam Authenticam, the Nova Vulgata is a point of reference for all translations of the Scripture as used in the* liturgy* of the Roman Rite into the vernacular. Thus texts of Catholic Bibles can differ somewhat in certain places from what is used in the Roman Rite as the liturgy is the Bible put into prayerful words used for centuries in our worship tradition whereas translations are transmissions of what the original language-texts literally say in a selected target language.


#8

[quote="souldiver, post:1, topic:334636"]
The Vulgate is translated from the Septuagint which is Greek, isn't it more sure to be valid if it's from Hebrew texts? So Protestant bibles are more valid? As I read a bit, that they're from Masoteric texts which are Hebrew?

[/quote]

As capablanca911 said, "original language" does not necessarily correspond to "oldest available texts."

A good translation should look to all available ancient texts. :shrug:

But it would be a mistake to say that all Catholic Bible translations are based on the Septuagint whereas all Protetsant Bible translations are based on the Hebrew Masoretic texts. That's a gross oversimplification.


#9

Just to add, there is a difference between texts used to capture the Roman Rite or Liturgy, which is a prayer that contains quotes from Scripture, and translation of Scripture texts outside of the context of the Roman Rite. Since a translation of the Bible is not the same as the prayer of the Roman Rite, it doesn't necessarily use the same wording or choice of vocabulary as found in the Liturgy.

In the end, this doesn't have much to do with the original question as to how "valid" Catholic Bibles are or the mistaken view that Catholics base all their Bible versions on the text of Jerome's Vulgate, a common Protestant misconception.


#10

If I may muddy the waters a bit more, NOBODY uses the LXX version of Daniel. The RCC and the Orthodox versions come from Theodotion's translation (directly or via the vulgate), and the Prots use the Masoretic.

Interestingly enough, when Christ quotes from it, it much more closely follows Theodotion than the LXX.


#11

I think the question should not be regarding the validity of Catholic bibles, but rather the validity of non-Catholic translations, which are argued and assembled apart from the Apostolic Tradition which is the source of (NT) and stabilizing influence of all accurate scripture translations.

From the introduction to the 1967 Papal Edition of the Confraternity Bible: "Translations of the Bible are absolutely without error only in so far as they accurately express the ideas as written by the inspired writer in the original language."

Remember that there is no requirement that God's revelation to man be written in any particular language whether it be Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek. A large percentage of Jews were in the Diaspora at the time, living outside of Palestine, and writing in Greek. As well, both Greek and Hebrew texts of the same books have been found that tend to shed new light on the historical situation.

As with all things faith, either there is one true and accurate source, or there is none at all.


#12

[quote="souldiver, post:1, topic:334636"]
So Protestant bibles are more valid?

[/quote]

A Protestant Old Testament contains 39 books, whereas a Catholic Old Testatment contains 46 books. Someone decided some 16 centuries after Christ to remove on his own initiative 7 books from Sacred Scripture. I'd question that they are "more valid".


#13

[quote="souldiver, post:1, topic:334636"]
The Vulgate is translated from the Septuagint which is Greek, isn't it more sure to be valid if it's from Hebrew texts? So Protestant bibles are more valid? As I read a bit, that they're from Masoteric texts which are Hebrew?

[/quote]

The Vulgate was translated in a manner similar to how the ESV was translated: take the current popular version (in St Jerome's case a collection of existing Latin translations; the Protestant ESV used the RSV and can trace it's lineage back to the King James Bible) and improve it's accuracy by comparing it to the best source texts (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek). None of the existing Vulgate texts we have rely completely on the Septuagint, just like modern translators don't rely completely on the Masoretic Text but also lean on the Septuagint to help explain some less clear passages since we have a better understanding Ancient Greek than Ancient Hebrew.


#14

=souldiver;11042043]The Vulgate is translated from the Septuagint which is Greek, isn't it more sure to be valid if it's from Hebrew texts? So Protestant bibles are more valid? As I read a bit, that they're from Masoteric texts which are Hebrew?

I don't believe this is a fully accurate statement.

There were three common languages used at the Time.

Aramaic which is what Tradition tells us Jesus Spoke

Hebrew

& Greek

Saint Jerome spoke all three and used all three in writting the Vulgate.

A more basic issue here lies in God's promise to the ONLY Faith and ONLY Church He founded, guides and protects. It is a Moral and Theological Impossibility that the Protest [Protestant] version's PLURAL! can be right and the Catholi version incorrect.

Please READ
Mt. 10:1-8
Mt. 16:15-19
Mt. 18: 18
John 14: 16-17
John 17: 14-21
John 20:21-22
Mark 16: 14-15
& Mt. 28:16-20

To make youir task easirer: here you can compare both:

biblestudytools.com/parallel-bible/

EACH is Christ and His Apostles:
DIRECTLY
PRECISLY
EXCLUSIVELY:thumbsup:

God Bless you,
PJM


#15

Here’s what the Catholic Encyclopedia has to say about the Septuagint:Historical importance of the Septuagint

The importance of the Septuagint Version is shown by the following considerations:

(1) The Septuagint is the most ancient translation of the Old Testament and consequently is invaluable to critics for understanding and correcting the Hebrew text (Massorah), the latter, such as it has come down to us, being the text established by the Massoretes in the sixth century A.D. Many textual corruptions, additions, omissions, or transpositions must have crept into the Hebrew text between the third and second centuries B.C. and the sixth and seventh centuries of our era; the manuscripts therefore which the Seventy had at their disposal, may in places have been better than the Massoretic manuscripts.

(2) The Septuagint Version accepted first by the Alexandrian Jews, and afterwards by all the Greek-speaking countries, helped to spread among the Gentiles the idea and the expectation of the Messias, and to introduce into Greek the theological terminology that made it a most suitable instrument for the propagation of the Gospel of Christ.

(3) The Jews made use of it long before the Christian Era, and in the time of Christ it was recognised as a legitimate text, and was employed in Palestine even by the rabbis. The Apostles and Evangelists utilised it also and borrowed Old Testament citations from it, especially in regard to the prophecies. The Fathers and the other ecclesiastical writers of the early Church drew upon it, either directly, as in the case of the Greek Fathers, or indirectly, like the Latin Fathers and writers and others who employed Latin, Syriac, Ethiopian, Arabic and Gothic versions. It was held in high esteem by all, some even believed it inspired. Consequently, a knowledge of the Septuagint helps to a perfect understanding of these literatures.

(4) At the present time, the Septuagint is the official text in the Greek Church, and the ancient Latin Versions used in the western church were made from it; the earliest translation adopted in the Latin Church, the Vetus Itala, was directly from the Septuagint: the meanings adopted in it, the Greek names and words employed (such as: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers [Arithmoi], Deuteronomy), and finally, the pronunciation given to the Hebrew text, passed very frequently into the Itala, and from it, at times, into the Vulgate, which not rarely gives signs of the influence of the Vetus Itala; this is especially so in the Psalms, the Vulgate translation being merely the Vetus Itala corrected by St. Jerome according to the hexaplar text of the Septuagint. (Read more)

And

Of the approximately 300 Old Testament quotes in the New Testament, approximately 2/3 of them came from the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) which included the deuterocanonical books that the Protestants later removed. This is additional evidence that Jesus and the apostles viewed the deuterocanonical books as part of canon of the Old Testament. (Source and Scripture verse examples)

Another thing is that the Protestant bibles are missing 7 books of the Bible one of which contains a very clear prophecy about Jesus as follows:

Wisdom 2:12-24

"Let us lie in wait for the righteous man, because he is inconvenient to us and opposes our actions; he reproaches us for sins against the law, and accuses us of sins against our training.

He professes to have knowledge of God, and calls himself a child of the Lord.

He became to us a reproof of our thoughts;

the very sight of him is a burden to us, because his manner of life is unlike that of others, and his ways are strange.

We are considered by him as something base, and he avoids our ways as unclean; he calls the last end of the righteous happy, and boasts that God is his father.

Let us see if his words are true, and let us test what will happen at the end of his life;

for if the righteous man is God’s son, he will help him, and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries.

Let us test him with insult and torture, that we may find out how gentle he is, and make trial of his forbearance.

Let us condemn him to a shameful death, for, according to what he says, he will be protected."

Thus they reasoned, but they were led astray, for their wickedness blinded them,

and they did not know the secret purposes of God, nor hope for the wages of holiness, nor discern the prize for blameless souls;

for God created man for incorruption, and made him in the image of his own eternity,

but through the devil’s envy death entered the world, and those who belong to his party experience it.


#16

Livingwordunity:

While it is true that some Hebrew Scriptures manuscripts predate some Hebrew texts, this is only because the comparison is being made of texts from LXX and later Masoretic texts. The Masoretes began making copies of the Hebrew texts in the 7th century AD/CE, whereas the LXX predated the Christian era by almost 400 years (ca. 325 BC/BCE).

However the LXX was predated and translated from Hebrew texts copied by the Sopherim, which work began in the 5th century BC/BCE.

The oldest extant proto-Masoretic manuscripts of the Old Testament are in Hebrew, known as the Dead Sea Scrolls. This collection includes the Great Isaiah Scroll which dates from ca.125 BC/BCE.


#17

[quote="DelsonJacobs, post:16, topic:334636"]
Livingwordunity:

While it is true that some Hebrew Scriptures manuscripts predate some Hebrew texts, this is only because the comparison is being made of texts from LXX and later Masoretic texts. The Masoretes began making copies of the Hebrew texts in the 7th century AD/CE, whereas the LXX predated the Christian era by almost 400 years (ca. 325 BC/BCE).

However the LXX was predated and translated from Hebrew texts copied by the Sopherim, which work began in the 5th century BC/BCE.

The oldest extant proto-Masoretic manuscripts of the Old Testament are in Hebrew, known as the Dead Sea Scrolls. This collection includes the Great Isaiah Scroll which dates from ca.125 BC/BCE.

[/quote]

Sorry, but what you said went completely over my head. I was only trying to get info from the Catholic Encyclopedia. I'm nowhere near an expert on this. I think the bottom line is that the first Christian Bible was put together by the Catholic Church. For me, that's all I need to know.


#18

The Dead Sea Scrolls and the manuscripts of the Septuagint show that there are various manuscript traditions. Not all Dead Sea Scrolls manuscripts, which multiple manuscripts (fragments) exist for most of the OT books and contain different readings, some agree with the LXX, and some with the Masoretic. There are some reasons for the different readings such as scribal errors, and it could also be that the authors wrote more than one copy of their accounts and articulated each copy with some minor variances. If I wrote a book by hand and made another copy or two by hand I imagine each copy would have some sort of variance. I think that too many textual critics don't take that point serious enough and they strive for the one closest reading that's original when in fact more than one reading, additions or omissions could all come from the same author.


#19

[quote="souldiver, post:1, topic:334636"]
The Vulgate is translated from the Septuagint which is Greek, isn't it more sure to be valid if it's from Hebrew texts? So Protestant bibles are more valid? As I read a bit, that they're from Masoteric texts which are Hebrew?

[/quote]

Well I think the Deuterocanonical Book of Wisdom 2:1,12-22 which is unique to Catholic
Bibles, not Protestants, gives one of the most clear prophecies concerning the Messiah.

As for the validity of Greek vs Hebrew texts, it is important to actually understand the history behind the Septuagint. That word derives from "septuaginta", meaning "translation of the seventy interpreters" or "translation of the seventy interpreters", seventy-two Jewish scholars were asked by the Greek King of Egypt Ptolemy II Philadelphus to translate the Torah from Biblical Hebrew into Greek. As the story goes, all 72 Jewish translators translated separately and when their translations were compared, all were identical. I think with that we can trust that God had some part in this Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible.

But no, that would make
the Protestant Bible look
bad, wouldn't it? hmmm?
http://1389blog.com/pix/bored-smiley-tapping-fingers.gif

Why is the language so important to the anti-Septuagintists?
What, did/does God only speak Hebrew or is he an Israelite
by origin?


#20

[quote="po18guy, post:11, topic:334636"]
I think the question should not be regarding the validity of Catholic bibles, but rather the validity of non-Catholic translations, which are argued and assembled apart from the Apostolic Tradition which is the source of (NT) and stabilizing influence of all accurate scripture translations.

[/quote]

To be fair non-Catholic bibles are often very well respected for the scholarship of translation. The UK Church is very likely to switch to the ESV which has gained much scholarly respect for its tight translation (somewhat different to 'dynamic translations' like the NAB and JB).


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.