Non-Catholic Bibles


#1

Where do Non-Christians derive the Old Testament from? I understand the Catholic Bible was first translated from the Greek Septuagint, which of course was translated from the Hebrew.

The King James version, for example - does it come from the Hebrew or the Greek translation? How about some others?

Thanks,

Notworthy


#2

As I understand it, most protestant bibles employ The Greek, Hebrew and Latin in translation of the OT. Some do use the Aramaic manuscripts too. Many translations employ traditional translations of the text also. The KJV used the English translations that came before it.


#3

It seems the more translations you get away from the original, the worst the translation.

I thought the KJV went back to the Hebrew and translated it back into English. But, if I understand you correctly, it came some from Hebrew, some from Greek, and then some from the Latin? I assume they looked at all three, compared them, and then determined the most accurate translation from these for any given passage (or chapter or book)?

Notworthy


#4

from the preface to the New King James, it says, “translated out of the original tongues and diligently compared and revised” which I take it to mean that the OT was translated from Hebrew, the NT from Greek. But their translations were compared to other translations in Greek, the LXX, Latin and English.

An example, that is well known, is the word virgin in Isaiah 7:14, in the Hebrew it is simply young woman and the woman is already “with child”, in the LXX the virgin will become with child which has became the “traditional” translation in Christian circles.

If you Read the Great Bible, or even the Bishop’s Bible and compare it to the King James there are many common translations.

Another issue is the text behind the King James. Modern translations have the better manuscripts which are closer to the orginals.


#5

Please bare with me on this. It seems to be a little tedious and add more margin or error if you take a translation from a translation, which the Greek and the Latin are. For the most accurate, it seems you’d want to go straight to the source.

Does this make sense?

Notworthy

P.S. And Daniel, are you sure you’re not using the Lamsa???:slight_smile:


#6

[quote=NotWorthy]Where do Non-Christians derive the Old Testament from? I understand the Catholic Bible was first translated from the Greek Septuagint, which of course was translated from the Hebrew.

The King James version, for example - does it come from the Hebrew or the Greek translation? How about some others?

Thanks,

Notworthy
[/quote]

I hate to break this to you, but Protestants aren’t “non-christians”.


#7

To answer your question though, nearly all modern translations, Catholic or Protestant, are made from Hebrew and Aramaic Old Testament manuscripts and Greek New Testament manuscripts.

This would include the King James Version.


#8

[quote=Steadfast]I hate to break this to you, but Protestants aren’t “non-christians”.
[/quote]

Ooooh!! My Bad! I did not mean it that way at all, and I’m terribly sorry. I meant to say “Non Catholic Christians”.

By the way, I feel your pain. This is the way I felt when I went to a Christian Book Store looking for a new bible.

But, again, I did not mean to imply anything with that statement.

Notworthy


#9

No problem…

Peace atcha!:wink:


#10

[quote=Steadfast]To answer your question though, nearly all modern translations, Catholic or Protestant, are made from Hebrew and Aramaic Old Testament manuscripts and Greek New Testament manuscripts.

This would include the King James Version.
[/quote]

Is that correct. I thought us Catholics drew ours from the Greek Septuagint. The Latin Vulgate was drawn from the Hebrew, though.

I’m not certain where Ignatius, NAB, and Navarre and others came from - Hebrew, Latin, or Greek.

Notworthy


#11

Good(original) question!

First of all, the Septuagint, though written by Jews was actually written in Greek as it the official language of the time, about 250 BC, when they documented the first 5 books of the Old Testament. See From students.cua.edu/16kalvesmaki/lxx/ . During the years until the birth of Christ there would be more books added to the Septuagint. These books of the OT are substantiated with the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls in 1947 that are believed to be written somewhere between 60-100 BC. There you find a Septuagint of that time with the additional noncanonical books(the entire inspired-OT and NT- canon would not become official until the late 4th century). Therefore we begin to catch a glimpse of the Apostolic Old Testament the Scriptures used by the Apostles and Christ… they were all from the Septuagint. Here we begin to understand why the Catholic Canon is a more genuine and complete Old Testament-Jewish or Hebrew Canon as Hanukkah is not found in the modern Hebrew Scriptures, but IS found in the books of Maccabees of the Catholic Bible.

Hence we get to the present Hebrew Canon(equivalent to the Protestant Old Testament canon)and the elimination of 7 books of the Catholic Canon. (review the history of the bible from this Protestant site: literatureclassics.com/ancientpaths/bibhist.html )

Here, dates are of utmost importance. As Christians we understand that Jesus established his Church in the year 33 AD through Peter and the Apostles, making promises to His Church and giving it the authority to bind and loosen on earth (Mt 16:16-19, Mt 18:17, John 14:16-18). Paul reiterates this when he tells us it is the Church which is the pillar and foundation of truth.(1 Tim 3:15) With that in mind, Christians should understand that any Post-Christ, Hebrew canon devised in ** 90-128 AD** by Christ rejecting Pharisees with the sole purpose of distracting Jew from the reality that Jesus was the Mesiah simply had no authority to remove books from scripture.

In 1534, Matin Luther decides to remove 7 books from the bible by accepting the Hebrew Canon as Canonical Christian OT Scripture(He also wanted to remove several other books including James and Revelation- as they were too Catholic- ). Interestingly the Protestant author of the above link admits this was Luther’s making: " In translating the Old Testament, Luther excluded the Apocrypha from the canon." Thus, we have Martin Luther changing Christian biblical canon after the Church had already exercised its authority to give provide us the complete Bible in the years 393 and 397 AD(Catholic Synods of Hippo and Carthage) , over 1100 years before Luther. Accepting a self authorizing canon, orchestrated originally by Christ rejecting Jew at least 57 years AFTER Christ had established His Church. Unfortunately, most Protestants and Catholics are not aware of this historical travesty.

Regarding the King James Version I believe it was translated by scholars from the original languages I believe. Additionally , the original KJV, though written in Protestant Bible format still included the Apocrypha- including all the 7 Catholic Deutercanonical books plus other truly Apocryphal books. Yet , modern KJV bibles have completely excluded all these books.

another important link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint , under the heading “Christian Use"


#12

The NAB, RSV, JB et al are translations made from “the original languages”; For the OT, Hebrew, Aramaic (and Greek in the case of the OT Deuteros), in the case of the NT from the Greek.

The Douai Rheims is a translation of the Latin Vulgate and is, therefore a translation of a translation, but even so, it’s a pretty good translation.

Jerome translated his Vulgate from the original languages where he had them.


#13

[quote=NotWorthy]Ooooh!! My Bad! I did not mean it that way at all, and I’m terribly sorry. I meant to say “Non Catholic Christians”.

By the way, I feel your pain. This is the way I felt when I went to a Christian Book Store looking for a new bible.

But, again, I did not mean to imply anything with that statement.

Notworthy
[/quote]

You may wish to ask a moderator to edit your post to not cause possible future problems from those who may not read the whole thread.:slight_smile:


#14

I’m fairly sure the King James version was translated from the Latin Vulgate. It’s a translation of a translation (not the most accurate). The New KJV was translated from original language but using the old KJV as it’s guide (still not a good method). The NIV (the most popular version) was translated from the orginal language but by very conservative evangelicals (so their slant is noticeable, but still a decent translation). The RSV and CEV are more “heady” versions with an attempt to sound older (or more intellectual). The NASB is a good translation (although still protestant) that was done from the original language but each phrase was translated separately so as not to “bias” the words (although in some passages they lost the “flavor” by doing this). The Living Bible is not a new translation but the paraphrased version of the NIV (as is the Message, but it is more contemporary than the Living). The NAB (catholic) is a good translation as is the Douhy-Reims (sp? don’t have it in front of me right now).


#15

No, the KJV was translated from the original languages.

Read “God’s Secretaries” by Adam Nicolson.

And you’re wrong again when you suggest that it’s not a very good translation. For what it is, a literal translation of the best texts at hand, it is excellent and it stands up well with any modern translation.

Most scholars, Catholic and Protestant alike consider the NAB to be an adequate translation but generally inferior to the RSV.

It’s easy to say “bias” but it’s much harder to prove it.

You’ve done the first, now do the latter.


#16

[quote=Steadfast]No, the KJV was translated from the original languages.
.
[/quote]

i’m sorry, but i believe you are wrong on this one. the translators did not have access to the manuscripts with the original languages (maybe some passages but certainly not the entire NT, they might have had a copy of the septuagint but that was only OT, the NT manuscripts were either in Rome or some of the other ancient churches, definitely not in England). they would have made up for what they didn’t have (which most scholars would say most if not all of the NT) with the Latin Vulgate. and most scholars (excluding KJV only people who have a beginning bias) would say that it is inferior to most modern translations. the NKJV (new) is a much better translation than the original because they did have access to copies of early manuscripts and could use the orginal language but they still referred to the KJV translation (which is a translation of a translation) which suggests a certain bias to the KJV. and i have read parts of Adam Nicolson’s book, he is a KJV only believer which would make it hard for him to view the history of it objectively.


#17

Adam Nicolson is an English Historian, he is certainly NOT a KJV only proponent and your suggestion that he is comes very close to libel. When you suggest that a professional scholar is biased you’d better be able to back it up.

Be careful.

I don’t know where you’re getting your information but you’re just wrong. The KJV was the collaborative effort of 47 men working with the best texts available at the time and with existing translations “diligently compared” including, it is generally assumed the Douai Rheims bible.

No one is suggesting that the translators had all the texts we have today to work from but they certainly had the complete Masoretic for the Old testament and the textus Receptus for the New.

Here is a Wiki on the subject. Scroll down to 3.1 where you can read:

Compared to modern translations, there are some differences which are based in part on more recently discovered manuscripts, e.g. the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947. Some Protestant groups believe that the newer versions of the Bible are based on corrupt manuscripts and that the King James Version is truer to the original languages. This preference is partially due to the fact that many modern versions often excise or marginalize certain verses deemed by modern scholarship as later additions to the original text and thus are seen by traditionalists as tampering with the text.

See also the very words of the original title page:

“THE HOLY BIBLE, Conteyning the Old Testament, and the New: Newly Translated out of the Originall tongues: & with the former Translations diligently compared and revised, by his Majesties Special Commandment. Appointed to be read in Churches. Imprinted at London by Robert Barker, Printer to the Kings most Excellent Majestie. ANNO DOM. 1611.”

+++

Tell me, is this just a case of “If it’s Prottie it must be shoddy”?, you know what I mean…if it originated with Protestants it must be weak, less than, etc.?

I think it is…you’re denying the bulk of scholarship on the matter just in order to try scoring cheap polemical points.

Here’s a clue:

It doesn’t take anything away from your church’s truth claims to admit that the AV1611 was translated from the original languages in the best manuscripts they had at the time and that for what it is it is, really an excellent translation.

Indeed, it was originally published with the OT Deuteros as well as a schedule for psalter reading and an appendice for liturgical use according to the Gregorian calendar.


#18

Yes, Stead, but did you ever question why they used a Masoretic text comprised 7 to 10 centuries after Christ by Non-Christians.

?Why did they use documents developed more than 7 centuries AFTER Christ by non-believing Jews? Logic tells you, if it was the OLD Testament it should be at least older than the Receptus which they used for the NEW. But no, the Receptus is estimated to date back to the time of Cyprian during the 3rd century. So in the KJV you have an Old Testament derived from a Masoretic Text that is provided and adulterated by non-Christians at least 4 centuries AFTER its New Testament. :eek:

Did you even question whom these people were that decided where and from whom Christians should gather their new and old testaments. Where did they get their authority to choose what is canonical vs what is is not. Did you ever question what it meant by the saying “authorized KJV” authorized by whom?

Being a Christian, you should care only for that which is authorized with the keys to bind and loosed as provided by Our eternal King Jesus Christ. And is documented (ocurring in 33 AD)by God in Mathew 16:16-19 "Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth * will be loosed in heaven*.”

Therefore anything as important as the actual Word of God should be authorized by such a church here *on earth * for ALL Christianity. For even Paul reiterates where we find truth…1 Tim 3:15 " …God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth."


#19

I have no axe to grind here…the masoretic text is surely no worse than the texts Jerome used to translate the Vulgate…for all of it’s being younger than the TR…

I am not defending the KJV-only position. I’m only pointing out that the KJV was translated from Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts and that for the texts used it’s a good translation.

That’s all, that’s it, my interlocutor seems to disagree on both counts and it would be wrong to let him mislead people although I am certain he does so without malice or intent.

The point here is not to prove that the Catholics are wrong or the Protestants are wrong. The points here are points of historical fact it does no one any service to deny or mishandle.


#20

Our priest, an ex-Episcopal priest, comments that often the KJV provides the most accurate translations. He likes to have one handy while reading his Catholic Bible.

Notworthy


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.