The Clarity of the Latin Vulgate (and Bibles based upon it)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 17 дек 2022
- The Latin Vulgate has come down to us as part of our Catholic heritage. It contains many treasures and keys for interpretation of tricky Biblical prophecy. Bibles based on the Latin Vulgate help us better understand our faith. I aim to prove this using the prophecy in Daniel chapter 9 as an example.
Bible Notes (expand the asterisks within the text to view the commentary. Look hard, they are difficult to see):
Douay-Rheims - catholicbible.online/douay_rhe...
Knox - catholicbible.online/knox/OT/D...
Saint Jerome pray for us!
How do you think a dead person is going to “pray” for you? Where do you get that?
@@bethelshiloh I’m not a Catholic but to the best of my understanding to them the saints are still alive in God’s kingdom and are active as a part of his church. And since prayer is communication they want the saints to communicate to God. You can do some research on the topic. God bless you.
@@bethelshiloh The historic churches believe in the intercession of saints. Only the protestants do not.
No no, you need to pray for yourself, no need for a middle man
@@AnonAnon-by3okso you’re a protestant or orthodox?
This is awesome. Thank you so much. Happy New Year 2023!
Happy new year!
Good video. I really enjoy your Bible videos; I remember especially the one where you pointed out the value of Challoner’s comments. I had thought the same thing, and the comment in Kings explaining the prophet’s difficulty resurrecting the dead child was one that also blew my mind when I read it.
Thank you ! I also couldn't believe it when I stumbled upon that note!
The Douay-Rheims is the only way to go.
I always enjoy your Bible videos
Thanks brother
In Portuguese we have the Fr. Matos Soares (and one from Fr. Figueiredo) that uses the word "hóstia" (host) where the Douay-Rheims uses victim. And it also uses Cristo (Christ), instead of the Anointed One.
Have you heard of the CPDV translation? Catholic Public Domain Version, it's an independent translation of the Vulgate
Great find👍🏻
If you like these things present from the hebrew in the vulgate, and the same things when they trickle through to english translations - you must love the fullness of the original hebrew
Makes a lot of sense because it says at the that the city and his people will be called by his name
Great video!! Now I would like to pull out my Vulgate Bible and compare it to the Septuagint.
You should! Let me know what you find!
I'm curious to hear your thoughts on this -- I think this is interesting, but I do have somewhat of a reservation toward drawing theology from the Vulgate specifically: I have heard it argued that the manuscripts that many non-vulgate translations come from are much older than the manuscripts used by Saint Jerome. Them being older equates to them being closer to the original text (namely, less revisions since the genesis of the text), while the newer manuscripts have been transcribed and rewritten more times and are further from the original text.
I find this argument to be fairly compelling. Catholics will argue that Saint Jerome was inspired by God and therefore the vulgate is the correct translation, but protestants argue the same thing about the Protestant Canon (namely, that the people who composed their canon were inspired by the Holy Spirit.) Each argument substantiates itself with the EXACT same logic. Neither the Protestants nor Catholics seem, to me at least, to have an argument more compelling than the counterpart.
Thanks for the comment Nicolas. I quibble with some of the details in your second paragraph, and I'll try to layout my response in a coherent fashion. Just to recap for anyone else reading this thread, Catholics and Protestants accept the same books (canon) of the New Testament. With regards to the Old Testament, Catholics accept the Deuterocanonical books which Protestants came to reject as Apocryphal - and therefore Catholics have a larger Old Testament canon.
It turns out that Catholics actually don’t lean on the inspiration of Saint Jerome to determine the OT canon. Saint Jerome himself wasn’t quite sure the Deuterocanonical books were sacred scripture because the Jewish sects of his time didn’t accept them either. This is how Martin Luther reached a similar conclusion (Protestant reformers even quote Saint Jerome to argue these books are Apocryphal!)
With no evidence the Deuterocanonical books were seen as sacred scripture by the Jewish people of his day and no historical assurance any Jewish sect ever saw them as such - he wrote to the Pope for clarification. Despite this apparent lack of evidence, the Pope strangely responded authoritatively that these books were in-fact sacred scripture…
…1600 years later the Dead Sea scrolls were unearthed which contained physical copies of the Deuterocanonical books in-use by Jewish people at the time of Christ. Amazing!
In matters of faith and morals the Bishop of Rome is protected from authoritatively teaching error.
“Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you[plural], that he might sift you[plural] like wheat, but I have prayed for you[singular] that your faith may not fail; and when you[singular] have turned again, strengthen your brethren.”
I recommend Gary Michuta if you’re interested in more detail.
@@SearchingTheArchives Thanks for your reply, it was very illuminating. As for my second paragraph -- I've often heard it (the idea that "inspiration of Jerome" is the critical argument) such argued by people in Evangelical circles, so (after reading your reply) I can see that the people I've spoken to about it are mistaken. Thank you for clarifying that for me.
Circling back to the topic of the Dead Sea Scrolls, though -- I do want to add, (and I hope I don't come across as argumentative, I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong), that there are also texts among the Dead Sea Scrolls that are only in the Orthodox canon (the Book of Jubilees), or not canon at all (the Book of Enoch), among others. Therefore, simply being in the Qumran scribes' library doesn't necessarily equate to sacred scripture. I agree though that it is self-evident that the deuterocanonicals (and the "other" texts) were significant enough to have been in Qumran.
I know you aren't arguing that Enoch should be canon, or that inclusion of a text in the Dead Sea Scrolls is the criteria for determining if something is sacred scripture, but I do want to point that out just for posterity sake that.
Personally, I don't consider myself Protestant or Catholic despite coming from an Evangelical background, so I'm not inclined to reject any one Biblical canon. Everyone has books of the bible they're more inclined to draw theology from, apocryphal or otherwise -- I think a good litmus test of a person's canon is how heavily they deviate from theology into mysticism (pentacostals that believe that salvation of your soul requires speaking in tongues, for example).
Anyway, thank you for the video and for your thoughts. I have subscribed :)
@@nicolasstag Thank you for the sub - you make some great points in your recent response which I don't disagree with! I am glad you point them out for posterity because as you mention the mere presence at Qumran doesn't necessarily mean they are sacred scripture. Merely that they were in use by certain Jewish groups at the time of Christ.
We're reaching the limits of my knowledge, but I just want to mention Gary Michuta again who lays out more comprehensive and interesting arguments, and Dr. John Bergsma who draws interesting Biblical insights from the Jewish Essenes (the likely group at Qumran) which may help illuminate certain parts of the Gospels (specifically John the Baptist).
But although the original Douay translation was fully drawn off the Latin Vulgate, wasn't the Challoner update drawing from the KJV which owes much to the Masoretic line as opposed to the Septuagint line to which the Vulgate largely belongs? Thanks for your encouragement to read the Knox.
The Douay (including Bishop Challoner's revision) draws from the Latin Vulgate. As you state, (and from what I've read) the revision is bent towards the poetic renderings of the KJV when possible and when the Latin allows for it. I hope this is helpful
@@SearchingTheArchives yes, that helps, thanks! great work.
I tend to take what the King James Version and the Douay-Rheims-Challoner BIble each has to say (how to "put things") more seriously than other translations. They reveal truth (as the Knox Version, too, does that) more directly than merely devising clever ways to put matters. The truth should surprise us a bit, and these versions do that by their scholarly insights rather than through any preset agenda that pleases the sectaries so much.
Latin does not have the article like Greek. Evil verse the Evil one is a classic difference.
What are you thoughts in general on the quality translation of the Knox vs DR?
I like them both - each have their pros and cons (probably not a helpful answer, I know)
@@SearchingTheArchives If the knox takes the best of the latin and accounts for hebrew and greek would you say this is a better translation. Or would you say DR is better if you want the closest translation of the latin.
@@gegaoli I would say that's a good summary. I quibble with Knox taking "the best of each language" because I'm not certain that he does that - but I like how Knox generally translates the Latin, but compares/contrasts the Greek and Hebrew in the notes.
@@SearchingTheArchives i understand hard to say if Knox choose correctly since you compare Jerome to Knox
I am in the process of trying to decide to purchase a DR or Knox
AFAIK (layman) I believe the Council of Trent codified the Latin Vulgate as THE bible. That's a formality; all along it was accepted as the true bible, but Trent, of course, was in response to all sorts of translations, including Luther dropping off 5 books he didn't like (e.g. James that speaks of "... and NOT by faith alone"!
And since the DR is a "slavish" literal translation for the English speakers, it is the closest we can get, unless one can read the Latin. There are also a few versions of the DR - the original in olde English, the Challoner version (most common I believe), and the Ronald Knox. I've read criticism that Knox was already "modernising" the language, but in your example, it would seem to be quite clear, even if some language used was a bit more modern. A lot is in the intent, e.g. in the Protestant bibles, it is very, very clearly filtered with protestant thinking. The most common example is when 'tradition' is used in bad light, it remains 'tradition'. But when 'tradition' is in positive light, it is changed to 'teaching'. So sublimally, a protestant reader gets the message "tradition is bad, teachings are good". This is because Catholic teaching is based on scripture AND tradition, so of course tradition has to be cast as "bad".
I think the greater tragedy is the modern so-called Catholic bibles, all bending over backwards to be "ecumenical" with protestants, and along the way we dilute and lose our own doctrines. Just what are all these idiots thinking anyway?
Jerome of Estridan was probably along with Origen the more learned of the Church Fathers
The Vulgata stills a God bible
yeah, specially when Moses comes from Mountain Syian not having a light face, but a horned one xd
Why not just use the original greek and Hebrew vs a translation to then translate again, you would lose more clarity and accuracy.
My understanding is that our extant Latin manuscripts of the sacred text are much older than the extant Hebrew manuscripts. I believe prior to the Dead Sea Scrolls the oldest Hebrew manuscripts were from the 7th or 10th century AD. I'm not sure to what extent the Dead Sea Scrolls contained Hebrew - if at all.
It's even clearer in Hebrew. Shalom.
Latin is much easier for a Westerner.
@@g_br also much less rewarding and less precise.
No it’s very precise. The Latin was translated alongside Rabbinic Scholars at the time to get the most accurate and precise translation. Language has evolved and so have meanings, for example, if you were to say, “wow that’s bad” does that mean good or bad? If we’re were to say, “it’s raining cats and dogs” are animals literally falling from the sky? Unless you have a Time Machine your current definition with your current language may not line up.