Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Question about the Bible  (Read 714 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Dylan

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 241
  • Reputation: +16/-0
  • Gender: Male
Question about the Bible
« on: January 31, 2008, 03:58:28 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Hi everyone,

    I've always heard that the Catholic Bible is translated from the Septuagint, but after comparing my Douay-Rheims to the Septuagint I noticed that the Douay-Rheims matched the Masoretic more closely.

    Which version, the Septuagint or Masoretic, is regarded by the Catholic Church as the most accurate translation? I know the writers of the New Testament used the Septuagint so I am puzzled as to which is the one to use.

    Thanks in advance.  :smile:


    Offline Kephapaulos

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1802
    • Reputation: +457/-15
    • Gender: Male
    Question about the Bible
    « Reply #1 on: January 31, 2008, 06:52:48 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Hello, Dylan.  :smile:

    Well, I'm not a Bible expert, but I know a thing or two about the Bible I guess.

    When St. Jerome translated the Bible into the Latin Vulgate, he used manuscripts that we no longer have. The Septuagint was translated from Hebrew itself, and Greek would have, of course, had different sorts of words and meanings. St. Jerome translated using both Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. He also even would have used a copy of St. Matthew's Gospel in the original Aramaic/Hebrew, or native Hebrew tongue in the first century.
    Now the Douay-Rheims was translated using the Latin Vulgate, but Hebrew and Greek manuscripts were also consulted. So, my guess then would be there was a leaning on the Masoretic text when translating. Here is a site I know of about the Douay-Rheims: www.douaybible.com.
    If you know already, I wonder now to be sure, is the Masoretic text a Hebrew text that came later on after the first century?
    "Non nobis, Domine, non nobis; sed nomini tuo da gloriam..." (Ps. 113:9)


    Offline Kephapaulos

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1802
    • Reputation: +457/-15
    • Gender: Male
    Question about the Bible
    « Reply #2 on: January 31, 2008, 06:53:19 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Hello, Dylan.  :smile:

    Well, I'm not a Bible expert, but I know a thing or two about the Bible I guess.

    When St. Jerome translated the Bible into the Latin Vulgate, he used manuscripts that we no longer have. The Septuagint was translated from Hebrew itself, and Greek would have, of course, had different sorts of words and meanings. St. Jerome translated using both Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. He also even would have used a copy of St. Matthew's Gospel in the original Aramaic/Hebrew, or native Hebrew tongue in the first century.
    Now the Douay-Rheims was translated using the Latin Vulgate, but Hebrew and Greek manuscripts were also consulted. So, my guess then would be there was a leaning on the Masoretic text when translating. Here is a site I know of about the Douay-Rheims: www.douaybible.com.
    If you know already, I wonder now to be sure, is the Masoretic text a Hebrew text that came later on after the first century?
    "Non nobis, Domine, non nobis; sed nomini tuo da gloriam..." (Ps. 113:9)