Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => The Sacred: Catholic Liturgy, Chant, Prayers => Topic started by: DecemRationis on December 11, 2024, 04:30:33 PM
-
I always liked the New Jerusalem Bible, and like to use it with the Douay Rheims. It's what some would object to as a "modernist" version, but if you have a good grounding in Catholic theology and tradition, it can't lead you by the nose, and you can weigh what it says with a grain of salt as to the extensive annotations (or the translation, which may be bad at times, though I haven't really noticed), some of which, by the way, are excellent. The notes include extensive cross references to other passages.
Anyway, my esteem for the New Jerusalem was increased when I read something lately (maybe it was even here), can't track it down, but it noted this:
Like the Jerusalem Bible, the New Jerusalem Bible makes the uncommon decision to render God's name, the Tetragrammaton in the Jєωιѕн scriptures, as Yahweh rather than as "Lord", in 6,823 places in the NJB Old Testament. This decision was based on translating or reinstating the earliest known copy of parts of the Old Testament found at Qumran in 1947 (the Dead Sea Scrolls), dating to about the second century BCE.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jerusalem_Bible
It's ironic that the Jєωs refrain from spelling out the divine name, or saying it, when God told Moses:
Exodus 3 (New Jerusalem Bible)
14 God said to Moses, 'I am he who is.' And he said, 'This is what you are to say to the Israelites, "I am has sent me to you." '
15 God further said to Moses, 'You are to tell the Israelites, "Yahweh, the God of your ancestors, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you." This is my name for all time, and thus I am to be invoked for all generations to come.
Of course, the Jєωs know better than God, and refuse to say the name He told Moses to say, and them, for a "memorial unto all generations" (Douay Rheims).
Nice fact about the New Jerusalem Bible.
-
You share the Tetragrammaton opinion with Michael Hoffman, a Catholic man who has mentored me and whom I admire.
That said, as I read Exodus 3:14 in the Vulgate, Douay-Rheims, and Septuagint, I reach a different conclusion.
God said to Moses: I AM WHO AM. He said: Thus shalt thou say to the children of Israel: HE WHO IS, hath sent me to you.
Dixit Deus ad Moysen : Ego sum qui sum. Ait : Sic dices filiis Israel : Qui est, misit me ad vos.
καὶ εἶπεν ὁ Θεὸς πρὸς Μωυσῆν λέγων· ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν. καὶ εἶπεν· οὕτως ἐρεῖς τοῖς υἱοῖς ᾿Ισραήλ· ὁ ὢν ἀπέσταλκέ με πρὸς ὑμᾶς.
I read this as God describing Himself, not Him telling Moses (and us) His Name.
If you have Magisterium that infallibly defines "__fill in the blank__" as His Name, I would love to see it. Though I have not done a deep dive on this precise question, I have never seen anything reaching the level of Magisterium, only opinion.
Like you, it irritates me that anyone tampers with even one iota of God's Word and I object to any Scriptural substitutions.
Like you, I object to the superstitions that the тαℓмυdists attach to Exodus 3:14, hyphens: circuмlocutions, and the rest of their satanic occultism, including their claim that saying His Name backwards would undo all of Creation.
Even if "Yahweh" is His Name, in numerous Scriptural verses God encourages us to make His Name known, proclaim His Name, and call upon His Name, not to hide it, profane it, or tamper with it.
So, if you have a Magisterial source about Exodus 3:14 as His Name, not merely His Self-description, I would welcome it. Unlike the damned Judaizers infesting CathInfo, I welcome correction of my errors.
I have attached an article that may be of interest to you.
-
You share the Tetragrammaton opinion with Michael Hoffman, a Catholic man who has mentored me and whom I admire.
That said, as I read Exodus 3:14 in the Vulgate, Douay-Rheims, and Septuagint, I reach a different conclusion.
I read this as God describing Himself, not Him telling Moses (and us) His Name.
If you have Magisterium that infallibly defines "__fill in the blank__" as His Name, I would love to see it. Though I have not done a deep dive on this precise question, I have never seen anything reaching the level of Magisterium, only opinion.
Like you, it irritates me that anyone tampers with even one iota of God's Word and I object to any Scriptural substitutions.
Like you, I object to the superstitions that the тαℓмυdists attach to Exodus 3:14, hyphens: circuмlocutions, and the rest of their satanic occultism, including their claim that saying His Name backwards would undo all of Creation.
Even if "Yahweh" is His Name, in numerous Scriptural verses God encourages us to make His Name known, proclaim His Name, and call upon His Name, not to hide it, profane it, or tamper with it.
So, if you have a Magisterial source about Exodus 3:14 as His Name, not merely His Self-description, I would welcome it. Unlike the damned Judaizers infesting CathInfo, I welcome correction of my errors.
I have attached an article that may be of interest to you.
Mark
Thanks for the response. Putting aside verse 14 at the moment, we have verse 15 -
15 God further said to Moses, 'You are to tell the Israelites, "Yahweh, the God of your ancestors, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you." This is my name for all time, and thus I am to be invoked for all generations to come.
Doesn't God say point blank to tell them His name is "Yahweh," and that that is the name "to be invoked for all generations to come"?
DR
PS - So you were mentored by Hoffman? Cool. I have his usury book and his Occult Renaissance books, which I've actually spent a lot of time with, unlike so books I just put down. There is much to admire about Michael Hoffman.
-
Yes, you are correct. I recant my error. Thank you for the correction.
-
Yes, you are correct. I recant my error. Thank you for the correction.
It takes an honest man to say that. Truth always, before everything.
-
It takes an honest man to say that. Truth always, before everything.
Thank you.
2 Thessalonians 2:10-11 influenced me greatly. Love of Truth is key to Salvation.
-
Forgive me if I am hijacking the thread, but since you are discussing translations, I once made a thread about the "original texts" as mentioned by Pius XII, and I got zero answers.
If you know anything about it, I would very much like to know. Below is the link to the thread I made years ago and its text:
https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/divino-afflante-spiritu-which-original-texts-of-the-scripture/ (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/divino-afflante-spiritu-which-original-texts-of-the-scripture/)
In 1943, we have yet another controversial initiative by the last (so far) Catholic Pope, Pius XII.
His Holiness published the encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu, on which he says that the original texts of Holy Writ should be used for future translations of the Bible.
In my opinion this is a very dangerous move, since the Vulgate by St. Jerome had always been the definite and official version of the Bible, and was free from any and all (doctrinal) error.
It might be interesting for scholars to use original texts, but I can see no good reason to make something other than the Vulgate or a good translation of it avaliable to the general faithful as an approved version.
I read just yesterday in the fantastic judaism.is website that the "Hebrew Bible" is actually a corrupted version of the Old Testament, altered to erase the most obvious references to Our Lord, in a way that people would not believe that He is the messiah.
I also would like thank Mr. Mark 79 for his fantastic website.
As far as I know, the most reliable source for the Old Testament is the Septuagint, since the hebrew texts that St. Jerome used are not avaliable anymore. The Dead Sea Scrolls could also be useful, but they were not easily obtainable during the 40s and 50s, as far as I know.
Anyway, what I would like to know is what manuscripts were accepted to be used from 1943 to 1958? Was the Masoretic Text (the Hebrew Bible) ever accepted? What other controversial texts were used? The encyclical makes no reference to what can be considered an original text. It simply opens a very dangerous door and leaves it there, unguarded.
-
Forgive me if I am hijacking the thread, but since you are discussing translations, I once made a thread about the "original texts" as mentioned by Pius XII, and I got zero answers.
If you know anything about it, I would very much like to know. Below is the link to the thread I made years ago and its text:
https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/divino-afflante-spiritu-which-original-texts-of-the-scripture/ (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/divino-afflante-spiritu-which-original-texts-of-the-scripture/)
Giovanni,
Since the translators do not identify the particular manuscripts they replied upon, I don't think it's possible to identify the actual original texts used. For example, the General Editor's forward to the New Jerusalem Bible simply states, as to texts used for translation, "the translation has been made directly from the Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic."
The footnotes often address textual issues and refer to the Hebrew and Greek, but you'd have to go through them all - and they are quite extensive - in a book over 2000 pages, and even then you'd have to infer what original text of the Hebrew or Greek was being used based on the original language reference in the note, as the manuscripts used aren't identified.
There is a system for numbering/identifying the Greek texts of the New Testament, and there are detailed Greek texts of the New Testament which identify alternative reading by manuscript using those numbers, but that's a different topic.
DR