OPENING THE VULGATE CAN OF WORMS — GUEST POST BY BOB SHORT

[Michie]

In the decade I have been praying the Liturgy of the Hours, there is one reading that has always confused me. Most of the time when we celebrate the memorial of a saint who lived out their vocation as a female religious, during Morning Prayer you flip to the back after the third psalm and pick up the rest from the Common of Virgins.

Here is how it reads:

Deep waters cannot quench love,
nor floods sweep it away.
Were one to offer all he owns to purchase love,
he would be roundly mocked.
Song of Songs 8:7 1970 NAB

For us Americans, the scriptural readings from the Liturgy of the Hours come from the 1970 New American Bible. (The psalter is from the Grail Psalms, though psalm 95, as well as the Gospel canticles are ICEL translations.) Now, I generally turn off my critical mind when I have my breviary in my hands, but as I type this I have a few observations. The Old Testament readings from the Office are the same translation we hear at Mass—though not every reading from the Office is going to be found in the lectionary. Some of these translations from the 1970 NAB predate that edition. You might recall that at some point in the 1940s the Confraternity Bible project switched from being a revision of the Challoner version of the Douay-Rheims to being a translation of the scriptural texts from their original languages. The book of Genesis was translated anew for the 1970 NAB, but I believe much of the rest had been published under the title of the Confraternity Bible. (Someone ought to snag a copy of that sometime and compare it to the 1970 NAB. I promise to read it and leave a glowing comment.) Whenever it was these Old Testament renderings first appeared, besides the psalter they remained in printed copies of the NAB until the 2011 release of the NABRE. Let’s check out what the NABRE has for this verse:

Continued below.

Opening the Vulgate Can of Worms — Guest Post by Bob Short – Catholic Bible Talk

catholicbibletalk.com

 

[AveChristusRex]

In the decade I have been praying the Liturgy of the Hours, there is one reading that has always confused me. [...] You might recall that at some point in the 1940s the Confraternity Bible project switched from being a revision of the Challoner version of the Douay-Rheims to being a translation of the scriptural texts from their original languages.

In regards to the Divine Office, and all studies in general, I never use any translation but the Douay-Rheims, as it was translated with scrupulous accuracy from the Vulgate of St. Jerome, and was used universally in the Catholic Church (Latin Rite) for over 1500 years. The Vulgate was proclaimed “authentic” by the Council of Trent in 1546, who proclaimed: “No one [may] dare or presume under any pretext whatsoever to reject it.” (4th Ses., April 8, 1546). Pope Pius XII declared that this [the Vulgate, and subsequently, the Douay-Rheims] means it is “free from any error whatsoever in matters of faith and morals.” (1943); moreover stating that it was free from all errors and SUPERIOR to all vernaculars and that all vernacular translations must use the Vulgate as their basis.

Though I do not pull the ECNS ('extra Ecclesiam nulla salus,' i.e., no salvation outside the Church) card very often, but if the Catholic [and Orthodox Church ab abusu ad usum non valet consequentia] Church is the One, True, Church; and because the Greek and Hebrew were written by individuals who did not pertain to Catholic principles, we cannot trust these translations to provide the fullness of the Magisterial Appeal, though they are not entirely out of the picture for use. The Vulgate is superior to Hebrew and Greek for these reasons.

I irk at the New American Bible, as it has a less academic and Vulgate-based philology and thus does not pertain to infallible scripture, as that only lies in the Vulgate and its English translation, the Douay-Rheims. Furthermore, in terms of philology and theological study, I use the Anno Domini 1609 Douay-Rheims, which I have in a three-volume copy and was incredibly hard to find. I use it because it is the scantron of the original parchment and thus proclaims the same infallible truth as Pius XII spoke of. It is hard to read, though, so if I am doing the Divine Office, I use the Douay-Rheims Challoner Version (CV) with the Vulgate side-by-side.

I will never use the NAB because of these reasons and stick to my [as it has been called] "onlyist-philology."