Question from Priest who is marrying us

Sarah1916

We are getting married in a few months and I have sent our selected readings to our Priest to see what he thinks and he has came back asking us "What translation are you using for the readings?"

Could someone please explain what he means by that?
I can ask him if I need to - but I would prefer to be able to answer him.

lazybones32

I think he means 'which Bible version are you using for the readings?'.

There are many different translations of the Bible in English; the King James Version, New King James Version, New Intl. Version, Douay Rheims, Good News for Modern Man version, The Message, etc.
The readings you've chosen might have a very different rendition when chosen from a different translation and I don't think the RCC sees every translation as being accurate, so they mightn't want a certain version being used.

I take it you both are native English speakers? He could have been asking if either of you were going to read the text in your native language?...if it's not English.

Adds: an example of the difference would be -
"The noise thereof showeth concerning it, the cattle also concerning the vapour" from Job in King James Version
"His thunder announces the coming storm; even the cattle make known its approach" same passage from the NIV translation.

Sarah1916

Thanks that makes sense. Would you have any idea what translation these readings are from?

A reading from the book of Sirah

A loving partner is a safe shelter, whoever finds one has found a rare treasure
A loving partner is something beyond price, there is no measuring their worth
A loving partner is a lifesaving remedy, and those who respect the Lord will find true life,
and a person is, so is their loved one.

This is the word of the Lord.

A reading from the letter of St. Paul to the Corinthians

Give yourself to one another completely, be generous in your giving and make no condition on these gifts.
Love one another constantly and fully. Be humble in acceptance of your partners love. Be honest with each other and do nothing that gives cause to deception. Be patient with one another's flaws and accept each other for what you are, not what you wish one another to be. Communicate constantly with one another; be calm, patient, tolerant and reasonable in your communication. Share with one another's misfortune alike. Fuse your souls into one and be happy for the love you have been so fortunate to find in one another.

This is the word of the Lord.

lazybones32

I see now why he asked what translation you got the readings from...Neither of them are actually scripture verses but an amalgamation of different phrases from the bible and rephrased or paraphrased. They aren't the Word of the Lord, so they can't be used in an official Catholic service. They might sound nicer and have more meaning to you personally but it is distorting and cherrypicking what was actually written, so the Church won't have it.

It was misguided of whoever posted those as acceptable readings for a wedding. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

The 2nd 'reading' seems to be an adaptation of Ephesians, not Corinthians but it's still not going to be allowed.

Sarah1916

Thanks Lazybones, I was afraid that was what I was going to be told.

Perhaps we will go back to the drawing board and select direct readings from the bible.

Thanks for your help.

The priest or parish office or church bookstore might have a booklet of appropriate readings you can buy or borrow.

ScumLord

lazybones32 wrote: »

The readings you've chosen might have a very different rendition when chosen from a different translation and I don't think the RCC sees every translation as being accurate, so they mightn't want a certain version being used.

I would have thought that the Catholic church only has one official version of the bible??

Mancomb Seepgood

ScumLord wrote: »

I would have thought that the Catholic church only has one official version of the bible??

The translation used in the Catholic liturgy will vary in different parts of the world, in North America the NASB is used, in Ireland I think it's the Jerusalem Bible (one of the Catholics here will correct me I'm sure).

ScumLord

Mancomb Seepgood wrote: »

The translation used in the Catholic liturgy will vary in different parts of the world, in North America the NASB is used, in Ireland I think it's the Jerusalem Bible (one of the Catholics here will correct me I'm sure).

I wonder would the latin version still be the official one still and once you're using a translated version there's a bit of wiggle room?

Peregrinus

ScumLord wrote: »

I wonder would the latin version still be the official one still and once you're using a translated version there's a bit of wiggle room?

Strictly speaking, not much wiggle room. Each national bishops conference approves a vernacular missal and, in order to do so, they choose a particular vernacular translation which they will use for liturgical purposes. (This is true in every country, not just English-speaking countries.) As Mancomb says, in the US they use the New American Bible, in Canada they use the New Revised Standard Version, and in most of the rest of the English-speaking world they use the Jerusalem Bible..

However, for something like a wedding, if you have a favourite translation which is not the one officially used, you might find the priest willing to stretch a point to accommodate you. But it would have to be an actual translation of the bible, not a collection of biblical phrases taken from different places and assembled together, or a new composition in inspired by, and quoting liberally from, the bible.

I agree with lazybones32; the priest here isn't really concerned about which bible translation is used; he's more concerned about the fact that the suggested texts aren't from any bible translation, but he's trying to make that point delicately.

recedite

Sarah1916 wrote: »

Perhaps we will go back to the drawing board and select direct readings from the bible.

The Book of Sirach isn't even Christian, let alone biblical. Arguably.
If you want a church wedding, have it in a church and use bible readings.
If you want a hippy wedding, have it on a beach and use cool sounding readings from ancient mystics. Your choice.

I think your local priest deserves this month's award for Xtreme Diplomacy

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

The Book of Sirach isn't even Christian, let alone biblical. Arguably.

Well, none of the Old Testament is Christian.

But, in the Catholic church (which I think is where Sarah is marrying) it's definitely biblical. It was included in the septuagint - the Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures used by diaspora Jews from before the time of Christ - and so was inherited by the Chrisitians. It's regarded as canonical scripture by the Catholic and Orthodox traditions, though the Reformation most Protestants have regarded it as not scriptural (though they still tend to include in printed bibles, in an appendix inserted between the Old and New Testaments).

It's also known as the Wisdom of Sirach or the Book of Ecclesiasticus.

It's employed in the Catholic lectionary. When you're at mass on the Sunday after Christmas, rec, and on the Sunday after that you'll notice that the Old Testament readings are from Sirach. And it turns up a couple of other times during the year.

Mrs OBumble

ScumLord wrote: »

I wonder would the latin version still be the official one still and once you're using a translated version there's a bit of wiggle room?

Ahh, you do realise that the bible was written in Greek and Aramaic and that the Latin version is just another translation ?

Peregrinus

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Ahh, you do realise that the bible was written in Greek and Aramaic and that the Latin version is just another translation?

Well, not quite. If you're celebrating a Catholic liturgy in Latin (yes, Virginia, people still do this) and there are scripture readings involved then you have to use the Vulgate, and not any other Latin translation. So it does enjoy a certain pre-eminent status.

But, for liturgies in other languages, there are a range of bible translations available. As I say, it's up to the local bishops to approve one (or, if they want, more than one) for local use. And these are all translations from the Hebrew/Greek originals, not from Latin.

Glenster

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Ahh, you do realise that the bible was written in Greek and Aramaic and that the Latin version is just another translation ?

Was it written in Aramaic? Hebrew surely? Maybe Hebro-Aramaic for a few hundred verses?

Peregrinus

Yup. The whole of the NT is written in Greek. Nearly the whole of the OT is written in Hebrew, except for a few relatively late passages in the Books of Daniel and Ezra and maybe one or two other places. Hebrew ceased to be the dominant spoken language used by Jews about 500 years before Christ, and was replaced by Aramaic (though Hebrew was still used for liturgical and literary purposes). A few passages composed after this date in Aramaic made it into the scriptures that became the OT accepted by the Christians.

Sirach, the book mentioned in this thread, was composed quite late (maybe 200 years before Christ?) but nevertheless was composed in Hebrew.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

When you're at mass on the Sunday after Christmas, rec, and on the Sunday after that you'll notice that the Old Testament readings are from Sirach..

I'll be listening out for it. But if its not in the original Hebrew, I'll be filing a complaint. I'll have none of these dodgy translations

Mrs OBumble

Jesus didn't speak Latin either.

( Its always fun telling that to people who think that the mass should be in Latin cos that's what Jesus used.)

ScumLord

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Ahh, you do realise that the bible was written in Greek and Aramaic and that the Latin version is just another translation ?

The catholic church would use a latin bible most the time though wouldn't they? I remember that being part of the problem for some people, they would complain that the priests were keeping people from the bible and acting like translators.

I didn't know it was originally written in Greek though. I had assumed it would be hebrew or latin.

Peregrinus

ScumLord wrote: »

The catholic church would use a latin bible most the time though wouldn't they? I remember that being part of the problem for some people, they would complain that the priests were keeping people from the bible and acting like translators.

I didn't know it was originally written in Greek though. I had assumed it would be hebrew or latin.

In the early days - say, for the first four centuries - pretty well all Christians used a Greek translation of the Old Testament (originally composed in Hebrew) plus the Greek original text of the New Testament. They used this in liturgy and for most other purposes. It helped that most of them spoke Greek. There were translations into other language - Latin, Aramaic - and you were free to read and use those for your own devotions, study, etc (if you could read, and if you had access to manuscripts).

In about the fourth century the Western church switched to using a Latin translation in liturgy, since by then most Christians in the West were Latin-speakers.

The Latin translation continued to be used for liturgical purposes right up until the mid-twentieth century. Other translations were prepared, and were available, and were not generally forbidden, but most Christians could not afford to buy them and, in any event, could not read.

From the time of the Reformation onwards, a greater and greater proportion of the populace could read, and the invention of printing made books affordable. There was an explosion in the number of bible translations available. The church sought to control this, initially by banning bible translations that it considered inaccurate, but mainly by preparing and promoting its own translations.

It wasn't until well into the nineteenth century that the "average" Christian could read. The result was that, notwithstanding the ready availability of bible translations, the majority of Christians still relied for their knowledge of scripture on what they heard preached in church, or what they were taught in schools. This was true for Catholics and Protestants alike. The only difference was that Protestants did hear scripture passages read in church in a language they could understand, and then expounded in preaching, whereas Catholics (or those who hadn't learned Latin) heard scripture passages in a language they didn't understand, followed by expository preaching.

Mellor

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Ahh, you do realise that the bible was written in Greek and Aramaic and that the Latin version is just another translation ?

He said official version though, not original version (Hebrew and Greek)
The official version is the Vulgate. Which isn't even the original latin bible either.

Mellor

Anyway, a quick google shows that somebody else ran into this same issue, with those exact two passages.

They identified it as Sirach/Ecclesiasticus 6:14-17.

The Jerusalem Bible wrote:

14 A loyal friend is a powerful defence: whoever finds one has indeed found a treasure.
15 A loyal friend is something beyond price, there is no measuring his worth.
16 A loyal friend is the elixir of life, and those who fear the Lord will find one.
17 Whoever fears the Lord makes true friends, for as a person is, so is his friend too.

New Revised Standard Version wrote:

Faithful friends are a sturdy shelter; whoever finds one has found a treasure.
Faithful friends are beyond price; no amount can balance their worth.
Faithful friends are life-saving medicine; and those who fear the Lord will find them.
Those who fear the Lord direct their friendship aright, for as they are, so are their neighbours also.

The second one is a bit more makey-uppy I think.

Peregrinus

Mellor wrote: »

He said official version though, not original version (Hebrew and Greek)
The official version is the Vulgate. Which isn't even the original latin bible either.

Well. I'm not sure that the concept of "original Latin bible" makes much sense. Any scriptural text in Latin is not "the original", since the originals are either in Hebrew or in Greek; it's a translation. And, while various Bible passages were certainly translated into Latin before the Vulgate by various people and at various times and in various ways, and collections of these translations did exist, the Vulgate is, so far as we know, the first comprehensive project to translate the entire Bible into Latin in a consistent fashion.

The Vulgate is so called not because it was a translation into the dialect known as Vulgar Latin or Common Latin - it wasn't - but because it was intended for common use, to replace the slew of inconsistent existing translations. It does indeed enjoy "official status" in the Catholic church, but that was only granted at the Council of Trent, more than a thousand years later, on the basis of long usage.

solodeogloria

ScumLord wrote: »

The catholic church would use a latin bible most the time though wouldn't they? I remember that being part of the problem for some people, they would complain that the priests were keeping people from the bible and acting like translators.

I didn't know it was originally written in Greek though. I had assumed it would be hebrew or latin.

Good evening!

This was the crux of the Reformation. I'm thankful to God for people like Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Tyndale and others who argued for a return to Biblical principles.

God never asked us to hide His Word from people. Indeed it can't be chained anyway. (2 Timothy 2:9). I'm thankful that the Catholic Church don't do this any more. God speaks in His Word by His Spirit.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Mrs OBumble

Peregrinus wrote: »

It does indeed enjoy "official status" in the Catholic church, but that was only granted at the Council of Trent, more than a thousand years later, on the basis of long usage.

I've met a few Catholic scripture scholars: Theologians (with a capital t) whose professional work involves scripture study.

Not a single one of them learned Latin so that they could read the Bible (some learned it for other purposes). Every single one of them learned Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic, depending on their area of interest.

Peregrinus

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

I've met a few Catholic scripture scholars: Theologians (with a capital t) whose professional work involves scripture study.

Not a single one of them learned Latin so that they could read the Bible (some learned it for other purposes). Every single one of them learned Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic, depending on their area of interest.

Oh, yes. Scripture scholars all work from the original language texts, so far as possible. Or, if they haven't yet mastered the original languages, from vernacular translations made directly from the original languages (which all modern translations are).

The "official" status of the Vulgate doesn't really have to do with scriptural scholarship, but with liturgy.

Mellor

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well. I'm not sure that the concept of "original Latin bible" makes much sense. Any scriptural text in Latin is not "the original", since the originals are either in Hebrew or in Greek; it's a translation.

Well I did mention that the original text was in Latin and Greek.
By original latin might be an oxymoron, but I'm sure you know what I meant. There were previous translations to latin, but they were not comprehensive translations but rather various latin manuscripts, the Vetus Latina.

You are right of course that the Vulgate was the first time somebody sat down to translate it as a whole, consistently.

Thinkingaboutit

recedite wrote: »

The Book of Sirach isn't even Christian, let alone biblical. Arguably.
If you want a church wedding, have it in a church and use bible readings.
If you want a hippy wedding, have it on a beach and use cool sounding readings from ancient mystics. Your choice.

I think your local priest deserves this month's award for Xtreme Diplomacy

So Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox are not Christian? They hold it as canon, as Biblical. Protestants tend not to. That's how your words come across. A priest who rejects the Book of Sirach might consider another occupation, as it's not his decision to make.

St Jerome translated the Bible in what came to be called the Vulgate The Vetus Latina was a hodge podge of the good and the bad, so it was necessary for Eusebius Sophronius Hieronymus, known as St Jerome, with the encouragement of Pope St Damasus, to start his work. St Jerome moved to Jerusalem so that he could almost submerge himself in all possible and relevant Hebrew and Hellenistic Jewish texts and commentaries. He wrote a good many allegorical OT commentaries working from Hebrew. He also believed that Rabbinical authorities rejected the Septuagint or Greek translation of the Old Testament as having heretical elements. This was not universally accepted, particularly by St Augustine. Most Western versions of the OT were drawn from the Septuagint, which increased the risk of a problematic text for Jerome. Some writers of the time noted how rich Christians had purple dyed and gold lettered codexes (the book form was popularised by Christians), but with a poor, unscholarly text.

Some of the propers of the Tridentine Mass are derived from a Vetus Latina translation, as that was used at the time, but the Epistle and Gospel are from the Vulgate.

The Novus Ordo Missae use Epistles and Gospel from a variety of translations, all translations from the Hebrew and Greek originals.

The early seventeenth century Douay Rheims is one of the earliest full scale English translations that remains in use. It was translated from the Vulgate, with checking for accuracy, and served to give spiritual sustenance to Recusants both in England and those in exile. It is suggested it had a major influence on the King James Version or Authorised Version, after obviously the work of William Tyndale, perhaps one of the earliest to work fully from the Greek and Hebrew. Most know translations from earlier just worked with the Vulgate.

A site called Catholic Bible Online has a side by side of the Vulgate, Douay-Rheims, and Knox (mid twentieth century).

A person can look in book shops and online for the various authorised Catholic Bible texts, and simply ask the priest if they're okay. Some translations are better than others, from an aesthetic point of view. The special day needs to have everything done well. Some modern translations are colourless, so there are other which can be chosen. He sounds a careful and sincere priest.