"The Latin Vulgate (see the Douay-Rheims Bible) indicates that the effeminate will not inherit the Kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:10). But the New American Bible, which is used by the USCCB, omits the word effeminate:
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (Latin Vulgate):
Verse 9: "Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: Neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers:
an nescitis quia iniqui regnum Dei non possidebunt nolite errare neque fornicarii neque idolis servientes neque adulteri
Verse 10: Nor the effeminate nor liers with mankind nor thieves nor covetous nor drunkards nor railers nor extortioners shall possess the kingdom of God.
neque molles neque masculorum concubitores neque fures neque avari neque ebriosi neque maledici neque rapaces regnum Dei possidebunt."
1Corinthians 6: 9-10 (New American Bible) posted online by the USCCB:
Verse 9: "Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites
Verse 10: nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God."
Interesting. I always use the Douay-Rheims because of its faithfulness to the Vulgate but also because of the beauty of the language. Sometimes, though the use of language may be a bit archaic, I get insight that I never get with the NAB or RSVCE.
Regardless, as the writer at LaSalette asks:
"Why do you think this is so? The Latin Vulgate, which we have obtained from the great St. Jerome, is the most precise translation of the Sacred Scriptures available. There are many other problems with recent translations of the Scriptures. But my focus here is on this passage. Why has the word "effeminate" been dropped from 1 Corinthians 6?"
I don't know but I'm sure going to find out. I can make some guesses here based on certain proclivities toward the feminine that I have personally observed in many priests over the years, a proclivity I tend to believe exists all the way to the very highest levels in the Vatican and academia. I would also guess that this is further evidence of the evils of political correctness and it's Marxist roots infecting the Church. And of course the homosexuality that underlies the sexual abuse crisis does come to mind.
While I go in search of some answers I'd like to leave you with another passage from the Bible, Douay-Rheims version, of course:
"And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from these things that are written in this book."
Revelation 22:19
How deeply has the evil penetrated into the core of Holy Mother Church?
Posts
Catawissa,
ReplyDeleteThe word in the original Greek is malakos and it means:
1) soft, soft to the touch
2) metaph. in a bad sense
a) effeminate
1) of a catamite
2) of a boy kept for homosexual relations with a man
3) of a male who submits his body to unnatural lewdness
4) of a male prostitute
Do NOT expect precision in translation from the effeminate theologians who walk the halls of the USCCB in Washington, DC.
Thank you, my friend, I thought hoped you'd have something to say about the meaning of the original. This is why I always like to hang out with people that are better educated than me. I learn something new every time.
ReplyDeleteDo you know if there is any valid reason for the change?
The Cult of Softness which has infected the Church like a cancer is behind the rapid shift away from agonistic language and toward language which is irenic or conciliatory. Walter Ong notes how, "The old Breviarum romanum had included in the round of its weekly readings all of the 150 psalms: the new Liturgy of the Hours (1971), which replaces the Breviary, omits three execrative psalms calling down God's wrath on the psalmist's enemies...In similar nonagonistic style, instead of writing off the human city as inimical to the heavenly kingdom, the Liturgy of the Hours now prays, 'may we work together to build up the earthly city, with our eyes fixed on the city which lasts forever'....The duality is still there, but the intensely agonistic stage of consciousness has been superseded by another stage, and existence is no longer defined so utterly by polemic." (Fighting for Life, pp. 170-171).
ReplyDeleteWhere is this all taking us? Read this link to see where the Archdiocese of Boston is heading. It has been said that where Boston goes, the rest of the Catholic Church in America soon follows:
http://bryanhehirexposed.wordpress.
com/2010/10/02/boston-catholic-tea-
party-against-social-justice-
conference-update-1/
Thanks for the link! I'll follow this blog.
ReplyDelete"Cult of Softness" is an absolutely perfect description of the belief system of our girlish Church leaders today. Where are Spencer Tracy and Bing Crosby when we need'em?
Yes, heaven forbid that any fightin' words would be allowed in the Breviary; it might give those priests ideas! Better than we all hold hands and fellowship. That's sure to keep Satan in his place.
While we find plenty of militancy among the faithful, especially here on the 'net, precious little of it can be found in the Church itself. They refuse to fight and yet wonder why they lose the battle. Or, and this is worse, I think that they understand precisely what needs to be done to lose and they are more than willing to do it.
St. Michael, defend us!
Catawissa,
ReplyDeleteThe dumming down and emasculation of language in the USCCB NAB translation simply follows what some Protestant translations already do. The NRSV with its gender neutral language is similar to the NAB. So is the Protestant NIV. But the Protestant KJV and NASB follow the Duoay-Rheims with exactness in translation.
Darby's literal translation (Protestant) is actually not bad:
"Do ye not know that unrighteous [persons] shall not inherit [the] kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who make women of themselves, nor who abuse themselves with men..."
This is why I advocate learning the ancient languages for those who can, and using an interlinear translation with Strong's Concordance for those who can't. I am in the middle. I do pretty well with Latin, but my ability in New Testament Greek leaves much to be desired, and I am simply incapable of mastering the right to left script of Aramaic and Hebrew.
Now as to why the USCCB decided to translate certain verses non-literally, that's obvious. Those are the verses with which they are the most uncomfortable. They'd throw on Romans 1:18-32 if they could get away with it.
Ioannes,
ReplyDeleteI have no gift for languages nor enough patience to overcome my lack. That's why it's important that those that do can help the rest of us.
I do, however, have a gift for research which is why I follow your advice and have surrounded myself with Strong's and multi-translation Bibles and every other thing I can get my hands on along with the net. It seems to me that the only way to get any understanding at all of what the Bible and Tradition have passed down is to go to original sources such as the Fathers and Doctors, modern reputable theologians, the Catechism and a lot of times just dumb luck until a clear picture arises.
It's a bunch of work but it sure is fun. Unfortunately, for the less geeky, the truth shouldn't have to be this hard to get to.
I know why the USCCB does what it does but what I don't get, maybe because it's just so purely damned evil and ugly, is how men, so well educated in the faith, clearly knowing what they're doing and what the end result will be, continue to do it.
I've done evil in my life and most of the time I knew what I was doing and am wholly culpable for my acts. But I never, ever did anything that I knew, without doubt, there was no coming back from.
It seems to me that these Church leaders, these men of vows and oaths, ARE committing that one unforgivable sin, that sin against the Holy Spirit.
And I'm...speechless.