Ed Faulk <"efaulk at faswebdesign.com">
Fr. Daniel Garguillio, DD wrote:
Re: Why Should You Read Only the Douay-Rheims Translation of the Bible?

Sometimes the question is raised: Why translate from a translation
(the Latin Vulgate) rather than from the original Greek and Hebrew?
This question was also raised in the 16th century when the Douay-
Rheims translators (Fr. Gregory Martin and his assistants) first
published the Rheims New Testament. They gave ten reasons, ending up
by stating that the Latin Vulgate "is not only better then al other
Latin translations, but then the Greek text itself, in those places
where they disagree." (Preface to the Rheims New Testament, 1582).
They state that the Vulgate is "more pure then the Hebrew or Greek now
extant" and that "the same Latin hath bene barre better conserved from
corruption." (Preface to the Douay Old Testament, 1609).

Such a position is patently false. No translation is better than the
original since no translation is able to accurately convey the same
connotation as the original. While the Vulgate is an accurate
translation in terms of words and, in general, in terms of sense, it is
still a translation and Latin does not, in all cases, convey the same
connotation as the Greek original.

For example, the Greek work "mysterion" is rendered as "sacramentum" in
Latin, yet the two have entirely different connotations (the Greek is
generally translated as "mystery, secret rite or a revelation by God"
while "sacramentum" refers to either a deposit of money against a future
judgment or a voluntary oath taken by military recruits. Do these seem
to be the same thing? I think not!

Deacon Ed