Google "Douay Rheims Challoner." Inside>>>>> -- LJG Discussion board

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Monday, April 20, 9:30:59 [ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 09:39:39 04/19/10 Mon
Author: Panofka
Subject: Google "Douay Rheims Challoner." Inside>>>>>
In reply to: Kel 's message, "Yep, it's just that a Bible from the 1700's would say righteousness, not justice. And, since the character is in 1700's making the quotation, it would not be justice. Someone reading could certainly "interpret" the meaning in an incorrect theological manner, but they couldn't interpret a word the Bibles printed of that time didn't say. Similar to the idea that LJG wouldn't say "United States" (at this time, unless he was referring to something Claire told him) because they weren't yet." on 22:18:36 04/18/10 Sun

So, really, "justice" is not at all as anachronistic as you suggest. (We used to have a 19th-century copy of the Challoner--and his name was eluding me, or I could have looked it up sooner-- but I can't find the copy). Anyway, the edition, as I remember it, is definitely mid-18th-century, and Matthew 5 definitely has it as "justice." I'm no Bible scholar, but what I've found online jibes with what I remember, and it matches what I learned in school in the 20th century.

Having said that, I come back to my original point: none of that really matters. What I was trying to say (perhaps I was too oblique, and, sorry, I surely was too flippant) is this: the operative word here for the character is "justice." Matters of translation don't matter. It seems to me that the real value of any religious text is how it is understood and enacted by human beings. When I see such references in fiction, I just go with what it tells me about the character. It is "justice" that Carruthers seeks, and and he sees in Lord John a similar impulse--Carruthers bases his desire for justice, at least partly, on scripture, but the non-religious, rationalist Lord John doesn't. Nevertheless, Carruthers trusts that LJ will see justice done.

I truly did not mean to get quite so annoying and contradictory. It's just that when you started to go down the path of "righteousness-vs-modern translations" I thought, "Well, no, actually . . ." and the forest seemed to get lost in the trees. Anyway, I promise I'll shut up about it now!

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Could he have a Challoner Bible (finished 1752, plus printing & distribution issues)-I suppose. Could he have the Douay-Rheims, which didn't get to England? I suppose-it is FICTION after all. -- Kel, 17:31:56 04/19/10 Mon