Bible should be translated as literally as possible

[William2]

To be as succinct as possible:

Genesis 39:20 reads in the Douay-Rheims:
And cast Joseph into the prison, where the king’s prisoners were kept, and he was there shut up.

Joseph in prison is a type of Jesus’ descent into hell. If you read carefully a literal translation of the story of Joseph going to prison, being in prison, and his release from prison, this is clearly seen. Not every little detail is typological, but a lot of stuff is.

Now let’s focus on this part of Genesis 39:20:
AND HE WAS THERE SHUT UP.

Joseph was “shut up” in prison, just like Jesus was “shut up” in the tomb. Once you are looking at Joseph as a type of Jesus, the phrase “shut up” carries this meaning. A non-literal translation – a translation which attempts to parse the words of the Holy Ghost – loses this phrase. The translator thinks he knows better and substitutes something that “sounds better,” “is clearer,” or “makes more sense.”

p.s.
Another thing: if a Biblical scholar is attempting to decide on the original text, comparing the Septuagint, Vulgate, Hebrew etc., there may be a typological clue. The text that contains the typology is the original text. If you look at the Authorized (King James) Version and the RSV of Genesis 39:20, you can see that the Douay-Rheims people are better than them in this case.

 

[William2]

Here’s an example of the beauty of the literal word, compared to a translation that parses the words of the Holy Ghost.

Acts 5:20:
Go, and, standing, speak in the temple, to the people, all the words of this life.

That’s the literal rendering. Here’s the New American Bible:

Go and take your place in the temple area, and tell the people everything about this life.

 

[BVM_1221]

Of course, there will still be problems with literal translations. Take Matthew 19:10-12. Seems simple enough in the original Greek. There are those who have castrated themselves, made themselves eunuchs, for the Kingdom Of Heaven’s sake. :bigyikes:

I see no reason to doubt that this is exactly what Jesus wanted for those who could accept it. A life free of the sex urge, to be devoted to spiritual works.:getholy:

Now compare that original Greek to most modern translations. Hey kids, can you pronounce “euphamism?” I thought you could

For some reason, the Catholic Church disagrees 100% with Jesus.

 

[paperwight66]

:

. Hey kids, can you pronounce “euphamism?” I thought you could:rolleyes.
:

Well,I can certainly spell euphemism correctly, will that do?

 

[Dave_Noonan]

To be as succinct as possible:

Genesis 39:20 reads in the Douay-Rheims:
And cast Joseph into the prison, where the king’s prisoners were kept, and he was there shut up.

Joseph in prison is a type of Jesus’ descent into hell. If you read carefully a literal translation of the story of Joseph going to prison, being in prison, and his release from prison, this is clearly seen. Not every little detail is typological, but a lot of stuff is.

Now let’s focus on this part of Genesis 39:20:
AND HE WAS THERE SHUT UP.

Joseph was “shut up” in prison, just like Jesus was “shut up” in the tomb. Once you are looking at Joseph as a type of Jesus, the phrase “shut up” carries this meaning. A non-literal translation – a translation which attempts to parse the words of the Holy Ghost – loses this phrase. The translator thinks he knows better and substitutes something that “sounds better,” “is clearer,” or “makes more sense.”

p.s.
Another thing: if a Biblical scholar is attempting to decide on the original text, comparing the Septuagint, Vulgate, Hebrew etc., there may be a typological clue. The text that contains the typology is the original text. If you look at the Authorized (King James) Version and the RSV of Genesis 39:20, you can see that the Douay-Rheims people are better than them in this case.

MT (Hebrew) has “he was there in the prison”
LXX (Greek) has “there in the prison”
Vulgate (Latin) has “he was there shut up”

So it’s not so much a matter of literal translation but rather which source text the translator is using.

 

[Barbkw]

Our souls can be raised out of our bodily tombs through God’s mercy, Jesus’ saving grace and the intersession of the Holy Spirit!

 

[PatrickSebast]

People calling for purely literal translations typically have very little understanding of what is involved in translating ancient texts. Literal translations are every bit as capable of losing the original meaning intended by the author as any other translations. That is part of the reason why the Church doesn’t leave biblical interpretation up to the average layman, understanding of the real meaning of the text will never be possible simply from translation. Understanding the real meaning isn’t even possible simply from knowing the original language, culture and historical context are vastly important as well. For instance if devices such as metaphors or sarcasm were unheard or during the time of a certain writing but very prevalent during another time period that would need to be taken into consideration.

Certainly the Bible should be translated to the best of the translators abilities, but there isn’t a clear cut method for doing this. If something is poetic completely literal translation not only fails to display the poetic nature, but also makes it very difficult to read since the grammatical format of 2000+ year old poems doesn’t lend itself well towards issuing a coherent message when formatted for modern languages.

 

[William2]

BVM 1221, doesn’t the Church have the power to say that Jesus didn’t mean literal castration?

The men behind the Douay-Rheims and the Authorized Version, which are as literal as possible, knew much better than anyone who has been alive recently the ancient languages and literature. Their breed disappeared from the earth long ago.

 

[Alan55]

BVM 1221, doesn’t the Church have the power to say that Jesus didn’t mean literal castration?

The men behind the Douay-Rheims and the Authorized Version, which are as literal as possible, knew much better than anyone who has been alive recently the ancient languages and literature. Their breed disappeared from the earth long ago.

Modern bible translators are at least as knowledgeable, and probably more so, regarding ancient languages and literature as the translators of the Douay-Reims and Authorized Version and have the benefit of the research into the languages and literature that post-dated those translations. You are obviously a big fan of these translations, but I don’t think most scholars would share your view.

 

[Ron_Conte]

The most literal translations are the interlinears. But since these extremely literal translations take no account of the differences in word order, tense, grammar, phrasing, etc. between the source and target languages, the translated text is almost unreadable by itself. Extremely literal translations are useful for study, to a limited extent. But unrestrained literalness does not make a translation better than any other.

The faithful need many different translations, some more literal, some less literal, in order to have many sources for understanding the truths of Scripture.

 

[Ron_Conte]

BVM 1221, doesn’t the Church have the power to say that Jesus didn’t mean literal castration?

The men behind the Douay-Rheims and the Authorized Version, which are as literal as possible, knew much better than anyone who has been alive recently the ancient languages and literature. Their breed disappeared from the earth long ago.

The original D-R is much more literal than the AV (KJV). There are many loose renderings in the AV, and few if any in the DR.

 

[William2]

MT (Hebrew) has “he was there in the prison”
LXX (Greek) has “there in the prison”
Vulgate (Latin) has “he was there shut up”

So it’s not so much a matter of literal translation but rather which source text the translator is using.

Very good point. But I hope my basic point remains:
if the Bible is translated loosely, certain things can fall through the cracks.

 

[William2]

Modern bible translators are at least as knowledgeable, and probably more so, regarding ancient languages and literature as the translators of the Douay-Reims and Authorized Version and have the benefit of the research into the languages and literature that post-dated those translations. You are obviously a big fan of these translations, but I don’t think most scholars would share your view.

Peter Kreeft thinks the Church should use the Authorized Version. The people I respect use the RSV, Authorized, and Douay-Rheims. I don’t know of any intelligent Catholic who actually reads something like the NAB.

I have heard that Greek and Latin scholars, in the “old days,” commonly had read all of extant Greek and Latin literature. Who has done that recently?

I have experience with Greek and Latin, and a literal rendering is almost always possible, though it may sound awkward. Perhaps you have to change word-order sometimes. But, basically, there’s not some huge linguistic gulf between the ancient languages and the modern ones.

In fact, “awkwardness” and strange-sounding translations actually, at least for me, do a good job of conveying the spirit of the original language. It should sound different, ancient, foreign, “high.”

In conclusion I will say that I distrust the scholarship of today’s academia. I don’t trust their geology, their sociology, their psychology, nor their pretended superior knowledge of ancient languages.

 

[KShaft]

Peter Kreeft thinks the Church should use the Authorized Version. The people I respect use the RSV, Authorized, and Douay-Rheims. I don’t know of any intelligent Catholic who actually reads something like the NAB.

I have heard that Greek and Latin scholars, in the “old days,” commonly had read all of extant Greek and Latin literature. Who has done that recently?

I have experience with Greek and Latin, and a literal rendering is almost always possible, though it may sound awkward. Perhaps you have to change word-order sometimes. But, basically, there’s not some huge linguistic gulf between the ancient languages and the modern ones.

In fact, “awkwardness” and strange-sounding translations actually, at least for me, do a good job of conveying the spirit of the original language. It should sound different, ancient, foreign, “high.”

In conclusion I will say that I distrust the scholarship of today’s academia. I don’t trust their geology, their sociology, their psychology, nor their pretended superior knowledge of ancient languages.

Amen to this. Does any one besides the self important pseudo intellectuals translating modern versions of the Scriptures really think they know more about Koine Greek and Biblical Hebrew than guys who spoke it fluently and had conversations and discussions with it such as St. Jerome and the Hebrew Scholars he talked with?

“Oh I get it they got it wrong and now we know from translation XIX or whatever this is what they meant.”

REALLY MAN! How arrogant and/or naive are you?

When I was in Baghdad, I had access to every intelligence report you could get your hands on, and on occasion I would be on a team designated to roll up HVI’s on TST missions. I come back and hear the so called experts on TV (not those actually in the military but reporters who claim to be ‘experts’) and they are so clueless as to be funny.
Sad part is, people listen to them and think they are informed. I see a definite parallel here. The only reason some of these guys take the most obscure renderings of scripture (typically ones shuffled aside not meant to be used but preserved because they were not used…) is to cast doubt on the understanding of the one true church, and to call into question its authority so either to try to implement some new heresy, or outright deny the Son of Man(a-theism or agnosticism).

And speaking of awkward, the NAB is dumbed down, supposedly for easier useage, but Id take the NASB over that thing any day of the week. That thing changes things it need not and then adds stuff that is overly descriptive where it shouldn’t be and its just horrible. It has no flow and is more clumsy than a newborn giraffe. How in the hell did that thing become the official translation of the Church in the US? Some one had an agenda, and it WAS NOT for the good of the Church.

 

[Shin]

I ran across the original Douay-Rheims version pre-Challoner revisions on the web, and I must say it’s a special translation, giving new insights into various passages.

There’s a website that sells a version of it with modernized spelling, but otherwise word for word, have to try it out someday, though I can read the older not too badly.

Holiness matters in a translator. A translator who isn’t saintly, or near it, but in fact something far different, opposite, and worse – literal or not there are going to be severe problems with the connotations and word choices.

Translating the Bible is not a purely natural work.

I tend to think we have had a serious problem, a ‘holiness gap’ in much, perhaps all of our modern translations, as well as other problems of methodology, purpose, etc.

 

[patrick457]

The most literal translations are the interlinears. But since these extremely literal translations take no account of the differences in word order, tense, grammar, phrasing, etc. between the source and target languages, the translated text is almost unreadable by itself. Extremely literal translations are useful for study, to a limited extent. But unrestrained literalness does not make a translation better than any other.

The faithful need many different translations, some more literal, some less literal, in order to have many sources for understanding the truths of Scripture.

I agree. Personally I tend to favor ultra-literal translations (say, Young’s or the original Douai-Rheims), but you’re right that “unrestrained literalness does not make a translation better than any other.”

 

[ProVobis]

To be as succinct as possible:

Genesis 39:20 reads in the Douay-Rheims:
And cast Joseph into the prison, where the king’s prisoners were kept, and he was there shut up.

Joseph in prison is a type of Jesus’ descent into hell. If you read carefully a literal translation of the story of Joseph going to prison, being in prison, and his release from prison, this is clearly seen. Not every little detail is typological, but a lot of stuff is.

Now let’s focus on this part of Genesis 39:20:
AND HE WAS THERE SHUT UP.

Joseph was “shut up” in prison, just like Jesus was “shut up” in the tomb. Once you are looking at Joseph as a type of Jesus, the phrase “shut up” carries this meaning. A non-literal translation – a translation which attempts to parse the words of the Holy Ghost – loses this phrase. The translator thinks he knows better and substitutes something that “sounds better,” “is clearer,” or “makes more sense.”

FWIW, from sacredbible.org/studybible/OT-01_Genesis.htm#39

{39:20} tradiditque Ioseph in carcerem, ubi vincti regis custodiebantur, et erat ibi clausus.
{39:20} And he delivered Joseph into prison, where the prisoners of the king were kept, and he was enclosed in that place.

 

[ProVobis]

People calling for purely literal translations typically have very little understanding of what is involved in translating ancient texts. Literal translations are every bit as capable of losing the original meaning intended by the author as any other translations. That is part of the reason why the Church doesn’t leave biblical interpretation up to the average layman, understanding of the real meaning of the text will never be possible simply from translation. Understanding the real meaning isn’t even possible simply from knowing the original language, culture and historical context are vastly important as well. For instance if devices such as metaphors or sarcasm were unheard or during the time of a certain writing but very prevalent during another time period that would need to be taken into consideration.

Certainly the Bible should be translated to the best of the translators abilities, but there isn’t a clear cut method for doing this. If something is poetic completely literal translation not only fails to display the poetic nature, but also makes it very difficult to read since the grammatical format of 2000+ year old poems doesn’t lend itself well towards issuing a coherent message when formatted for modern languages.

Good points. I can appreciate much of what you say here as I have done a lot of Polish-English translations for family members. Sometimes I just leave the phrase untranslated saying it’s not important in the discussion, possibly distracting from the main thrust of the message.

Also I have watched some subtitled movies whose translations seemed very laughable at best. Imagine a drama can be changed to a comedy simply by the mood of the translator.

All this said, I’ve often wondered how many times Genesis had been translated and retranslated before St. Jerome consolidated it into his Vulgate.

 

[DaveBj]

Back when I was a Protestant, my preference would have been for a parallel, consisting of the original language, the kind of painfully literal word-by-word that you get in an interlinear, a literal translation in good English (like the KJV), and a modern translation that took into account the meanings of euphemisms in the original languages (like “covering his feet” for “relieving himself”). Back when I was preaching and teaching, I would sometimes write my own translation of the passage in question (bear in mind that I was by profession a linguist and translator, so it wasn’t like I was some bloke off the street writing his own version of Sacred Scripture).

Nowadays I would add the LXX for the OT and the Vulgate for both, with literal English translations for each. The page is getting a little crowded

I have also gotten insights from reading the Scriptures in other modern languages, especially Spanish, Arabic, and Russian.

DaveBj

 

[Crumpy]

The copyright laws force translators into awkward positions, I am sure (not being qualified for translation myself).

Any comparison of versions shows the gymnastics of the translators to avoid any semblance of plagiarism.

I would have expected that most translations would agree for the most part, but such is not the case. Pick almost any verses from all these translations and you will see the resulting variation.

The Jewish Tanakh translation and the RSV-2CE have more of a tendency to admit the difficulty of rendering some verses. More than you’d expect, they say that some verses are simply too obscure to modern scholars.

Truthfully, even educated translators should be restrained to living the gospel instead of making the temptation to quibble a lifelong pursuit.