Bible Translation principles

[Ron_Conte]

Some random thoughts on the subject:

1. source text: Some translations should be based on the Latin scriptural tradition, and some on the Greek OT/NT, and some on the Hebrew/Greek OT/NT. For languages other than Latin, there are very many manuscripts available, but too much emphasis is given to a small subset of manuscripts. I don’t believe in the oldest is best view of manuscripts, nor do I think that an OT manuscript in Hebrew is necessarily better than one in another language; and the same for NT in Greek.

 

[tobinatorstark]

I totally agree with you Ron. There are too many people giving claims to what is and what isn’t the oldest manuscripts and so forth

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I totally agree with you Ron. There are too many people giving claims to what is and what isn’t the oldest manuscripts and so forth

And some of them are rather better qualified to comment on such matters than we are. Textual criticism is a science; it has its principles & methods. So what people who know zero about it may think, is irrelevant Their ill-informed blather should not be confused with what the textual critics do - but these days, every yokel thinks himself qualified to comment on matters concerning the Bible. It’s appalling - no other subject is dragged in the mud by ignorant fanatics in this way The “can-do” instinct gone mad, I suppose The moral : the Bible is far too important to be left to the layman. It is not for everyone. We need more censorship - there is far too little of it ​

 

[Ron_Conte]

And some of them are rather better qualified to comment on such matters than we are. Textual criticism is a science; it has its principles & methods. So what people who know zero about it may think, is irrelevant Their ill-informed blather should not be confused with what the textual critics do - but these days, every yokel thinks himself qualified to comment on matters concerning the Bible. It’s appalling - no other subject is dragged in the mud by ignorant fanatics in this way The “can-do” instinct gone mad, I suppose The moral : the Bible is far too important to be left to the layman. It is not for everyone. We need more censorship - there is far too little of it​

In the Catholic Faith, Tradition is an important source of truth, and Tradition is transmitted by all the lives of all the faithful in so far as they imitate Christ. The Council of Trent gave the Latin scriptural tradition an important place in the Scriptural life of the Church because it has been in nearly constant use by the faithful; this useage by the faithful includes the humblest and least of the faithful who use the Bible in private study and devotion, it includes the useage of the Bible at Mass. Scholars are only a very small part of the Living Tradition and its use of the Bible.

Many (not all) scholars with impressive credentials have gone astray from the Faith by following their science alone; they treat Scripture as if it were merely a human book, full of errors. I would like to see us return to the practice in the early Church, prior to St. Jerome, when many persons worked on translations of the Bible; their collective effort did much to establish the Latin Scriptural tradition even before St. Jerome made his contribution.

 

[Ron_Conte]

1. accuracy versus readability: literal translations are a more accurate representation of the source text, are generally better for study and for reaching to the spiritual level of meaning of the text; loose translations are less accurate and not usually as good for study, but are easier to read and more approachable for beginners. There is a false assumption that the looser translation is better; my view is that the more literal translation is better for most purposes.

 

[COPLAND_3]

Some excellent points Ron, I agree!

As I have posted recently, I believe that most the authors of the Bible have written their accounts more than once and sometimes in multiple languages which explains why there are many variants and additions that are more than just scribal errors.

I don’t care for paraphrase Bibles or dynamic equivalents, just too much private interpretations that get infiltrated within the text.

 

[Manfred]

From Divino Afflante Spiritu:

1. Wherefore this authority of the Vulgate in matters of doctrine by no means prevents–nay rather today it almost demands–either the corroboration and confirmation of this same doctrine by the original texts or the having recourse on any and every occasion to the aid of these same texts, by which the correct meaning of the Sacred Letters is everywhere daily made more clear and evident.

While I cannot speak for Ron Conte, I do believe there is reasoned thinking in what he is saying in light of the statement above; to wit,

If, for a particular passage, a translator intentionally selects from among the available “original texts” a variant reading which does not corroborate and confirm a doctrine as rendered in the Vulgate, then that translator is not doing his job correctly.

To me, this seems to be the case with many of the modern Catholic translations.

 

[COPLAND_3]

From Divino Afflante Spiritu:

1. Wherefore this authority of the Vulgate in matters of doctrine by no means prevents–nay rather today it almost demands–either the corroboration and confirmation of this same doctrine by the original texts or the having recourse on any and every occasion to the aid of these same texts, by which the correct meaning of the Sacred Letters is everywhere daily made more clear and evident.

While I cannot speak for Ron Conte, I do believe there is reasoned thinking in what he is saying in light of the statement above; to wit,

If, for a particular passage, a translator intentionally selects from among the available “original texts” a variant reading which does not corroborate and confirm a doctrine as rendered in the Vulgate, then that translator is not doing his job correctly.

To me, this seems to be the case with many of the modern Catholic translations.

I like about all of what Ron stands for, I think we’d all be better off over all if scholars were more in line with his line of thinking, but I do find exceptions to some of his rules that he does not budge on.

There are many thousands of Latin Vulgate manuscripts that have variant readings that provide good alternative readings that are probably just as original as in the edition approved by Trent. I believe that the authors of the Bible wrote their accounts more than one time and could have very well provided us with those variant readings, which would give those readings value too.

 

[Ron_Conte]

There are many thousands of Latin Vulgate manuscripts that have variant readings that provide good alternative readings that are probably just as original as in the edition approved by Trent. I believe that the authors of the Bible wrote their accounts more than one time and could have very well provided us with those variant readings, which would give those readings value too.

Trent did not approve of one particular edition of the Bible, but rather (in my view) they approved of the Latin Scriptural tradition. So scholars could legitimately look at various Latin editions and manuscripts when making a translation. They can also legitimately look at manuscripts in other languages (and have always done so, even long before DAS), since the Latin is largely based on the Hebrew and Greek.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Ron Conte: What is your opinion of St. Jerome’s third and last attempt at translating the psalms?

Does it differ much from what we now know as the Vulgate?

Would you consider it a part of the Latin scriptural tradition?

 

[Ron_Conte]

Ron Conte: What is your opinion of St. Jerome’s third and last attempt at translating the psalms?

Does it differ much from what we now know as the Vulgate?

Would you consider it a part of the Latin scriptural tradition?

We don’t have an extant copy of Jerome’s work.

The Latin Scriptural tradition includes influence from manuscripts in other languages. The earliest Latin manuscripts were translated from other languages (except for Mark and Romans, which I think were written in Latin). However translating one book into Latin from Hebrew or Greek does not place that edition of the book into the Latin scriptural tradition. I think Jerome did much work in the Latin Scriptural tradition, but he also did some work outside of that tradition. For a work to be in the Latin Scriptural tradition it has to be based to a large extent on earlier Latin manuscripts, going back to the early Church when many persons translated many manuscripts into Latin.

 

[Ron_Conte]

1. formal equivalency versus dynamic equivalency: these terms and many of the ideas associated with them were invented by a man named Eugene Nida, who was a linguist, not a Biblical scholar, a Protestant, and who did not believe in the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible. He was mainly concerned with translating the Bible for primitive tribes with languages with limited vocabulary related to Biblical terms. He heavily favored dynamic over formal equivalency; many persons who use these terms also carry over this bias towards dynamic equivalency.
   bible-researcher.com/dynamic-equivalence.html

 

[Jerry-Jet]

I think that dynamic equivalency isn’t equivalent at all.

It may be different–but it’s not the true word of God.

 

[COPLAND_3]

I am fine with dynamic equivalency as another option for people to have but so far I have not seen anything that I would recommend right now for reading the Bible. Dynamic equivalence is a form of transmitting one langauge into another, but I have yet to see one that does the Bible that way into English in the way I am satisfied with, and probably won’t either because too many people have an agenda that is biased towards their theology.

Symmachus did that (dynamic equivalence) with the OT into Greek, and it was useful for many Greek readers at the time, and sometimes the Septuagint translators did it too, so it is not a bad thing in itself, but it does create a risk of compromising accuracy.

 

[tnystrom]

I am fine with dynamic equivalency as another option for people to have but so far I have not seen anything that I would recommend right now for reading the Bible. Dynamic equivalence is a form of transmitting one langauge into another, but I have yet to see one that does the Bible that way into English in the way I am satisfied with, and probably won’t either because too many people have an agenda that is biased towards their theology.

Symmachus did that (dynamic equivalence) with the OT into Greek, and it was useful for many Greek readers at the time, and sometimes the Septuagint translators did it too, so it is not a bad thing in itself, but it does create a risk of compromising accuracy.

As a linguist and former member of Wycliffe Bible Translators, I must comment. Dynamic equivalence is most useful when translating into languages with cultures that are vastly different from the Biblical one. Each language divides the universe up differently and that is reflected in their language.

 

[tnystrom]

1. formal equivalency versus dynamic equivalency: these terms and many of the ideas associated with them were invented by a man named Eugene Nida, who was a linguist, not a Biblical scholar, a Protestant, and who did not believe in the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible. He was mainly concerned with translating the Bible for primitive tribes with languages with limited vocabulary related to Biblical terms. He heavily favored dynamic over formal equivalency; many persons who use these terms also carry over this bias towards dynamic equivalency.
   bible-researcher.com/dynamic-equivalence.html

The translation needs solid linguistic imput. Without it, it will be jibberish. The purpose of Sacred Scripture is to communicate God’s message.
These issues are considered when the Magisterium approves or initiates a new translation.

 

[Ron_Conte]

As a linguist and former member of Wycliffe Bible Translators, I must comment. Dynamic equivalence is most useful when translating into languages with cultures that are vastly different from the Biblical one. Each language divides the universe up differently and that is reflected in their language.

Yes, and that was the original purpose of such translations by Eugene Nida, so invented and developed the tern dynamic equivalence.

Looser translations are useful for:

1. new converts
2. children
3. returning lapsed Catholic Christians
4. persons whose native language is very different from Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, Latin

More literal translations are useful for:

1. the Mass (in my opinion)
2. study and interpretation
3. personal devotion by those mature in the Faith

The translation needs solid linguistic imput. Without it, it will be jibberish. The purpose of Sacred Scripture is to communicate God’s message.
These issues are considered when the Magisterium approves or initiates a new translation.

The Magisterium teaches from Tradition and Scripture. It is the temporal authority of the Church that give approval to translations. Also, the sensus fidelium has always had a role in the use and approval of translations. It was the near constant useage of the Vulgate by the faithful that allowed Trent to declare that the Vulgate is without error on faith and morals.

 

[Ron_Conte]

1. Translations have become continually looser over time.

This is important in any discussion of literal versus loose (or formal versus dynamic) translations. The earliest translations were very literal (Wycliffe, original Douai). Subsequent translations progressively became ever more loosely phrased. When Martin Luther described is approach to translation, he was criticized for translating too loosely by Catholic scholars. But that same approach today would be considered a fairly literal approach.

It has reached the point where modern-day loose translations take appauling liberties with the text, which are not justified by any translation principles even within the dynamic equivalency approach.

So, when the 1966 JB was translated, it was a looser translation. The NJB was intended to be more literal than the JB, but in many places the NJB was looser, because what is considered literal and loose had changed over time.

The 1970 NAB was considered by some Bishops and commentators to be too loosely phrased, so the updates to the NAB were intended to be more literal. But as time passed, the judgment as to what is literal and accurate has changed. As a result the latest NAB is in some ways less literal.

This progression has to be reversed, or else translations will turn into mere Bible commentary and Bible stories, rather than the true Word of God.

 

[tobinatorstark]

1. Translations have become continually looser over time.

This is important in any discussion of literal versus loose (or formal versus dynamic) translations. The earliest translations were very literal (Wycliffe, original Douai). Subsequent translations progressively became ever more loosely phrased. When Martin Luther described is approach to translation, he was criticized for translating too loosely by Catholic scholars. But that same approach today would be considered a fairly literal approach.

It has reached the point where modern-day loose translations take appauling liberties with the text, which are not justified by any translation principles even within the dynamic equivalency approach.

So, when the 1966 JB was translated, it was a looser translation. The NJB was intended to be more literal than the JB, but in many places the NJB was looser, because what is considered literal and loose had changed over time.

The 1970 NAB was considered by some Bishops and commentators to be too loosely phrased, so the updates to the NAB were intended to be more literal. But as time passed, the judgment as to what is literal and accurate has changed. As a result the latest NAB is in some ways less literal.

This progression has to be reversed, or else translations will turn into mere Bible commentary and Bible stories, rather than the true Word of God.

I too think that translations have come looser over time. Growing up not knowing much about the Bible, I thought the KJV was the Bible regardless what I heard mass. I never read the Bible except in CCD and when I was in Catholic School my Elementary. Since I have started reading the Bible on regular basis I have seen many different translations and learned where the English Bibles derive from and such. I started out reading the NAB but felt that something was missing. When I finally got my Douay-Rheims from Baronius Press I haven’t hardly been able to put it down. The fact that the Douay-Rheims is a word for word of the Latin Vulgate pretty much guarantees that it is a literal translation and just puts a lot of Bibles to shame.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Even that Douai version (Challoner) is substantially looser than the original Douai Rhemes Bible. I prefer a translation that is literal, but not so literal as to be unwilling to slightly rephrase a verse for the sake of clarity. So I think Challoner is about in the right range for rephrasing versus literal.