Bible Translation principles

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ron_Conte
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ron_Conte said:
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.
Click to expand...
I couldn’t agree with you more.
 
  1. respect for the text as the Word of God
There is too much emphasis in the modern methods of texual analysis on the text as an object of science. This leads to translations that view the text as if it has only one level of meaning, which could be called the ‘historical’ level of meaning, i.e. the meaning that those sentences would have had (according to the estimation of modern scholars) if found in an ordinary text in Biblical times in the ‘original’ languages. The spiritual level of meaning is, in some modern translations, not only ignored by the translator, but treated as if it does not exist.

Translators should be aware of both levels of meaning
  1. the words refer to things (literally or figuratively)
  2. those things refer to other things
    And sometimes the translation should be phrased so that the spiritual level of meaning is emphasized, even if this results in the literal level of meaning being somewhat obscured.
In translating any passages, there are many truths explicit and implicit in Scripture. Any good translation will at times obscures some truths, while also clarifying other truths. It isn’t possible for a translation to make all truths of all verses clearly stated. Many truths will always remain obscure or hidden or implicit.
 
Ron_Conte said:
  1. respect for the text as the Word of God
There is too much emphasis in the modern methods of texual analysis on the text as an object of science. This leads to translations that view the text as if it has only one level of meaning, which could be called the ‘historical’ level of meaning, i.e. the meaning that those sentences would have had (according to the estimation of modern scholars) if found in an ordinary text in Biblical times in the ‘original’ languages. The spiritual level of meaning is, in some modern translations, not only ignored by the translator, but treated as if it does not exist.

Translators should be aware of both levels of meaning
  1. the words refer to things (literally or figuratively)
  2. those things refer to other things
    And sometimes the translation should be phrased so that the spiritual level of meaning is emphasized, even if this results in the literal level of meaning being somewhat obscured.
In translating any passages, there are many truths explicit and implicit in Scripture. Any good translation will at times obscures some truths, while also clarifying other truths. It isn’t possible for a translation to make all truths of all verses clearly stated. Many truths will always remain obscure or hidden or implicit.
Click to expand...
That is something that I have not thought of. Very interesting observation!
 
Ron_Conte said:
  1. respect for the text as the Word of God
There is too much emphasis in the modern methods of texual analysis on the text as an object of science. This leads to translations that view the text as if it has only one level of meaning, which could be called the ‘historical’ level of meaning, i.e. the meaning that those sentences would have had (according to the estimation of modern scholars) if found in an ordinary text in Biblical times in the ‘original’ languages. The spiritual level of meaning is, in some modern translations, not only ignored by the translator, but treated as if it does not exist.

Translators should be aware of both levels of meaning
  1. the words refer to things (literally or figuratively)
  2. those things refer to other things
    And sometimes the translation should be phrased so that the spiritual level of meaning is emphasized, even if this results in the literal level of meaning being somewhat obscured.
In translating any passages, there are many truths explicit and implicit in Scripture. Any good translation will at times obscures some truths, while also clarifying other truths. It isn’t possible for a translation to make all truths of all verses clearly stated. Many truths will always remain obscure or hidden or implicit.
Click to expand...
Ron,

So far, in this thread, you are “batting 1000”, as we say here in the States. 👍

“…modern methods of texual analysis… lead to translations that view the text as if it has only one level of meaning, which could be called the ‘historical’ level of meaning, i.e. the meaning that those sentences would have had (according to the estimation of modern scholars) if found in an ordinary text in Biblical times in the ‘original’ languages.” This is VERY well articulated.
 
  1. translators: a translation can be done by
    one person (e.g. Jerome)
    by a small group led by one person (e.g. Challoner)
    by committees/larger group or sets of groups (e.g. most modern translations)
There are advantages and disadvantages to each approach. It is problematic that most modern translations use a committee approach; the insights of every individual translator in the group tend to be lost unless it is the majority view. But the majority view tends to be the same across different groups of scholars; so different translations tend to be very similar because they all reflect the majority view of scholarship at the time. And the majority view is often not so much an insight as a compromise.
 
Ron_Conte said:
  1. translators: a translation can be done by
    one person (e.g. Jerome)
    by a small group led by one person (e.g. Challoner)
    by committees/larger group or sets of groups (e.g. most modern translations)
There are advantages and disadvantages to each approach. It is problematic that most modern translations use a committee approach; the insights of every individual translator in the group tend to be lost unless it is the majority view. But the majority view tends to be the same across different groups of scholars; so different translations tend to be very similar because they all reflect the majority view of scholarship at the time. And the majority view is often not so much an insight as a compromise.
Click to expand...
Precisely!

If one reads the story behind many modern translations (often documented in their Prefaces), the OT committee hands over its work to the NT committee and vice versa. Where there are variant readings, majority voting is done. Then the whole work passes to a group of “editors”, either chosen by the committee or who work for the publisher. Often the editors have no clue what it is they are editing, and we get some beauteous renderings as a result, since the work never goes back to the original committees before publication!

Can one person screw things up as badly? Not likely, it would seem. But unless you are another St Jerome, there’s no way a single person can have that good a grasp at ALL the ancient languages in which the various manuscripts are written. Challoner worked mainly from the Clementine Vulgate, with some recourse to “original-language” texts for clarification. And these last two did a fairly decent job, all things considered.
 
I recall reading one description of the process used for a particular Protestant version. The man who decided to undertake this work spent 9 years just setting up the committees and the process before any translation work was done. There is just too much emphasis on this type of bureaucracy in modern versions.
  1. inclusive language: all Bible translations contain some inclusive language, i.e. some language that refers to human persons in general, or to a group of persons without specifying gender. But to deliberately inserts such language where the source text does not call for it is offensive to God. This approach is a result of the influence of sinful secular society and political correctness on translations of the Bible. Translations should not be guided by the belief systems of secular culture and society.
 
Ron Conte: Do you think that it is possible to translate from ancient original language texts and deviate in any way whatsoever from the Latin Vulgate and do justice to God’s word?

In my opinion the Latin Vulgate is THE standard when it comes to an accurate translation of the bible as it does not err in terms of doctrine and as the Catholic Church has stated at Trent it can be used in all disputations

I guess what I’m really asking is can it be improved upon in anyway whatsoever in non doctrinal ways by someone who values the Latin scriptural tradition of the Vulgate?

Should I hope for any improvement in the bible from original language texts or be content with looking to the Vulgate as the only true bible?
 
Do you think that it is possible to translate from ancient original language texts and deviate in any way whatsoever from the Latin Vulgate and do justice to God’s word?
I would think any sincere translation does some justice to God’s Word. But we want the full justice. I am under the impression St. Jerome may have had access to some manuscripts now lost.(?) So the starting point won’t be the same.

What about a new English translation of the Vulgate? Formally equivalent of course.

Peter
 
Jerry-Jet said:
Ron Conte: Do you think that it is possible to translate from ancient original language texts and deviate in any way whatsoever from the Latin Vulgate and do justice to God’s word?
Click to expand...
The Hebrew and Greek are very much the same as the Latin. The variants between these Scriptural traditions are usually minor. So a translation from the Hebrew and Greek can prefer a Hebrew or Greek variant in the text over the Latin without harming God’s word. The reverse is also true:

[Exodus]
{34:29} Cumque descenderet Moyses de monte Sinai, tenebat duas tabulas testimonii, et ignorabat quod **cornuta **esset facies sua ex consortio sermonis Domini.
{34:29} And when Moses descended from Mount Sinai, he held the two tablets of the testimony, and he did not know that his face was radiant from the sharing of words with the Lord.

Jerome apparently translated a Hebrew word, which can refer:
  1. to the growing of horns, or
  2. to anything that radiates outward,
    using the first definition above, not the second. The Neo-Vulgate corrects this according to the Hebrew; so does my translation of the Clementine Vulgate. So a good translation of the Vulgate will still be informed by the Hebrew and Greek on certain points. Similarly, most translations of the Hebrew and Greek will occassionally prefer a Vulgate variant over the Hebrew or Greek.
Jerry-Jet said:
In my opinion the Latin Vulgate is THE standard when it comes to an accurate translation of the bible as it does not err in terms of doctrine and as the Catholic Church has stated at Trent it can be used in all disputations
Click to expand...
The fact that it does not err on faith or morals does not imply that the wording of a translation must rely solely on the Latin. The Latin benefits from being informed by the Hebrew and Greek, and no translation can remain coherent and include all variants.
Jerry-Jet said:
I guess what I’m really asking is can it be improved upon in anyway whatsoever in non doctrinal ways by someone who values the Latin scriptural tradition of the Vulgate?
Click to expand...
Yes, every translation benefits from consulting other languages and other Scriptural traditions. This is common practice in translations of the Bible.
Jerry-Jet said:
Should I hope for any improvement in the bible from original language texts or be content with looking to the Vulgate as the only true bible?
Click to expand...
The Bible is every manuscript, translations, version, and edition in every language throughout the world put together. The Latin Scriptural tradition has the preeminent place among languages and versions, because of its near constant use by the Living Tradition. But the Bible is continually being improved, not in the sense of anything being added or corrected, but in the sense that new translations, versions, and editions continue to use different phrasings for verses that function to make the many truths of Scripture clearer and more accessible to the faithful. Translations from the Latin benefit from being informed by manuscripts in other languages.
 
Ron Conte: Can you list any verses where your translation differs the most from Challoner’s?

Can a translator revise the Douay Rheims without recourse to original languages and still obtain an imprimatur? I don’t think that such a thing is possible.

Bascically I think the Vulgate gets most things right.

I guess what I’m really asking is how many textual changes based on original language texts would a translator have to make to the Vulgate translated into English to receive an imrpimatur?

In other words how close can a translator adhere to the Vulgate and still get an imprimatur?

I know you are not doing this and want your translation to be in the public domain but let me ask you this question:

If you did seek an imprimatur for your translation would you be able to get one or not and why?

And lastly Challoner sometimes translates the Vulgate into English as “Do penance” instead of repent.

Do you ever use “do penance” or always translate “repent” and why?

I know that most Catholic translations use “repent”.

Also does your translation use “supersubstantial bread” in one of the gospel accounts of the Our Father and why? Is the Vulgate and Challoner’s translation of it the only translation to use “supersubstantial bread”?

I know this thread is about translation principles and not your translation per se but I think these questions could illustrate how you think that bilical translation priciples could be applied.

Thanks for your translation–I respect any translation that doesn’t veer far from the Vulgate.
 
Can you list any verses where your translation differs the most from Challoner’s?

I can’t really give a list; it is a matter of degree. Also, there are many different edits of Challoner’s work; I think one of the most common editions today is the 1899 Baltimore edition. Generally, my translation is slightly less literal, especially where the text would otherwise be obscure, and the English is more modern. In some places, my rendering is more literal, such as using ‘sons’ instead of ‘children’.

Can a translator revise the Douay Rheims without recourse to original languages and still obtain an imprimatur?

The imprimatur of the local ordinary no longer applies to Bible translations. The new code of Canon Law gives authority to approve translations only to the Bishops Conference and the Holy See. The term imprimatur generally is used for types of permission to publish that are granted by the local Bishop.

I think it would theoretically be possible to simply update Challoner’s text to modern English and receive approval, but the current USCCB committee clearly prefers loose inclusive language translations. I doubt that they would approve of such a project.

Bascically I think the Vulgate gets most things right.
Yes, I agree.

I guess what I’m really asking is how many textual changes based on original language texts would a translator have to make to the Vulgate translated into English to receive an imrpimatur?
None. It is advisable for all translators to allow some influence in the translation from source texts in any of the various languages. But there is no such requirement.

In other words how close can a translator adhere to the Vulgate and still get an imprimatur?
The Latin text is normative (per Trent), and so the translator could translate solely from the Latin and the translation should receive approval.

If you did seek an imprimatur for your translation would you be able to get one or not and why?
I doubt that the current USCCB committee would look favorably on any translation that was literal or non-inclusive or from the Latin. Also, my translation lacks the annotations required by Canon 825.

And lastly Challoner sometimes translates the Vulgate into English as “Do penance” instead of repent. Do you ever use “do penance” or always translate “repent” and why?
I use both. The term ‘do penance’ has a broader meaning in Scripture than the term penance used today to refer to acts that obtain remission from temporal punishment. In Scripture it also includes repentance from the heart. I use ‘do penance’ in a number of places because it is closer to the Latin ‘agite pœnitentiam’.

Also does your translation use “supersubstantial bread” in one of the gospel accounts of the Our Father and why? Is the Vulgate and Challoner’s translation of it the only translation to use “supersubstantial bread”?

[Matthew]
{6:11} Panem nostrum supersubstantialem da nobis hodie.
{6:11} Give us this day our life-sustaining bread.

The word ‘super’ in Latin is sometimes used to refer to remaining alive (above ground). The word ‘substantialem’ refers to what is essential or necessary. So supersubstantialem refers to what is necessary to sustain life, in this case, spiritual life.

Challoner follows the original Rhemes NT of 1582 in using the Latinization ‘supersubstantial’ since there is no literal translation of the word in English.

[Luke]
{11:3} Panem nostrum quotidianum da nobis hodie.
{11:3} Give us this day our daily bread.

Luke uses ‘daily’ in the Latin.
 
  1. Beyond a certain point, translation decisions are arbitrary.
There are a myriad of different ways to phrase any passage. Some choices are dictated by the plain meaning of the text; some by doctrinal considerations. Some choices are governed by the translation principles, such as avoiding inclusive language and keeping the translation fairly literal. Some choices are intended to make the text more readable, or to sound more natural in English. But beyond that, there are still many different ways to phrase the passage, and there remains no basis for choosing between the remaining possible phrasings. The choice becomes arbitrary; it doesn’t affect the meaning or readability of the passage; one phrasing is just as good as another.

That is why there can never be one definitive edition of the Bible: these exact letters in this exact order and no other. There are many different good ways to word the truths of Scripture; beyond a certain point, one way is just as good as another.
 
  1. Catholicism: The Old Testament should be translated in the light of the New Testament and both Testaments should be translated in the light of Catholic teaching.
This idea is contrary to the current majority opinion of most Biblical scholars. They believe that the OT should be translated and interpreted as a Jew in ancient times would have understood the text. This of course makes the text seemingly inaccessible to the vast majority of the faithful, and causes the meaning of the text to seem to depend upon the decision of scholars, rather than on the guidance of the Spirit, the Magisterium, a prayerful reading of the text, etc.

I have even heard Biblical scholars say things like: “Of course, I believe that the Bible should be interpreted without faith.” This is actually the prevailing opinion among scholars. I recall a brief discussion with one scholar in which he criticized his fellow scholar by saying that his eye was more readily guided by faith than by scholarship. I consider those words to be a compliment, but he used those words to dismiss the scholar’s work.

This opinion is clearly seen in the wording of the footnotes for many different editions of the Bible (notably the original 1966 JB), in which the text is treated as if it were merely a human book, or merely an historical object entirely subject to textual analysis and scientific enquiry, and not the inspired Word of God, a reflection of the Living Word, Christ himself.
 
Ron Conte: Is it possible that the Holy Spirit who inspired the Old Testament to be written inspired the word from an eternal point of view and that point of view was larger than a Jew of the Old Testament’s experience–

a view that would carry with it an understanding of God beyond what was known by Old Testament Jews and would be more fully known later on when Christ came into the world?

I do buy that we shouldn’t let our New Testament understanding of
God be the sole influence in the way that we attempt to translate the Old Testament.

I don’t buy that only a Jewish understanding of God in the Old Testament should entirely inform us of how we translate Old Testament passages.

The Holy Spirit who inspired the Old Testament is not confined to those limits in inspiring the Old Testament writers–regardless of their understanding or experience.

So in other words it is possible that the thought that the Holy Spirit meant to convey in Isaiah was that a VIRGIN would conceive!

What do you think?
 
Jerry-Jet said:
Ron Conte: Is it possible that the Holy Spirit who inspired the Old Testament to be written inspired the word from an eternal point of view and that point of view was larger than a Jew of the Old Testament’s experience–a view that would carry with it an understanding of God beyond what was known by Old Testament Jews and would be more fully known later on when Christ came into the world?
Click to expand...
Yes, well said. The common view of scholars today lacks that insight.
Jerry-Jet said:
I do buy that we shouldn’t let our New Testament understanding of God be the sole influence in the way that we attempt to translate the Old Testament.

I don’t buy that only a Jewish understanding of God in the Old Testament should entirely inform us of how we translate Old Testament passages.

The Holy Spirit who inspired the Old Testament is not confined to those limits in inspiring the Old Testament writers–regardless of their understanding or experience.
Click to expand...
I agree. Good insights.
Jerry-Jet said:
So in other words it is possible that the thought that the Holy Spirit meant to convey in Isaiah was that a VIRGIN would conceive!
Click to expand...
Yes, the word in Hebrew is 'almah, which refers to a young unmarried woman of marrying age (in that social/historical context, a girl in her mid to late teens). In the religious context of the ancient Jewish faith, and in that social/historical context, such a girl would be a virgin. A girl who did not keep her virginity until marriage could be put to death; also, it was unacceptable to society and family (a girl lived in her father’s house until she married). So the text implies that the 'almah who is with child is a virgin, and this makes sense in the larger context of the passage, since this is a sign chosen by God. A mere birth to a married woman would not be a sign from God to a king (and by implication to the nation ruled by that king).

So we have to reach beyond the explicit literal meaning of the text. Understanding Jewish religion, culture, history as a context can help, but should not be the sole determinant of the meaning.

The various methods of textual analysis, such as the historical critical method, literary method, source criticism, etc. are tools. These are useful tools. But modern scholars, instead of being the masters of their tools, have made the tools into their masters. It is as if the carpenter were asking the hammer and saw to tell him how to build the cabinet.
 
The modern convention to translate the OT only from what is usually falsely called the “original” hebrew, is unreliable.
  1. The masoretic texts now used are not in any way “original” since they use jewish manuscripts that date back only to the Medieval period. Simply because they are in Hebrew, and have a non-Christian provenance, the Masoretic texts are the favourite of modern liberal translators. However it is common knowledge that these texts are error-strewn and so unreliable in parts that they need to be augmented from the Septuagint.
  2. The now-scorned Greek Septuagint is actually an EARLIER (and so more-reliable) source that the hebrew language texts now used, since it can be dated reliably to the 5th Century or earlier.
  3. The Vulgate OT was translated in the 5th century by Jerome from Hebrew texts no longer in existence. Again this makes the Vulgate a MORE historically reliable witness to the original Hebrew than the Masoretic texts fashionable among recent translators. However both Septuagint and Vulgate are generally irrationally and doctrinarely cast aside in favour of the medieval Hebrew
 
Good points. I don’t understand why people are so quick to accept any text that is in one of the ‘original languages’ without considering the text on its own merits.
 
Ron_Conte said:
Understanding Jewish religion, culture, history as a context can help (in translating the OT), but should not be the sole determinant of the meaning.

The various methods of textual analysis, such as the historical critical method, literary method, source criticism, etc. are tools. These are useful tools. But modern scholars, instead of being the masters of their tools, have made the tools into their masters. It is as if the carpenter were asking the hammer and saw to tell him how to build the cabinet.
Click to expand...
40.png
Axion:
The Masoretic texts now used are not in any way “original” since they … date back only to the Medieval period … (which) texts are error-strewn and so unreliable in parts that they need to be augmented from the Septuagint (and the Old Latin, the Syriac, et al).

The Vulgate OT was translated in the 5th century by Jerome from Hebrew texts no longer in existence. Again this makes the Vulgate a MORE historically reliable witness to the original Hebrew than the Masoretic texts fashionable among recent translators. However both the Septuagint and the Vulgate are generally … cast aside in favour of the medieval Hebrew.
Click to expand...
Jerry-Jet, Ron Conte, Axion,

You guys have concisely and accurately expressed what should be painfully obvious to all those who rally around the banner of modern “critical” scholarship as it has been practiced of late. 👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top