Bible translation principles

[Ron_Conte]

The first principle of Bible translation is faithfulness to the inspired text.

The translator must understand and believe that the Bible is the Word of God, and is entirely inspired and entirely inerrrant. The translator must not place his own ideas above what the text is actually says. Obscure passages must not be clarified by oversimplification, nor by interpreting the passage and then writing what the passage seems to mean to the translator. If the source text has multiple possible meanings, the translated text, as much as possible, should leave itself open to those multiple possible meanings.

Many passages of Scripture have more than one true meaning intended by God. The translator must not assume that the meaning is only historical, or only found in the Jewish interpretation of the text.

The OT should be translated in the light of the NT, and both Testaments should be translated in the light of the Roman Catholic Faith.

 

[David_Zampino]

Are you making a dogmatic statement, or expressing an opinion?

If the former, then by whose authority?

If the latter, don’t you think you need to state that this is an opinion?

 

[Jesus_123]

• Mother Angelica of worldwide EWTN fame loved and used the . . . **1966 Jerusalem Bible ** . . . in her teaching . . . but frequently sounded serious warnings about the . . . loss of Sacred Truth (Holy Thoughts of God) . . . via the unholy use of . . . “inclusive language” . . . incorporated into all this Bible’s versions thereafter.

:bible1: The Holy Bible (Douay Rheims Version [Douai-Rheims], Revised by Bishop Richard Challoner) is a wonderful translation . . . it was first translated . . . word for word . . . from the Latin. Bishop Challoner’s version carefully phrases it to make it more English language reader-friendly. It was the only English Catholic Bible for over 300 years and has been greatly blessed of God as such. The Latin Vulgate is the Catholic Church’s official Holy :bible1: Bible and was accomplished by the Holy Spirit’s Inspiration through the blessed St. Jerome . . . the Old Testament from the Hebrew . . . the New Testament from the Greek . . . and some of the manuscripts **St. Jerome **used are no longer in existence.

Pope Pius XII stated that the
Holy :bible1: Bible
Douay Rheims Version
was **
*“free from any error whatsoever in matters of faith and morals.” ***With **St. Jerome **. . . **who as well as being a SAINT is a HOLY DOCTOR of the Catholic Church . . . and . . . ** the Vicar of Christ’s declaration of support . . . you can’t go wrong with this edition.

Below are comments from the ** EWTN.com** website . . . which also contain some examples of the Holy See’s** gravely serious definitive and corrective point of view** on some Biblical translations on the market today.

:bible1: Douai-Rheims.[Douay-Rheims] The original Catholic Bible in English, pre-dating the King James Version (1611). It was translated from the Latin Vulgate, the Church’s official Scripture text, by English Catholics in exile on the continent. The NT [New Testament] was completed and published in 1582 when the English College (the seminary for English Catholics) was located at Rheims. The Old Testament was published in 1610 when the College was located at Douai.​

**The renown teaching priest Father John Corapi ** endorses and highly recommends the **ORIGINAL Revised Standard Version-Catholic Edition ** of Sacred :bible1: Scripture as his favored modern English translation . . . please note that this is the ORIGINAL RSV-CE . . . the Pope and the Navarre Bible use this English translation.

:bible1: Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition (RSV-CE). Considered the best [modern] combination of literal (formal equivalence translation) and literary by many orthodox Catholic scholars. Published today by Ignatius Press (Ignatius Bible) and Scepter Press …******​

The enemy of souls most unholy spirit has used the grave and disordered error of “inclusive language” (stripping God the Holy Spirit’s designated use of masculine and feminine words from text re God and mankind and neutering them) to make serious inroads in corrupting that which the **God the Holy Spirit **has entrusted to the Christ’s Most Holy Apostolic Roman Catholic Church . . . when/if purchasing a Revised Standard Version-Catholic Edition be very careful to request the trustworthy **ORIGINAL RSV-CE **. . . the new untrustworthy version which is being heavily promoted nowadays contains real errors . . . the NAB version also has a similar problem.

New Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition (1989). An adaptation for Catholic use of the NRSV of the National Council of the Churches of Christ. Although used in the American edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, it was rejected for liturgical use by the Holy See owing to inclusive language … ******​

NAB with Revised Psalms and Revised New Testament (1991). It was **due to the use of vertical inclusive language **(re: God and Christ) and some uses of horizontal inclusive language (re: human beings), that the Holy See rejected this text as the basis of a revised Lectionary for the United States. This is the version of the NAB currently on sale in the United States. ******
​

. . . all for Jesus+
St. Jerome please pray for us+
thank You Lord for Thy Wonderful Holy Word+​

 

[Ron_Conte]

The above post by member ‘Jesus_123’ contains numerous false assertions about various editions of the Bible.

Here is a good article on the Jerusalem Bible, noting its strengths and failings:
bible-researcher.com/jerusalem-bible.html

It is not true that every edition of the Bible after the JB uses inclusive language, nor is it true that the JB avoids inclusive language.

Also, inclusive language is a matter of degree. Every translation necessarily has some references to persons that do not specify gender, and other references that do specify gender. The translation decision invovled are complex, and include a number of considerations. The JB does eliminate some male references, and substitute gender-neutral expressions not called for by a literal reading of the text. For example, ‘my people, the sons of Israel’ becomes ‘my people Israel’ in Baruch 2:35, so that the expression ‘the sons of’ is entirely dropped; it is not translated at all.

The JB also drops “Blessed are you among women.” from Luke 1:28, even though it is found in the Vulgate, and the JB changes ‘full of grace’ to ‘highly favored’.

{1:28} Et ingressus Angelus ad eam dixit: Ave gratia plena: Dominus tecum: Benedicta tu in mulieribus.
{1:28} And upon entering, the Angel said to her: “Hail, full of grace. The Lord is with you. Blessed are you among women.”

Challoner generally uses ‘children of Israel’ rather than ‘sons of Israel’. My translation, the CPDV, uses ‘sons of Israel.’

It is false to claim that St. Jerome’s work with the Bible was inspired of the Holy Spirit. Only the sacred author’s acted under inspiration. Translators and editors do not act under inspiration. Jerome first set out to arbitrate between existing Latin manuscripts, and only later did he do some translating from Greek, and also from Hebrew.

The claim that the Pope declared the Douai Rheims version “free from any error whatsoever in matters of faith and morals” is false. Pope Pius XII made that statement about the Vulgate, due to its long usage in the Church, in DIVINO AFFLANTE SPIRITU, n. 21. But he does not even mention the Douay version in that document.

The rest of the comments in that post above are exaggerated, over-simplified, and distorted claims about various versions of the Bible, and about inclusive language.

 

[Jesus_123]

+Considering that Reverend Mother Angelica . . . foundress of the Eternal Word Television Network (EWTN) . . . .a simple Franciscan Poor Clare Nun of Perpetual Adoration in our wonderful Apostolic Holy Roman Catholic Church . . .and the mentor and guide of millions upon millions of God’s children’s souls . . and Deacon Bill Steltemeier . . . Chairman of the phenomenal EWTN’s Board of Governors . . . were honored by the. . . Vicar of Christ . . . our Holy Father in Rome . . . Pope Benedict XVI . . . with the extraordinary prestigious . . .

Pro Ecclesia Et Pontifice Award
The Cross of Honor
for**
“distinguished service to the Church and to the Pope”**

and may God’s sweetest and richest blessings be with them both . . . their . . . holy annointed ministry’s . . . opinions carry great weight and authority in our Apostolic Holy Roman Catholic Church and are and should be greatly honored and treated with respect by all God’s beloved children . . .

On October 15, 2009 . . . the feast of another eminent foundress, . . . St. Teresa of Avila . . . Reverend Mother Mary Angelica received a **second major honor from the **Holy See, this time for her long, faithful and devoted guidance of the Poor Clare Nuns of Perpetual Adoration at Our Lady of the Angels Monastery and was appointed the prestigious and rare title of

**+ Abbess Emerita for Life + **

in a private ceremony within the Monastery at which **Mother Angelica **herself was able to be present in person . . .

The EWTN Global Catholic Network is in its 28th year and is available in over 150 million television households in more than 140 countries and territories. With its direct broadcast satellite television and radio services, AM & FM radios networks, worldwide short-wave radio station, internet website www.ewtn.com and publishing arm, EWTN is the

**+ largest religious media network in the world + **

- Regina Angelorum
Newletter of Our Lady of the Angels Monastery
Hanceville, Alabama

​

​

As Christians . . . Catholics . . . pilgrim souls . . . who to listen to . . . ? . . . what to trust . . . ? . . . who to believe . . . ? . . . *take a wild guess . . . *

. . . all for Jesus+​

 

[Ron_Conte]

God is no respector of persons, and we should not be either. The Catholic faith is not based on EWTN or on the credentials and personal opinions of particular persons. Rather, the Faith is based on Tradition, Scripture, Magisterium. Also, your point about EWTN does not address the factually false claims that you make in that post (which you keep re-posting in numerous threads).

Pope Pius XII did **not **say that the Douay Rheims Version was “free from any error whatsoever in matters of faith and morals”. He wrote that about the Latin Vulgate. Now that you know that your statement about what the Pope wrote is incorrect, you are morally obligated to stop making that false claim. Here is the full quote and reference:

DIVINO AFFLANTE SPIRITU
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XII
vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_30091943_divino-afflante-spiritu_en.html

1. And if the Tridentine Synod wished “that all should use as authentic” the Vulgate Latin version, this, as all know, applies only to the Latin Church and to the public use of the same Scriptures; nor does it, doubtless, in any way diminish the authority and value of the original texts. For there was no question then of these texts, but of the Latin versions, which were in circulation at that time, and of these the same Council rightly declared to be preferable that which “had been approved by its long-continued use for so many centuries in the Church.” Hence this special authority or as they say, authenticity of the **Vulgate **was not affirmed by the Council particularly for critical reasons, but rather because of its legitimate use in the Churches throughout so many centuries; by which use indeed the same is shown, in the sense in which the Church has understood and understands it, to be free from any error whatsoever in matters of faith and morals; so that, as the Church herself testifies and affirms, it may be quoted safely and without fear of error in disputations, in lectures and in preaching; and so its authenticity is not specified primarily as critical, but rather as juridical.
2. 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. Nor is it forbidden by the decree of the Council of Trent to make translations into the vulgar tongue, even directly from the original texts themselves, for the use and benefit of the faithful and for the better understanding of the divine word, as We know to have been already done in a laudable manner in many countries with the approval of the Ecclesiastical authority.

 

[StCsDavid]

The first principle of Bible translation is faithfulness to the inspired text.

The translator must understand and believe that the Bible is the Word of God, and is entirely inspired and entirely inerrrant. The translator must not place his own ideas above what the text is actually says. Obscure passages must not be clarified by oversimplification, nor by interpreting the passage and then writing what the passage seems to mean to the translator. If the source text has multiple possible meanings, the translated text, as much as possible, should leave itself open to those multiple possible meanings.

Many passages of Scripture have more than one true meaning intended by God. The translator must not assume that the meaning is only historical, or only found in the Jewish interpretation of the text.

The OT should be translated in the light of the NT, and both Testaments should be translated in the light of the Roman Catholic Faith.

It seems that this position limits sacred scripture to the abilities of the translator. I would offer that sacred scripture is not a static document, but rather the living word of God that can transcend human imperfections. To state that one knows for certain the true meaning God intended by a passage of scripture seems an attempt to presume one completely understands God and his intent.

Luther translated scripture in light of his belief. Do we not run the same temptation to bias the translation if we couch the translation exclusively in the light of the Roman Catholic Faith? In point of fact, the Greek Orthodox likely have a truer translation as they never bothered with the Latin. The Marionite Rite does portions of their mass in Aramaic which is closer still.

 

[Ron_Conte]

It seems that this position limits sacred scripture to the abilities of the translator. I would offer that sacred scripture is not a static document, but rather the living word of God that can transcend human imperfections. To state that one knows for certain the true meaning God intended by a passage of scripture seems an attempt to presume one completely understands God and his intent.

I’m not sure which position you are saying is limiting Scripture to the abilities of the translator.

Scripture must be translated with fidelity to the inspired text, which agrees with your point about not letting the translators interpretation become the translated text. On the other hand, unless you are doing an interlinear translation, every translation depends on the translator understanding what the text is saying. The words are translated as words in context, and the context includes the whole passage, the whole Bible, and the whole Catholic Faith. There is a certain balance that is needed between translating what the words say, and what the words mean.