Bible translations

[aball1035]

I believe that the Bible is the perfect word of God, but how do I know that it wasn’t canged along the way? Like the Protestants taking books out, how do I know that the Catholic Bible is still the word of God?

 

[Crumpy]

What is it that you doubt? Why do you doubt that a “Catholic” Bible with an imprimatur and nihil obstat is not an acceptable translation?

Bible versions are not bad. But none is perfect or ideal. Language changes and people change and so there is a need for updated translations.

Notes:

1. The Hebrew Scripture was written mostly in Hebrew and possibly some in Aramaic (which uses the same alphabet as Hebrew). The Hebrew is written without consonants, punctuation, footnotes, upper/lower options for font, etc. Any translation of the OT is going to have a lot of judgment from the translators.
2. You see comments sometimes that refer to the fact that the text of the Greek Old Testament has been rigorously compared to the earlier Hebrew versions, so that the translators can take their best “shot” at conveying the meaning of the writing.
3. Even given the best scholarship in translation, there are words that cannot be translated. There is a Hebrew word that is pronounced something like “molacka” whose meaning is not known. The best sense that any Jewish or Christian translators can make now (unless archeological finds unzips this mystery) is “manual labor.” The context is that “molacka” is what is forbidden on the Sabbath. Now, that’s pretty important, and it’s frustrating that we don’t know exactly what it means, but what else do we do? That’s the best shot that we can make at what the meaning is. It’s likely only that sources outside the Bible will help unravel the meaning of that word, but the researchers haven’t found it yet.

Sometimes it’s not a word but a concept that is hard to understand. When the Hebrew Scripture (Old Testament) is forbidding the eating of blood, you have to look at the data for blood cults, outside the Bible, to understand what is being forbidden. Thus, archeological research into ancient languages is ongoing.

1. Nobody ever says this except me. Pay attention. Bible translators are limited and restricted by copyright laws. Pick a verse and look in ten different editions of the Bible and the translations will be similar to each other, yet not necessarily exact with each other.

I have a post someplace where I showed a comparison of six or eight different translations, and they were not only worded differently, but there was actually a difference in the sense of the meaning of the verse. Yes, there again, translators do the best job that they can, but they are always dancing around copyright laws, and they just can’t copy the translation from another copyrighted version of the Bible.

This is related to but not exactly the same as another problem in Bible translations. And, that is, some translators use a paraphrased translation, rather than an exact translation. The exact translation may be an expression (idiom) that needs explanation in English. (You know? Americans eat “hot dogs” which have nothing to do with the familiar four-footed animals of the same name.)

Given such considerations, you have to refine your original question and tell us what difficulty you have.

Certainly there are other possible questions you may have on your mind, but you haven’t done a good job of telling us what actually IS on your mind. Are you concerned about which books got into the Bible? Are you concerned that there are lost books that we haven’t discovered yet? Are you concerned about how the Church “canonized” the books fo the Bible, i.e. decided what books are inspired?

Sure, the subject area of your question is a large one and the question is valid. What’s your specific problem?

 

[Crumpy]

1. Another area of Bible research has to do with the fact that Jesus probably spoke Aramaic, and the New Testament was written in Greek.

The issue here is whether there is a good rendering in Greek of what Jesus said. Greek is a more diverse language and the NT uses words that are hard to find in Aramaic. So, what happened there? Did the NT writers change the teaching of Christ?

My advice:

Bible study is not a closed area of study. It is a lifelong activity, and let your surprises motivate you and carry on to continue study.

I have studied the Bible on my own, not in an academic setting. I’m constant reading or hearing things that I never encountered before. Yesterday on EWTN (7/8/09) Fr. Ed Sylvia gave the daily Mass homily and he pointed out that Matthew’s gospel arranges Jesus teachings differently than in Mark or Luke. He commented that it seems that Matthew arranged the teachings of Jesus into five groups, to correspond at least symbolically, with the five books of the Torah (the first five books of the Bible).

The next time I really get into that Gospel, I will try to validate what he said and see if there are further insights based on his observation.

 

[Janet1983]

I believe that the Bible is the perfect word of God, but how do I know that it wasn’t canged along the way? Like the Protestants taking books out, how do I know that the Catholic Bible is still the word of God?

Protestants do not take books out. They simply do not acknowledge books that aren’t in the Jewish Sacred Scripture either.
Jewish Scripture by the way undergoes a harsh scrutiny when it is copied. If there is one single mistake the whole copy is burned…
Therefore we can safely assume that the Bible is correct.

 

[Omyo12]

Protestants do not take books out. They simply do not acknowledge books that aren’t in the Jewish Sacred Scripture either.
Jewish Scripture by the way undergoes a harsh scrutiny when it is copied. If there is one single mistake the whole copy is burned…
Therefore we can safely assume that the Bible is correct.

Well the Jewish Scripture was canonized when Christianity was on the rise. Early Christians used the Septuagint which included all the Deuterocanon plus Psalm 151, Prayer of Manasseh, 2nd Esdras, and 3rd Maccabees.

In fact, most of the quotes in the NT of the OT are from the LXX.

Keep in mind that Jews translated the LXX around 100-200 BCE.

While there were many that were considered inspired without a shadow of a doubt like the Torah (The Law, or The 5 Books of Moses). Others were debated.

Around 100 AD the Jews canonized 39 books into the Jewish Canon.

In light of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Jewish apocryphal books were found among them.
Also, its a bit misleading to claim the Hebrews were that scrutinous because the Dead Sea Scrolls tend to favor the LXX at times.

Anyways, when the Jewish Canon was official, Christians continued to use the books of the LXX along with the NT books (many including the Apocalypse of Peter, Shepard of Hermes, and Epistle of Barnabas).

About two hundred years afterward, the Church officially canonized the Christian Bible with 46 books in the Old Testament and 27 books in the New Testament.

Mainline Christians used this canon, the Greek Orthodox Christians who broke away later on used more books from the LXX. However, no Christian used the Jewish canon until the Protestant Reformation beginning in the early 1500’s.

The man who started this was of course Martin Luther. He not only rejected the Catholic Deuterocanon but The Letter to the Hebrews, Epistle of James, Jude, 2nd Peter, 2nd John, 3rd John, and Book of Revelation.

I’ve heard Protestants argue that Martin Luther did translate what he called “The Disputed or Uninspired Books” of the New Testament into German meaning he accepted them
but they ignore the fact that he translated the Catholic Deuterocanon as well.

So yes, from a historical Christian point of view, Protestants take books out…

 

[Beachcomber]

Yesterday on EWTN (7/8/09) Fr. Ed Sylvia gave the daily Mass homily and he pointed out that Matthew’s gospel arranges Jesus teachings differently than in Mark or Luke. He commented that it seems that Matthew arranged the teachings of Jesus into five groups, to correspond at least symbolically, with the five books of the Torah (the first five books of the Bible).

Thanks for mentioning that, crumpy. I want to read Matthew with that in mind.

 

[diggerdomer]

I believe that the Bible is the perfect word of God, but how do I know that it wasn’t canged along the way? Like the Protestants taking books out, how do I know that the Catholic Bible is still the word of God?

1. Of course it’s been “changed” along the way, at least by the fact of translation into different languages and whatever imperfections may have been introduced by the human efforts of copying, transcribing, etc.
2. Faith.