'Catholic' Interconfessional translations

[po18guy]

What we do know is that Mary was sinless.

We can nuance the discussion however we wish, but the GNT is a horrid translation - if only for that grossly misleading (even if not completely inaccurate) translation.

Since Her Divine Son did nothing that was not God’s will, could it just have been that He was testing her?

Yes.

So why intentionally make it look like she deserved a rebuke?

There is only one who is at enmity with Mary.

Hint: Not her Son.

 

[Irishmom2]

They gave us a paperback copy in CCD back then. Weird line drawings to make it all “groovy” looking.

Hideous. The language was so plain it was boring.

 

[BartholomewB]

Perhaps the issue is that we are not first century Jews, with the understanding that a phrase as abrupt as that comes across is one that is used elsewhere in the OT.

The same Greek expression, τί ἐμοὶ καὶ σοί, is found in the Gadarene swine episode. It’s the first thing the demoniac says to Jesus (Mark 5:7, Luke 8:28). It is usually translated as something along the lines of “What do you want with me?” or “What do you have to do with me?”

https://biblehub.com/luke/8-28.htm

 

[InThePew]

IMO, the pinnacle is the Knox and the 1941 Confraternity bible. 100% solid Catholic.

Knox was of course originally an Anglican - a background which may well have proved beneficial to his task! Still, his translation (like a number of others) was from the Vulgate and not the original Greek - so a translation from a translation (incidentally, I’m a huge Knox fan).

Translation is an arduous task at the best of times - especially from biblical languages - and different bibles are intended for different audiences and purposes. So the Good News is fine for a younger audience but next to useless for any sort of decent study. The JB has a more literary quality about it, while the NRSV tends to be more literal in its approach (better for study but not as easy to listen to).

 

[po18guy]

In the twelve years of solitude he spent in “Englishing” the bible, Monsignor Ronald Knox steadily consulted with the Greek and Hebrew, and explains his methodology in the preface.

Since even the Greek and Hebrew/Aramaic originals were limited in their accuracy by the vagaries of human speech, fidelity to faith and morals is what matters.

No one past about 100 AD ever saw an original manuscript - and even then it was most likely Saint John’s Gospel. The rest already having been copied and re-copied numerous times.

 

[Bithynian]

The vast majority of English Bible translations in the 20th and 21st century are undertaken by para-church organisations (such as Bible societies) and ecumenical bodies (such as the NCC), not by individual churches.

Churches don’t choose to become involved per se. Bible editorial and translation committees operate independently according to their charters, and they issue invitations to individual scholars to participate. They don’t invite whole churches to send participants or observers as the translation process is closed.

Largely it’s an issue of expertise. Whilst it may surprise some, no individual church has a monopoly on the best scholars and the best translators. The editorial committees for the Nestle-Aland and the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (the two critical texts of the Hebrew OT and Greek NT used for all modern Catholic and Protestant translations) are largely staffed Protestants.

 

[otjm]

So why intentionally make it look like she deserved a rebuke?

For starters, it seems it is you who see it as a rebuke. Or perhaps I mistake your comment, that it is others who see it as a rebuke.

What it is, is literally a word for word translation; because the language it was translated from (likely Greek) was a translation from Aramaic; and as noted, it - the phrase - appears elsewhere in both the Old and New Testament.

And the short of it is, if that is a correct translation as to what Jesus actually said to His mother, it comes across as abrupt, which in turn can easily be taken as a rebuke; or if one is familiar with the Old Testament, it is repetitious of OT writings and sayings.

Even using the term “correct translation” is subject to question; better that it is a correct literal translation word for word. but in itself, that can be subject to misinterpretation by the reader (see the discussion herein) where a less literal word for word translation might better convey the meaning.

And what appears to be “accurate” is now called “clearly anti Catholic thought” when it is absolutely no such thing.

 

[otjm]

Also seen in Jgs 11, 12; 2Chr 35, 21; 1 Kgs 17, 18; Hos 14, 9; 2 KGs 3, 13 and Mk 1, 24.

So clearly, no, it is not anti Catholic. And as you note, it is translated in English in a manner other than a literal word by word translation, which to our ear is more understandable.

 

[po18guy]

OK, just how is one supposed to take our Lord saying: “You must not tell me what to do”? How does that square with the 4th commandment?

Again: the GNT is the ONLY translation that says this. The ONLY one. By itself. All alone. This, in itself indicates that it is an aberration.

And, all Mary is recorded as saying is that the wedding hosts had run out of wine.

Is “You must not tell me what to do” a term of endearment? Perhaps I do not understand ancient Hebrew culture…

Anyway, life is too short to argue such obvious points. I’m out.

 

[Bithynian]

Good News is fine for a younger audience

I’d also add that it’s also excellent for mission amongst migrants from non-English speaking backgrounds. I also find the GNT helpful in my parish’s English as a Secondary Language (ESL in Australia, unsure if there’s a different term in NA) classes for community outreach as it’s very close to idiomatic English.

 

[phil19034]

In the Yank version, it most certainly does not. John 2:4, literally is “What to thee and (to) me?” Clearly anti-Catholic thought was put into that particular verse - and if that one, which others?

I don’t know if it was meant to be anti-Catholic thought? However, it’s obviously a dynamic equivalence translation, performed by a Protestant. So while there may not of been purposefully anti-Catholic decisions, surely their theology is going to seep into any dynamic equivalence translation. Catholics are sometimes accused of the same thing when/if a Catholic translates the Bible in a dynamic equivalence fashion.

Regardless, it’s obviously a bad translation of that verse, when compared Bibles (Protestant and/or Catholic).

But I would be very careful about assigning motive. While the American Bible Society is very Protestant, they don’t seem to be necessarily anti-Catholic. I have seen them attend and make donations to Catholic conferences, etc. They also always try have at least one Catholic theologian on their staff (not exec board, but staff).

NOTE: I’m not saying that there was NO motive. I’m saying we don’t know, so we shouldn’t assign malicious intent without more evidence.

God bless

 

[porthos11]

po18guy:

In the Yank version, it most certainly does not. John 2:4, literally is “What to thee and (to) me?” Clearly anti-Catholic thought was put into that particular verse - and if that one, which others?

I don’t know if it was meant to be anti-Catholic thought? However, it’s obviously a dynamic equivalence translation, performed by a Protestant. So while there may not of been purposefully anti-Catholic decisions, surely their theology is going to be seep into any dynamic equivalence translation. Catholics are sometimes accused of the same thing when/if a Catholic translates the Bible in a dynamic equivalence fashion.

Regardless, it’s obviously a bad translation of that verse, when compared Bibles (Protestant and/or Catholic).

But I would be very careful about assigning motive. While the American Bible Society is very Protestant, they don’t seem to be necessarily anti-Catholic. I have seen them attend and make donations to Catholic conferences, etc. They also always try have at least one Catholic theologian on their staff (not exec board, but staff).

NOTE: I’m not saying that there was NO motive. I’m saying we don’t know, so we shouldn’t assign malicious intent without more evidence.

God bless

“Do not impute to malice what you can impute to stupidity.”

One does not have to attribute anti-Catholicsm to the ABS. All one has to do is say they did a lousy job on that passage.

Since the GNT is intentionally a dynamic equivalence translation, that verse could have been easily translated as “What has that to do with either of us?”

“You must not tell me what to do” is just, welll…wrong.

 

[BartholomewB]

“You must not tell me what to do” is just, welll…wrong.

Definitely.
Ronald Knox has an interesting footnote on this difficult Greek expression:

‘Why dost thou trouble me with that?’ The Greek here is ambiguous; some would interpret it, ‘What concern is that of mine or of thine?’, but it is more probably to be understood as a Hebrew idiom, ‘What have I to do with thee?’, that is, ‘Leave me alone, do not interfere with me’, as in Mt. 8.29, and in many passages of the Old Testament.

http://newadvent.com/bible/joh002.htm

 

[Bithynian]

“You must not tell me what to do” is just, welll…wrong.

Yeah, it’s odd because they didn’t translate Mary’s statement in the prior verse with a request. I think they interpret the prior verse “they have no wine” with an implicit question “they have no wine, could you please make some more?” or something to that effect.

The Greek here is ambiguous;

That’s putting it mildly! It’s almost nonsensical in Greek unless one were aware of the Hebrew idiom in advance. I’ve never read of a similar construction anywhere in Classical or Hellenistic literature.

Usually in standard Hellenistic Greek (whether literary Attic or Koine) it’d be written something like: τί αὐτοῦ μοί τε καί σοι μέλει;

 

[phil19034]

Since the GNT is intentionally a dynamic equivalence translation, that verse could have been easily translated as “What has that to do with either of us?”

“You must not tell me what to do” is just, welll…wrong.

That I can agree with

 

[otjm]

OK, just how is one supposed to take our Lord saying: “You must not tell me what to do”? How does that square with the 4th commandment?

I have absolutely no idea how you have come from your position that the phrase is anti Catholic to now a command “you must not tell me”. I don’t think there is any translation of Christ’s words that are states thus.

I will repeat: the translation you saw was a literal word-for-word translation, and comes across as very difficult to understand because it appears so abrupt. One of the problems with a word-for-word translation is that it takes patterns of speech or sayings in one culture and language, and they den up not making much sense in another culture and language.

BartholomewB and I have set out 7 other places in Scripture where the same phrase appears. So it is not like the bible you reference is making an anti Catholic statement. Rather than translate it word-for-word, the rest of the bibles translate it in a more understandable statement - and if you can show me which one translated it “you must not tell me what to do” I will concede your point. Otherwise, please explain why you have come up with a different way of translating the phrase from any other biblical scholar.

The GNT translation , being word-for-word does not make it an aberration; it makes it a clumsy translation because it chose to use word-for-word as the means of putting it into English. it is not wrong. It is just awkward as that is not how most translators work.

 

[porthos11]

The GNT translation , being word-for-word does not make it an aberration; it makes it a clumsy translation because it chose to use word-for-word as the means of putting it into English. it is not wrong. It is just awkward as that is not how most translators work.

Uhm…GNT is not word-for-word. It’s thought-for-thought, i.e. dynamic equivalence.

Very far dynamic equivalence.

 

[otjm]

I don’t know if it was meant to be anti-Catholic thought? However, it’s obviously a dynamic equivalence translation, performed by a Protestant.

While the GNT is generally accepted as a dynamic equivalence translation, word-for-word actually is the general basis for literal or formal equivalence translation.

It is pure speculation to say "Oh, it was translated by a Protestantand therefore because he (or she) changed their methodology, it is anti-Catholic.

It could be for a myriad of reasons the translator used word-for-word in this comment by Christ. Furthermore, Catholics are not alone in their translations (as there is more than one) of the phrase; there are plenty of Protestants who translated the phrase pretty much identically to what Catholics do.

Dynamic equivalent translations may well be easier to understand; they also have the ability to more subtly change the meaning depending on how dynamic they get. On the other hand, formal equivalency can have problems when it meets something in the original language (or here, a translation of a translation, from Aramaic to Greek to English) that simply leaves one wondering exactly what the phrase is about, because of how the original speaker spoke (context, idioms, figures of speech, colloquialisms, and etc.)

Translations considered formal equivalent: ESV; NASB; NKJV; KJV; NRSV; RSV.

Translations considered dynamic equivalent: NIrV; REB; GNT; NLT; CEV.

There is the old phrase “to each his own said the old lady as she kissed the cow” - one form is not necessarily better; both forms have their difficulties as well as their strong points, which is why some people have two or three different bibles, to be able to compare.

But back to the original point; the GNT translation of Christ’s comment was not an “anti-Catholic” translation. It was literally what Christ said; but because we are not first century Jews, it is at a minimum an awkward phrasing. Nor, to my knowledge, did anyone translate it as “You must not tell me what to do”.

 

[otjm]

You and I are saying the same thing, with the exception of this phrase. This phrase (statement) by Christ in the GNT is a literal word-for-word translation. It is odd they did not stick with dynamic equivalency; but attributing that to an anti Catholic motive (which is how this conversation got started) has no foundation. For whatever reason the translators of the GNT chose to not continue dynamic equivalency, the charge of anti-Catholicism does not hold.

And now perhaps we have beat this horse to death. I will get my shovel…

 

[porthos11]

I’m sorry, I’m not seeing it.

The GNT of John 2:4 is nowhere near a word-for-word translation. The GNT has “You must not tell me what to do” where the Greek quite literally would read “What [is this] to me and to you?”

Or are we talking about something else?