You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
O
otjm
Guest
And now on a slightly different matter, it is my understanding that in writing the Old Testament, the Jews often did something which to the best of my knowledge does not come though in any translation, and that is a play on words. I don’t think any translation can bring this across, but it would be interesting to find a work that delves into the word play, as it appears to be anything but casual.
Does anyone know of a work which delves into this (short of footnotes to the text).?
Does anyone know of a work which delves into this (short of footnotes to the text).?
O
otjm
Guest
Ahhhh… since I do not have a copy of the GNT, it appears I may stand corrected.
B
BartholomewB
Guest
This page at the Bible Hub website lists 29 translations of John 2:4. Two of them, the Contemporary English Version and the Good News Translation, both have “You must not tell me what to do.” I had never noticed this till now. I really don’t understand what thought processes can have led the editors and translators to think this was a good idea.
https://biblehub.com/john/2-4.htm
https://biblehub.com/john/2-4.htm
P
phil19034
Guest
Yes, I agree. That was the point I was trying to make.It is pure speculation to say "Oh, it was translated by a Protestant and therefore because he (or she) changed their methodology, it is anti-Catholic.
O
otjm
Guest
Well, if I wanted to speculate on that…
Who was more likely to know when Jesus was to begin His public ministry - He or his mother? Coupled with that is that Mary’s statement does not appear to be in the form of a question, nor does it appear to be in the form of a simple observation, for if it were, a simple answer of “yes” would suffice - “You observed, and I have also observed”.
We likely all have had mothers who have made statements - “your socks are on the floor”; “The table is not set”; The lawn needs mowing" and I think we all know that those are not “observations” but rather , a statement made to prompt an action - here, to make wine.
And none of the Gospel writers have given any indication of when Christ thought or decided when His public ministry was to begin; nor do they record much of anything of his youth, other than finding him in the temple. There may or may not have been miracles prior to His public ministry. and given the prophetic remarks of Simeon and Anna, it is not a major leap that Mary’s intervention in the wedding “oops” was also prophetic. And while “must not tell” comes across more harshly than “what is their lack of planning to do with either of us”, it is not that awfully far removed.
It does, however, seem the least likely comment.
Who was more likely to know when Jesus was to begin His public ministry - He or his mother? Coupled with that is that Mary’s statement does not appear to be in the form of a question, nor does it appear to be in the form of a simple observation, for if it were, a simple answer of “yes” would suffice - “You observed, and I have also observed”.
We likely all have had mothers who have made statements - “your socks are on the floor”; “The table is not set”; The lawn needs mowing" and I think we all know that those are not “observations” but rather , a statement made to prompt an action - here, to make wine.
And none of the Gospel writers have given any indication of when Christ thought or decided when His public ministry was to begin; nor do they record much of anything of his youth, other than finding him in the temple. There may or may not have been miracles prior to His public ministry. and given the prophetic remarks of Simeon and Anna, it is not a major leap that Mary’s intervention in the wedding “oops” was also prophetic. And while “must not tell” comes across more harshly than “what is their lack of planning to do with either of us”, it is not that awfully far removed.
It does, however, seem the least likely comment.
T
t6n3d
Guest
@phil19034 thanks for your reply.
In the case of apologetics, is the idea then that if there is an ‘interconfessional’ translation that is accepted by the Church and a protestant ecclesial community such as the Lutherns, that such translation would get rid of the immediate rejection of the translation of one or the other, and aid in proceeding into more specific details?
And if so, wouldn’t it be more honest and transparent to start with an apologia on the authority and duty of the Magisterium to protect Scripture and interpret it, and then go from there using a Catholic Bible?
In the case of apologetics, is the idea then that if there is an ‘interconfessional’ translation that is accepted by the Church and a protestant ecclesial community such as the Lutherns, that such translation would get rid of the immediate rejection of the translation of one or the other, and aid in proceeding into more specific details?
And if so, wouldn’t it be more honest and transparent to start with an apologia on the authority and duty of the Magisterium to protect Scripture and interpret it, and then go from there using a Catholic Bible?
T
t6n3d
Guest
Why won’t the CCD allow a reprint of the Confraternity Bible? And then, is it a forbidden text, or are we permitted to obtain and read a used copy?
T
t6n3d
Guest
Isn’t the “specific Catholic methodology” here that we are speaking of though, precisely in being in communion with the Church, and translating according to the wisdom and direction of the Magisterium? I would think that this would go beyond the academic method, and include sincerely the private/public profession of faith of the one that is doing the translating. Personal holiness and obedience to the Magisterium grafts one to the Tree, and opens one to the wisdom of the Holy Spirit, rather than the opinions of the world.
T
t6n3d
Guest
What I’m trying to figure out here is why the Church, or representatives of the Church, would even consider participating in these translations from these para-church organizations and ecumenical bodies. Why doesn’t the Church stick with translating the text faithfully on her own, since she is the only one that maintains the Magisterium, and does not share the existence of the Magisterium with any of these other ecclesial communities.
B
Bithynian
Guest
Because less than 0.5% (or less than 150 verses) of the Bible’s verses hinge upon a strictly defined doctrinal position in order to produce a valid translation.Why doesn’t the Church stick with translating the text faithfully on her own, since she is the only one that maintains the Magisterium, and does not share the existence of the Magisterium with any of these other ecclesial communities.
The Magisterium is necessary for interpreting the Scriptures, but not for translating. The Bible isn’t a gnostic manual written in a mystical codified language that requires a caste of initiated members for translation. What scriptural translation does need are the best translators, and these individuals are dispersed widely across many different Christian communities.
In addition, it’s important to note that the Catholic Church adapts these interconfessional translations (like the RSV and NRSV) for use by Catholics. The Catholic editions differ from non-Catholic editions.
O
otjm
Guest
As I noted, there is not one"Catholic" methodology in translating. Nor is there one specific translation of Scripture which is specifically “Catholic” as the Catholic Church recognizes several translations as valid.
The point I was trying to make is that we have some Catholics who seem to think that if a translation is done in part by Protestant scholars, that it is either automatically “invalid” or is to be approached with great skepticism. That is not to say that a group of Protestant scholars could not seek to skew a translation in an anti-Catholic bias; but rather that on the level of Scripture Scholarship, there is more agreement between a goo number of Protestant scholars and Catholic scholars. In addition, you will find that a number of acceptable translations have both Catholics and Protestants working together on them.
The point I was trying to make is that we have some Catholics who seem to think that if a translation is done in part by Protestant scholars, that it is either automatically “invalid” or is to be approached with great skepticism. That is not to say that a group of Protestant scholars could not seek to skew a translation in an anti-Catholic bias; but rather that on the level of Scripture Scholarship, there is more agreement between a goo number of Protestant scholars and Catholic scholars. In addition, you will find that a number of acceptable translations have both Catholics and Protestants working together on them.
O
otjm
Guest
Well, for starters, it might help to remember that those other Christians are just that - Christians, who share in the Sacrament of Baptism and the Sacrament of Marriage (should they be married).
Further, excellence in the ability to translate is not a “Catholic” thing. As has been said by people far wiser than anyone in this forum, many Protestants agree with Catholics on far more things than they disagree.
Further, excellence in the ability to translate is not a “Catholic” thing. As has been said by people far wiser than anyone in this forum, many Protestants agree with Catholics on far more things than they disagree.
P
phil19034
Guest
No, it’s not a forbidden text.Why won’t the CCD allow a reprint of the Confraternity Bible? And then, is it a forbidden text, or are we permitted to obtain and read a used copy?
They won’t allow a reprint because they own the copyright to the Confraternity Bible and they also own the copyright for the NAB and NABRE.
For some reason, they only want the NABRE in circulation. The CCD has a record of stopping publication of all Bibles once a new translation they own the copyright to has been released.
That’s why you cannot buy a brand new NAB bible. The only Bible the CCD will allow printed is the NABRE.
Why they do that, you would have to ask them. But it’s what they do.
P
phil19034
Guest
I’m sorry, but you are failing to understand. An “interconfessional” translation IS a Catholic Bible. Who does the translation is irrelevant. The important thing is that the Church approves it.@phil19034 thanks for your reply.
In the case of apologetics, is the idea then that if there is an ‘interconfessional’ translation that is accepted by the Church and a protestant ecclesial community such as the Lutherns, that such translation would get rid of the immediate rejection of the translation of one or the other, and aid in proceeding into more specific details?
And if so, wouldn’t it be more honest and transparent to start with an apologia on the authority and duty of the Magisterium to protect Scripture and interpret it, and then go from there using a Catholic Bible?
It’s also not just for Catholics and Protestants. It’s also for the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox
“Interconfessional” translations are approved by ALL Christians. Until recently, the only one in English was the RSV and NRSV.
However, due to problems with the NRSV, there has been attempts to create new ones.
The point is: it is NOT watered down. If it was watered down, the Eastern Orthodox & Oriental Orthodox would surely not approve of it (let alone the Catholic Church).
I hope this helps.
God bless
T
t6n3d
Guest
Thank you for helping explain this more to me! For the first time, I am now understanding the distinction between translation and interpretation - the confusion of which led to a lot of misunderstanding on my part.
So just to be clear, when we talk about translation, we could use this as an analogy - when the various countries gather for a UN summit, they employ translators to communicate faithfully the message into multiple languages. There is no need for one to be religious to fulfill translations accurately. They need excellence in the field of linguistic translation.
Then with this, we could say that even an atheist could be an accurate translator, and participate in the work of translating Scripture. They wouldn’t be disqualified because of their lack of religious background. That being said, there would be reason for healthy skepticism, but they could do their work faithfully nonetheless. Am I correct?
So just to be clear, when we talk about translation, we could use this as an analogy - when the various countries gather for a UN summit, they employ translators to communicate faithfully the message into multiple languages. There is no need for one to be religious to fulfill translations accurately. They need excellence in the field of linguistic translation.
Then with this, we could say that even an atheist could be an accurate translator, and participate in the work of translating Scripture. They wouldn’t be disqualified because of their lack of religious background. That being said, there would be reason for healthy skepticism, but they could do their work faithfully nonetheless. Am I correct?
T
t6n3d
Guest
That actually makes sense now, thank you! You’ve cleared up a good bit of my confusion here
B
Bithynian
Guest
Very much so! That being said, most churches do apply some sort of standard for accepting interconfessional translations, usually that the members of the editorial committee come from Trinitarian backgrounds. Hence, no Christian community would want to adapt, say, the Scriptural translation made by Jehovah’s Witnesses.Am I correct?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.