does the CC continue to re-translate the Bible

[kgoff]

I may be asking this wrong so forgive me in advance.

I wonder if the CC continues to translate the Bible.
reason im asking is i know that the Bible was Canonized many years ago based on there understanding of language and the Church performed there best translations of the text they had available. as we have grown our knowledge of language and translation i wonder if they go back and re-examine the old text for clarification and better understanding?

P.S. please forgive my spelling and grammar, I am an IT guy and have lost all meaningful discipline as it pertains to spelling and grammar

 

[Nicea325]

I may be asking this wrong so forgive me in advance.

I wonder if the CC continues to translate the Bible.
reason im asking is i know that the Bible was Canonized many years ago based on there understanding of language and the Church performed there best translations of the text they had available. as we have grown our knowledge of language and translation i wonder if they go back and re-examine the old text for clarification and better understanding?

P.S. please forgive my spelling and grammar, I am an IT guy and have lost all meaningful discipline as it pertains to spelling and grammar

I am no Biblical Scholar,but I believe they do for the reasons you specified. I believe the Dead Sea Scrolls helped scholars out as well. Maybe someone here will provide more information.

God Bless

 

[lutherlic]

I may be asking this wrong so forgive me in advance.

I wonder if the CC continues to translate the Bible.
reason im asking is i know that the Bible was Canonized many years ago based on there understanding of language and the Church performed there best translations of the text they had available. as we have grown our knowledge of language and translation i wonder if they go back and re-examine the old text for clarification and better understanding?

P.S. please forgive my spelling and grammar, I am an IT guy and have lost all meaningful discipline as it pertains to spelling and grammar

The Latin Vulgate (late 4th century) remains the standard authoritative Bible of the Church. St. Jerome himself contributed much to that translation.

For various reasons (such as local languages), there are a number of other translations as well.

 

[kgoff]

thanks Nicea325

Im truly interested and not poking a stick at the originall translation and interpretations of the Bible. Im just a guy who is always seeking further understanding.

 

[kgoff]

The Latin Vulgate (late 4th century) remains the standard authoritative Bible of the Church. St. Jerome himself contributed much to that translation.

For various reasons (such as local languages), there are a number of other translations as well.

I guess i just expected that with the resources available to the Vatican it would have a group of linquist forever examining the original works as our knowledge increases.

i have many different translations of the Bible but it seems most originate from a business of some kind… i guess working for a library system i have fallen into the habit of suspecting for profit agents pushing for change… meaning new Bible translations some translations changing the meaning of important verses in the Bible.

anyway

i just wonder if the Church since it is not in it for the money, does this sort of work?

 

[SonCatcher]

Do you mean to ask whether the Catholic Church authorizes new translations? She most certainly does. As languages develop, old translations become less useful as grammar, spelling and word usage shifts. Some translations are done in corroboration with Protestant scholars (e.g. RSV) while others are done by Catholic scholars (e.g. NAB).

If you mean to ask whether the Church reinterprets Sacred Scripture, she does not. There often are multiple layers of meaning in the original languages that come through differently between legitimate translations. This is also the case with non-Catholic translations as anyone who has a comparative study Bible can well attest.

EDIT: I guess the latter part is irrelevant to your question. I only saw your first post when I started my response.

 

[Corki]

The work of Biblical translation is ongoing. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls for example and other ancient language work gives biblical scholars more insight into how the ancient languages were used at the time they were written.

The canon was closed with the Council of Trent and that formalized the list of books in both the Old and New Testament. It did not close ongoing work on translation and interpretation.

 

[Nicea325]

Do you mean to ask whether the Catholic Church authorizes new translations? She most certainly does. As languages develop, old translations become less useful as grammar, spelling and word usage shifts. Some translations are done in corroboration with Protestant scholars (e.g. RSV) while others are done by Catholic scholars (e.g. NAB).

If you mean to ask whether the Church reinterprets Sacred Scripture, she does not. There often are multiple layers of meaning in the original languages that come through differently between legitimate translations. This is also the case with non-Catholic translations as anyone who has a comparative study Bible can well attest.

EDIT: I guess the latter part is irrelevant to your question. I only saw your first post when I started my response.

Nicely said and hopefully that will help our Methodist brother.

 

[SonCatcher]

i just wonder if the Church since it is not in it for the money, does this sort of work?

Good point about not being in it for the money. The NAB is published by the USCCB and is fully available with footnotes right on their own website. It’s the only major translation still under copyright that is so available. Many commercial translations will allow doling it out a verse at a time but that doesn’t really make it readable.

 

[kgoff]

Do you mean to ask whether the Catholic Church authorizes new translations? She most certainly does. As languages develop, old translations become less useful as grammar, spelling and word usage shifts. Some translations are done in corroboration with Protestant scholars (e.g. RSV) while others are done by Catholic scholars (e.g. NAB).

If you mean to ask whether the Church reinterprets Sacred Scripture, she does not. There often are multiple layers of meaning in the original languages that come through differently between legitimate translations. This is also the case with non-Catholic translations as anyone who has a comparative study Bible can well attest.

EDIT: I guess the latter part is irrelevant to your question. I only saw your first post when I started my response.

yes i guess that is what im asking… but you said it much better hahaha… so RSV is corroborated and NAB is all Catholic… and yes i do have a comparative study Bible and thats what got me thinking about how the different translations can seem to have very different meanings and could cause some strange interpretations of God’s Word…

 

[kgoff]

The canon was closed with the Council of Trent and that formalized the list of books in both the Old and New Testament. It did not close ongoing work on translation and interpretation.

Very good info… that helps me understand a bit more thanks…

 

[kgoff]

Nicely said and hopefully that will help our Methodist brother.

Yes yes very helpful

 

[Jim_Dandy]

It’s helpful to know Bible history. The Catholic Church selected 27 of her own writings, identified them as “Scripture,” canonized them, and named them the New Testament. At the very same time, she canonized the 46 writings she inherited from Jesus and the Apostles and named them the Old Testament. She named her entire collection of sacred Scriture ta Biblia, the "little books, the Bible. The Catholic Church was nearly 400 years old before she formed the book called “the Bible” – produced by the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. We know that because of Christ’s promises (John 14:16-18, 14:26, 15:26, 16:7-15) and history…

The Church declared that the Bible was the Word of God. There is no other evidence for that belief.

Living languages change. The KJV, for example, was translated in 1611, written in the language being spoken in England at that time – Elizabethan English (it was ordered by the Church of England). Those English words no longer have the same meaning, and a revision was required. The RSV was translated to replace the KJV – and was also commissioned by the Church of England – written in modern English. One day it will be outdated and need revision.

Translators have a variety of different words to choose from when making the translation from Greek (NT) or Hebrew (OT) to English. So there is a wide difference in translations, as we can see in Parallel Bibles (Bibles with several translations side by side). Translators try to convey the same meaning as the original language, but it’s impossible since they can’t translate word for word. It would make no sense if they did. That’s why we need to be careful about taking a translation literally.

Latin is a “dead” language; that is, it is no longer spoken. Therefore, the meaning of Latin words does not change. That’s why the Latin Vulgate Bible is still relevant today. That’s why the legal profession uses Latin terms.

Peace be with you, Jim Dandy

 

[kgoff]

It’s helpful to know Bible history. The Catholic Church selected 27 of her own writings, identified them as “Scripture,” canonized them, and named them the New Testament. At the very same time, she canonized the 46 writings she inherited from Jesus and the Apostles and named them the Old Testament. She named her entire collection of sacred Scriture ta Biblia, the "little books, the Bible. The Catholic Church was nearly 400 years old before she formed the book called “the Bible” – produced by the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. We know that because of Christ’s promises (John 14:16-18, 14:26, 15:26, 16:7-15) and history…

The Church declared that the Bible was the Word of God. There is no other evidence for that belief.

Living languages change. The KJV, for example, was translated in 1611, written in the language being spoken in England at that time – Elizabethan English (it was ordered by the Church of England). Those English words no longer have the same meaning, and a revision was required. The RSV was translated to replace the KJV – and was also commissioned by the Church of England – written in modern English. One day it will be outdated and need revision.

Translators have a variety of different words to choose from when making the translation from Greek (NT) or Hebrew (OT) to English. So there is a wide difference in translations, as we can see in Parallel Bibles (Bibles with several translations side by side). Translators try to convey the same meaning as the original language, but it’s impossible since they can’t translate word for word. It would make no sense if they did. That’s why we need to be careful about taking a translation literally.

Latin is a “dead” language; that is, it is no longer spoken. Therefore, the meaning of Latin words does not change. That’s why the Latin Vulgate Bible is still relevant today. That’s why the legal profession uses Latin terms.

Peace be with you, Jim Dandy

thanks Jim Dandy i already knew some of that from my own research but i had no clue as to the translations and how they came about and being a Baptist turned Methodist i have found that we don’t much teach about church history and how things developed etc… i guess thats one of the reasons i came to this forum. I have so many questions about why we believe xyz and how things are translated and understood but my faith doesn’t teach any of those things… other than trying to turn everyone into billy graham there isn’t much Biblical scholarship… at least thats my perception… i just finished a Pentateuch class at a local church of Christ university and even there views on the first five books are different than what i was taught…

well thanks for the help i do appreciate it very much.