Greek, Latin Bible translations...why?

[DelsonJacobs]

For eg: When studying apologetics, it always refers to how the original scripture word was in Greek or Latin. Why does this matter when Jesus spoke Aramaic? Was the Bible originally written in a different language? Please, help me understand or point me towards a very simple book that’s easy to understand. Thank you.

Another point to remember is that we can get stuck on what a word or phrase is via a translation or as expressed in koine Greek or Latin–forgetting that practically all the authors were Jews and used logic and idiom unique to their culture.

The Pontifical Biblical Commission’s “The Jewish People and their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible” explains that an understanding of the New Testament is impossible without comprehending fully what the authors believed about the Sacred Hebrew writings. The Christian authors, working from mostly a Jewish milieu, attested a conformity and continuity with the Jewish Scriptures while employing their exegetical methods. Because of this a Christian (and especially Catholics as this study addresses them specifically) cannot adopt an understanding of the New Testament apart from these facts.

Thus it often helps to never lose sight that the Greek of the New Testament is itself a translation (it’s form actually relies heavily on the Jewish Septuagint Greek, a form in its own right according to the Commission’s study). So the impact of the culture on the language used is a requisite to comprehending the reciprocal relationship between the two testaments and their resulting meaning for us today.

Oh, and before I forget, Matthew’s gospel is believed to have existed first as a collection of sayings (oracles) in Hebrew/Aramaic. Some scholars see a connection between Papias’ comment on Matthew writing his gospel first and it being in the Jewish tongue and the Q theory. Some of the most recent theories is that Q may have actually been this collection of oracles by Matthew, and this “sayings” gospel preceded Mark’s completed work (but Matthew in the form we have it today with the “added” narrative in Greek came after Mark). This would explain why Luke uses Q if it was indeed the same as Matthew’s oracle collection in “Hebrew characters” as Papais mentions (but this is still theory).

 

[Darryl_B]

Yeah. And I believe the majority of scholars and biblical experts agree half of the letters were not written by him at all-- just judging by the content, style, and other details–as well as the language issue.

.

That is not correct. Biblical criticism or Biblical cynicism as it should be called, is a school of thought that takes the position that the fabric of Scripture cannot possibly be knit so precisely as it is, since, otherwise it would intrinsically point to a uniform Author. Therefore deconstruction is required systematically to tear the thread and phase out the Author.

It is actually a small school that had its beginnings about 150 years ago, it is not the majority, it is not scholarly and nor is it the expert that you claim. Not really sure where you got this information from.

 

[Darryl_B]

Of course there has been debate on whether Sanctus Paulus, the author of many if not most of the epistles, wrote his letters to the Romans in Latin or in Greek and then had them immediately translated to Latin. According to a PBS documentary, he found a “significant” number of Christians in Rome once he had arrived there.

St Pauls letter to the Romans was not to Gentile Romans, his letter was to Roman citizen (as he himself was also) Jews. Being a Roman citizen did not mean eloquent in Latin. It meant being different in civil status to slaves and second class (alien) citizens. Paul, being mostly conversive in Greek rather than Latin, spoke Greek. Translation happened under St Jerome.

 

[Wales_Paul]

Thank you for the lesson. I had never seen πετρος in any Greek-English dictionary except as a given name. You seem to have more knowledge of Greek than anyone I know who doesn’t teach it… or do you teach it?

Still, Lampe is the best to read on this, because he gives citations for the various ways in which the Greek Fathers read the play on words in that exact passage, the short version of which is that they took it as excellent support for Petrine primacy but rather more arguable regarding Petrine supremacy.

That is what I was saying, although you put it more eloquently. The problem with “Evangelical Protestantism” (Aren’t we all supposed to be evangelical in our lives?) is that they go to great lengths to argue that the early church was a participatory democracy, but numerous passages in Acts show that Peter usually spoke for all the disciples. When it comes to the structure of the church, you should hear some of the ways they work around 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1.

 

[ProVobis]

St Pauls letter to the Romans was not to Gentile Romans, his letter was to Roman citizen (as he himself was also) Jews. Being a Roman citizen did not mean eloquent in Latin. It meant being different in civil status to slaves and second class (alien) citizens. Paul, being mostly conversive in Greek rather than Latin, spoke Greek. Translation happened under St Jerome.

There were earlier Latin versions than St. Jerome. As I understand it, Jerome did very little cold translation, mostly corrections based on his knowledge of Greek and Hebrew and access to very early documents. But then many Greek writers were writing in Latin. In fact, Cicero himself a Greek, among others, codified the Latin language half a century before Christ. It is true, however, that Classic Latin was not normal street language and among very ancient Roman writings, including moral codes, etc., we barely find anything resembling Christianity per se.

 

[DelsonJacobs]

St Pauls letter to the Romans was not to Gentile Romans, his letter was to Roman citizen (as he himself was also) Jews. Being a Roman citizen did not mean eloquent in Latin. It meant being different in civil status to slaves and second class (alien) citizens. Paul, being mostly conversive in Greek rather than Latin, spoke Greek. Translation happened under St Jerome.

Forgive me, but I believe you have made an error in this statement.

While the letter shows that that the audience of the letter to the Roman indeed had some strong connections to Hebrew Christians who clearly belonged to synagogue communities, the majority were probably Gentiles–and it is clear that Paul had them mainly in mind.

At the close of the letter where names of individuals in the congregation are mentioned, the majority are Greco-Roman, with only a few being Semitic in origin. This makes sense as the Jewish community itself was but a minority in Rome, and it stands to reason that this was reflected in Rome’s Christian community.–Romans 16:1-23.

Also the letter does not speak to the audience as if they are Jews or proselytes, discussing matters that only Gentile Christians would face such as questioning the value of circumcision and their need for welcoming Christians who observed kashrut and holy days. He also tells the audience that they should not gloat over the “branches” that were lopped off the “root” of “Israel,” as they themselves are but “wild branches” transplanted into place and easily removed to make remove for the natural ones. These expressions necessitate that the body of readers/listeners would consist mainly of Gentiles.—Romans 3:1, 14:1-15:7, 11:17-24.

 

[Darryl_B]

Forgive me, but I believe you have made an error in this statement.

While the letter shows that that the audience of the letter to the Roman indeed had some strong connections to Hebrew Christians who clearly belonged to synagogue communities, the majority were probably Gentiles–and it is clear that Paul had them mainly in mind.

At the close of the letter where names of individuals in the congregation are mentioned, the majority are Greco-Roman, with only a few being Semitic in origin. This makes sense as the Jewish community itself was but a minority in Rome, and it stands to reason that this was reflected in Rome’s Christian community.–Romans 16:1-23.

Also the letter does not speak to the audience as if they are Jews or proselytes, discussing matters that only Gentile Christians would face such as questioning the value of circumcision and their need for welcoming Christians who observed kashrut and holy days. He also tells the audience that they should not gloat over the “branches” that were lopped off the “root” of “Israel,” as they themselves are but “wild branches” transplanted into place and easily removed to make remove for the natural ones. These expressions necessitate that the body of readers/listeners would consist mainly of Gentiles.—Romans 3:1, 14:1-15:7, 11:17-24.

Except that the Gentile was entirely oblivious to Jewish custom, and yet Paul appeals to Jewish custom to convince the reader. In fact it would be impossible to find the letter to the romans remotely convincing unless one had a Jewish background. If one did not have the Jewish background, the argument is awkward (as it is to me). I could not give the letter to the romans to a modern secular and say see. He appeals too much to Jewish tradition, “But if you call yourself a Jew …” Romans 2:17.

 

[Darryl_B]

Forgive me, but I believe you have made an error in this statement.

While the letter shows that that the audience of the letter to the Roman indeed had some strong connections to Hebrew Christians who clearly belonged to synagogue communities, the majority were probably Gentiles–and it is clear that Paul had them mainly in mind.

At the close of the letter where names of individuals in the congregation are mentioned, the majority are Greco-Roman, with only a few being Semitic in origin. This makes sense as the Jewish community itself was but a minority in Rome, and it stands to reason that this was reflected in Rome’s Christian community.–Romans 16:1-23.

Also the letter does not speak to the audience as if they are Jews or proselytes, discussing matters that only Gentile Christians would face such as questioning the value of circumcision and their need for welcoming Christians who observed kashrut and holy days. He also tells the audience that they should not gloat over the “branches” that were lopped off the “root” of “Israel,” as they themselves are but “wild branches” transplanted into place and easily removed to make remove for the natural ones. These expressions necessitate that the body of readers/listeners would consist mainly of Gentiles.—Romans 3:1, 14:1-15:7, 11:17-24.

I see what you mean, the switch over happens at Romans 11:13 “Now I am speaking to you Gentiles”. Prior to that switchover the focus is Jews.

 

[DelsonJacobs]

I see what you mean, the switch over happens at Romans 11:13 “Now I am speaking to you Gentiles”. Prior to that switchover the focus is Jews.

First of all, I was only declaring that there is an error in your statement that “St Pauls letter to the Romans was not to Gentile Romans.”

If you note my comments, I never said that the book was NOT written to Jews. I stated that Gentile Romans are definitely addressed and directly spoken to in it. Again this does not imply that this is at the cost of any Jews the letter was also including. They were obviously included, just not the letter’s sole audience.

Second, according to Catholic sources, it is not totally clear what the actual makeup of the audience of Paul’s letter was.

The *Ignatius Catholic Study Bible *states in the “Introduction to the Letter of Saint Paul to the Romans:”

Hints scattered throughout the letter suggest the Roman Church at this time was a mixed community of Jewish and Gentile believers. The majority were probably Gentiles.

The Pontifical Bible Commission in its report, *The Jewish People and their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible, *explains that along with Jews, St. Paul was writing to Gentiles in his letter to the Romans.–Sec. III, C, “The Jews in the Pauline Letters and other New Testament Writings.”

From a Jewish perspective, this is agreed with in the introduction to Romans in The Jewish Annotated New Testament. It is pointed out that “Paul encouraged them [the Romans] to practice…the Jewish communal way of life…without becoming Jews,” constantly telling his audience not to practice such things as circumcision or observe the Law. If this instruction were meant for a Jewish audience then the testimony from the Acts of the Apostles would be misleading where it states that the apostles and elders in Jerusalem told Paul:

“Brother, you see how many thousands of believers there are from among the Jews, and they are all zealous observers of the law. They have been informed that you are teaching all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to abandon Moses and that you are telling them not to circumcise their children or to observe their customary practices. What is to be done? They will surely hear that you have arrived. So do what we tell you. We have four men who have taken a vow. Take these men and purify yourself with them, and pay their expenses that they may have their heads shaved. In this way everyone will know that there is nothing to the reports they have been given about you but that you yourself live in observance of the law. As for the Gentiles who have come to believe, we sent them our decision that they abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals, and from unlawful marriage.”

So Paul took the men, and on the next day after purifying himself together with them entered the temple to give notice of the day when the purification would be completed and the offering made for each of them.–Acts 21:20-26.

Jewish Christians continued to observe their own customs connected to living our Torah or the Law. Even today Hebrew Catholics are allowed to do the same, like myself.

So the instruction in Romans could not be exclusively for a Jewish audience as that would mean Paul was in fact guilty of what people were claiming about him. He also would have refused to engage in the Temple purification offering as it would have been a sham if he was truly teaching Jews to abandon their ways, something Paul tells the Romans is not meant for them.

Again this does not mean that some Jews were not included, but it is obvious from the above that Romans could not have been written *only *to Jewish Christians of Rome.

 

[Mystophilus]

Thank you for the lesson. I had never seen πετρος in any Greek-English dictionary except as a given name. You seem to have more knowledge of Greek than anyone I know who doesn’t teach it… or do you teach it?

No, I am not nearly fluent enough to teach it; I just love it. However, what I read for fun is not Biblical Greek, and so I get to see things not seen by the people who only want to read what is in the NT.

That is what I was saying, although you put it more eloquently. The problem with “Evangelical Protestantism” (Aren’t we all supposed to be evangelical in our lives?) is that they go to great lengths to argue that the early church was a participatory democracy, but numerous passages in Acts show that Peter usually spoke for all the disciples. When it comes to the structure of the church, you should hear some of the ways they work around 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1.

I know exactly what you mean, although you expressed it with more charity than I might have. All too often, it seems to me that discussions of Scripture and of Church history are more heavily inflected by sectarian rivalry than by a desire for truth.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

I know that biblical translators most often refer to Greek and sometimes to Latin. What I have always wondered was would it be a good idea when choosing among different textual variants to consider what Jesus MIGHT have said in Aramaic or Hebrew?

In other words if there was an Aramaic or Hebrew word that most exactly matched one of the possible Latin or Greek variants then maybe that would be the correct variant to go with?

Is it possible that some of the Greek translations of the bible that we have that are very ancient MIGHT not match accurately what Jesus actually said in Hebrew or Aramaic?

Could some of those translators have gotten things wrong? Were the original biblical authors inerrant in what they knew about what Jesus actually said in Hebrew or Aramaic but not inerrant in finding the perfect Greek words to capture those original Hebrew or Aramaic words?

Now I’m sure that if John or Paul, or Matthew or Luke or Peter or Jude or James finished their original editions of their books of the bible in Greek that those would be the most perfect examples of the bible–that would be the true originals!

Of course we don’t have those originals today but I wonder sometimes if all these writers other than Matthew wrote their very first editions in Greek or–if they wrote in Aramaic first and then themselves or someone close to them then translated into Greek?

Wouldn’t you do that if you knew Aramaic well but didn’t know Greek as well? Could it be possible that there were originals in Aramaic or Hebrew that we simply don’t have because the finished product–even if done by the disciples themselves or their close associates was in Greek and they simply threw the original Aramaic or Hebrew rough draft–which might more accurately capture what Jesus actually said in Hebrew or Aramaic in the trash?

My gist is not in favor of Aramaic superiority–what I am trying to say is that a good translator should consider what Jesus MIGHT have said in Aramaic or Hebrew when deciding which ancient Greek translation might be best?

Do biblical translators do that? Should they do that when deciding between Greek variants?

If an Aramaic or Hebrew word that Jesus could have used perfectly matches a an acient Latin translation–should you STILL go with a Greek translation that doesn’t match anything that Jesus could have said in Aramaic or Hebrew?

Should Greek ALWAYS trump everything else?

 

[Wales_Paul]

From what I understand, we suspect that Mark, Q (for the lost Quelle = German for source), and perhaps Matthew were originally written in Aramaic. The New Jerusalem Bible or its predecessor notes that Mark’s “Greek is rough and strongly redolent of Aramaic”.

I doubt seriously that translation into (New Testament or Koiné) Greek was that imprecise. A few problems occur when we look at translations through 21st-century glasses:

1. We forget that there are lexical changes in the language. If one takes, say, 50 verbs from Homeric Greek then traces them through Classical, Septuagint, New Testament/Koiné, Byzantine, then Modern Greek, I suspect few mean strictly the same throughout. One of the best King James Bibles I’ve ever seen had an appendix with the definitions of the words in Elizabethan English.
2. We are often dealing with translations into English, which adds another layer of nuances.
3. Certain non-Catholic groups translate words differently. I believe Vine’s Dictionary is written to support Evangelical Protestant doctrine. For example, the word we translate as “wine” it translates as both wine and unfermented grape juice. Also, many Evangelical Protestants insist petros in Mt 16:18 means pebble. Of course, that serves to support their argument that church governance is democratic, not hierarchical. (FTR, I’m a convert from Congregationalism [UCC] to high-church Episcopalianism to Roman Catholicism.)

 

[ProVobis]

Do biblical translators do that? Should they do that when deciding between Greek variants?

If an Aramaic or Hebrew word that Jesus could have used perfectly matches a an acient Latin translation–should you STILL go with a Greek translation that doesn’t match anything that Jesus could have said in Aramaic or Hebrew?

Should Greek ALWAYS trump everything else?

And in the end we will still argue cup vs chalice, whale vs large fish (among other things).

 

[Mystophilus]

My gist is not in favor of Aramaic superiority–what I am trying to say is that a good translator should consider what Jesus MIGHT have said in Aramaic or Hebrew when deciding which ancient Greek translation might be best?

That is quite impracticable, I am afraid.

One of the great challenges of translation is that it is not about 1-to-1 correspondences between languages (try translating “you” into another language: French has two different terms, Chinese four, and Japanese at least fourteen). As a result, expressions have overlapping fields of meaning, and one translated word could have come from half a dozen different source-text expressions. You can rarely back-translate with any accuracy, even when dealing with single words (this happens with “stone” in English translations of Greek).

If you want to see this in action, try using Google Translate to convert language A to language B, and then use the resulting version as an (name removed by moderator)ut to convert from language B to language A. Even for very similar European languages, the results are impressively daft.

We work from the Greek because it is what we have, and also because it was the text which the Early Church quoted and read, and which thus formed the basis for much theological development. That last point has some interesting implications for the theology of the Old Testament, however…

Do biblical translators do that? Should they do that when deciding between Greek variants?

Deciding between Greek variants works more on the basis of things like attestation: if we have more and older sources corroborating (in their quotations) version X rather than version Y, then version X is more likely to have been the original. It is part of the standard process which we use for ancient texts.

If an Aramaic or Hebrew word that Jesus could have used perfectly matches a an acient Latin translation–should you STILL go with a Greek translation that doesn’t match anything that Jesus could have said in Aramaic or Hebrew?

Should Greek ALWAYS trump everything else?

Yes, because it’s better! No, seriously, the only reason for the importance of the Greek in this context is that it is in so far as we know the original. The Vulgate NT was translated from it, and so claiming that the Latin was a better match to an alleged Aramaic source (alleged because we cannot yet prove it) is no better than claiming that the English is a better match to an alleged Aramaic (which would be quite apposite here, since English does not really have the πετρα/πετρος discrimination).

 

[ProVobis]

The Vulgate NT was translated from it

We don’t know what the older Latin was translated from, I don’t think. As has been stated before, Jerome corrected that poorer-quality Vetus Latina with his knowledge of Greek, Hebrew, and some other languages and using texts which we don’t have anymore. The resultant Vulgate was preserved for many centuries by the monks, who preserved other Roman writings and some of the Greek as well, but even some of the Greek had to be retranslated from the Latin, I believe. Patrick457 had a whole list of these and the older different versions.

 

[Mystophilus]

Jerome corrected that poorer-quality Vetus Latina with his knowledge of Greek, Hebrew, and some other languages and using texts which we don’t have anymore.

True, but his preface to the Gospels states that he worked from the Greek for them, as directed by Pope Damasus. He mentions a “Hebrew” original for Matthew as having existed, but does not suggest that he himself had seen it.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

If one manuscript in Hebrew or Aramaic of the gospels were found that was older than ANY other Greek manuscript–how much weight would it carry?

ProVobis: I’m a firm believer in “chalice” versus “cup”. I’m a firm believer in “virgin” versus “young woman”. I’m a firm believer in “full of grace” versus “favored one”. I’m a believer in “Hell” versus “Gehenna”.

What Jesus was trying to convey when He spoke is more important than Greek superiority or Latin superiority or Aramaic superiority or English superiority.

I am a believer in the magisterium’s superiority when it comes to the bible.

It may never happen but I wish the Holy See would translate the bible into all languages. If they wanted to improve the Nova Vulgata I would be in favor of that, too.

I would trust a translation by them more than any other translation.

I think many modern translations proclaim that they translate from the “original languages”. I think that most of them use whatever Greek or Hebrew variants uphold their theological biases.

I also think that many modern translations of the bible do not view the biblical texts through the lenses of the Catholic Church’s magisterium over the course of the centuries.

 

[ProVobis]

I would trust a translation by them more than any other translation.

Okay, but there is nothing infallible about any translation. I believe they still have “to worship” as an innocent translation of “colere” on their website and that puts the Anglophones in the vulnerable position of defending the practice of worshiping Mary. There are a lot of other sorts of problems in translations but I think you see the immediate risks that are involved. And their impact could be enormous, depending on the target culture and the nature of the document.

It ultimately comes down to scholarship in understanding those documents anyway so why not teach them the document language as much as possible and as early as possible.

It’s interesting that Summorum Pontificum, one of the most important works of Pope Benedict, has so far been translated only in Hungarian. Maybe it didn’t require translations to those who seem to understand it as written and to whom it was directed. It could also be the lack of second-language Latinists in the Vatican but I don’t know this for fact.

If they wanted to improve the Nova Vulgata I would be in favor of that, too.

The current one is easily available to all. I would imagine any changes would be as well.

 

[Mystophilus]

If one manuscript in Hebrew or Aramaic of the gospels were found that was older than ANY other Greek manuscript–how much weight would it carry?

As a literary-historical resource, it would be tremendously valuable, but, as a source of theology, it would be complicated.

Age is not the only consideration for the value of manuscripts: coherence is another. Because they were copied for transmission and for preservation, and because copyists make mistakes, one facet of the art of manuscript studies is the attempt to trace the various branching families of differences between manuscripts. That gives us some idea of what is, and what was, the most trusted version among the many.

A new manuscript emerging out of the blue, especially one in an entirely different language, would be very hard to place in that sort of scheme: is it closer to the primary source, or is it an early deviation? That problem would exacerbate the linguistic challenge in which languages almost never replicate one another’s terms perfectly: the theology which can be perfectly-reasonably read from one language cannot be so read from another. One of the major solutions to this, particularly for the Catholic and Orthodox churches, has been to use the history of interpretation - what the Fathers have said - to understand the text. Since they did not work from our putative Hebrew source text, this support would be unavailable.

It would pretty much be pigeons+cat, and I suspect that, when the feathers settled, both Catholic and Orthodox would say, “Well, we have believed X for Y centuries, and so we are sticking with that.”

 

[Wales_Paul]

Okay, but there is nothing infallible about any translation. I believe they still have “to worship” as an innocent translation of “colere” on their website and that puts the Anglophones in the vulnerable position of defending the practice of worshiping Mary.

The only person I ever recall mentioning “worshjiping” Mary was a fellow Army officer who was from Puerto Rico and, despite his complete fluency in English, may have simply slipped. Since i speak French fluently (and some other languages to some degree), I understand that sometimes a bilingual person’s mind can pick the wrong word in either language. I pointed out his mistake, and he agreed. I think he meant “venerating”, if I were to pick a word.