How Literal Should a Translation Be?

[Ron_Conte]

When Martin Luther made his translation of the Bible from the Latin Vulgate (!) into German, some Catholic Biblical scholars criticized his translation for being too loose a rendering. At the time, Catholic translations were very literal. But compared to translation philosophies today, Luther was more on the literal end of the spectrum.

In my view, an extremely literal translation, such as an interlinear translation, ceases to be Sacred Scripture and becomes just a study aid. Whereas, on the opposite end of the spectrum, an overly loose translation becomes just Bible stories, or just the words of the translator, rather than the Word of God.

But within that range of fairly literal to fairly loose translations, the faithful are best served by having available to them a range of different translations, some looser and some more literal, some based on the Hebrew/Greek, others on the Latin.

My personal preference is for a fairly literal translation, which is a more accurate representation of the source text. But loose translations tend to be more eloquent and more approachable, and this usefulness cannot be ignored.

Ron

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Hi Ron, all translations are the interpretations of the translators and thus are the words of the translator.

what matters most, is how accurate they are to the meaning in the biblical languages.

 

[Manfred]

When Martin Luther made his translation of the Bible from the Latin Vulgate (!) into German, some Catholic Biblical scholars criticized his translation for being too loose a rendering. At the time, Catholic translations were very literal. But compared to translation philosophies today, Luther was more on the literal end of the spectrum.

In my view, an extremely literal translation, such as an interlinear translation, ceases to be Sacred Scripture and becomes just a study aid. Whereas, on the opposite end of the spectrum, an overly loose translation becomes just Bible stories, or just the words of the translator, rather than the Word of God.

But within that range of fairly literal to fairly loose translations, the faithful are best served by having available to them a range of different translations, some looser and some more literal, some based on the Hebrew/Greek, others on the Latin.

My personal preference is for a fairly literal translation, which is a more accurate representation of the source text. But loose translations tend to be more eloquent and more approachable, and this usefulness cannot be ignored.

Ron

Ron,

Well expressed, as usual.

Would you agree with this ranking of some Catholic translations, from more literal to less literal? to wit,

Douay-Rheims-Challoner
RSV-CE (1966)
NAB (w/1986 NT) **
NAB (1970)
New Jerusalem Bible (1985) **
Jerusalem Bible (1966)

** contains inclusive language

 

[Ron_Conte]

I generally agree with that list:

Wycliffe
original Douai Rhemes
Douay-Rheims-Challoner
RSV-CE (1966)
NAB (w/1986 NT)
NAB (1970)
Jerusalem Bible (1966)
New Jerusalem Bible (1985)

But I think the JB versus NJB is too close to call. Theoretically, the NJB was supposed to tighten up some of the looser translations in the JB, but it really did not, in my opinion. The scholarship’s view of what is literal is a moving target. So by the time that the NJB was done, most Biblical scholars were more on the looser translation end of the spectrum.

inclusive language is a matter of degree.

I had intended to exclude all inclusive language from my translation, but as I worked on it, I realized that the text calls for certain phrasings that might be considered inclusive. The real problematic inclusive language is that which is not called for by the text, but is inserted to conform to modern social norms.

Ron

 

[Thal59]

Many passages in the bible, if given in a purely literal way, would be unintelligible. There are some passages in the OT, written in ancient Hebrew, that no scholar today can translate with certainty. (Too ancient and obscure.)

Bibles are usually translated literally, (trying to match word for word sentences) dynamically, (trying to render meanings more than adhere to strict word parameters) or literal-dynamic which is a compromise of both.

The best example is the word Gabriel addressed Mary with in the gospel of Luke… Kecharitomene.

This is one word in the Greek, but it is impossible to render it in one word in any other language and still maintain its meaning. I have always felt that the best way to translate Chiare, Kecharitomene would be… Hail, you who are perfectly graced, gifted, and favored by God. But no scholar in the world would consider that 11 word translation of two words as valid in either the literal or dynamic sense.

How Literal Should a Translation Be? However literal it needs to be.

Thal59

 

[copland]

I have translated a few books of the Bible myself from Greek to English. I prefer a very literal translation that is readable and not too hard on the ears. My preference is making it literal as possible and then use footnotes to clarify any possible confusion. The best literal translation on the market is the Douay Rheims, but it is in need of a revision to just update the out-dated English into modern day English without changing anything but the thee, thou, henceforths…

Paraphrase and Dynamic equivilence translations are not neccessary when you have commentaries, or footnotes in a Bible. There is just too much room for a translator to alter the context of the Sacred Scriptures.

 

[Ron_Conte]

The best example is the word Gabriel addressed Mary with in the gospel of Luke… Kecharitomene.

This is one word in the Greek, but it is impossible to render it in one word in any other language and still maintain its meaning. I have always felt that the best way to translate Chiare, Kecharitomene would be… Hail, you who are perfectly graced, gifted, and favored by God. But no scholar in the world would consider that 11 word translation of two words as valid in either the literal or dynamic sense.

I would suggest that the Angel probably spoke to Mary in Hebrew, so that the Greek phrasing is not the sole or most fundamental criterium for translation or interpretation.

Ron

 

[copland]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thal59 forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
The best example is the word Gabriel addressed Mary with in the gospel of Luke… Kecharitomene.

This is one word in the Greek, but it is impossible to render it in one word in any other language and still maintain its meaning. I have always felt that the best way to translate Chiare, Kecharitomene would be… Hail, you who are perfectly graced, gifted, and favored by God. But no scholar in the world would consider that 11 word translation of two words as valid in either the literal or dynamic sense.

I would suggest that the Angel probably spoke to Mary in Hebrew, so that the Greek phrasing is not the sole or most fundamental criterium for translation or interpretation.

Ron

You bring up an interesting point. But I imagine that it is very possible that the angel spoke to Mary in an angelic tongue, as Paul mentions.

1Cor. 13:1 If I speak with the tongues of men, and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

If anyone was able to understand the angelic utterances I would assume that our Lady could have. Or the angel could have spoken in tongues just like was done in Acts 2.

Verse 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they began to speak with divers tongues, according as the Holy Ghost gave them to speak.

Verse 6 And when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded in mind, because that every man heard them speak in his own tongue. But this is totally off subject, but I was just pondering on it.

 

[Philthy]

As literal as possible without altering the communicative intent of the author. The problem is that there is no way of knowing definitively what the communicative intent of the author was simply from an examination of text. What is the absolute frame of reference for interpretation? It is nothing short of revelation from the Holy Spirit. How is it recognized as such? Through the Church…

 

[Ron_Conte]

I prefer a literal translation, but of course the limit you suggest applies, it must not be so literal as to be misunderstood.

I also think that the faithful are well-served by having some looser translations, which tend to be easier to read and more approachable.

I don’t think that the angel Gabriel spoke to Mary using a gift of tongues (as found in the crowd at Pentecost). For example, Paul says that Jesus spoke to him on the road to Damascus in Hebrew. Also, in the OT, angels sometimes mingled with men without being recognized as angels (so they had to be speaking whatever the common language was).

I suppose that the natural angelic language is to communicate by thought. But based on other examples from Scripture, I would still conclude that Gabriel spoke to Mary in a human language, perhaps Hebrew.

Ron

 

[rr1213]

But within that range of fairly literal to fairly loose translations, the faithful are best served by having available to them a range of different translations, some looser and some more literal, some based on the Hebrew/Greek, others on the Latin.

Since none of the Scriptures were originally written in Latin, why would we ever want to base a translation (presumably an English translation) on the Latin as opposed to being based on the original Hebrew or Greek?

 

[rr1213]

I would suggest that the Angel probably spoke to Mary in Hebrew, so that the Greek phrasing is not the sole or most fundamental criterium for translation or interpretation. Ron

I’m no expert, were these Gospel passages written in Greek or Hebrew? If the original is in Greek, then the Greek version would be the inspired word so it, not the an annunciation in Hebrew (asssuming that the angel spoke in Hebrew or Aramaic) would be the word that needed to be translated. In other words, if the Gospel is in Greek, it would not matter if the Angel Gabriel spoke in Hebrew to Mary because the Greek version of whatever he said is what would be inspired.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Luke was written in Greek.
However, I don’t think that inspiration is so thoroughly limited by the language used that one could only arrive at the correct interpretation by looking at the ‘original language’.

Also, when Christ taught, he used Aramaic and Hebrew (and also Latin, if you would believe me), so how can Greek be the only valid source for a translation?

The Council of Trent gave the Latin Scriptural tradition a special place in the Scriptural life of the Church. Current translation norms require use of the Latin as a reference text on obscure or difficult points.

Ron

 

[rr1213]

Luke was written in Greek.
However, I don’t think that inspiration is so thoroughly limited by the language used that one could only arrive at the correct interpretation by looking at the ‘original language’.

Also, when Christ taught, he used Aramaic and Hebrew (and also Latin, if you would believe me), so how can Greek be the only valid source for a translation?

The Council of Trent gave the Latin Scriptural tradition a special place in the Scriptural life of the Church. Current translation norms require use of the Latin as a reference text on obscure or difficult points.

Ron

Interesting. What indications do we have that Christ spoke Latin? (Other than, I suppose, as God he could speak whatever he desired). I am not aware of any Scriptural support, what am I missing?

 

[Ron_Conte]

The Herodians probably spoke to Christ in Latin. They preferred Roman rule and all things Roman. Some of them even thought that Herod the great was the Messiah. They probably spoke Latin to show off their preference for Roman rule, and also because they thought to show superiority to Jesus by arguing in a language that (they thought) he was unfamiliar with.

Christ’s response ‘give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s’ is an example of a Roman way of thinking, and was probably spoken in Latin. Thus their reaction was to be impressed, yet they did not convert because they were only impressed by the language and style of the response, not by its meaning.

Also, when Pilate spoke to Christ and to the Pharisees, he probably conversed with them in Latin, since this was the first language of the Romans. His saying ‘quod scripsi, scripsi’ is very natural in Latin and is the same kind of Roman-like expression as the Herodians were fond of.

Ecce homo is again an expression that is very natural in Latin. So it seems that Pilate spoke in Latin, and Christ would speak in Latin when conversing with him.

Ron

 

[rr1213]

The Herodians probably spoke to Christ in Latin. They preferred Roman rule and all things Roman. Some of them even thought that Herod the great was the Messiah. They probably spoke Latin to show off their preference for Roman rule, and also because they thought to show superiority to Jesus by arguing in a language that (they thought) he was unfamiliar with.

Christ’s response ‘give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s’ is an example of a Roman way of thinking, and was probably spoken in Latin. Thus their reaction was to be impressed, yet they did not convert because they were only impressed by the language and style of the response, not by its meaning.

Also, when Pilate spoke to Christ and to the Pharisees, he probably conversed with them in Latin, since this was the first language of the Romans. His saying ‘quod scripsi, scripsi’ is very natural in Latin and is the same kind of Roman-like expression as the Herodians were fond of.

Ecce homo is again an expression that is very natural in Latin. So it seems that Pilate spoke in Latin, and Christ would speak in Latin when conversing with him.
Ron

Thanks.

 

[porthos11]

The Herodians probably spoke to Christ in Latin. They preferred Roman rule and all things Roman. Some of them even thought that Herod the great was the Messiah. They probably spoke Latin to show off their preference for Roman rule, and also because they thought to show superiority to Jesus by arguing in a language that (they thought) he was unfamiliar with.

Yet the Herodians were Jews, and it probably made little sense to talk Latin to someone who (presumably) wouldn’t understand Latin.

Christ’s response ‘give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s’ is an example of a Roman way of thinking, and was probably spoken in Latin.

No proof for this assertion.

Thus their reaction was to be impressed, yet they did not convert because they were only impressed by the language and style of the response, not by its meaning.

Still not proof that this was spoken in Latin.

Also, when Pilate spoke to Christ and to the Pharisees, he probably conversed with them in Latin, since this was the first language of the Romans. His saying ‘quod scripsi, scripsi’ is very natural in Latin and is the same kind of Roman-like expression as the Herodians were fond of.

Ecce homo is again an expression that is very natural in Latin. So it seems that Pilate spoke in Latin, and Christ would speak in Latin when conversing with him.

Not impossible, yet we cannot exclude the more likely possibility that they spoke in Greek, that being the lingua franca of the Roman Empire. Palestinian Jews probably knew a smattering of Greek and, (considering Galilee was near the Decapolis), Galileans could probably speak it a bit better.

Luke was written in Greek.
However, I don’t think that inspiration is so thoroughly limited by the language used that one could only arrive at the correct interpretation by looking at the ‘original language’.

The Greek texts are our best sources because they most closely reflect what came out of the pens of the inspired authors. No one’s saying one can arrive at the correct interpretations only by looking at the original, but you must go to the originals (the Latin can support) for serious work, especially for apologetics.

Also, when Christ taught, he used Aramaic and Hebrew (and also Latin, if you would believe me), so how can Greek be the only valid source for a translation?

For the simple reason that the original texts of the books were not in Aramaic (with the strong possible exception of Matthew, but the Greek is canonical). The Greek provides the primary layer for to be translated, since those are the critical texts. When Christ taught, he used Aramaic, but the sacred authors were inspired to transmit them in Greek, and so the Greek is the inspired text. Yet we take advantage of the fact that Jesus spoke Aramaic to even further shed light on the difficult Greek texts.

 

[porthos11]

I’m no expert, were these Gospel passages written in Greek or Hebrew? If the original is in Greek, then the Greek version would be the inspired word so it, not the an annunciation in Hebrew (asssuming that the angel spoke in Hebrew or Aramaic) would be the word that needed to be translated. In other words, if the Gospel is in Greek, it would not matter if the Angel Gabriel spoke in Hebrew to Mary because the Greek version of whatever he said is what would be inspired.

Yes. Sometimes people criticize our use of the Aramaic ‘kepha’ to clarify Jesus’ meaning of the Greek ‘petros’ while in cases like ‘kechartomene’, we stop at the Greek.

I’m quite certain the angel spoke to Mary in Aramaic. Here’s the problem. We don’t know what he said, exactly. All we have is the Greek, and so we work there.

In Peter’s case, we do know what Jesus said. It’s supported by St. John. So we have an avenue to go below the Greek to the Aramaic, but we still translate the Greek. Hence, you see “Peter” in Matthew 16, but “Cephas” in John and Paul’s writings.

 

[Manfred]

Also, when Pilate spoke to Christ and to the Pharisees, he probably conversed with them in Latin, since this was the first language of the Romans. His saying ‘quod scripsi, scripsi’ is very natural in Latin and is the same kind of Roman-like expression as the Herodians were fond of.

Ecce homo is again an expression that is very natural in Latin. So it seems that Pilate spoke in Latin, and Christ would speak in Latin when conversing with him.

Ron

Aside: In “The Passion of the Christ”, Christ and Pilate are depicted as speaking in Latin to each other. When Christ was first brought to Pilate, there was an interpreter standing by, as Pilate had supposed this Jew would not be able to understand Latin. As soon as Christ uttered his first sentence to Pilate in Latin, the interpreter almost mysteriously disappeared from the scene.

 

[rr1213]

For the simple reason that the original texts of the books were not in Aramaic (with the strong possible exception of Matthew, but the Greek is canonical). The Greek provides the primary layer for to be translated, since those are the critical texts. When Christ taught, he used Aramaic, but the sacred authors were inspired to transmit them in Greek, and so the Greek is the inspired text.

Interesting. If the Greek is the canonical version, what would happen I wonder if an Aramaic version of Luke was discovered that could be established as pre-dating our earliest Greek manuscripts? Would we hold the secondary translation (the Greek in my hypothetical) to be more authoritative than the “orgininal” Aramaic? Likely, they would not differ to any meaningful degree, but what if they did?