How Literal Should a Translation Be?

[Ron_Conte]

I disagree that the Canon is tied to any one language, original or otherwise.

Also, the Council of Trent and the current norms in the Church give the Latin Scriptural tradition a special place that is not preempted or nullified by appeal to the Greek.

Ron

 

[Manfred]

…the Council of Trent and the current norms in the Church give the Latin Scriptural tradition a special place that is not preempted or nullified by appeal to the Greek.

Ron,

i respectfully disagree with your statement above.

Pius XII in Divino Afflante Spiritu wrote:

[16] "…In like manner therefore ought we to explain the original text which, having been written by the inspired author himself, has more authority and greater weight than any even the very best translation, whether ancient or modern…

“22. Wherefore this authority of the Vulgate in matters of doctrine by no means prevents–nay rather today it almost demands–either the corroboration and confirmation of this same doctrine by the original texts or the having recourse on any and every occasion to the aid of these same texts, by which the correct meaning of the Sacred Letters is everywhere daily made more clear and evident. Nor is it forbidden by the decree of the Council of Trent to make translations into the vulgar tongue, even directly from the original texts themselves, for the use and benefit of the faithful and for the better understanding of the divine word…”

Manfred

 

[Ron_Conte]

At the time Divino Afflante Spiritu was written, Catholic scholars worked mainly from the Latin texts when translating. The Pope wanted them to use the Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic texts also. However, he did not call for nor anticipate the almost total abandonment of the Latin, and the exaltation of the original languages, that followed.

The situation is similar to that of Vatican II. Many persons used Vatican II as an excuse for various incorrect beliefs and practices, when Vatican II itself says no such thing.

I don’t deny the usefulness of the various ancient manuscripts. But it is contrary to faith and reason to give the ‘original languages’ such an exalted position that no passage is said to be correctly interpreted or understood without reference to them.

Ron

 

[Manfred]

At the time Divino Afflante Spiritu was written, Catholic scholars worked mainly from the Latin texts when translating. The Pope wanted them to use the Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic texts also. However, he did not call for nor anticipate the almost total abandonment of the Latin, and the exaltation of the original languages, that followed.

The situation is similar to that of Vatican II. Many persons used Vatican II as an excuse for various incorrect beliefs and practices, when Vatican II itself says no such thing.

I don’t deny the usefulness of the various ancient manuscripts. But it is contrary to faith and reason to give the ‘original languages’ such an exalted position that no passage is said to be correctly interpreted or understood without reference to them.

Ron

Ron,

I REALLY like the parallel you drew between the “near total abandonment” of the Vulgate and that accorded the Latin in the Mass. You may recall, as do I, that, in order to be considered for liturgical use, Scripture passages were required to be translated from the Vulgate, up until relatively modern times. I’m not sure if it was DAS or Vatican II that brushed this consideration aside.

So now that Benedict XVI is about to allow relaxation of the rules for celebrating the Tridentine Mass (unfortunately, he leaves permission in the hands of local bishops!!!), I wonder if he’ll re-emphasize the position of the Vulgate in biblical scholarship. When Liturgiam Authenticam purported to do this for the Mass/Divine Office, critics were loud in their opposition, since their “freedom” was being encroached upon.

Oremus.

Manfred

 

[porthos11]

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?

First of all, it would have to be established as the original text to the Greek, not merely earlier. I wouldn’t worry too much about Luke; it’s practically 100% certain it was written in Greek.

Your possibility is more realistic for Matthew, however, given the long-standing tradition it was originally written in Aramaic.

The Church’s magisterium will have to make the decision in this case, but my guess is that the Greek will remain canonical, given the precedent set by the book of Tobit.

 

[porthos11]

I don’t deny the usefulness of the various ancient manuscripts. But it is contrary to faith and reason to give the ‘original languages’ such an exalted position that no passage is said to be correctly interpreted or understood without reference to them.
Ron

Have you even read DAS?

First of all, no one makes a claim such as the one you make in your last remark. People have had correct interpretations for centuries without the originals, and people today make correct interpretations today with nothing but the English.

But the Pope did refer to the original languages contributing better to the understanding of the Scriptures.

Moreover there are now such abundant aids to the study of these [original] languages that the biblical scholar, who by neglecting them would deprive himself of access to the original texts, could in no wise escape the stigma of levity and sloth. For it is the duty of the exegete to lay hold, so to speak, **with the greatest care and reverence of the *very least ***expressions which, under the inspiration of the Divine Spirit, have flowed from the pen of the sacred writer, so as to arrive at a deeper and fuller knowledge of his meaning (15).

I don’t know about you, but the Pope seems to exalt the original languages too. He even warns exegetes of laziness should they refuse to study the original languages.

The Pope makes it clear why the original languages are important. Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the pen of the sacred writer brought forth God’s word in those languages, not Latin.

Furthermore, the Pope writes:

In like manner therefore ought we to explain the original text which, having been written by the inspired author himself, has more authority and greater weight than any even the very best translation, whether ancient or modern; this can be done all the more easily and fruitfully, if to the knowledge of languages be joined a real skill in literary criticism of the same text (16).

What’s this thing again about the Pope not exalting the original languages? He himself says here that the originals have MORE AUTHORITY than the best translations. I remind everyone that the Vulgate is a translation, and the best one at that, but an ancient translation nonetheless.

Want more?

1. Today therefore, since this branch of science has attained to such high perfection, it is the honorable, though not always easy, task of students of the Bible to procure by every means that as soon as possible may be duly published by Catholics editions of the Sacred Books and of ancient versions, brought out in accordance with these standards, which, that is to say, *unite the greatest reverence for the sacred text with an exact observance of all the rules of criticism. *And let all know that this prolonged labor is not only necessary for the right understanding of the divinely-given writings… (19).

Moreover, your exalted position of Latin applies only to the Latin Church. Our Eastern brethren have always used the Greek (including the LXX for the OT), viz:

And if the Tridentine Synod wished “that all should use as authentic” the Vulgate Latin version, this, as all know, applies only to the Latin Church and to the public use of the same Scriptures; nor does it, doubtless, in any way diminish the authority and value of the original texts (21).

The Latin is indeed authentic and authoritative for the Latin Church But you say that the originals cannot or should not correct or clarify the Latin? The Pope begs to disagree with you:

Wherefore this authority of the Vulgate in matters of doctrine by no means prevents - nay rather today it almost demands - either the corroboration and confirmation of this same doctrine by the original texts or the having recourse on any and every occasion to the aid of these same texts, by which the **correct meaning **of the Sacred Letters is everywhere daily made more clear and evident (22).

What I don’t understand is why those who love the Latin tradition feel the need to put down or diminish the important work of the original languages, which has been so highly praised by Pope Pius XII himself.

 

[rr1213]

The Church’s magisterium will have to make the decision in this case, but my guess is that the Greek will remain canonical, given the precedent set by the book of Tobit.

I am not familiar with your example about the book of Tobit. What happened there?

 

[Ron_Conte]

I think that the Bible is not a set of manuscripts in the original languages, but rather it is every edition of the Bible in every language put together. For each good translation adds to the understanding of the meaning of the Bible. Without meaning, the Bible would be useless. The original inspired manuscripts contained many levels of meaning; some of these levels of meaning are more obscure in the original manuscripts, and are more accessible and clear in particular translation. But translations may clarify one meaning and obscure another. All translations and manuscripts and languages put together is the Bible, not any one edition in any language.

Ron

 

[porthos11]

I am not familiar with your example about the book of Tobit. What happened there?

The Book of Tobit was extant for many centuries only in Greek, and it was the Greek that served as the underlying text for centuries (although some believe St. Jerome used an Aramaic manuscript for his (sloppy) translation). However, in recent years, archaeologists unearthed several fragments of Tobit in Hebrew and Aramaic from Qumran. Yet the Church still uses Tobit as taken from the Greek in the Codex Sinaiticus.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

porthos 11: If you were translating a verse from Tobit and the oldest Greek Translation of it differed from Aramaic and Hebrew Translations of it that were older and seemed equally as plausible which language would you give preference to?

 

[Manfred]

OK, here’s what I’ve managed to distill from all this:

Per Divino Afflante Spiritu, scripture translations made from the Vulgate need to be corroborated by the original-language critical texts; to wit,

“22. Wherefore this authority of the Vulgate in matters of doctrine by no means prevents–nay rather today it almost demands–either the corroboration and confirmation of this same doctrine by the original texts or the having recourse on any and every occasion to the aid of these same texts, by which the correct meaning of the Sacred Letters is everywhere daily made more clear and evident. Nor is it forbidden by the decree of the Council of Trent to make translations into the vulgar tongue, even directly from the original texts themselves, for the use and benefit of the faithful and for the better understanding of the divine word, as We know to have been already done in a laudable manner in many countries with the approval of the Ecclesiastical authority.”

Yet, for LITURGICAL use, the directives in Liturgiam Authenticam state that Lectionary translations made from original-language texts need to be in agreement with the Nova Vulgata:

"37. If the biblical translation from which the Lectionary is composed exhibits readings that differ from those set forth in the Latin liturgical text, it should be borne in mind that the Nova Vulgata Editio is the point of reference as regards the delineation of the canonical text.

“Thus, in the translation of the deuterocanonical books and wherever else there may exist varying manuscript traditions, the liturgical translation must be prepared in accordance with the same manuscript tradition that the Nova Vulgata has followed. If a previously prepared translation reflects a choice that departs from that which is found in the Nova Vulgata Editio as regards the underlying textual tradition, the order of verses, or similar factors, the discrepancy needs to be remedied in the preparation of any Lectionary so that conformity with the Latin liturgical text may be maintained. In preparing new translations, it would be helpful, though not obligatory, that the numbering of the verses also follow that of the same text as closely as possible.”

Do I have his right or not?

 

[porthos11]

porthos 11: If you were translating a verse from Tobit and the oldest Greek Translation of it differed from Aramaic and Hebrew Translations of it that were older and seemed equally as plausible which language would you give preference to?

Given the situation as found in Qumran? (fragments).

If there was a difference between the Greek (which is intact), and the Aramaic/Hebrew (which is fragmentary), I would have to apply textual criticism to determine the most reliable texts. I would translate the book primarily from the Greek, of course. But if there was an equally plausible difference from the Aramaic, I may have to make an educated, albeit arbitrary choice. I might translate that passage from the Aramaic, but note the Greek with an “or” footnote (e.g. “city”: Aram. Gk. “house”).

But rarely are the differences equally plausible. So the next consideration would be context. I would select that which fits the context better.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Manfred, porthos 11, or anyone else:

Is the Catholic Church basically saying that the Vulgate CAN be improved upon in translating the Bible if more accurate renderings from the original or older language texts are found

BUT

To make sure that the LITURGY of the Church will be uniform–at least in regards to the Latin Rite–

That the Nova Vulgata should be adhered to?

I can understand trying to have the Liturgy consistent–I just wish someone could publish at least ONE Bible that would perfectly match the Liturgy.

In America that obviously can’t be the Nova Vulgata–not only because of Latin versus English–but because even if the changes are made to the Novus Ordo–the readings at Mass will not MATCH the Nova Vulgata.

I’d just like a Bible that would MATCH–even if it was mostly the NAB-I’d use the Doauy for study purposes and other bible translations of course–but at least I could always refer to a MATCHING Bible if I had any questions about the Liturgy.

The whole situation is very confusing but I do believe that the Catholic Church is moving in the right direction.

What direction do you think the Cathoplic Church should take? Should new bible translations show any regard for the Vulgate or the Nova Vulgata? Should there be an available Catholic Bible Translation that would perfectly MATCH the litugy that would be available to the Catholic people?

 

[porthos11]

Manfred, porthos 11, or anyone else:

Is the Catholic Church basically saying that the Vulgate CAN be improved upon in translating the Bible if more accurate renderings from the original or older language texts are found

Yes. DAS basically says that.

To make sure that the LITURGY of the Church will be uniform–at least in regards to the Latin Rite–

That the Nova Vulgata should be adhered to?

Yes, and LA is the governing Instruction for that.

I can understand trying to have the Liturgy consistent–I just wish someone could publish at least ONE Bible that would perfectly match the Liturgy.

Ideal. Ignatius tried to do that with the RSV-SCE, and the CDW is satisfied with its efforts for now. The Antilles is the luckiest English-speaking nation as far as its Lectionary is concerned. Again, it’s not perfect, but a big step forward.

In America that obviously can’t be the Nova Vulgata–not only because of Latin versus English–but because even if the changes are made to the Novus Ordo–the readings at Mass will not MATCH the Nova Vulgata.

I don’t know if that’s precisely possible. It would be a good thing if it can be pulled off.

What direction do you think the Cathoplic Church should take? Should new bible translations show any regard for the Vulgate or the Nova Vulgata? Should there be an available Catholic Bible Translation that would perfectly MATCH the litugy that would be available to the Catholic people?

New translations SHOULD consider the Vulgate (and the NV). Ideally, any Bible translation should also match the NV, but there will always be translation difficulties.

But LA gives a good guideline. If there are difficult texts in the original languages, then the NV takes precedence. That’s a good rule of thumb.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

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.

Dear Copland,
My preference would be to keep the 'thee’s and the 'thou’s, for they are still in common use in English, though restricted now to country dialects, (more is the pity), and look at mistranslations of old favourites such as ‘et’ and ‘at’, which mean much more than ‘and’ and ‘but’
For instance, the colt of an a|s|s was translated as ‘an a|s|s, and the colt of an a|s|s’, whereas it should, but context have been, ‘an a|s|s, furthermore, the colt of an a|s|s’. (Oh dear, the magic censor does not like a|s|s spelled correctly).
As for ‘at’, many are the places where it is rendered ‘but’ where context requires it should be ‘whereupon’.
And don’t forget compraehendere…

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

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?

Dear RR,
From my readings of Murdock’s translation of the Pesheeta Gospels, nominally, at least in the case of Matthew, translated from Aramaic into Syriac, I was amazed at how closely this text followed the Vulgate Latin, as reflected in the Douay-Rheims. Even to the point of translating Our Lord’s Aramaic utterances, which in the Syriac would not need translation.
I thus, sadly concluded that the Pesheeta Gospels were taken, not from the Aramaic, but from Latin!
I also note that there exist no ‘old tongue’ Gospels that predate the Carthage VL, which seems to have been the chief source of Jerome’s Gospels.
I think we have, sadly to accept that the putative ‘old tongue’ Gospels at least, are at best reconstructions of lost texts, derived from the Carthage VL.
Incidentally, 85% of Matthew and 85% of John can be recovered intact from the Codex Fuldensis. I have reason to believe that these were also derived from the Carthage VL.

 

[Manfred]

In America that obviously can’t be the Nova Vulgata–not only because of Latin versus English–but because even if the changes are made to the Novus Ordo–the readings at Mass will not MATCH the Nova Vulgata.

Jerry-Jet,

I’m not following your reasoning here.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Correct me if I’m wrong but the Bible readings at Mass come from the NAB from various years. They don’t come directly from the Vulgate or the New Vulgate.

I’m not for sure if other parts of the Mass directly match scriptures from the NAB, Vulgate, New Vulgate or none of the above.

Do all the above translations translate the Consecation the same?

Do all the translations translate the Lord’s Prayer exactly the same?

That’s what I meant when I said I wish there was a Bible that EXACTLY MATCHED everything that came DIRECTLY from scripture in the Mass.

 

[porthos11]

Do all the above translations translate the Consecation the same?

Do all the translations translate the Lord’s Prayer exactly the same?

That’s what I meant when I said I wish there was a Bible that EXACTLY MATCHED everything that came DIRECTLY from scripture in the Mass.

Now THAT’s more unlikely.since you mention the Mass texts themselves. I thought you meant only the Lectionary.

The Mass texts (not counting the Lectionary), although heaviliy based on Scripture are not Scripture readings and they stand as texts in their own right.

If one only took the time, they would see that in the Roman Rite, none of the accounts of the Institution in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and 1 Corinthians match the Roman Mass’s Institution Narrative exactly. Even farther from the Scriptural accounts was the older Tridentine Narrative; the words “mystery of faith” are not present in the Gospel accounts (major reason it was removed in the present Missal and shifted as an invitation instead).

If ever there should be any changes, it should be the Mass texts that should match the Scripture, and not vice-versa. But again, the Mass texts stand in their own right.

Our previous posts referred specifically to the Lectionary.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Will they ever publish a Bible that MATCHES the Entire Lectionary?