Making My Own Bible Translation

[alcuin18]

Thanks everyone for your advice, I appreciate it.

 

[ProVobis]

If you’re able to understand the Latin and its nuances and gist, that’s impressive enough IMO. No need to struggle finding the right words in English.

 

[De_Maria]

Hello. I have been thinking about doing something which might seem silly or even implausible for someone like myself who is not a professional linguist or theologian, but I would like everyone’s opinion on it, both the efficacy of doing it in general and how I could go about doing it and getting it out to the public when or if I actually do it.

My idea is to make a new Bible translation myself, using certain philosophical guidelines, such as making it in accordance with Catholic teaching, making it as literal as possible, using the Vulgate as a guideline for the original languages, and using modern English derivatives from the original language words in the text rather than choosing interpretative or archaic words (like the common translation of 1 Corinthians 1:23 as ‘stumbling block’ rather than ‘scandal’, which is an English word derived from the original Greek ‘skandalon’).

A few years ago, there was a guy on this forum talking about “paraphrasing” the Douay
into modern English. I did a search but couldn’t find him.

His thing was that he loved the phrases like, “Hail Full of Grace”, which are left out of
modern translations. But he wanted to get the difficulty out of some of the outdated
language.

Anyway, good luck. It sounds like a worthwhile project.

 

[phil19034]

alcuin18:

Hello. I have been thinking about doing something which might seem silly or even implausible for someone like myself who is not a professional linguist or theologian, but I would like everyone’s opinion on it, both the efficacy of doing it in general and how I could go about doing it and getting it out to the public when or if I actually do it.

My idea is to make a new Bible translation myself, using certain philosophical guidelines, such as making it in accordance with Catholic teaching, making it as literal as possible, using the Vulgate as a guideline for the original languages, and using modern English derivatives from the original language words in the text rather than choosing interpretative or archaic words (like the common translation of 1 Corinthians 1:23 as ‘stumbling block’ rather than ‘scandal’, which is an English word derived from the original Greek ‘skandalon’).

A few years ago, there was a guy on this forum talking about “paraphrasing” the Douay
into modern English. I did a search but couldn’t find him.

His thing was that he loved the phrases like, “Hail Full of Grace”, which are left out of
modern translations. But he wanted to get the difficulty out of some of the outdated
language.

Anyway, good luck. It sounds like a worthwhile project.

Yes, Ron Conte, Jr. translated the Bible by himself and released his translation in 2009. He called it the Catholic Public Domain Version.

http://www.sacredbible.org/catholic/index.htm

http://www.sacredbible.org/catholic/version.htm

 

[alcuin18]

I actually saw that translation on amazon, it was part of what inspired me to do my own translation, as well as reading some of the erroneous translations used by both Protestant and Catholic versions, as indicated by scholars like Brant Pitre and others.

My intention is not to interpret the Bible or lead anyone astray. The Magisterium is the teaching authority, not translators or even the Bible by itself, since it must be interpreted. I also didn’t intend to alter the words to fit Church teaching. From what I’ve seen, the Catholic traditional translations are more accurate to the actual meaning and oldest texts. I also agree with Knox’s ideas about having the English fit the meaning, by context and original intention, of the words rather than mere word-for-word translation, since no one actually thinks by each word individually but by context.

 

[billsherman]

Good luck, was my initial reaction. Then I thought about it a little more and have settled on: Unless this is a labor of love for which you have 40 hours per week for several years to dedicate, with the understanding that you will suffer through more problems than you can count, and will receive no compensation at all, please do something else.

You will need to study for years just to get the linguistic background, and then at least as long to understand the textual evidence, before you can even begin the process. After that, the real problems begin. A couple of posters have already addressed those.

If you’re retired, or independently wealthy, and just want the intellectual challenge: by all means, good luck! Otherwise, just read the works of various scholars who have written about the texts, and enjoy yourself that way.

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

alcuin18:

Hello. I have been thinking about doing something which might seem silly or even implausible for someone like myself who is not a professional linguist or theologian, but I would like everyone’s opinion on it, both the efficacy of doing it in general and how I could go about doing it and getting it out to the public when or if I actually do it.

My idea is to make a new Bible translation myself, using certain philosophical guidelines, such as making it in accordance with Catholic teaching, making it as literal as possible, using the Vulgate as a guideline for the original languages, and using modern English derivatives from the original language words in the text rather than choosing interpretative or archaic words (like the common translation of 1 Corinthians 1:23 as ‘stumbling block’ rather than ‘scandal’, which is an English word derived from the original Greek ‘skandalon’).

A few years ago, there was a guy on this forum talking about “paraphrasing” the Douay
into modern English. I did a search but couldn’t find him.

His thing was that he loved the phrases like, “Hail Full of Grace”, which are left out of
modern translations. But he wanted to get the difficulty out of some of the outdated
language.

Anyway, good luck. It sounds like a worthwhile project.

Yes, Ron Conte, Jr. translated the Bible by himself and released his translation in 2009. He called it the Catholic Public Domain Version.

The Sacred Bible - Catholic Public Domain Version

Information about the Catholic Public Domain Version of the Sacred Bible

Yeah, that’s it. Thanks for the links.

 

[Saxum]

The best Bible translation is the Douay-Rheims. Why do I say this? Because it is a slavishly accurate translation of St. Jerome’s Vulgate, which is the Bible that was used, endorsed and canonised by the Church for 16 centuries. The Douay Rheims was the only Bible used by English-speaking Catholics from 1610-1940; and the only Bible read from the pulpit in the Mass until the 1960s.

The modern Bible translations are very different from the Douay-Rheims. If the modern translations are correct, this means that the Douay-Rheims is incorrect. And if the Douay-Rheims is incorrect, it means that Catholics had a faulty Bible translation for hundreds of years. It means that Catholic teachings based on the Vulgate are incorrect; for example, the teaching that Mary would crush the head of the serpent. If the Douay Rheims mistranslated Genesis 3:15, then the Church teaching on Mariology is based on a faulty Bible translation.

I stand on the Vulgate and the Douay Rheims. It was good enough for the English-speaking saints for hundreds of years. It’s good enough for me. I don’t feel we need another translation, which is based on modernistic biblical theology. They can keep their new translations, their new footnotes, and their doubting exegesis. I want none of it.

 

[ralfyman]

I read the following:

Bible Translations Guide

Is the Vulgate the Catholic Church’s Official Bible?

Liturgiam authenticam

Catholic Bible

And I think the following points are made:

It is recommended to translate from the original languages, although one may translate from the Latin version while consulting the original texts.

Translations should be updated given new discoveries and scholarship. That means a translation based on the Latin version should use the Neo-Vulgate while consulting original texts and recent scholarship considered.

The translation should follow Catholic canon law so that it will be accepted as a Catholic Bible.

But to become popular (i.e., the best), it should fulfill other requirements. Probably the most important is that it should be readable. That means balancing between a literal translation and one where words are chosen and arranged so that passages are understood by modern readers. And given a reading public with, say, a reading level in the seventh or eighth grades, then the translation should meet their needs.

Finally, there’s the issue of practicality. I read somewhere that Church prefers a translation that is understood by a wide readership and can be used for liturgy and other requirements. That means, among others, that some word choices have be similar to those used in prayers and in Mass.

With that, a new translation will have to be like the recent transations of Catholic Bibles given in the link above.

 

[poche]

If you don’t have a good knowledge of the languages then you really shouldn’t be making any translations.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

I actually saw that translation on amazon, it was part of what inspired me to do my own translation, as well as reading some of the erroneous translations used by both Protestant and Catholic versions, as indicated by scholars like Brant Pitre and others.

What does Brant Pitre say? I doubt that he calls any Catholic version “erroneous.”

As far as doing your own translation; you can always do it for your own private use. I doubt that the world needs another amateur translation of the Vulgate (since we already have Ron’s, which is already one too many.) There are several genuine D/R translations available on the internet that are “royalty free” due to their age, which have the approval of bishops.

 

[BartholomewB]

(since we already have Ron’s, which is already one too many.)

That’s a strikingly curt dismissal of a translation that, here at CAF, seems to be held in unanimously high regard. Would you care to quote an instance or two of your objections?

I have never read very much of it myself, partly because there are certain idiosyncrasies that I find offputting.