Original language of the Scriptures

[DaMaMaXiMuS]

Greetings and peace unto you all,

As far as I know the Old Testament’s original language in which it was written was Hebrew. Whether an ancient hebrew not used I don’t know.

As for the New Testament, I understand it was written in Greek. Predominately the writtings of Paul as well as some other books not written by Paul, and the rest of the books of the New Testament was written in Hebrew, like the Gospels for example. Or was it Aramaic? I don’t know either. Is Aramaic a form of Hebrew or something completely different?

Is any of this correct? Could someone provide me with some resources to verify as whether this is or is not correct.

Also, am I understanding this correctly, is the Latin Vulgate the source used to translate all english bible or just some?

Finally, are the Catholic recommended bible all derived from the Latin Vulgate? For example the Douay-Rheims Bible which is highly recommended from what I’ve heard, is derived from the Vulgate. Wouldn’t an English translation that is translated straight from the Hebrew and Greek be a superior bible as to the meaning and context of the writtings?

God Bless you All,

Nelson

 

[Thomas_More_1]

Quick answers:

1. The Old Testament was written mostly in Hebrew. For small parts, the only surviving stuff we have is in Greek.
2. The New Testament that survives to us is all in Greek. But it is beleived that the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Aramaic, and then translated into Greek. We don’t have that original.
3. The New Testament Greek style is called koiné Greek. It’s Greek, but not the same Greek as Sophocles wrote for example.
4. Aramaic is a semitic language, just like Hebrew and Arabic. Greek is of course an Indo-European language, like Persian, Latin, English and Sanskrit.
5. The Douay-Rheims is translated from the Vulgate. Advantages: It is a traditional Catholic Bible with beautiful language, used for English-speaking Catholics for centuries. Also, St. Jerome, who translated the Vulgate, was a genius, had access to manuscripts that we don’t have any more, and he was much closer in time to when they were written.
6. There are plenty of Catholic-approved versions that use the best of the original texts available today: the Jerusalem Bible, the Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition, the New American Bible, just to name three.

I use all four of the English versions I mentioned, since they have different strengths and weaknesses.

 

[Verbum]

Hi Thomas,

Good post. But may I take issue with your #5?

The original “Douay” was so terribly literal that it was extremely hard to understand. What we call the “Douay” today is a revision by Bishop Challoner. It is extremely hard to find the original “Douay”.

As far as “beautiful language”, well, in 300 years I guess they will find what I’ m writing to you now “beautiful”. There comes a time when archaic becomes beautiful.

As for St. Jerome, I would say that he gave us a masterpiece despite his handicaps. It was extremely difficult in those days even to get a complete bible, let alone reliable copies. Furthermore the tools used today to establish a critical edition were not available.

All in all, we have more secure text today than he had.

Verbum

 

[adnauseum]

The New Jerusalem Bible, which is a wonderful and gorgeous Catholic Bible, was translated directly from the source texts. It was a phenomenal achievement.

Some of the most brilliant minds in the world worked on that translation, including J.R.R. Tolkein, who is widely regarded as one of the greatest literary minds of the last century. He of course was Catholic.

I suspect protestants dislike the New Jerusalem Bible because it is such a scholarly Bible and it points out on many occasions where the Septuagint was being quoted directly by Jesus and the apostles. The Septaguint, of course, contains many books that Mister Luther purged. If the Septuagint was good enough for Christ, why did Luther purge it? Reading the New Jerusalem Bible would be very troubling, I think, to many protestants.

Second, let’s assume for the sake of argument that every Catholic bible was translated from the Vulgate. Would that be a bad thing? For the Vulgate has the advantage the source books do not: it was a translation of the source text into Latin with an eye to the relationship between the old and new testament literature. I think St. Jerome’s choice of Latin words would be influenced by the wholeness and continuity of the bible in its entirety. This would seem to me superior to focusing on the raw source text and relying on secular methods of historical criticism to figure out what was being said.

That’s my 2 cents.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

DaMaMaXiMuS:

As far as I know the Old Testament’s original language in which it was written was Hebrew. Whether an ancient hebrew not used I don’t know.

We can speculate was to what the original language of the OT was, but it would be nothing more than speculation. We have extant manuscripts and none are believed to be the original. So, in our earliest extant manuscripts, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek are the languages found in the OT books. For all we know, they may have been the original languages used by the sacred author for some sacred texts and/or passages.

For more information, you can refer to the Catholic Encyclopedia, here, and search on the names of each book of the Bible.

newadvent.org/cathen/

You can also refer to :
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Manuscripts of the Bible

 

[Thomas_More_1]

Verbum:

As far as “beautiful language”, well, in 300 years I guess they will find what I’ m writing to you now “beautiful”. There comes a time when archaic becomes beautiful.

As for St. Jerome, I would say that he gave us a masterpiece despite his handicaps. It was extremely difficult in those days even to get a complete bible, let alone reliable copies. Furthermore the tools used today to establish a critical edition were not available.

All in all, we have more secure text today than he had.

Verbum

It is true that some will regard writing as beautiful just because it is archaic. But many really do see great beauty in the DR (and also in the King James). The Jerusalem Bible is much newer, and I also think it is beautifully written, especially the Psalms. There are many other versions of Scripture whose translators did not even consider “beauty” to be all that important; they focused rather on dynamic translation, political and/or theological agendas, etc, accuracy etc. As long as it doesn’t affect accuracy, I’m pro-beauty.

I’d agree with your statement on Jerome’s handicaps. But that does not diminish his advantages! The Douay-Rheims would not be sufficient for someone who wanted to do serious biblical study, but it would nevertheless be an asset.

The New Jerusalem Bible, which is a wonderful and gorgeous Catholic Bible, was translated directly from the source texts. It was a phenomenal achievement.

Some of the most brilliant minds in the world worked on that translation, including J.R.R. Tolkein, who is widely regarded as one of the greatest literary minds of the last century. He of course was Catholic.

adnauseum, I think your post is excellent, but you conflate the Jerusalem Bible and the New Jerusalem Bible here. The Jerusalem Bible’s Psalms were translated by Tolkien, and it’s a phenomenal bible.

The New Jerusalem, in my humble opinion, isn’t to be preferred.

 

[adnauseum]

Thomas More:

you conflate the Jerusalem Bible and the New Jerusalem Bible here. The Jerusalem Bible’s Psalms were translated by Tolkien, and it’s a phenomenal bible.

The New Jerusalem, in my humble opinion, isn’t to be preferred.

Very well. I would agree with you, the NJB was a letdown in many ways.

I hear that a revision is in the works, due out in fifteen years or so.

 

[DaMaMaXiMuS]

Thanks all for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

Question to Thomas More, When you say the Douay-Rheims bible is not sufficient for the serious bible student, what would you recommend for them instead? I’m thinking the Navarre Bible. I’ve been considering putting money together to purchase the series.

But anyway, what do you recommend?

Nelson

 

[Thomas_More_1]

The Navarre Bible uses the RSV-CE, which is great for Bible study because it is very literal. The “interpretation” can be done by the informed reader, with the guidance of the Church, and you rely less on all the decisions that translators with their own natural biases made.

So, I think the Navarre Bible is excellent, but not all the volumes are out yet (I believe), and it’s pretty expensive.

Besides that, you can find many translations online, and this is very helpful for those who don’t know Greek and Hebrew, like me.

A lot of people like the Jerome Biblical Commentary. If you really like an academic approach, it might be helpful. But if you want a faith-based, Church-based approach to understanding the Bible as the Word of God, then don’t waste your money on it.

I hope that’s helpful! I’m not any kind of scholar, so I can only talk about the books I have experience with.

BTW, the Navarre Bible is the kind of work you can take with you to read before the Blessed Sacrament. I could never imagine doing that with a more “historical-critical” commentary.

 

[Mystophilus]

adnauseum:

I suspect protestants dislike the New Jerusalem Bible because it is such a scholarly Bible and it points out on many occasions where the Septuagint was being quoted directly by Jesus and the apostles. The Septaguint, of course, contains many books that Mister Luther purged. If the Septuagint was good enough for Christ, why did Luther purge it? Reading the New Jerusalem Bible would be very troubling, I think, to many protestants.

Protestants, who place considerably more importance upon the Bible than Catholics do, have no problem whatsoever with translations being scholarly, quite the reverse, in fact. They do not have any problem with referencing Jesus’ quotations of the Septuagint; in fact, I would have to search carefully before I could find a study bible which did not reference them.

As for Luther, he did not simply “purge” books from the Septuagint. Instead, he went back to the Jewish canon of the Tanach, which was compiled somewhere between 200 BC and AD 200, around the time at which the Septuagint was compiled (282 BC to about AD 1, depending on the version). He did not mutilate one collection; he substituted it for another. Having said that, his choice of the Tanach was clearly based upon a desire to avoid those books which he felt to be uninspired.

Further, the NJB is unlikely to be “troubling” to many Protestants. The Deuterocanon/Apocrypha was included in published versions of the Protestant Bible as recently as the beginning of the twentieth century. Because of the sola scriptura doctrine and the “deutero” (secondary) status of these books, they present no difficulties for Protestants, who read them merely as historical texts and not God’s Word.

 

[adnauseum]

Mystophilus:

Protestants, who place considerably more importance upon the Bible than Catholics do

The Catholic Church produced the Bible.

 

[Mystophilus]

adnauseum:

The Catholic Church produced the Bible.

When the Bible was produced, the church was almost catholic. Now the Roman Catholic Church is not.

Still the Protestants value it more highly than the Catholics do, for the very reason demonstrated by your sig-line.

From the OED:
Catholic
As an epithet, applied to the Ancient Church, as it existed undivided, prior to the separation of East and West, and of a church or churches standing in historical continuity therewith, and claiming to be identical with it in doctrine, discipline, orders, and sacraments. (a) After the separation, assumed by the Western or Latin Church, and so commonly applied historically. (b) After the Reformation in the 16th c. claimed as its exclusive title by that part of the Western Church which remained under the Roman obedience (see 7); but (c) held by Anglicans not to be so limited, but to include the Church of England, as the proper continuation in England, alike of the Ancient and the Western Church.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Still the Protestants value it more highly than the Catholics do, for the very reason demonstrated by your sig-line.

This isn’t a convincing argument, because those that value Scripture, must also value tradition as the means of receiving the deposit of faith.

To reject “tradition” (Gk “paradosis”) as non-authoritative is to de-value Sacred Scripture, since St. Jude (Jude 3) asserts that the deposit of faith is handed on or delivered (Grk “paradidomi”), which literally means that it was “traditioned” to the faithful.

According to Vine’s *Expository of New Testament Words *(Protestant source):

paradosis “a handing down or on” (akin to paradidomi, “to hand over, deliver”), denotes “a tradition”

St. Paul tells us that we are to shun those who do not hold fast to the tradition (Gk “paradosis”) that has been taught (Gk “paralambano”) by the apostles (cf. 2 Thess 3:6). Moreover, according to Scripture, these traditions are both oral and written…

“*So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions (Gk "paradosis”) that you were taught (Gk “paralambano”) by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter" *(2 Thess 2:15).

According to Thayer’s Lexicon (Protestant source):

paralambano: to receive with the mind 1) by oral transmission: of the authors from whom the*** tradition*** proceeds 2) by the narrating to others, by instruction of teachers (used of disciples)

So, in past discussion with Protestants, I’ve explained that tradition is an “extra biblical help”, the instruction of lawfully ordained pastors handed on throughout Christian history which help us to understand the true deposit of faith handed on by the apostles.

Then I point out that Protestants too use "extra biblical helps" in their attempt to understand the teachings of the apostles. For example, the preface to my Protestant KJV Bible recommends extra-biblical “study helps” to better understand Scripture, affirming that …

The reader will want to keep in mind as well. In no instance, however, has the emerging light from these extra-Biblical sources ever done violence to or disturbed the central message of the eternal Word of God. These helps only serve to illuminate and make the brilliant gems of truth even brighter. (*The Open Bible, *preface, Authorized King James Version, Thomas Nelson, Publishers, 1975).

I find the above admission rather revealing. Catholics have always contended that the “extra-Biblical study helps” of Catholic tradition has “in no instance … ever done violence or disturbed the central message of the eternal Word of God.” But instead, Catholic traditon “only serves to illuminate and make the brilliant gems of truth even brighter.”

It seems that when Protestants use “study helps” from “extra-Biblical sources” they “only serve to illuminate and make the brilliant gems of truth even brighter.” Yet, when I say the same thing of the “extra-Biblical source” of Catholic tradition, my Protestants friends charge me with following “traditions of men” instead of the “Bible alone.” They claim for themselve that they “value” Scripture more. I don’t find such a rebuttal at all convincing, however, as I see the hypocrisy behind their charge.

The fact is, they don’t actually use the “Bible alone” as they often assert, but also use the “traditions” or the “extra-Biblical study helps” that they choose to believe, novel as they are, whereas I use the ancient traditon or “extra-Biblical helps” that I find more compelling and believe more convincingly describes the intent of Sacred Scripture.

 

[adnauseum]

Very strong material dave1988. I learned quite a bit.

Applause.

 

[Mystophilus]

itsjustdave1988:

This isn’t a convincing argument, because those that value Scripture must also value tradition as the means of receiving the deposit of faith.

This is true inasmuch as those who value Scripture as a text need to consider the traditions of and before the time of writing. While early Church post-Scriptural traditions can be useful for pointing to pre- and inter-Scriptural and traditions, later ones are not. Unfortunately, most Protestants do not bother.

To reject “tradition” (Gk “paradosis”) as non-authoritative is to de-value Sacred Scripture, since St. Jude (Jude 3) asserts that the deposit of faith is handed on or delivered (Grk “paradidomi”), which literally means that it was “traditioned” to the faithful.

I am afraid that you have taken one possible meaning for one word, assumed it as the basis of the meaning of that word, and built your reading upon that.

Both the noun “paradosis” and the verb “paradidômi” have a set of meanings, wherein the root meaning is to ‘deliver’, whether in the sense of a courier delivering a message, giving a gift, or surrendering a city. “tradition”, as a possible object for the verb, is a possible variant for the noun: the substantive for “something given”. To then apply the minority possibility to a given occurrence of the verb, especially when that verb is prefaced by the adverb “hapax” (once) is doubtful at best. “hapax paradotheisei” is “one-time-only delivered”, i.e., “delivered in full”.

“So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions (Gk “paradosis”) that you were taught (Gk “paralambano”) by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter” (2 Thess 2:15). According to Thayer’s Lexicon (Protestant source):
paralambano: to receive with the mind 1) by oral transmission: of the authors from whom the tradition proceeds 2) by the narrating to others, by instruction of teachers (used of disciples)

This is really not an argument which I would have chosen for your position. The root meaning of “paralambanô” is ‘receive’. It can, therefore, mean ‘receive/inherit’, ‘take upon oneself’, ‘take in pledge’, ‘receive as a report’ (and, thence, ‘receive doctrine’), but also ‘invite’ and ‘take prisoner’. Paul is talking about that which the Thessalonians received from the apostles. Having just instructed them not to be upset by things which they have heard from others, he is, in 2:15, presenting the apostles’ own words as the singular vehicle of truth. Such a command prohibits the acceptance of traditions handed down by the mouths or words of others.

The fact is, they don’t actually use the “Bible alone” as they often assert, but also use the “traditions” or the “extra-Biblical study helps” that they choose to believe, novel as they are

This is absolutely true (although it should be mentioned that very few Protestants use the KJV, owing to the unfaithfulness of its translation and, in fact, it is only normally used by people old enough to ascribe to it the sanction of tradition). Nevertheless, because Protestants believe that they use the Bible alone, they place more weight upon it, and upon the study of it, than do most Catholics.

After all, Christians value honesty more highly than do the majority of the population, but are Christians always honest?

 

[Evan]

As to the advantage of consulting the original Vulgate by St Jerome…

In his translation he had the advanage of speaking Koine Greek when he travelled in the east and Aramaic when he lived in Jerusalem.

He not only studied the original languages but learned them via ‘immersion’. There are some words in the bible only used one time, so it is necessary to find other sources where these words were used. If it is part of the language you use daily, you may have a better understanding of the nuances implied by the word. Translations are always difficult because many words carry implied meaning that is not present in any word available in the target language.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

“hey I like this forum”, you all are great! I learned alot from all of you. Keep up the good work and Keep the faith.

 

[Verbum]

Hi Evan,

I would not insist too much on St. Jerome’s “direct” contact with the languages of the Bible.

By St. Jerome’s time, Hebrew had not been spoken currently for 800 years.

Greek was still spoken, but the New Testament was written about 350 years before. In today’s terms that would be like 1655. Shakespeare died in 1616. Would you say that someone who learned English two years ago in New York or London, would be a good interpreter of Shakespeare?

Neither should we assume that St. Jerome had access to better texts than we do. (See my post above).

St.Jerome did a masterpiece notwithstanding his huge handicaps. It is a tribute to his genius.

Verbum

 

[thistle]

For Bible study I use The Catholic Study Bible.