Problems with modern translations

[Ron_Conte]

common problems in modern translations of the Bible in English

1. The OT is often not translated in the light of the NT and in the light of the Catholic Christian Faith; instead, they attempt to translate the OT as a Jew in ancient times would have understood the text. They do not translate the text in the light of the Catholic Faith, but rather in the light of modern scholarship.
2. Scholarship is placed above Faith.
3. The Canon of Scripture is eroding. Modern translations omit many words and phrases found in the Latin scriptural tradition (the old Latin vulgate), and more than a few verses.
4. inclusive language replaces the original text in very many places. For example, the phrase ‘the sons of Israel’ is replaced with various wordings that neuter the expression ‘sons of’. Masculine references are neutered, but feminine references are maintained. The word ‘man’ (anthropos) is not translated as ‘man’, but is neutered.
5. the layers of meaning in the text are ignored; the translation heavily favors the literal/figurative level of meaning, and ignores the spiritual level of meaning.
6. in the interest of making the text more readable, obscure phrases and verses are interpreted and over-simplified, and then translated, causing a loss of meaning. The text is dumbed-down to make it more readable.
7. in service of modern sensitivities, the word Hell is replaced with various other expressions, the word ‘homosexuality’ is avoided, and the Biblical condemnations of certain sins are worded so as to make the condemnation narrow.
8. even versions that are supposedly ‘literal’ and ‘accurate’ often rephrase the text loosely or impose an interpretation on the translation. The more literal versions contain many loose renderings, and the less literal versions take appalling liberties with the text.
9. Protestant scholars have had an excessive influence on Catholic Bible translations.
10. footnotes and annotations treat the text as if it were not entirely inspired and entirely inerrant, exalt modern scholarship, promote modern theories and hypotheses, ignore the teachings of the Catholic Faith, ignore the spiritual level of meaning, and avoid any comments that would argue against Protestantism.

Most Catholics are blissfully unaware of how bad modern translations have become. They rave about how wonderful the version that they use is, without any realization of its faults and weaknesses.

Many Catholics use Protestant versions of the Bible as their main text for study and devotion. They do not care that the Bible they are using was translated by a group of heretics.

 

[Bookcat]

Just responding in general …

Catholic Answers:

catholic.com/library/Bible_Translations_Guide.asp

catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9404fea1.asp

Good to have several translations…knowing the strengths and weaknesses of each.

RSV is one of the very best current English translations. In its various incarnations it is the translation used by the Catholic Church for the English translation of the Catechism and likely every translation of Major Church documents into English…if not all of ones coming now …

(one little note…(not to respond to everything above)…the Church calls our fellow Protestant brothers…“Christians”…so they were translated by a group of fellow Christians…with whom often we are working to overcome our separations…and whom the Church even smiles upon our working with even in translations of the Bible)

 

[Verbum]

Hi Ron,

Modern translations that seek to render the meaning that the human author meant to convey are encouraged by the Church, starting with Pius XII in Divino Afflante Spiritu.

1. Being thoroughly prepared by the knowledge of the ancient languages and by the aids afforded by the art of criticism, let the Catholic exegete undertake the task, of all those imposed on him the greatest, that namely of discovering and expounding the genuine meaning of the Sacred Books. In the performance of this task let the interpreters bear in mind that their foremost and greatest endeavor should be to discern and define clearly that sense of the biblical words which is called literal. Aided by the context and by comparison with similar passages, let them therefore by means of their knowledge of languages search out with all diligence the literal meaning of the words; all these helps indeed are wont to be pressed into service in the explanation also of profane writers, so that the mind of the author may be made abundantly clear.

The ancient custom may have been different, but this is now the mind of the Church. You must not confuse translation witth interpretation, which takes into account the whole bible as well as Sacred Tradition.

Verbum

 

[Ron_Conte]

Inclusive language is a problem with modern Bible translations.

Examples:

In the OT the phrase ‘the sons of Israel’ is used many times. This phrase refers to the whole community of the Israelites, including men, women, children. But it also refers to the fact that the Israelites were a Patriarchal society. They were led by men. More important, the Church as the new Israel is led by ordained men, by the Roman Pontiff, by the Bishops and priests. The Patriarchal structure of the community of the Israelites can be viewed as a foreshadowing of the structure of the Church, led by ordained men. But neutering the expression ‘sons of Israel’ (and many other similar expressions) undermines the teaching that only men can be ordained to the priesthood.

Matthew 9:15 contains the expression ‘sons of the groom’ in Latin, which is ‘sons of the bridal chamber’ (or, more loosely, ‘of the wedding’) in Greek. The expression ‘sons of the groom’ (or of the wedding) refers to the Apostles (and to all who are little apostles) who act in conformity with the wedding of the Groom, Jesus, to His Bride, the Church. They are figurative sons of the wedding. But the change to ‘guests’ loses this meaning entirely.

It is noteworthy also that feminine expressions, such as ‘daughters of Jerusalem’ are not changed in ‘inclusive language’ translations. Only male references are changed to a gender neutral expression.

 

[patg]

Inclusive language is a problem with modern Bible translations.

Examples:

In the OT the phrase ‘the sons of Israel’ is used many times. This phrase refers to the whole community of the Israelites, including men, women, children. But it also refers to the fact that the Israelites were a Patriarchal society. They were led by men. More important, the Church as the new Israel is led by ordained men, by the Roman Pontiff, by the Bishops and priests. The Patriarchal structure of the community of the Israelites can be viewed as a foreshadowing of the structure of the Church, led by ordained men. But neutering the expression ‘sons of Israel’ (and many other similar expressions) undermines the teaching that only men can be ordained to the priesthood.

The proposition that translating an old testament phrase as “people of Israel” instead of “sons of Israel” undermines the arguments for a male only priesthood only reinforces the belief as to how truly lame and untenable these arguments are.

 

[patrick457]

Just to drop a comment:
The idea of translating b’nai Yisrael (lit. “sons of Israel”) as something like “children of Israel” is hardly ‘modern’. Wyclif renders the Latin directly as sones of Israel, yes, but “children of Israel” is already found in Myles Coverdale’s translation (1535)! In any case, this rendering - incorrect though it be - has become traditional in English Bibles, perhaps partly due to the King James Version, which uses ‘children’ instead of ‘sons’ (probably under influence of previous translations).