The hypothetical ideal translation

[JoeyWarren]

I would love to see a translation that actually distinguishes the 3 different greek words that are rendered inadequately as “All”

pas
hapas
holos

Only hapas means absolutely all (each and every thing/person)without exception.

Would also like to see the words Petra and Petros used in it’s proper Greek to English translation

IE (just guessing) Thou art Rock and on the Rock I will build my church. Maintain some continuity.

 

[TheOneTrueFred]

I’m pretty sure my ideal translation would be mine alone. I don’t know why everyone’s so quick to embrace a less-is-more approach, but it’s likelier I’m the one being unreasonable by wanting it all .

My ideal (read: Ultimate) translation:

A Polyglot. Columns would include the major ancient versions still used today by the Easterns, as well as other versions that can provide insight. Off the top of my head (so please don’t take omission for rejection), these would include the LXX (critical greek in the NT), the Coptic, the Ethiopic, the Peshitta, the Slavonic, a critical Hebrew, and (of course) the Clementine. These would be interlinear translations, including the original language, a phonetic transcription, and a literal rendering preserving word order. Beside all these interlinears would be the actual English version, where I would lean towards a literal translation of the Clementine (in paragraph layout). Manuscript variants of note within each tradition would be footnoted at the bottom of each column.

Cross-references and liturgical cycle indicators would be on the bottom of the running translation, since the presence of the other columns would eliminate the need for variant notes here.

I like footnotes! I like lots of them! The Haydock has some real gems, but sometimes it digs a little deeper into minutiae than I care for. The original Douay has some important apologetic notes. And of course, our great fathers, doctors, and saints have produced quite a bit of insightful exegesis over the centuries. There’s also a lot of overlap between these commentaries, so naturally this wouldn’t be a “just throw it all in there” moment - But when a unique pious perspective is available, I’d rather see it included than ignored. On the whole, I’d like them to lean towards apologetics and devotions. These footnotes would be on the bottom of the page spanning across all textual columns.

Book introductions would be encyclopedic, including the history of the text itself, a summary of its manuscript traditions, and the role the book as a whole plays in the life of the church.

But wait, there’s more! A topical index, all the usual family-bible pages, the papal encyclicals regarding scripture, and plenty of full-color illustrations. Tables at the end include the liturgical reading cycles.

And: an apocrypha section. Pope Clement left it there “lest they perish entirely.” Whatever his reasoning for doing so, they probably hold more water than any dismissive argument for leaving it out.

I second Ron Conte’s points on the character of the translators and copyright issues, but I’d rather not get into a semantic argument about “infallible” vs. “inerrant.” When it comes to translating ancient languages into modern ones, it’s a hair I don’t think really needs to be split.

Oh, and I’d like this all in one volume please. The paper will be thin and the font will be tiny, but that’s what magnifying glasses and TLC are for. Leatherbound and gilt edges, if it’s not too much trouble.

 

[COPLAND_3]

porthos

Such accusations against the Masoretic scholars need proof. I have heard this thrown again and again, yet with no historical or critical grounds. Yet, knowing the Pharisees, they didn’t appear to be the kind who altered their Tanakh. Reject translations, perhaps. Reject new writing, sure. But they were sticklers for the accuracy of their Scriptures, and I do not believe they considered Christianity such a threat that they had to mess with their sacred texts themselves.

First of all, would those who rejected Jesus even when they knew He was from God, actually alter Scripture? They rejected His miracles even though they could not deny that those mircales were from God, Jesus refered to them as hypocrites, they persecuted and killed their own prophets, and had Him arrested to be killed etc etc. So I can imagine that altering the Scriptures was not below them. They were very deceptive even after the 1st century as we see from the Church Fathers, in the Martyrdom of Polycarp, the Jews were mentioned as being “eager to assist” in burning early Christians.(Chapter 13) So as for altering the Scriptures I can see that being a possiblity.

There is mountains of proof that the Masoretic Text is a revision, and key OT Messianic passages have been altered. Just look at Psalm 22:16, the LXX and the Dead Sea Scrolls 5/6HevPs both read, “they pierced my hands and my feet.” Whereas the MT reads “Like a lion are my hands and feet.” The Aramaic Peshitta even agress with the LXX and DSS.

St. Irenaeus makes a great point about how the LXX was translated before Christ, and the Jews are at folly,

But it (LXX) was interpreted into Greek by the Jews themselves, much before the period of our Lord’s advent, that there might remain no suspicion that perchance the Jews, complying with our humor, did put this interpretation upon these words. St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter XXI

There was definantly a threat felt by the Jews, Origen mentions the controveries,

And I make it my endeavor not to be ignorant of their various readings, lest in my controversies with the Jews I should quote to them what is not found in their copies, and that I may make some use of what is found there, even although it should not be in our Scriptures. For if we are so prepared for them in our discussions, they will not, as is their manner, scornfully laugh at Gentile believers for their ignorance of the true reading as they have them.Origen, A Letter from Origen to Africanus

 

[porthos11]

Do some people hate the Ecumenical Council of Trent for saying that the Vulgate could be used in ALL disputations and was free from error in matters of faith and morals?

Why would any Catholic Hate and disagree with an Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church led by the Holy Spirit?

Love the Ecumenical Council of Trent and Hate the lies of translations that differ from the Vulgate in matters of Doctrine, Faith, and Morals!

Read Divino Afflante Spiritu again and then answer the previous question. What do you propose for the Eastern Catholics?

 

[porthos11]

porthos11: “Such accusations against the Masoretic scholars need proof.”
I don’t think that we need proof to prefer as a source text for Bible translations those texts that have been in nearly constant use by the Living Tradition, over those texts that were repeatedly edited by Jewish scholars AFTER the arrival of the Messiah. Their opposition to Christianity may well have colored their editing of the texts. Also, the Masoretic texts are rather late, from the seventh to tenth centuries.

All accusations need proof. I don’t need proof that the MT is suitable as a base text. I demand proof that the Masoretes altered their Tanakh due to Christian bias and how it still matches to the best degree more ancient texts such as the extant DSS fragments.

No English Bible translation today is 100% MT-based after all.

If the above argument were used in court, I would object to speculation, and I’m pretty sure I’ll be sustained.

The Vulgate was given preeminence by the Council of Trent;

Only for the Latin Church. DAS says so.

also current Vatican norms still make the Latin the deciding factor in any uncertainties or disagreements among manuscripts in Hebrew and Greek.

According to the present instruction Liturgiam Authenticam, that honor now belongs to the NV, not the original Vulgate.

Providing manuscript evidence for Mark’s authorship in Latin is beyond the scope of posts in a discussion group. However, as an example, the Codex Bobiensis is in Latin (4th/5th century) and is considered to be a copy of a much older text (2nd century). Its age is attested to by its lack of the ending found in verses 16:9-20. Also it is from Africa, where Mark (according to Jerome) went soon after completing his Gospel.

That’s it? ONE manuscript? And in and of itself presents no distinctive proof contrary to scholarly consensus? Without the same patristic backing Matthew enjoys? That’s hardly the kind of evidence for a Latin origin in the face of the multitide of Greek Mark manuscripts we have.

 

[COPLAND_3]

prothos

Sure. That’s why the better English translations make use of other sources, such as the DSS and LXX, as well as the Targums and other Greek authorities, and yes, even the Vulgate to help reconstruct text where the Hebrew has suffered in transmission.

The only thing I have against being so eclectic is the fact that it becomes a matter of a text being established with the bias of the one or ones who put it together. Usually it ends up that the MT becomes the main format and all the others sort of supliment it. I agree with the idea of being eclectic but I am biased myself and usually am disappointed with the choices of the translating team.

The Vulgate is a good witness to the ancient texts and indeed has its value. I cannot and will not, however, put it on the pedestal Conte would. The Vulgate (and consequently, the Douay), while indeed free of moral and doctrinal error, is NOT free from translation error.

I agree.

Hence, the value of the LXX. But the LXX is just a translation as well, and while it works well for textual reconstruction, I still would be leery of using it as a base text.

It is “just a translation” that the NT authors trusted most.

I think no such thing. I know the MT has its defects, and that’s due mainly to the age of the Hebrew. Such manuscripts are bound to suffer corruption. That’s why it’s best to work off a SET of ancient manuscripts alongside the base text. But the original language still brings out the best translations because it would better match what the original authors tried to say. I can’t stand the Douay because of the Latinisms that had gone through, and I (my own personal opinion) find that the Old Testament doesn’t sound “Semitic” enough for me.

Since I read my OT from the LXX I find myself enjoying the gift of the LXX translators of being able to transmit the Hebrew and Aramaic into a very readable Greek. They had such a wonderful well rounded vocabulary. But I see your point.

 

[porthos11]

There is mountains of proof that the Masoretic Text is a revision, and key OT Messianic passages have been altered. Just look at Psalm 22:16, the LXX and the Dead Sea Scrolls 5/6HevPs both read, “they pierced my hands and my feet.” Whereas the MT reads “Like a lion are my hands and feet.” The Aramaic Peshitta even agress with the LXX and DSS.

Hence, we do NOT use the MT in our English translations for this passage now, do we?

BUT, is this proof that they “altered” their text due to anti-Christian bias? Hardly. The first and most likely suspect would still be corruption in transmission. Why?

Because of the very, very slight difference between k’ru ****and k’ri, and it’s a very easy mistake to make. The last letters vav and yud are almost identical-looking in Hebrew. So this evidence simply points first of all to copyist error rather than deliberate deception.

There’s a simple axiom we use in information management: “Do not attribute to malice what you can attribute to stupidity.”

I am not interested in defending the MT. I want definitive proof that the MT scholars were working on an anti-Christian agenda and deliberately corrupted their Scriptures. That kind of behavior is inconsistent with the Jewish way of doing things.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

There’s a simple axiom we use in information management: “Do not attribute to malice what you can attribute to stupidity.”

I am not interested in defending the MT. I want definitive proof that the MT scholars were working on an anti-Christian agenda and deliberately corrupted their Scriptures. That kind of behavior is inconsistent with the Jewish way of doing things.

While your IS management axiom is not a bad rule, it is hardly the same thing as religious writings done more than a thousand years ago. The Jewish prejudice against Christianity may be justified in many ways, but it is also well known and well documented. How you can speak with authority on the Jewish way of doing things in the distant past, also escapes me. We know that ALL people were not always living up to their known principles, even at this day. So in sum, while you may be perfectly justified in not acknowledging such specious variations in the Biblical texts as PROOF, you haven’t really any proof of your own to the contrary. In fact it will be debatable into infinity, even if a signed confession were found, as it would be argued it was a forgery, done under torture etc. etc. But like a jury, a preponderance of evidence will be proof enough for those that seek the truth.

I see a lot of people demanding proof for this and that, yet in this life we rarely get unquestionable proof.

 

[porthos11]

While your IS management axiom is not a bad rule, it is hardly the same thing as religious writings done more than a thousand years ago. The Jewish prejudice against Christianity may be justified in many ways, but it is also well known and well documented.

Yes, that much is certain. Whether or not it affected the MT is a whole other, yet unfounded theory.

How you can speak with authority on the Jewish way of doing things in the distant past, also escapes me.

Well, I read the New Testament for one. I know a bit of history, for another.

We know that ALL people were not always living up to their known principles, even at this day. So in sum, while you may be perfectly justified in not acknowledging such specious variations in the Biblical texts as PROOF, you haven’t really any proof of your own to the contrary.

Don’t need to present any. I’m not the one asserting anything against anyone.

In fact it will be debatable into infinity, even if a signed confession were found, as it would be argued it was a forgery, done under torture etc. etc. But like a jury, a preponderance of evidence will be proof enough for those that seek the truth.

Therefore, where is the preponderance of anti-Christian bias that went into the MT that cannot be more reasonably explained by copyist error?

I have shown how the Psalm 22 example could be so easily miscopied due to the minute difference between two letters. Is anti-Christian bias the first reason that should pop into one’s mind for the discrepancy? Why attribute to malice what one can first attribute to human error?

I see a lot of people demanding proof for this and that, yet in this life we rarely get unquestionable proof.

Proof is required when accusing anyone, like the Masoretic scholars, of anything as despicable as altering the Scriptures to their taste. I’m not accusing anyone of anything other than mere carelessness or human error.

The point is, people are saying: “The Masoretes changed the Hebrew text because of anti-Christian bias.” THAT is a very serious charge that needs to be backed up.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Even if we assume that the MT texts have no bias against Christianity, they are problematic:

1. they are late manuscripts
2. they developed outside of the Living Tradition
3. they did not go through centuries of use by the Church in the Hebrew language
4. they were repeatedly edited by non-Christians (even supposing no bias)
5. their editing was not informed and guided by Catholic teaching, nor by the insights of the Saints, Fathers, and Doctors of the Church
6. their editing was not informed and guided by other scriptural traditions, such as the Latin

I would rather have a set of manuscripts that developed over the centuries within the Living Tradition, than the original manuscripts themselves.

 

[porthos11]

Even if we assume that the MT texts have no bias against Christianity, they are problematic:

1. they are late manuscripts
2. they developed outside of the Living Tradition
3. they did not go through centuries of use by the Church in the Hebrew language
4. they were repeatedly edited by non-Christians (even supposing no bias)
5. their editing was not informed and guided by Catholic teaching, nor by the insights of the Saints, Fathers, and Doctors of the Church
6. their editing was not informed and guided by other scriptural traditions, such as the Latin

I would rather have a set of manuscripts that developed over the centuries within the Living Tradition, than the original manuscripts themselves.

Then you go against Pope Pius XII and the Congregation of Divine Worship.

 

[porthos11]

Even if we assume that the MT texts have no bias against Christianity, they are problematic:

1. they are late manuscripts
2. they developed outside of the Living Tradition
3. they did not go through centuries of use by the Church in the Hebrew language
4. they were repeatedly edited by non-Christians (even supposing no bias)
5. their editing was not informed and guided by Catholic teaching, nor by the insights of the Saints, Fathers, and Doctors of the Church
6. their editing was not informed and guided by other scriptural traditions, such as the Latin

I would rather have a set of manuscripts that developed over the centuries within the Living Tradition, than the original manuscripts themselves.

Sorry. The original manuscripts themselves (which are nonexistent) the only inspired ones. None of your “living tradition” manuscripts enjoy inspiration.

So since we don’t have those, and since Pope Pius XII himself has said that the extant original-language manuscripts (the entire set, including, but not limited to, the hated MT) have GREATER, yes GREATER authority than the Vulgate (DAS 16), I would rather listen to him than to the contrary.

Those who diss the study of original language studies are not following the will of the Holy Father Pius XII and the authority of the Church in the present day.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

And those who hide behind Selective selection of different original language renderings to support their anti-Catholic and anti-Vulgate biases are easily unmasked!

I’ll continue to use the Vulgate in “All disputations” because the Holy Spirit led the Ecumenical Council of Trent to recommend that course!

Anyone who is dumb enough to believe that the Masoretic text written centuries later by non Catholic Jews is worth Anything is crazy!

And how people who Profess such worship of original language texts but then buy protestant versions of the bible based on Masoretic texts show themselves for what they really are–at their heart they have an agenda of Protestantizing the Catholic scriptures!

I’m not against original language texts–I’m just against the selections of those texts by people who don’t have a clue how those texts have been prayed and preached by the living catholic church over the centuries.

That witness Verifies scriptural accuary better than any Biased agenda ever can!

The Vulgate doesn’t err! The RSV does!

The Vulgate is Catholic!

The RSV is Protestant!

Which bible do you think Satan would recommend?

 

[porthos11]

And those who hide behind Selective selection of different original language renderings to support their anti-Catholic and anti-Vulgate biases are easily unmasked!

I’ll continue to use the Vulgate in “All disputations” because the Holy Spirit led the Ecumenical Council of Trent to recommend that course!

Anyone who is dumb enough to believe that the Masoretic text written centuries later by non Catholic Jews is worth Anything is crazy!

And how people who Profess such worship of original language texts but then buy protestant versions of the bible based on Masoretic texts show themselves for what they really are–at their heart they have an agenda of Protestantizing the Catholic scriptures!

I’m not against original language texts–I’m just against the selections of those texts by people who don’t have a clue how those texts have been prayed and preached by the living catholic church over the centuries.

That witness Verifies scriptural accuary better than any Biased agenda ever can!

The Vulgate doesn’t err! The RSV does!

The Vulgate is Catholic!

The RSV is Protestant!

Which bible do you think Satan would recommend?

The NIV, of course.

Interesting for you to mention the RSV when no one has even brought it up on this thread.

So anyway, you haven’t answered the question above. What would you recommend to an Eastern Catholic, since the Vulgate has never been binding on them?

Anyway, there are better and more holy people who disagree with you by example, including Pope Pius XII, Pope Benedict XVI, the Congregation for Divine Worship, and the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, who wrote the Catechism. But I guess they too are dumb, crazy, satanic original language-worshiping Protestants with biased agenda as well working to Protestantize the Catholic Church.

 

[COPLAND_3]

porthos,

Hence, we do NOT use the MT in our English translations for this passage now, do we?

BUT, is this proof that they “altered” their text due to anti-Christian bias? Hardly. The first and most likely suspect would still be corruption in transmission. Why?

Because of the very, very slight difference between k’ru and k’ri, and it’s a very easy mistake to make. The last letters vav and yud are almost identical-looking in Hebrew. So this evidence simply points first of all to copyist error rather than deliberate deception.

There’s a simple axiom we use in information management: “Do not attribute to malice what you can attribute to stupidity.”

I am not interested in defending the MT. I want definitive proof that the MT scholars were working on an anti-Christian agenda and deliberately corrupted their Scriptures. That kind of behavior is inconsistent with the Jewish way of doing things.

I think there are too many places in the MT that reflect a rabbanic exegesis. Countering Christianity was done, Aquila was motivated by it when he made his translation. The idea that that kind of behavoir is highly possibe is evident in the fact that they out right rejected their Messiah. They mishandled the Word of God in the flesh, what makes you think they would never do that with the Word of God in written form.

 

[porthos11]

porthos,

I think there are too many places in the MT that reflect a rabbanic exegesis. Countering Christianity was done, Aquila was motivated by it when he made his translation. The idea that that kind of behavoir is highly possibe is evident in the fact that they out right rejected their Messiah. They mishandled the Word of God in the flesh, what makes you think they would never do that with the Word of God in written form.

Because they were legalists, and while they denied Jesus’s being God and the Word of God, they had no such doubts about their Tanakh. Even the way they wrote the Name attests to the way they cared for their Scriptures.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

I have shown how the Psalm 22 example could be so easily miscopied due to the minute difference between two letters. Is anti-Christian bias the first reason that should pop into one’s mind for the discrepancy? Why attribute to malice what one can first attribute to human error?

Yes, that is either very artful, or very sloppy. By your own admission, they would have been exquisitely careful to copy every last iota perfectly, as it was the Jewish way. Brings to mind the Arians dissembling homoousios with homoiousios. Slip in the iota, and suddenly you go from “one in being with the father” to “like in being with the father.” Yes, the Easterns are a very subtle and crafty type of scholar.

Proof is required when accusing anyone, like the Masoretic scholars, of anything as despicable as altering the Scriptures to their taste. I’m not accusing anyone of anything other than mere carelessness or human error.

Your benign attitude is certainly commendable, however, you are looking through the lens of the scholar. The Jews may NOT have been doing anything (that they thought) despicable, or anything (they deemed) a change in Scripture. At least you will admit that the differences with regard to the prophecies are strangely convenient for the Jew, and inconvenient for the Christian.

Therefore, as we are allowing them to be simply products of their own time and Religion, we haven’t actually acused them of anything despicable, so no proof is required. Just an understanding of human foibles and prejudices.

 

[jblake]

AmbroseSJ;:

Yes, that is either very artful, or very sloppy. By your own admission, they would have been exquisitely careful to copy every last iota perfectly, as it was the Jewish way.

Take a look at how old the Halacha on copying the TaNaKh is. It was created because of the type of error that the Psalm 22 example appears to be.

xan

jonathon

 

[Ron_Conte]

So since we don’t have those, and since Pope Pius XII himself has said that the extant original-language manuscripts (the entire set, including, but not limited to, the hated MT) have GREATER, yes GREATER authority than the Vulgate (DAS 16), I would rather listen to him than to the contrary.

Suppose that someone today translates the OT from English, into Hebrew. The text would be in the original language, but it would not be useful as a source text. So the authority of a manuscript lies not so much in the language, nor even in the manuscript itself, but in the scriptural tradition. The fact that a manuscript is a copy or edit of an earlier manuscript, which itself was a copy or edit of a previous one, and so on, is what makes a manuscript useful.

Manuscripts as late as the tenth century, whose scriptural tradition was handed down by non-Christians, necessarily have less authority than older manuscripts or ones handed down by Catholic Christians.

The MT texts are obviously of some use. But they should not be the basis for the translation.

Those who diss the study of original language studies are not following the will of the Holy Father Pius XII and the authority of the Church in the present day.

I’m not disagreeing with the Pope, I’m disagreeing with you (and only to a limited extent).

Useage by the Church makes a scriptural tradition of greater value to translators. This is why the Council of Trent could say that the Vulgate was without error on faith or morals: not because the Fathers of that Council sat down and reviewed every Latin verse themselves, but because of its useage over the centuries.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Take a look at how old the Halacha on copying the TaNaKh is. It was created because of the type of error that the Psalm 22 example appears to be.

xan

jonathon

If that was the case, then would they not have corrected their “error(s)?” If the errors are allowed to stand, they can’t really be considered errors. Perhaps the Halacha was just insurance to guarantee the continuance of their errors.

Again, not accusing them of anything despicable, just saying that what they deemed correct and erroneous was a decision they made based on what they thought was the right thing to do. Certainly debunking Christianity would be a very admirable and just thing in their minds. And if any suspected mistakes crept in previous to their times, which appeared to lend credence to Christianity, it would certainly have been wrong of them not to carefully excise them forever.