The hypothetical ideal translation

[Ron_Conte]

In my view, the ideal translation would be one that:

1. was prepared with the oversight and involvement of a holy Pope
2. was based on the Clementine Latin Vulgate, but with consulation with other languages, sets of manuscripts
3. involved only Catholic scholars who are practicing and devout Catholics
4. involved only Catholics who believe that the Bible is infallible
5. was translated by a worldwide set of scholars into many languages, with a certain coherency between each version
6. a **literal **translation, with some limited looser phrasings needed to make the text more comprehensible
7. annotations in **complete **conformity to Catholic teaching, based in part on the writings of the Saints and Fathers and Doctors of the Church, with modern devout insights as well
8. can be freely printed and distributed, without permission or fees, by anyone, as long as it is not changed.
9. can only be updated with the permission of the Holy See
10. becomes the standard for Mass around the world, and for use in private devotion

Did I leave anything out?
Anyone have a different set of criteria?

 

[thistle]

In my view, the ideal translation would be one that:

1. was prepared with the oversight and involvement of a holy Pope
2. was based on the Clementine Latin Vulgate, but with consulation with other languages, sets of manuscripts
3. involved only Catholic scholars who are practicing and devout Catholics
4. involved only Catholics who believe that the Bible is infallible
5. was translated by a worldwide set of scholars into many languages, with a certain coherency between each version
6. a **literal **translation, with some limited looser phrasings needed to make the text more comprehensible
7. annotations in **complete **conformity to Catholic teaching, based in part on the writings of the Saints and Fathers and Doctors of the Church, with modern devout insights as well
8. can be freely printed and distributed, without permission or fees, by anyone, as long as it is not changed.
9. can only be updated with the permission of the Holy See
10. becomes the standard for Mass around the world, and for use in private devotion

Did I leave anything out?
Anyone have a different set of criteria?

In number 4. I think you probably meant to type “inerrant” and not “infallible”.

 

[puzzleannie]

i would prefer a translation from the original languages

a dynamic equivalence used where a literal rendering would be nonsensical or devoid of meaning for the modern reader, translated by people who know the difference

done by people well versed in the grammar and usage of the language into which they are rendering (i.e. no inclusive language where it disregards accepted rules of grammar)

prepared without a political or sociological agenda

rendered by people with at least some grasp of good English prose and poetry, rather than people whose last job was writing computer manuals or vehicle owner’s manuals

translated by orthodox, believing Catholics well versed in Catholic doctrine, scripture and tradition who understand the meaning of “context”

useful for all English speaking countries for liturgical and study purposes

with notes at the end of each book rather than cluttering up the page, and published with a companion volume (as was done with the CCC) for concordance, references and commentary and dictionary of biblical theology.

most of all prepared by those who place themselves under the guidance of the HOly Spirit, pray throughout their work to be illuminated by Him and to render a translation in the spirit in which the original was written, and obedience to their own religious superiors and to the magesterium.

older translations, with the Vulgate pre-eminent, to be consulted in areas of possible disagreement on wording

 

[Ron_Conte]

I like most of your suggestions, puzzleannie.

I also like the idea of notes at the end of each book, and/or in a companion volume. I find footnotes often distract from the text (and often provide no real insight, just historical trivia).

Most Biblical scholars today practice a separation of faith and scholarship:
“His eye was more readily guided by faith than by scholarship.”
This sounds like a compliment, but many a Biblical scholar considers it a criticism. They literally do not believe that the Bible should be translated or interpreted with faith. They even say so, explicitly.

the ‘original languages’ are over-emphasized by many persons, so I like to keep the Latin Vulgate pre-eminent.

The word infallible can be used to refer to Scripture (“the infallible testimony of the Holy Spirit”), to the infallible magisterium (an ability to teach infallibly), to infallible truths (as are found in the Deposit of Faith), to infallible teachings of the magisterium, etc. It is used that way in Church documents.

 

[COPLAND_3]

My idea of the ultimate Bible Version and translation would be

Of course, if it was approved by the Pope

1. The OT from the Greek Septuagint, translated literally but readable to where it does not sound like Yoda from Star Wars.
2. For the NT, I would want the Gospel of Matthew translated from the Aramaic Peshitta, since Matthew wrote it in Aramaic. I believe the Peshitta is most faithful in Matthew, but not necessarily for the rest of the NT.
3. The rest of the NT translated from a critical text based upon all manuscripts from Greek, Aramaic, Latin, and Church Fathers citations. I would want the critical text to be put together with careful handling by the Catholic Church. I would want to to be involved with this one!
4. I would want the most orthodox approach to footnotes and introductions, none of this liberal garbage that you find in many modern versions that simply try to reject the traditional beliefs of the Church about authorship.
5. I would want a good variant apparatus that gives variant readings form other ancient manuscripts.
6. I would want a good cross reference that provides you with other passages that are related to or are similar to what you are reading.
7. I would want an idex in the back of the Bible that would help you find what you want in the Bible. There is nothing more handy than a good index!

 

[puzzleannie]

and maps, lots of good maps

but I really would prefer for general use a bible without notes, perhaps available in a study edition with notes, or in a companion volume as I say. that means the same text could be in the same size book in larger type

I am still baffled that every English speaking country has its own bible and lectionary, are we THAT different?

I want an English language bible compiled by people who understand that the bible is literature, understands the various forms of literature, and render poem for poem, epic for epic, narrative for narrative, and so forth.

I know you folks here hate the footnotes in the NAB and there is plenty to complain about in that department, but as someone who seldom any more consults notes, I am far more annoyed by the standard practice of transliterating poetry into prose, and not even lyrical prose but stilted, awkward prose.

I could criticize the psalm renderings on grounds of offense against literature without every touching on the damage to the religious connotations. Praying with the psalms should not be painful, like attending Mass where the choir can’t sing and the instrumentalists can’t play, and nobody is in the same key.

there is something wrong with any translation of great world literature that obliterates the original form of the work and renders an exciting narrative as a boring police report, and makes epic poetry sound like a comic book.

 

[RWMorris]

The problem with translating any document is that language reflects culture and many times it is impossible to accurately translate a term or phrase or idea. This is particularly true of ancient documents from cultures that no longer exists. This is why many Orthodox Jews refuse to use the Septuagint, some Muslims claim one cannot really read the Koran unless it is read in Arabic, and the KJV has taken on a life and created a Christian culture of its own (after all, Jesus was English, right? :ehh: )

But having said that, it is the job of the Magisterium, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to ensure that we have a correct understanding of Holy Scripture. I think that even most Protestants would agree the Church has done a extremely good job of protecting the Holy Scriptures.

 

[thistle]

I like most of your suggestions, puzzleannie.

I also like the idea of notes at the end of each book, and/or in a companion volume. I find footnotes often distract from the text (and often provide no real insight, just historical trivia).

Most Biblical scholars today practice a separation of faith and scholarship:
“His eye was more readily guided by faith than by scholarship.”
This sounds like a compliment, but many a Biblical scholar considers it a criticism. They literally do not believe that the Bible should be translated or interpreted with faith. They even say so, explicitly.

the ‘original languages’ are over-emphasized by many persons, so I like to keep the Latin Vulgate pre-eminent.

The word infallible can be used to refer to Scripture (“the infallible testimony of the Holy Spirit”), to the infallible magisterium (an ability to teach infallibly), to infallible truths (as are found in the Deposit of Faith), to infallible teachings of the magisterium, etc. It is used that way in Church documents.

The Church teaches Holy Scripture with regard to religious truths is inerrant. It does not teach Holy Scripture is infallible.

 

[porthos11]

In my view, the ideal translation would be one that:

1. was prepared with the oversight and involvement of a holy **Pope
   **

**

Ideal, not necessary.

**

1. was based on the Clementine Latin Vulgate, but with consulation with other languages, sets of manuscripts

Absolutely not. Original languages only, with references to the Latin as supporting manuscripts or aids to textual reconstruction.

1. involved only Catholic scholars who are practicing and devout Catholics

Sure, why not.

1. involved only Catholics who believe that the Bible is **infallible
   **

**

Inerrant, not infallible.

**

1. was translated by a worldwide set of scholars into many languages, with a certain coherency between each version

One team per language.

1. a **literal **translation, with some limited looser phrasings needed to make the text more comprehensible

Literal is generally better.

1. annotations in **complete **conformity to Catholic teaching, based in part on the writings of the Saints and Fathers and Doctors of the Church, with modern devout insights as well

Hopefully, the upcoming Ignatius Study Bible qualifies. The present Navarre is pretty solid as well.

1. can be freely printed and distributed, without permission or fees, by anyone, as long as it is not changed.

Ideal, but copyright may be necessary to protect the translation. Generous quoting permission, a la RSV should be given.

1. can only be updated with the permission of the Holy See

No.

1. becomes the standard for Mass around the world, and for use in private devotion

Sure, why not.

 

[porthos11]

the ‘original languages’ are over-emphasized by many persons, so I like to keep the Latin Vulgate pre-eminent.

They are “over-emphasized” for good reason, including the Holy See.

The Latin Vulgate is not the best source in the light of modern textual scholarship. The whole “Jerome had access to manuscripts we don’t” argument is just junk. We now have access to more manuscripts that he didn’t, plust the fact that he did sloppy work at certain points, e.g. Tobit.

No matter how much people would like to dislike the original languages, they are still the closest to the original inspired text.

The word infallible can be used to refer to Scripture (“the infallible testimony of the Holy Spirit”), to the infallible magisterium (an ability to teach infallibly), to infallible truths (as are found in the Deposit of Faith), to infallible teachings of the magisterium, etc. It is used that way in Church documents.

Infallible is typically used to refer to the protection extended to the Church that she cannot teach error. Scripture, on the other hand, is inspired and was written without error, although people can still draw error out of it. Scripture is inerrant.

 

[Ron_Conte]

“5) I would want a good variant apparatus that gives variant readings form other ancient manuscripts.”

Good idea! I think there should be a companion volume with annotations and variant readings.

Also, none of this trying to fit the entire Bible with notes into a small paperback format. It should have decent sized print, paper that isn’t extra thin, and be more than one volume.

“but I really would prefer for general use a bible without notes”
So would I. (Canon Law currently requires notes though!)

“render poem for poem, epic for epic, narrative for narrative”
Well said. I’m annoyed that so many people think there are only two ways to translate: formal or dynamic equivalency.

“it is impossible to accurately translate a term or phrase or idea.”
That can’t be true. Christ taught mostly in Aramaic, also in Hebrew, but the oldest manuscripts of the NT are in Greek. Sometimes an accurate translation has to be looser, or has to clarify one level of meaning while obscuring another. But accuracy is not out of reach. And notes with alternate wordings for a difficult phrase or verse can help.

“The Church teaches Holy Scripture with regard to religious truths is inerrant. It does not teach Holy Scripture is infallible.”
The word inerrant is not found on the Vatican web site; I can’t find that word in any magisterial document. Whereas, by comparision, the word infallible is used frequently, including references to Scripture. The word inerrant is more common in Protestant.

“Infallible is typically used to refer to the protection extended to the Church that she cannot teach error.”
A search of the vatican website for the word ‘inerrant’ finds nothing. A search for ‘infallible’ finds the word used not only to describe a protection for a process, but also for the result of that process. So there is the infallible teaching authority, and then there are infallible teachings. The writing of the Bible under inspiration was infallible, but the result is also called infallible.

“over-emphasized”
The Latin is preferable, in my opinion, because it has been in nearly constant use by the Living Tradition since the early days of the Church. Also, I don’t agree that the NT was written entirely in Greek. I agree with Baronius et al. that Mark was written in Latin for the Christians at Rome.

 

[COPLAND_3]

porthos

No matter how much people would like to dislike the original languages, they are still the closest to the original inspired text.

Not always. Ron Conte has a point that I think many people are over looking. First I will make my point about original languages. The “original” languages are not always better than an ancient version, an example would be the Masoretic Text. The MT is a Hebrew version of the OT. Some people assume that since most of the OT was originally written in Hebrew, then the MT would be better than an ancient version such as the Greek Septuaint, but it is not. The Hebrew Masoretic Text has been revised many times through the centuries until they finally developed a standardized text. And the revisions were done by Pharisees who did not have the best interest in mind when it come to preserving key Messianic passages, such as Psalm 22:16 “They have peirced my hands and my feet.” Early Christians were proving that Jesus was the Messiah by using the OT, and what better way to combat that than to alter the OT passages that talk about Christ!

Sometimes, not always, but sometimes ancient translations of the Bible preserve a better original text than some of the so called original language texts. I think Ron Conte is saying that he trusts the Clementine and that it is a safe version that you cannot go wrong with. And I assure you that there are some “original” language texts that are quite inaccurate. There are some ancient Greek manuscripts of the NT that are a mess even though most of the NT was originally written in Greek.

As much as I love St. Jerome, the great saint misunderstood and supported the idea that the Hebrew text of his day as being the “original” Hebrew text, as if it was the parent text. But as we have discovered even more ancient manuscripts we find that there has been a number of revisions and standardizing that has taken place. What St. Jerome failed to realize is that the Septuagint translators translated from a Hebrew and Aramaic text that was much older and superior to the Hebrew OT of his day.

But don’t get me wrong, I think I understand that you probably agree with what I am saying, I only point this out because many people just assume that any Hebrew text of the OT is original and that any Greek text of the NT is original, and that is not the case, as I am sure that you know, but many people don’t.

 

[lak611]

"5)
Also, none of this trying to fit the entire Bible with notes into a small paperback format. It should have decent sized print, paper that isn’t extra thin, and be more than one volume.

I would like to see a variety of sizes, formats, etc. Multiple volumes would not interest me, since I want a Bible I am able to carry with me.

“but I really would prefer for general use a bible without notes”
So would I. (Canon Law currently requires notes though!)

If the notes are required, they are best put in as end notes, not as footnotes. I can easily ignore the notes in the RSV-CE, since they appear after the OT and after the NT, not cluttering up the pages of the Bible.

The Latin is preferable, in my opinion, because it has been in nearly constant use by the Living Tradition since the early days of the Church. Also, I don’t agree that the NT was written entirely in Greek. I agree with Baronius et al. that Mark was written in Latin for the Christians at Rome.

My only concern with use of Latin is the over-emphasis of the Latin Catholic Church. Yes, I am Latin Catholic, but what about the other 22 Catholic Churches? What would be the best translation for them? Or would it be best for the Latin Catholic Church and the Eastern Catholic Churches to have separate Bibles?

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Original languages only is a complete crock!

The Vulgate as Prayed by the Catholic Church over the centuries can Never be reversed on matters of Doctrine regardless of what any scholar or group of scholars’ OPINION is about the accuracy of any particular original language text!

Any texts that do not involve Doctrine can be different from the Vulgate.

The real rub is deciding Which Original language texts are the most accurate.

In my opinion the only person in the world who can make those decisions or at least endorse those decisions to be true is the Pope himself!

The scriptures are the truth!

The only person who can proclaim their truth without even having the possibility of being wrong is the Pope!

I’d settle for an English Translation of the Nova Vulgata and a requirement that every scriptural reference in the liturgy should exactly match it!

Course if that happened all the liberals and the ultraconservatives who really don’t believe the bible anyway would up and leave!

I don’t think that would be a bad thing!

I sometimes think the reason that the Catholic Church doesn’t have one official bible endorsed with the infallability of the pope and the magisterium is because God wants to allow people to have the choice in believing in the scripture’s real truth or not.

In other words all those people who disagree with the Vulgate’s interpetation regarding scriptures that deal with Doctrine that are presented in Untruthful ways in other translations will one day have to answer to Jesus for it!

You may not be able to Prove them wrong here on Earth if proof means convincing them–they will however have to answer to Jesus!

Protestant translations are by definition Not the truth!

Anyone who truely does know this has no excuse for Countenancing their untruths!

 

[COPLAND_3]

Jerry-Jet

Wow, tell us how you really feel! Ha ha!

In my opinion the only person in the world who can make those decisions or at least endorse those decisions to be true is the Pope himself!

I agree! That is why we all on here are pointing that out in our hypothetical answers.

Course if that happened all the liberals and the ultraconservatives who really don’t believe the bible anyway would up and leave!

I don’t think that would be a bad thing!

I agree, I think 10 million super-liberal ‘Catholics’ leaving the Church would be a good start, that is those who ignore and try to undermine the authority of the Church and are pushing for a more secular minded non-traditional thing they call church.

 

[porthos11]

porthos
Not always. Ron Conte has a point that I think many people are over looking. First I will make my point about original languages. The “original” languages are not always better than an ancient version, an example would be the Masoretic Text. The MT is a Hebrew version of the OT. Some people assume that since most of the OT was originally written in Hebrew, then the MT would be better than an ancient version such as the Greek Septuaint, but it is not. The Hebrew Masoretic Text has been revised many times through the centuries until they finally developed a standardized text. And the revisions were done by Pharisees who did not have the best interest in mind when it come to preserving key Messianic passages, such as Psalm 22:16 “They have peirced my hands and my feet.” Early Christians were proving that Jesus was the Messiah by using the OT, and what better way to combat that than to alter the OT passages that talk about Christ!

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.

Sometimes, not always, but sometimes ancient translations of the Bible preserve a better original text than some of the so called original language texts.

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.

I think Ron Conte is saying that he trusts the Clementine and that it is a safe version that you cannot go wrong with. And I assure you that there are some “original” language texts that are quite inaccurate. There are some ancient Greek manuscripts of the NT that are a mess even though most of the NT was originally written in Greek.

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.

As much as I love St. Jerome, the great saint misunderstood and supported the idea that the Hebrew text of his day as being the “original” Hebrew text, as if it was the parent text. But as we have discovered even more ancient manuscripts we find that there has been a number of revisions and standardizing that has taken place. What St. Jerome failed to realize is that the Septuagint translators translated from a Hebrew and Aramaic text that was much older and superior to the Hebrew OT of his day.

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.

But don’t get me wrong, I think I understand that you probably agree with what I am saying, I only point this out because many people just assume that any Hebrew text of the OT is original and that any Greek text of the NT is original, and that is not the case, as I am sure that you know, but many people don’t.

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.

As for the NT, we have little problem, because of the richness of manuscript evidence. It’s less of a problem to get the best original text than it is to get the best original Hebrew.

 

[porthos11]

“over-emphasized”
The Latin is preferable, in my opinion, because it has been in nearly constant use by the Living Tradition since the early days of the Church.

Spoken like a true Latin-equals-Catholic Catholic.

The Greek Bible, both OT and NT has had an even earlier entrenchment in the life of the Church. The Vulgate has only been significant for the Latin Church.

Also, I don’t agree that the NT was written entirely in Greek. I agree with Baronius et al. that Mark was written in Latin for the Christians at Rome.

Manuscript and patristic evidence please.

At least for Matthew’s Aramaic primacy, we have the witness of Papias and Irenaeus. Other than that, I will have to place a Latin “original” for Mark up there with Q.

 

[Ron_Conte]

"I would like to see a variety of sizes, formats, etc. "

Laura, good idea. And I agree that footnotes clutter the pages and are distracting. I’m not sure what the Eastern churches would prefer for a translation.

Jerry-Jet, the Nova Vulgata is a loose translation into Latin of the Hebrew and Greek texts. It does not represent the old and vulgate Latin texts approved by Trent as being without doctrinal or moral error.

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.

The Vulgate was given preeminence by the Council of Trent; also current Vatican norms still make the Latin the deciding factor in any uncertainties or disagreements among manuscripts in Hebrew and Greek. But yes, even the Vulgate possibly has some editing or translation errors (I’ve noted a couple).

Jerome and Eusebius say that Matthew was written in Hebrew. As an argument to support this, Jerome notes that Matthew quotes the Hebrew OT, not the Greek. But the Hebrew OT was written in Hebrew, not Aramaic. Therefore, Jerome meant Hebrew, he did not mean that Matthew was written in Aramaic.

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.

Good discussion everyone!

 

[Jerry-Jet]

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!

 

[lak611]

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!

What translation do you propose for the Eastern Catholic Churches?