The hypothetical ideal translation

[porthos11]

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.

The Masoretic constitutes only a part of the Hebrew base text used in modern translations, but has been determined by critical science to have been preserved mostly intact. It is not a translation of a translation. Moreover, it is backed up with other Hebrew manuscripts such as the DSS as well as other Old Testament manuscripts such as the LXX and Vulgate. That’s the beauty of criticism, because it allows scholars to reconstruct to a good degree of accuracy the original text. All the critical science needs to do is ensure the preservation of the language.

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

Oh, you disagree with the Pope all right. You insist on the Clementine Vulgate and propose no alternative to the Old Testament Hebrew as required by DAS and Liturgiam Authenticam.

If you agree with the Pope, prove it. Propose something that complies with DAS.

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.

But with error in language and translation, and that’s not good enough.

To give the classic example: translating “la manzana es verde” as “The apple is red” is not a moral or doctrinal error. It is, however, a severe translation error. The Vulgate has instances of “the apple is red.”

But again, insisting on the Clementine Vulgate or whatever Vulgate is not what the Pope asked for in DAS. So what would you do to obey the Pope?

 

[jblake]

AmbroseSJ;:

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.

In some instances, they did not know if an error existed. In some instances they thought an error existed, but were not positive. In some instances they knew an error existed. Texts in the latter two categories are/were marked in authoritative versions of the Tanakh. Texts in the first category are marked, after several centuries of discussion about the alleged error.

Perhaps the Halacha was just insurance to guarantee the continuance of their errors.

The Halacha on copying the Torah in specific, and the Tanakh in general, is still evolving. Probably the most recent significant issue was whether or not one could transcribe the Tanakh to e-text. Whilst the major points of this issue were resolved in the 1990s, parts of it are still under debate. (For the time being, it may be transcribed to e-text, but the e-text is not authoritative, and is not suitable for either study, or liturgical purposes.)

xan

jonathon

 

[Ron_Conte]

Oh, you disagree with the Pope all right. You insist on the Clementine Vulgate and propose no alternative to the Old Testament Hebrew as required by DAS and Liturgiam Authenticam.

If you agree with the Pope, prove it. Propose something that complies with DAS.

But again, insisting on the Clementine Vulgate or whatever Vulgate is not what the Pope asked for in DAS. So what would you do to obey the Pope?

The teaching of the Church is found in Tradition, Scripture, and in the Magisterium. The teaching of the Church about Scripture is not found only in DAS and LA. There is a depth and a breadth to Church teaching on this subject that is not easily understood or expressed. The various possible approaches to Bible translation is an interesting topic, and I have much more to say about it.

Unfortunately, I can’t continue to discuss this topic with you, because when I disagree with your interpretation of a papal document, you claim that I am disagreeing with the Pope. I’m not disagreeing with the Pope. I’m disagreeing with your interpretation of what a particular Pope wrote in a particular document.

 

[porthos11]

The teaching of the Church is found in Tradition, Scripture, and in the Magisterium. The teaching of the Church about Scripture is not found only in DAS and LA. There is a depth and a breadth to Church teaching on this subject that is not easily understood or expressed. The various possible approaches to Bible translation is an interesting topic, and I have much more to say about it.

Unfortunately, I can’t continue to discuss this topic with you, because when I disagree with your interpretation of a papal document, you claim that I am disagreeing with the Pope. I’m not disagreeing with the Pope. I’m disagreeing with your interpretation of what a particular Pope wrote in a particular document.

Ah, then you must enlighten me now, should you not? DAS is an encyclical written by the Holy Father, and I have cited it to you, and I have accused you, and not unfairly, of disagreeing with it. You are invited to present an alternative thesis, not merely “discontinue” because it’s inconvenient to you.

But methinks you have not actually read DAS because if you had, you would actually address its inconvenient exhortation towards original language studies on pain of sloth.

Come now, you make a big deal of yourself as a “theologian” on your website, a label which carries the obligation to defend your theses just like any other researcher. I’m a Ph.D. myself, and while not in theology, I do know the obligations attached to any academic title in a public forum.

So consider it an academic challenge. How would you reconcile your Clementine-base position with the exhortation of the Holy Father and the Holy See in both LA and DAS? Do you deny the authority of these two documents? If not, then how do you reconcile your position and what do you recommend?

Believe me, these questions are not unfair, and are nowhere as terrifying as those asked at dissertation defense tribunals. If you are a real “theologian”, you will not cower from these difficult questions. You will face me head on and give your alternative explanations, as would any serious researcher.