The translation of Sacred Scripture into venacular languages

[jbelokur]

I have been seeing all over Facebook toady about the 400 year anniversary of the KJV and how it was through this translation in to the vernacular English language that the Bible was then translated into many more languages. I know that the Church had been translating the Bible into the vernacular before that beginning with the Vulgate. Any links or references that can fill me in a bit more on this subject? Thanks.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I think what you say is only partially true. The King James was the first translation into English. It was followed shortly after by the Catholic Douay-Rheims English translation. Before that time there were no Vernacular translations of the Bible in any language. The first Latin Vulgate editions could only be regarded as vernacular translations in a very narrow sense, in that Latin was already the official Ecclisiastical language of the Church or was quickly becoming so and I guess the citizens of the Papal states ( principally Italy ) still spoke a kind of Latin. Read : the Fifth Instruction " For the Right Implementation of the Constitution of the Sacred Liturgy of the Second Vatican Councle published by the Congregation for the Divine Worship at the Vatican Web site Vatican.va.
This will give you an idea of what has happend in history. Be careful of what you believe coming from secular news sources.

 

[Crumpy]

Fr. Mitch Pacwa has the Threshold of Hope program on EWTN. Just this Tuesday, 1/16/2012, he briefly discussed this subject.

You can watch this episode by going to the EWTN.com website.

He said that there were translations of the Bible into vernacular languages before the development of the printing press. But, the Catholic Church was the chief “customer” of the printing press to publish the Bible.

So, the underlying issue here is whether the Catholic Church was suppressing the spread of the Bible, and the answer is no.

This question has been asked and answered in these forums many times.

The Church has been careful and has even suppressed editions of the Bible which were not accurate – and you can imagine how much time it takes to check things out like this.

He includes a long q and a session in his program. So, you will see and hear what you want, in probably the first 30 minutes of the broadcast, where he explains this.

 

[donsnow]

Good morning, jbelokur,

The Gutenburg Holy Bible was a vernacular translation into German, by the printing press, 'way before the Catholic Vulgate was translated into the English Vernacular and long before the KJV translation.

If you look in the front of a KJV Holy Bible, it was authorized by the King in the mid 1600’s.

When you look in the front of a Douay-Rheims English text, you will find the Old Testament was translated at the Douay College in 1609AD and that the New Testament was translated at the College of Rheims in 1582.

So, the DR was translated and available well before the KJV.

God loves you,
Don

 

[jbelokur]

Good morning, jbelokur,

The Gutenburg Holy Bible was a vernacular translation into German, by the printing press, 'way before the Catholic Vulgate was translated into the English Vernacular and long before the KJV translation.

The poi t I was making about the Vulgate was that it was the earliest example of a translation, from the original Greek and Hebrew to Latin. Qlthought the translation of The Gospel of Matthew from Aramaic to Greek! Thanks for the reply.

 

[ProVobis]

The Gutenburg Holy Bible was a vernacular translation into German, by the printing press, 'way before the Catholic Vulgate was translated into the English Vernacular and long before the KJV translation.

The poi t I was making about the Vulgate was that it was the earliest example of a translation, from the original Greek and Hebrew to Latin. Qlthought the translation of The Gospel of Matthew from Aramaic to Greek! Thanks for the reply.

Just for the record the earliest Latin version was supposedly the Vetus Latina, which St. Jerome used as a basis (as much of the Vetus Latina was of very poor quality) for his Latin Vulgate, consulting with the Greek, Hebrew, and other documents he had at the time. With legible handwriting, I assume.

And as you and others noted, there had been many translations of the Vulgate into other languages way before the KJV and the printing press. And supposedly, St. Thomas More didn’t think much of the KJV, to say the least.

 

[Almagore]

I think what you say is only partially true. The King James was the first translation into English. It was followed shortly after by the Catholic Douay-Rheims English translation. Before that time there were no Vernacular translations of the Bible in any language. The first Latin Vulgate editions could only be regarded as vernacular translations in a very narrow sense, in that Latin was already the official Ecclisiastical language of the Church or was quickly becoming so and I guess the citizens of the Papal states ( principally Italy ) still spoke a kind of Latin. Read : the Fifth Instruction " For the Right Implementation of the Constitution of the Sacred Liturgy of the Second Vatican Councle published by the Congregation for the Divine Worship at the Vatican Web site Vatican.va.
This will give you an idea of what has happend in history. Be careful of what you believe coming from secular news sources.

Hi, I don’t understand what you mean when you say that the translation of the Greek Bible into Latin could only be regarded as vernacular in a very narrow sense. I read in a book on Church history that from the time of the Apostles until the 300’s that the Mass was celebrated in Greek. The language of the Mass was changed to Latin in the 300’s because Latin was the Language of the common people and that they no longer understood Greek,

Certainly at that time in the 300’s, Latin was the the vernacular or common language. I suppose I’m being picky because I always hear Latin spoke of so highly by Catholic (I’m Catholic too) Priests and Bishops, when The Bible in Latin was a translation of the Hebrew and Greek texts of the Bible and as a translation it has the same problems that any translation of an original text into another language has. Please let me know if you think I am in error about anything. God Bless you.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I have been seeing all over Facebook toady about the 400 year anniversary of the KJV and how it was through this translation in to the vernacular English language that the Bible was then translated into many more languages. I know that the Church had been translating the Bible into the vernacular before that beginning with the Vulgate. Any links or references that can fill me in a bit more on this subject? Thanks.

Well, the KJV certainly was and still is a widely used Bible. And certainly it had a powerful boost in that it was authorized by James 1. According to Wikipedia the King proclaimed or gave legal authorization when he stamped his name onto the approving documents in 1611. And certainly, given the success of non-Catholic sects, it was widely influential in the production of vernacular Bibles in other languages. Probably more so than than the Douay-Rheims which was published in 1610 ( Wikipedia). It did not have Episcipal authorization or imprimatur, no nihil obstat. And of course the KJV has had dozens of reprintings and updates, whereas the DR has had only a couple. And as pointed out elsewhere in these postings, the Gutenburg Bible was indeed in the vernacular German language and it too was highly prized and influential. But the point was, which Bible was the most influential and my opinion ( mine only ) is that it would have to be the KJV.

The Catholic Church has never, so far as I am aware, authorized from the Chair of Peter, a vernacular translation of the Bible. The Vulgate was in Latin, so it could not be considered vernacular in any since. However, following the Reformation individual Bishops around the world began to give their official approval to vernacular translations which tended to be based on the Vulgate authorized by the Council of Trent, but which used other valued sources as well, even the KJV. Most English and other vernacular Bibles today are varities of these sources. I am not putting in a plug for any particular one. Each has its good points and you should choose one that speaks to your heart. Though it should be one which has the approval of Catholic Bishops. But remember that the Church is the final arbeiter of the Word of God, even in its Written form. Also remeber that it was only the original writers of the Scriptures which were Inspired. Even the Vulgate approved by the Council of Trent was guaranteed to be free from error only in that there was nothing in it which contradicted the Church’s teaching in matters of Faith and Morals as handed on to Her by Tradition and as promulgated by Her Magisterial Authority. This means that in minor points of translation, etc there may never be a version declared to be free of error in the absolute or literal sense.

I hope this has been of help.

 

[ProVobis]

Hi, I don’t understand what you mean when you say that the translation of the Greek Bible into Latin could only be regarded as vernacular in a very narrow sense. I read in a book on Church history that from the time of the Apostles until the 300’s that the Mass was celebrated in Greek. The language of the Mass was changed to Latin in the 300’s because Latin was the Language of the common people and that they no longer understood Greek,

Archaelogists have found that Latin was used in the liturgy as early as the first century. They also set the chances of St. Paul’s writing/dictation to the Romans in Latin very high, though these documents no longer exist. Also know that the inscription on the cross was in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew and the Church pretty much kept the liturgy in those languages (with some exception) until about 900 AD.

Certainly at that time in the 300’s, Latin was the the vernacular or common language. I suppose I’m being picky because I always hear Latin spoke of so highly by Catholic (I’m Catholic too) Priests and Bishops, when The Bible in Latin was a translation of the Hebrew and Greek texts of the Bible and as a translation it has the same problems that any translation of an original text into another language has. Please let me know if you think I am in error about anything. God Bless you.

A couple of things to note here. Greek and Latin worked side-by-side for a long time and not all vernaculars can be regarded as equal. Some are more inflected than others and therefore translations into those languages can be made much easier than, for example, into the Romance languages or English, which has very little inflection and only subtle subjunctive. Greek, Latin, Syriac, and Slavic languages are inflected languages and thought flow is different using them. There are other nuances in each language and culture which differ as well.

 

[thistle]

I think what you say is only partially true. The King James was the first translation into English. It was followed shortly after by the Catholic Douay-Rheims English translation. Before that time there were no Vernacular translations of the Bible in any language. The first Latin Vulgate editions could only be regarded as vernacular translations in a very narrow sense, in that Latin was already the official Ecclisiastical language of the Church or was quickly becoming so and I guess the citizens of the Papal states ( principally Italy ) still spoke a kind of Latin. Read : the Fifth Instruction " For the Right Implementation of the Constitution of the Sacred Liturgy of the Second Vatican Councle published by the Congregation for the Divine Worship at the Vatican Web site Vatican.va.
This will give you an idea of what has happend in history. Be careful of what you believe coming from secular news sources.

The KJV was not the first English translation. The Douay-Rheims predates the KJV.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

The KJV was not the first English translation. The Douay-Rheims predates the KJV.

You may be right, I got my info from Wikipecia. Just trying to contribute to the conversation. Means nothing to me personally.

 

[gus]

There were many vernacular translations predating even the Dr see the Catholic Encylopediafor acomplete list
PS the gutenburg bible wasn’t a translation it was a printed copy of the Latin Vulgate

 

[donsnow]

There were many vernacular translations predating even the Dr see the Catholic Encylopediafor acomplete list
PS the gutenburg bible wasn’t a translation it was a printed copy of the Latin Vulgate

Thank you, gus,

I accept correction.

God loves you,
Don

 

[Linusthe2nd]

There were many vernacular translations predating even the Dr see the Catholic Encylopediafor acomplete list
PS the gutenburg bible wasn’t a translation it was a printed copy of the Latin Vulgate

Don’t know why I didn’t think of looking there. Thanks

 

[Petergee]

Just for the record the earliest Latin version was supposedly the Vetus Latina, which St. Jerome used as a basis (as much of the Vetus Latina was of very poor quality) for his Latin Vulgate, consulting with the Greek, Hebrew, and other documents he had at the time. With legible handwriting, I assume.

And as you and others noted, there had been many translations of the Vulgate into other languages way before the KJV and the printing press. And supposedly, St. Thomas More didn’t think much of the KJV, to say the least.

Probably because he was martyred 76 years before it was published.

He did however, in his written disputations with early Protestants, point out the fact that the Bible had been translated into the language of England and of each and every country at the same time as each country had been converted to Christianity.

“KJV was the first Bible in English” and “Bibles weren’t in the vernacular until Protestantism” are preposterous lies, and it is scandalous that anyone still believes such arrant nonsense in this day and age when the truth is easily discovered.

Read the excellent little book Where We Got the Bible by the Rt. Rev. Henry Graham, first published 1911 (to counter the same lies being said about the KJV 100 years ago) and recently republished by Tan.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Jesus probably spoke Aramaic. Are there any good Aramaic translations? Are there any good English translations from those Aramaic translations?

Does the Chaldean Rite actually use Aramaic in its liturgy?

 

[ProVobis]

Does the Chaldean Rite actually use Aramaic in its liturgy?

I believe so. The Maronite has Syriac which is a form of Aramaic and it’s awesome.

But remember, even though it’s in Christ’s language, they probably aren’t His exact words. We have at least four different versions of the consecration alone, but they’re in the Greek, where the nuances and inflections would still be the same as at the time of Christ.

 

[fred_conty]

Here is an explaination of early copies of the Bible before the printing press.
This is just a little of what is contained in this document.

catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/wbible.htm#CHAPTER%20XI

CHAPTER XI. Abundance of Vernacular Scriptures before Wycliff

…there were actually in existence among the people many copies of the Scriptures in the English tongue of that day. To begin far back, we have a copy of the work of Caedmon, a monk of Whitby, in the end of the seventh century, consisting of great portions of the Bible in the common tongue. In the next century we have the well-known translations of Venerable Bede, a monk of Jarrow, who died whilst busy with the Gospel of St. John. In the same (eighth) century we have the copies of Eadhelm, Bishop of Sherborne; of Guthlac, a hermit near Peterborough; and of Egbert, Bishop of Holy Island; these were all in Saxon, the language understood and spoken by the Christians of that time. Coming down a little later, we have the free translations of King Alfred the Great who was working at the Psalms when he died, and of Aelfric, Archbishop of Canterbury; as well as popular renderings of Holy Scripture like the Book of Durham, and the Rushworth Gloss and others that have survived the wreck of ages. After the Norman conquest in 1066, Anglo-Norman or Middle-English became the language of England, and consequently the next translations of the Bible we meet with are in that tongue. There are several specimens still known, such as the paraphrase of Orm (about 1150) and the Salus Animae (1050), the translations of William Shoreham and Richard Rolle, hermit of Hampole (died 1349). I say advisedly ‘specimens’ for those that have come down to us are merely indications of a much greater number that once existed, but afterwards perished. We have proof of this in the words of Blessed Thomas More, Lord Chancellor of England under Henry VIII who says: ‘The whole Bible long before Wycliff’s day was by virtuous and well-learned men translated into the English tongue, and by good and godly people with devotion and soberness well and reverently read’ (Dialogues III). Again, ‘The clergy keep no Bibles from the laity but such translations as be either not yet approved for good, or such as be already reproved for naught (i.e., bad, naughty) as Wycliff’s was. For, as for old ones that were before Wycliff’s days, they remain lawful and be in some folks’ hand. I myself have seen, and can show you, Bibles, fair and old which have been known and seen by the Bishop of the Diocese, and left in laymen’s hands and women’s too, such as he knew for good and Catholic folk, that used them with soberness and devotion.’ (2) But you will say, that is the witness of a Roman Catholic. Well, I shall advance Protestant testimony also.

 

[Almagore]

Many people have said that Latin was not a Vernacular language even though it was the common language of the People by the 300’s. The Holy Bible was translated by St. Jerome into Latin and that translation is called the “Vulgate” because Latin was the language of the common person and common in Latin is “Vulgar”. Now the average person or common person could read the Bible if they could find one.

About the problems of translating one language into another, I don’t know but I can accept that there might be some advantages of Latin over English if a person can read and write Latin and is fluent in speaking it; otherwise there is no advantage. back to difficulties in translating any language into another language. There are important verses in scripture where the English word that is chosen as the translation of the Greek is “love”. As in "God is Love or, “Love your neighbor as yourself”. In English, the word “love” is a general word that has no specific meaning unless modifier words are added such as “brotherly love” "Platonic love, “Romantic love”, etc.

The Greek word in the original New Testament text that is translated into English as love is “agape”. The definition of agape is an irrevocable decision to act in another persons best interest even if some self sacrifice is necessary on the part of the person doing the agape. A person would never get that from the English translation. Would they get it from the Latin translation? Please tell me. There are many more problems in translating one language to another which is why I can not understand why there are people people in the Catholic Hierarchy that insist on keeping some parts of the Mass in Latin. We English speaking Catholics have to translate the Latin into English to understand it.