Translated from the Original Greek?

[Dave_Noonan]

That’s probably not too important to know for those who take most English translations with their multiple variations, meanings, poetry, and interpretations to be gospel truth. But a serious study of the Bible would require IMO some knowledge of the background behind those English translations. Just sayin…

I’m talking about the SERIOUS Bible scholars here. IMO, ignoring the Vulgate and its tradition—even if one thinks it’s sort of a messed up translation—is a huge loss to the academy. Yes, scholars really should know how the Vulgate fits into the bigger picture of the history of translation. Sadly, it’s been almost totally ignored. A few medievalists (who are not really Bible scholars) write about it, but that’s pretty much it.

 

[ajecphotos]

You know, what if, the Bible, as we know it, was put together to suit the needs of those at that particular time in history?

 

[ProVobis]

I’m talking about the SERIOUS Bible scholars here. IMO, ignoring the Vulgate and its tradition—even if one thinks it’s sort of a messed up translation—is a huge loss to the academy. Yes, scholars really should know how the Vulgate fits into the bigger picture of the history of translation. Sadly, it’s been almost totally ignored. A few medievalists (who are not really Bible scholars) write about it, but that’s pretty much it.

I wouldn’t say it was totally ignored. I’m sure there were a few scholars among the many, many monks who took painstaking efforts to preserve the Latin Vulgate (among other things) through over a millennium. In fact, where would Western civilization be today without those monks? Would the Bible be as popular, for one thing?

 

[Dave_Noonan]

I wouldn’t say it was totally ignored. I’m sure there were a few scholars among the many, many monks who took painstaking efforts to preserve the Latin Vulgate (among other things) through over a millennium. In fact, where would Western civilization be today without those monks? Would the Bible be as popular, for one thing?

In the past, certainly, but I mean scholars today–right now.

 

[ProVobis]

In the past, certainly, but I mean scholars today–right now.

Hopefully the Nova Vulgata is acceptable to them.

 

[patrick457]

For that matter, “In THE beginning…” doesn’t match MT; the very first verse (really the first Hebrew WORD) is already problematic. But most translators won’t touch that traditional KJV wording with a ten foot pole.

For that matter, does one translate Bereshit bara Elohim as “In (the) beginning God created…” or “When God began creating…”?

A “just curious what you think” question. Do you think this process/issue of muddy or “juggling” translation is why Biblical scholars (Catholic, Protestant, Jewish or otherwise) don’t bother to study the Vulgate? I remember looking at the program book over a couple of years for the Society of Biblical Literature and out of thousands, for the Vulgate–couldn’t find single one. And it’s not like other translations like the Peshitta are ignored in this way. I often think Jerome’s thought process and social situation is pretty interesting and would be worthy of more study.

I think part of that is because for about 3-400 years (late 1500s-1900s), you might say any critical study of the Vulgate that could have occurred were hampered by the Church’s continued liturgical use of it. The publication of the Clementine Vulgate - which was intended to be the official, ‘standard’ text - didn’t really help; for a long time, you might say people weren’t exactly motivated to make a critical edition of it as they are with, say, the Greek and the Hebrew texts (those only started to appear in the mid-to-late 1800s). In other words, Vulgate studies have had a late head start, so it has a lot of catching up to do.

(Another part, I think, has got to do with the fact that most of the earliest modern biblical scholars - at least the ones who get named often in reference works - were Protestant (usually Germans). On the Protestant side, there may have been this sort of bias against the Vulgate, while on the Catholic side, there may have a been of sort of lack of interest or maybe even a feeling of discouragement to subject the Vulgate to critical scrutiny for the above reasons.)

But then again, I think we could say the same thing for some other ancient translations of the Bible: Ethiopian or Old Church Slavonic, for example. AFAIK, only linguists pay any real attention to them: in fact, we don’t even know the origin of some of these versions.

Just going by my hunch, I think the only ancient translations modern textual critics really give some focus on are the Coptic and the Syriac.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

For that matter, does one translate Bereshit bara Elohim as “In (the) beginning God created…” or “When God began creating…”?

I think temporal clause is the only real option: “When God began creating…”

I think part of that is because for about 3-400 years (late 1500s-1900s), you might say any critical study of the Vulgate that could have occurred were hampered by the Church’s continued liturgical use of it. The publication of the Clementine Vulgate - which was intended to be the official, ‘standard’ text - didn’t really help; for a long time, you might say people weren’t exactly motivated to make a critical edition of it as they are with, say, the Greek and the Hebrew texts (those only started to appear in the mid-to-late 1800s). In other words, Vulgate studies have had a late head start, so it has a lot of catching up to do.

(Another part, I think, has got to do with the fact that most of the earliest modern biblical scholars - at least the ones who get named often in reference works - were Protestant (usually Germans). On the Protestant side, there may have been this sort of bias against the Vulgate, while on the Catholic side, there may have a been of sort of lack of interest or maybe even a feeling of discouragement to subject the Vulgate to critical scrutiny for the above reasons.)

But then again, I think we could say the same thing for some other ancient translations of the Bible: Ethiopian or Old Church Slavonic, for example. AFAIK, only linguists pay any real attention to them: in fact, we don’t even know the origin of some of these versions.

Just going by my hunch, I think the only ancient translations modern textual critics really give some focus on are the Coptic and the Syriac.

I think you’re probably right. Protestants weren’t interested in the Vulgate to begin with and then after Divino Afflante Spiritu in 1943, there wasn’t much momentum on the Catholic side either.

There are some Bible scholars who work on Ethiopic, but not that many. Syriac is definitely an up and coming area of interest for sure.

Just seems like since the Vulgate occupies such a huge chunk of the reception history of the Bible in the West, it deserves at least a little critical study.

Thanks for your thoughts.

 

[patrick457]

I think temporal clause is the only real option: “When God began creating…”

I think “In the beginning” stuck (1) because that’s how it was translated since the Septuagint; and (2) “In the beginning” supports ex nihilo creation more explicitly than something like “When God began creating…” or “At (the) beginning of God’s creation of…” (though some argue that the latter translation is closer to the original intended sense than “In the beginning”)

On a side note, it’s vaguely related to the insistence of many popular Bibles nowadays to translate katalyma as “inn” in Luke 2:7. Luke uses another word in his gospel to refer to an “inn,” and it’s more likely that the word either meant something like ‘guest room’ (cf. the upper room where the Last Supper was held - also a katalyma) or ‘lodgings’ or ‘a place to stay’ (i.e. the house where Joseph and Mary stayed?), which gives you a totally different picture. However, since the image of the grouchy innkeeper/s who refused to give the holy couple any accommodation is stuck in our heads, translators perpetuate the “inn” translation.

(This was nothing new: a 16th-century Spanish philologist got into trouble with the Spanish Inquisition because he argued that the traditional / popular conception of how Jesus was born - Jesus being born in a stable and an innkeeper rejecting Mary and Joseph - was inaccurate.)

 

[Dave_Noonan]

I think “In the beginning” stuck (1) because that’s how it was translated since the Septuagint; and (2) “In the beginning” supports ex nihilo creation more explicitly than something like “When God began creating…” or “At (the) beginning of God’s creation of…” (though some argue that the latter translation is closer to the original intended sense than “In the beginning”)

On a side note, it’s vaguely related to the insistence of many popular Bibles nowadays to translate katalyma as “inn” in Luke 2:7. Luke uses another word in his gospel to refer to an “inn,” and it’s more likely that the word either meant something like ‘guest room’ (cf. the upper room where the Last Supper was held - also a katalyma) or ‘lodgings’ or ‘a place to stay’ (i.e. the house where Joseph and Mary stayed?), which gives you a totally different picture. However, since the image of the grouchy innkeeper/s who refused to give the holy couple any accommodation is stuck in our heads, translators perpetuate the “inn” translation.

(This was nothing new: a 16th-century Spanish philologist got into trouble with the Spanish Inquisition because he argued that the traditional / popular conception of how Jesus was born - Jesus being born in a stable and an innkeeper rejecting Mary and Joseph - was inaccurate.)

Right, I’ve also thought a great deal about the “inn”. If you consider the typical four-room Israelite house, the manger/feeding trough is on the bottom floor, e.g.:

news.harvard.edu/gazette/2003/11.13/31-israel.html (scroll down)

I’ve also been in a dwelling cave near Tekoa where one can clearly see the manger separating the family space from the animal space. So to me, the more likely interpretation is that Mary and Joseph are being taken into someone’s home–also fitting well into the broader theme of hospitality in the Gospel according to Luke.

However, that would totally eliminate the mean innkeeper portrayed in Las Posadas and in the popular imagination of how Christmas is supposed to go.