Translation of Bible: A particular example

[fpt]

vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_vt_genesis_lt.html

3: 16:
Mulieri dixit:
“Multiplicabo aerumnas tuas
et conceptus tuos:
in dolore paries filios,
et ad virum tuum erit appetitus tuus,
ipse autem dominabitur tui”.

vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__P5.HTM

3:16
To the woman he said: “I will intensify the pangs of your childbearing; in pain shall you bring forth children. Yet your urge shall be for your husband, and he shall be your master.”

From Ronald L. Conte Jr:

In Latin: {3:16} Mulieri quoque dixit: Multiplicabo ærumnas tuas, et conceptus tuos: in dolore paries filios, et sub viri potestate eris, et ipse dominabitur tui.

His translation in English {3:16} To the woman, he also said: “I will multiply **your labors and your conceptions. **In pain shall you give birth to sons, and you shall be under your husband’s power, and he shall have dominion over you.

There is a big gap? The difference of meaning is important?? The point of view on the human nature of woman is not the same.??? Could you explain to me?

 

[fpt]

What is the punishment of wife coming from God because of the original sin?

More labors and more pains in order to give birth (during the pregnancy and during the childbirth)? And the secondary effects of female periods?
Or
More labors and more pains in order to give birth (during the pregnancy and during the childbirth)? And the secondary effects of female periods? And the multiplication of the potential fertility of wife. I will multiply your conceptions (see Translation from Ronald L. Conte Jr).

Who is right? I think that it is the Holy See. Do you have documents for understanding? Because the paradigm is not the same.

 

[DaveBj]

I prefer going to the original rather than working from a translation when there are questions about the meaning. I can’t mark-and-paste the Hebrew here, because I’m working from a physical book, but the literal translation from the interlinear is:

“to the-woman he-said to-increase I-will-increase your-pain and-your-childbearing;
in-pain you-will-bear children,
and-to your-husband your-desire and-he will-rule over-you.”

(All of the “you” suffixes and prefixes are feminine singular. I’m sure someone will find some significance in that.)

 

[fpt]

I prefer going to the original rather than working from a translation when there are questions about the meaning. I can’t mark-and-paste the Hebrew here, because I’m working from a physical book, but the literal translation from the interlinear is:

“to the-woman he-said to-increase I-will-increase your-pain and-your-childbearing;
in-pain you-will-bear children,
and-to your-husband your-desire and-he will-rule over-you.”

(All of the “you” suffixes and prefixes are feminine singular. I’m sure someone will find some significance in that.)

“to the-woman he-said to-increase I-will-increase your-pain and-your-childbearing;
in-pain you-will-bear children,
and-to your-husband your-desire and-he will-rule over-you.”

or

To the woman he said: “I will intensify the pangs of your childbearing; in pain shall you bring forth children. Yet your urge shall be for your husband, and he shall be your master.”

Thus, for you, the punishment is only on the pangs, pains or injuries of the childbearing (the menstrual periods, the pregnancy, the chilbirth, the breastfeeding) and not on the multiplication of conceptions.

 

[RPRPsych]

vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_vt_genesis_lt.html

3: 16:
Mulieri dixit:
“Multiplicabo aerumnas tuas
et conceptus tuos:
in dolore paries filios,
et ad virum tuum erit appetitus tuus,
ipse autem dominabitur tui”.

vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__P5.HTM

3:16
To the woman he said: “I will intensify the pangs of your childbearing; in pain shall you bring forth children. Yet your urge shall be for your husband, and he shall be your master.”

From Ronald L. Conte Jr:

In Latin: {3:16} Mulieri quoque dixit: Multiplicabo ærumnas tuas, et conceptus tuos: in dolore paries filios, et sub viri potestate eris, et ipse dominabitur tui.

His translation in English {3:16} To the woman, he also said: “I will multiply **your labors and your conceptions. **In pain shall you give birth to sons, and you shall be under your husband’s power, and he shall have dominion over you.

There is a big gap? The difference of meaning is important?? The point of view on the human nature of woman is not the same.??? Could you explain to me?

Ronald L. Conte’s Biblical translation is:

1. the work of one man, who though sincere, is rather misguided - he has made many false prophecies and has bizarre interpretations of some theological points of the Catholic faith as well.
2. Inaccurate. For example, in Revelation 22, he translates a word as “drug users”, which certainly was not Saint John’s intention. (The original meaning was probably sorcerers, or - at best - people who brewed poisons intended to cause homicide or abortion.)

The Douay-Rheims has:
“To the woman also he said: I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy conceptions: in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children, and thou shalt be under thy husband’s power, and he shall have dominion over thee.”

In other words, Eve would have both many sorrows (not just the pains of childbirth, but the death of Abel, the sin of Cain, etc.) and many children (Cain, Abel and Seth); these sorrows would not just be physical pains, but grief at the loss of a child, and sorrow at the sins of another of her sons.

At least, that’s how it seems to read.

 

[DaveBj]

“to the-woman he-said to-increase I-will-increase your-pain and-your-childbearing;
in-pain you-will-bear children,
and-to your-husband your-desire and-he will-rule over-you.”

or

To the woman he said: “I will intensify the pangs of your childbearing; in pain shall you bring forth children. Yet your urge shall be for your husband, and he shall be your master.”

Thus, for you, the punishment is only on the pangs, pains or injuries of the childbearing (the menstrual periods, the pregnancy, the chilbirth, the breastfeeding) and not on the multiplication of conceptions.

Actually, I have no opinion; I just put up the translation of the Hebrew to give you an alternate source of information. And I’m not sure exactly what it is that you want; are you targeting an interpretation that women after the Fall were going to be a lot more fecund than they would have been if the Fall hadn’t happened?

 

[fpt]

Actually, I have no opinion; I just put up the translation of the Hebrew to give you an alternate source of information. And I’m not sure exactly what it is that you want; are you targeting an interpretation that women after the Fall were going to be a lot more fecund than they would have been if the Fall hadn’t happened?

And I’m not sure exactly what it is that you want; are you targeting an interpretation that women after the Fall were going to be a lot more fecund than they would have been if the Fall hadn’t happened?

Yes, that is the issue. According the translation of Ronald Conte yes. And according other translations, no.

 

[DaveBj]

And I’m not sure exactly what it is that you want; are you targeting an interpretation that women after the Fall were going to be a lot more fecund than they would have been if the Fall hadn’t happened?

Yes, that is the issue. According the translation of Ronald Conte yes. And according other translations, no.

Okay. This is just me talking here (i.e., no authority whatsoever), but it’s possible to drag that out of the original language. It’s also logical; if fecundity was going to be at a certain level in a world where everyone was going to live forever, then higher fecundity in a world where everyone is going to die makes sense. However, I would be hesitant to force either of the interpretations in your OP on the original language. I don’t think that in the long run it matters to one’s spiritual life which one is correct.

 

[fpt]

Okay. This is just me talking here (i.e., no authority whatsoever), but it’s possible to drag that out of the original language. It’s also logical; if fecundity was going to be at a certain level in a world where everyone was going to live forever, then higher fecundity in a world where everyone is going to die makes sense. However, I would be hesitant to force either of the interpretations in your OP on the original language. I don’t think that in the long run it matters to one’s spiritual life which one is correct.

vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_vt_genesis_lt.html

In Latin:
16 Mulieri dixit:
“Multiplicabo aerumnas tuas
et conceptus tuos:
in dolore paries filios,
et ad virum tuum erit appetitus tuus,
ipse autem dominabitur tui”.

vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__P5.HTM
16
To the woman he said: “I will intensify the pangs of your childbearing; in pain shall you bring forth children. Yet your urge shall be for your husband, and he shall be your master.”

sacredbible.org/catholic/OT-01_Genesis.htm
16
To the woman, he also said: “I will multiply your labors and your conceptions. In pain shall you give birth to sons, and you shall be under your husband’s power, and he shall have dominion over you.

The Douay-Rheims has:
“To the woman also he said: I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy conceptions: in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children, and thou shalt be under thy husband’s power, and he shall have dominion over thee.”

…ETC

What is the best translation from Latin?

 

[RPRPsych]

vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_vt_genesis_lt.html

In Latin:
16 Mulieri dixit:
“Multiplicabo aerumnas tuas
et conceptus tuos:
in dolore paries filios,
et ad virum tuum erit appetitus tuus,
ipse autem dominabitur tui”.

vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__P5.HTM
16
To the woman he said: “I will intensify the pangs of your childbearing; in pain shall you bring forth children. Yet your urge shall be for your husband, and he shall be your master.”

sacredbible.org/catholic/OT-01_Genesis.htm
16
To the woman, he also said: “I will multiply your labors and your conceptions. In pain shall you give birth to sons, and you shall be under your husband’s power, and he shall have dominion over you.

The Douay-Rheims has:
“To the woman also he said: I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy conceptions: in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children, and thou shalt be under thy husband’s power, and he shall have dominion over thee.”

…ETC

What is the best translation from Latin?

The translation on the Vatican’s official site is the New American Bible. The NAB is a modern translation, which tries to capture the essence of the original texts in contemporary (but not colloquial) English.

The Douay-Rheims, on the other hand, is translated from the Vulgate, but also has influences from the KJV. However, where a particular passage is unique to the Vulgate (as in, say, Tobit 6), the D-R preserves it, while the NAB goes back to other source documents that preserve a different textual tradition.

Not sure how exactly this applies to your question, but I’d say that the D-R is “best” in terms of formal equivalence to the Latin text.

 

[Mystophilus]

The trouble seems to lie around Conte’s translation of the connective particle et: where he has rendered Multiplicabo aerumnas tuas et conceptus tuos, he has taken aerumnas tuas as a separate item from conceptus tuos. This separation is unnecessary (see, for example, Mt 5:48, estote ergo vos perfecti sicut et Pater vester caelestis perfectus est, “Be perfect therefore, even as your heavenly father is perfect”). I do not read Hebrew, but the Greek of the LXX makes it all one thing, as do most English translations.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

I prefer going to the original rather than working from a translation when there are questions about the meaning. I can’t mark-and-paste the Hebrew here, because I’m working from a physical book, but the literal translation from the interlinear is:

“to the-woman he-said to-increase I-will-increase your-pain and-your-childbearing;
in-pain you-will-bear children,
and-to your-husband your-desire and-he will-rule over-you.”

(All of the “you” suffixes and prefixes are feminine singular. I’m sure someone will find some significance in that.)

Your interlinear seems fairly close to the Hebrew (MT). I would render the verse something like “…I will greatly increase your pains and your conception (I don’t think there’s any way one can justify “childbearing” as a translation. One could validly translate “pregnancy” instead of “conception”.) In pain you will bear children. And for your man [will be] your desire. And he will rule over you.”

This translation presents a difficulty when read against the Septuagint which has “stenagmos” (groaning/sighing) where the conception/pregnancy word is in the Hebrew text. The pregnancy word is derived from the Semitic root h-r-h but there also exists a groaning/sighing word in Hebrew derived from the root h-g-h, so the words are somewhat close. Most modern translators assume that there is a copy error in the Hebrew text and go with the Septuagint in this particular case. The Septuagint also fits the structure of the sentence better and arguably makes more sense.

In contrast, the Vulgate is choosing to follow MT here instead of the Septuagint, which is pretty interesting because often when there is a difference, the Vulgate follows the Septuagint.

 

[Mintaka]

In this case, “conceptus” is a plural, which is why it has “tuos”.

Anyway, just to be entertaining, there’s a Middle English translation of the Adam and Eve story which gives it as, “I shall multiply thy diseases (distresses) and thy conceivings.”

Others give “aerumnas” as just plain old hard work, not labor as in going through labor, which is why the verse gets illustrated with people building houses or farming. (“In pain you shall bring forth children” takes care of labor pangs.) Menstruation really isn’t mentioned, which is as expected since a lot of women never have painful cramps, or only every so often. (And if you walk a lot daily before your period, which a lot of Jewish women would have done, your chances of not having cramps goes up dramatically.)

References to menstruation and Eve are kind of a joke of western civilization, that’s all.

 

[patrick457]

vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_vt_genesis_lt.html

In Latin:
16 Mulieri dixit:
“Multiplicabo aerumnas tuas
et conceptus tuos:
in dolore paries filios,
et ad virum tuum erit appetitus tuus,
ipse autem dominabitur tui”.

That’s the Nova Vulgata version right there. I think I should also add the Vulgate version of the passage:

Mulieri quoque dixit: Multiplicabo aerumnas tuas, et conceptus tuos: in dolore paries filios, et sub viri potestate eris, et ipse dominabitur tui.

 

[DaveBj]

Your interlinear seems fairly close to the Hebrew (MT).

snip

Just confirming, yes, the Hebrew in the interlinear is MT, altho I don’t know which edition, because I don’t have the book with me right now.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Just confirming, yes, the Hebrew in the interlinear is MT, altho I don’t know which edition, because I don’t have the book with me right now.

I guess what I meant was that the interlinear gives you a sense of the MT, but that I disagreed with some things in the translation. But yes, I’m sure the base text is the MT.

 

[PJM]

=fpt;9904681]vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_vt_genesis_lt.html

3: 16:
Mulieri dixit:
“Multiplicabo aerumnas tuas
et conceptus tuos:
in dolore paries filios,
et ad virum tuum erit appetitus tuus,
ipse autem dominabitur tui”.

vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__P5.HTM

3:16
To the woman he said: “I will intensify the pangs of your childbearing; in pain shall you bring forth children. Yet your urge shall be for your husband, and he shall be your master.”

From Ronald L. Conte Jr:

In Latin: {3:16} Mulieri quoque dixit: Multiplicabo ærumnas tuas, et conceptus tuos: in dolore paries filios, et sub viri potestate eris, et ipse dominabitur tui.

His translation in English {3:16} To the woman, he also said: “I will multiply **your labors and your conceptions. **In pain shall you give birth to sons, and you shall be under your husband’s power, and he shall have dominion over you.

There is a big gap? The difference of meaning is important?? The point of view on the human nature of woman is not the same.??? Could you explain to me?

FROM THE TWO OLDEST Bibles

Douay-Rheims
Gen. 3:16

16 To the woman also he said: I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy conceptions: in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children, and thou shalt be under thy husband’s power, and he shall have dominion over thee.

The Latin Vulgate
16 mulieri quoque dixit multiplicabo aerumnas tuas et conceptus tuos in dolore paries filios et sub viri potestate eris et ipse dominabitur tui

From Haydocks Catholic Commentary:

“Ver. 16. And thy conceptions. Septuagint, “thy groaning.” The multifarious sorrows of childbearing, must remind all mothers (the blessed Virgin Mary alone excepted) of what they have incurred by original sin. If that had not taken place, they would have conceived without concupiscence, and brought forth without sorrow. (St. Augustine, City of God xiv. 26.)— Conceptions are multiplied on account of the many untimely deaths, in our fallen state. Power, which will sometimes be exercised with rigor. (Haydock) — Moses here shews the original and natural subjection of wives to their husbands, in opposition to the Egyptians, who, to honour Isis, gave women the superiority by the marriage contract. (Diodorus i. 2.) (Calmet)”

God Bless,
Pat/PJM