Translations Inspired?

[ericc]

You just said that no translator is inspired. However, then, you go on to say that the Septuagint is inspired (at least those parts in the Catholic Scriptures). Yet, is not the LXX technically a translation? How do you square this?

Yes you are correct. The Septuagint is technically a translation. However, the formation of the Catholic Bible was the point of determination and declaration of inspired works which include pre-existing works such as the Septuagint. However, post Bible formation, there is no further determination of such inspired works. Post Bible formation, translated works that flow from that set of books do not carry that privilege, because the translators are not considered inspired nor error free. In other words, the Church declares that set of books to be inspired. Any subsequent translations that flow from that set of books are subject to the skill/biases of the translators which did not received any endorsement of freedom of error nor inspiration.

 

[patrick457]

The legend of the LXX and of the 72 translators was considered by antiquity as an inspired translation by how the translators all had the same exact translation from the Hebrew, and if the story is true it would be nothing short of miraculous, but whether one believes the legend is subjective. I have no problems believing it since the Holy Spirit has done greater things. Though many Church Fathers believed the the LXX was special, the Church has not exulted it to the standard Old Testament version, though the Greek Orthodox did.

But no translation is inspired in a grammatical sense, but the message itself is. Its the power of the Word of God, not the power of the pen on paper.

Sorry in advance for nitpicking.

Of course you had to take into account that the original version of the legend - from the Letter of Aristeas - only involves the translation of the Torah/Pentateuch into Greek. (In other words, ‘Septuagint’ originally really just referred to the Greek Torah. Along the way though, the Fathers started considering Greek OT translations as a whole to be part of the ‘Septuagint’ category.) And it was ‘miraculous’ because they completed the translation in exactly 72 days: there was nothing yet about the seventy-two elders being holed up in separate rooms and each elder translating the text all by himself.

 

[MysticMissMisty]

So, I’m still not clear on the Septuagint and inspiration.

Some here seem to state that the Catholic Church does not consider it inspired.

Others seem to state that it does.

Others seem to state that only non-translation/books in the original Greek are.

So, whic is it?

 

[COPLAND_3]

Sorry in advance for nitpicking.

Of course you had to take into account that the original version of the legend - from the Letter of Aristeas - only involves the translation of the Torah/Pentateuch into Greek. (In other words, ‘Septuagint’ originally really just referred to the Greek Torah. Along the way though, the Fathers started considering Greek OT translations as a whole to be part of the ‘Septuagint’ category.) And it was ‘miraculous’ because they completed the translation in exactly 72 days: there was nothing yet about the seventy-two elders being holed up in separate rooms and each elder translating the text all by himself.

I was referring to the tradition passed along by the Church Fathers. I am not quite sure what the manuscript evidence of the letter of Aristeas is, whether there are condensed versions and deveoped versions, or how many manuscripts exist or whether the text was a compilation of Josephus, Philo, and Patristic fragments.

 

[ericc]

So, I’m still not clear on the Septuagint and inspiration.

Some here seem to state that the Catholic Church does not consider it inspired.

Others seem to state that it does.

Others seem to state that only non-translation/books in the original Greek are.

So, whic is it?

Selected books of the Septuagint that are in the Catholic Bible are inspired as determined/proclaimed by the CC.

 

[patrick457]

I was referring to the tradition passed along by the Church Fathers. I am not quite sure what the manuscript evidence of the letter of Aristeas is, whether there are condensed versions and deveoped versions, or how many manuscripts exist or whether the text was a compilation of Josephus, Philo, and Patristic fragments.

We have over twenty manuscripts of the letter. Granted, they’re all late medieval copies, so we have to rely on internal considerations for the letter’s dating (things like language usage). The general accepted date of composition is around the mid-to-late 2nd century BC, although the work itself claims to be a century older than that, from the time of Ptolemy II (reigned 281-246 BC), in other words, contemporaneous with the story he is describing.

Rather than the thing being a pastiche of stuff from Josephus and whatnot, it’s actually the reverse: Josephus is heavily dependent on this work and retells the story in a condensed version (Antiquities XII.12-118; Apion 2.42-47), though he doesn’t really describe the work as a “letter” but calls it The Book of Aristaeus (the title ‘Letter of Aristeas’ is medieval). Eusebius also knows it (he extracts about a quarter of it in Praeparatio Evangelica 8-9), though he refers to it by another title: On the Translation of the Law of the Jews.

Here’s a nice intro to the work: st-andrews.ac.uk/divinity/rt/otp/abstracts/aristeas/

 

[MysticMissMisty]

Selected books of the Septuagint that are in the Catholic Bible are inspired as determined/proclaimed by the CC.

So, basically, then, any book that was originally written in Hebrew/Aramaic that is in any other translation of the Catholic Bible, its Septuagint version is also considered inspired along with the original Hebrew/Aramaic text? Also, any book in the Catholic Bible that is originally in Greek is considered inspired?

But, in terms of the translated Hebrew/Aramaic books, why are these translations considered inspired instead of just considering the original Hebrew/Aramaic books only inspired and their Greek translation in the Septuagint not?

 

[COPLAND_3]

We have over twenty manuscripts of the letter. Granted, they’re all late medieval copies, so we have to rely on internal considerations for the letter’s dating (things like language usage). The general accepted date of composition is around the mid-to-late 2nd century BC, although the work itself claims to be a century older than that, from the time of Ptolemy II (reigned 281-246 BC), in other words, contemporaneous with the story he is describing.

Rather than the thing being a pastiche of stuff from Josephus and whatnot, it’s actually the reverse: Josephus is heavily dependent on this work and retells the story in a condensed version (Antiquities XII.12-118; Apion 2.42-47), though he doesn’t really describe the work as a “letter” but calls it The Book of Aristaeus (the title ‘Letter of Aristeas’ is medieval). Eusebius also knows it (he extracts about a quarter of it in Praeparatio Evangelica 8-9), though he refers to it by another title: On the Translation of the Law of the Jews.

Here’s a nice intro to the work: st-andrews.ac.uk/divinity/rt/otp/abstracts/aristeas/

Wow you are good! Great search!

 

[ericc]

So, basically, then, any book that was originally written in Hebrew/Aramaic that is in any other translation of the Catholic Bible, its Septuagint version is also considered inspired along with the original Hebrew/Aramaic text? Also, any book in the Catholic Bible that is originally in Greek is considered inspired?

But, in terms of the translated Hebrew/Aramaic books, why are these translations considered inspired instead of just considering the original Hebrew/Aramaic books only inspired and their Greek translation in the Septuagint not?

I think your focus is on the translation. My focus wasn’t so much on that. Mine is on the authority of the CC that decided which books were inspired DESPITE the translated status. One possibility is that Church could have determined that the translated works do reflect the inspired pedigree.

On the question why wasn’t Hebrew/Aramaic books considered inspired, one possibility is that there were multiple variants of those books and there were no single recognized authority to determine which one is “correct” at that time. Among the Jews such as the Pharisees and Saduccees and others, there was no common agreement which books are considered canon at that time. Interestingly, I see the CC having the first mover advantage in proclaiming canonicity. Notwithstanding, the Septuagint had been widely used for a couple of hundred years by the time the Church adopted it. It wasn’t an invention by the Church. Objections by the Rabbinic Jews to the Septuagint came later after the Church has been established for various reasons and much much later by the Protestants for other reasons. Those geographically/politically separated from mainstream Jews such as Ethiopian Jews have continued using the Septuagint to this day. Even today, Karaite Jews recognized the Pentateuch only. Disagreements hence exist to this day what constitute canon among the Jews.

 

[Mintaka]

The most important thing to understand about translations is that, even though their exact words are not inspired, we aren’t like the Muslims who believe that only reading the original words of the Quran constitutes reading the Quran. The general gist is that of the original inspired texts, even though individual ways of putting individual phrases into individual languages aren’t.

Reading a translation of the Bible is reading the Bible. You do learn the material and receive the graces. There is nothing of holiness that is restricted to people who can read Hebrew and Greek. Likewise, listening to the Bible read is just as spiritually valuable as reading it yourself. There is no holiness that is being kept away from illiterate people.

This doesn’t mean that Bible scholarship in the original languages is useless; it means that it is useful in a different way and for different purposes than just reading the Bible.

“The word of God is living and active.” Once God had inspired it, it became something that doesn’t just sit on the page. Part of its life is to be constantly translated into, and used in, other languages. The Holy Spirit is also working with it; He has never left us orphans.

 

[ProVobis]

There is nothing of holiness that is restricted to people who can read Hebrew and Greek.

That’s an interesting thought. What about those who try to make an effort to understand what was inspired in the nuances of those days? Anyone can read banal translations these days.