Where did inspiration leave off?

[NotWorthy]

I was discussing what the Church teaches is inspired with another member of these forums and we were disagreeing on where inspiration of the Bible left off.

He felt that the Church teaches that some translations are inspired.

I thought that only the original texts were inspired - end of story. I told him that I would look it up, but I’m feeling a little lazy tonight, so I thought I’d consult the experts here in the Forum.

Can anyone help a brother in need?

 

[Della]

Perhaps this article: Inspiration of the Bible will be helpful.

 

[NotWorthy]

Perhaps this article: Inspiration of the Bible will be helpful.

No, Della, it didn’t. At least I don’t think it did. I understand that the Bible is inspired. But what about the translation into Latin? I’m pretty sure that this is NOT considered inspired. My friend thinks otherwise and wants proof.

 

[MTD]

The inspiration and therefore the inerrancy of the Bible is guaranteed to the original text only. So I would think that all translations share in that inspiration and inerrancy to the extent that they are faithful to the original text. There really is no such thing as an inspired translation either as that would mean the translators themselves were inspired because, since no language translates perfectly into another, they have to make decisions on the best interpretation of certain passages of the original text when translating into another language.

Maria

 

[Crumpy]

I asked that very question of a priest considered by some to be the local bible expert.

He gave the surprising answer that translations were inspired.

I wouldn’t think that they were, myself. Or, I wouldn’t think that the translations were inspired in the same way that we consider the originals to be inspired.

I’ve heard more about this from protestants than Catholics. Some p’s like to say that the KJV translation is inspired, because it is so accurate (although admittedly not perfect).
That version of English is less used, so the language is more fixed in meaning than contemporary English translations would be.

Somewhere in this discussion, it may come up whether a translation is “authorized” like they say the KJV is. I like that idea of ‘authorized’ as indicating a stamp of approval on such an important issue as a translation.

In this sense, the Catholic New American Bible has been the only version ‘authorized’ for liturgical use in English liturgies for some time, despite its shortcomings and limitations.

Also in this sense, the Jerusalem Bible translation into English has not been given such an ‘authorization.’

This all runs parallel to the question of literal translations and paraphrased translations of scripture. The literal translations might be more difficult to understand, since we are not familiar perhaps with the idiom or image in the original that the author was using. Protestants have looked at the New American Bible translation, which is a paraphrased translation, and they have called it inferior.

And, then there is the whole issue of inclusive language, which gets people into states of passion, also.

There’s also the whole issue of private inspiration in general. And, we’d all better believe in that, I think. But, a translator may be mixing a personal inspiration with a general inspiration when translating the scripture. It’s always been that way.

Years ago, in Catholic high school, I studied latin for a couple years. I learned a couple things that got me into trouble at least once.

The Latin of the Hail Mary is, Ave Maria, gratia plena, Dominus tecum…etc. Well, tecum means with “you” but this is piously rendered in English as with “thee.” When our religion class was reciting the daily Rosary, the old sister laid in to me for using the more literal translation.

I had this 90 pound, 80-year-old sister practically around my neck. She was not interested in the subtleties of translation. Watch where you step.

 

[MTD]

The Latin of the Hail Mary is, Ave Maria, gratia plena, Dominus tecum…etc. Well, tecum means with “you” but this is piously rendered in English as with “thee.” When our religion class was reciting the daily Rosary, the old sister laid in to me for using the more literal translation.

I had this 90 pound, 80-year-old sister practically around my neck. She was not interested in the subtleties of translation. Watch where you step.

Actually, Crumpy, you were both correct. Tecum means with you ONLY in today’s English. Back when the Ave Maria was first translated into English, there was a distinction between the singular and plural of the pronoun and adjective of the second person. Singular: thee/thou/thy/thine. Plural: you/your/yours. So, technically, with thee preserves more accurately the original Latin because it expressly translates the singular of tecum.

Now, ordinarily that’s not a problem in prayers and conversations in modern English. The context usually provides the information we need to know on whether you is used in the singular or plural. However, sometimes it can be pretty handy for Biblical translations to preserve the singular/plural distinction since you can distinguish when the speaker is referring to one or to more than one person.

Maria

 

[Manfred]

Actually, Crumpy, you were both correct. Tecum means with you ONLY in today’s English. Back when the Ave Maria was first translated into English, there was a distinction between the singular and plural of the pronoun and adjective of the second person. Singular: thee/thou/thy/thine. Plural: you/your/yours. So, technically, with thee preserves more accurately the original Latin because it expressly translates the singular of tecum.

Now, ordinarily that’s not a problem in prayers and conversations in modern English. The context usually provides the information we need to know on whether you is used in the singular or plural. However, sometimes it can be pretty handy for Biblical translations to preserve the singular/plural distinction since you can distinguish when the speaker is referring to one or to more than one person.

Maria

Another place frequently cited in discussions as to where the singular/plural distinction is important is Luke 22:31f:

“And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.”

In all fairness, the RSV-CE (1965-66), which uses “you” for both singular and plural in this passage, includes footnotes indicating which “you” is singular and which is plural.

 

[JimG]

Inspiration applies only to the original manuscripts of the scriptures (none of which we have). Translators are not given the gift of inspiration.

 

[cialovesyou]

Inspiration extends to all the authors, redactors, editors of the sacred text until it reaches its final form.
The many translations out there are not inspired. For instance, you cant say The KJV/RSV/NAB is an inspired translation. Its inerrancy extends as far as it keeps the meaning of the original text.
Having said that, I am sure my answer is going to open up many questions for you.

 

[NotWorthy]

Inspiration applies only to the original manuscripts of the scriptures (none of which we have). Translators are not given the gift of inspiration.

I agree with that. But where does the Catholic Church say this. I can’t find it. I’ve heard it mentioned by speakers such as Fr. Robert Altier, but I can’t find documentation.

 

[JimG]

I found this definition of inspiration in an old article from This Rock magazine:

“Biblical inspiration is a charismatic enlightening of the intellect and motion of the will and divine assistance bestowed upon the sacred writer, to the end that he may write all those things and only those things which God wishes to be written in his name and to be delivered as such to the Church.”

Source: catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9401clas.asp

The Church has always taught that the orignal authors of scripture were inspired. I don’t think it has ever said that about translators. There have, after all, been some pretty bad translations.

 

[NotWorthy]

I found this definition of inspiration in an old article from This Rock magazine:

“Biblical inspiration is a charismatic enlightening of the intellect and motion of the will and divine assistance bestowed upon the sacred writer, to the end that he may write all those things and only those things which God wishes to be written in his name and to be delivered as such to the Church.”

Source: catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9401clas.asp

The Church has always taught that the orignal authors of scripture were inspired. I don’t think it has ever said that about translators. There have, after all, been some pretty bad translations.

OK, so now we’re getting closer. This is the way I understand it.

The Gospel of Matthew was written in Aramaic, right? (Or was it Hebrew?). In 16:18, he would have written , “Thou art Kepha, and upon this Kepha I will build my Church”. By the time of the canonization of the NT, this book was already translated almost exclusively into Greek where we get, “Thou are Petros, and upon this Petra I will build my Church”.

Even though the Greek translation was part of the official canon, it was not inspired. Only the original Aramaic was inspired by God. And, of course, no subsequent translations are considered inspired (although some Christians seem to believe that the KJV translation is inspired… ).

I just wish I could find an article that says what I’m trying to get at here.

 

[davidv]

Inspiration applies only to the original manuscripts of the scriptures (none of which we have). Translators are not given the gift of inspiration.

When I read Dei Verbum, I read that approved translations are protected from error. Given that, no matter what the language, the inspired Words of God are made present.

 

[NotWorthy]

When I read Dei Verbum, I read that approved translations are protected from error. Given that, no matter what the language, the inspired Words of God are made present.

That would correlate with the infallibly teaching that the Pope has. It’s a negative gift meaning you can’t teach it til you understand it, whereas the inspired writings are considered positive gifts meaning the Holy Spirit is guiding you to understand it.

I wasn’t aware of the fact that the translations are protected from error, though.

 

[JimG]

I think that translations approved by the Church would fall under the ordinary teaching authority of the magisterium, as part of its mission to faithfully hand down that which it received.

In the same way, for example, a pope may make a binding infallible statement, even though the pope does not possess the positive charism of inspiration given to the authors of scripture.

For all of what has been said about the way of interpreting Scripture is subject finally to the judgment of the Church, which carries out the divine commission and ministry of guarding and interpreting the word of God. (10) (Dei Verbum)

 

[NotWorthy]

Well said, Jim!