Why has creating an orthodox translation of the Bible been so hard?

[EphelDuath]

Now I’m clear on that am I correct in saying you don’t want any English Bibles to be in the English we speak today but you want to confine English speakers to Old English which is not used today?

… no, quite the opposite, actually. The Douay-Challoner translation is morally flawless, and most orthodox English-speaking Catholics just want something like the D-C in modern English. (Also is the issue of vast advancements in textual criticism, which is the cause of most of the differences in renderings between the Nova Vulgata and the Vulgata Sixto-Clementina.)

The closest to that mark is the RSV2CE, which has only a handful of imperfections. If Rome would just intervene make a few edits, it could very well be used as the official international English Bible of the Catholic Church, and not have any problems in terms of inclusive language, heterodox footnotes, or bizarre, inelegant and trite renderings like the NAB, NJB, and NRSV have. Yet curiously this has not happened. Why the RSV2CE is the only translation which has conformed to Liturgiam authenticam, and therefore also why no Bishops’ Conferences have adopted it, is quite honestly bewildering.

 

[ProVobis]

If Rome would just intervene make a few edits, it could very well be used as the official international English Bible of the Catholic Church, and not have any problems in terms of inclusive language, heterodox footnotes, or bizarre, inelegant and trite renderings like the NAB, NJB, and NRSV have. Yet curiously this has not happened. Why the RSV2CE is the only translation which has conformed to Liturgiam authenticam, and therefore also why no Bishops’ Conferences have adopted it, is quite honestly bewildering.

Why should we place this burden on the Vatican who have hundreds of “vernaculars” to approve? Even the simple “edits” to the languages to go from “all” to “many” appeared not to have been so simple as everyone thinks.

 

[COPLAND_3]

I’m in the process of editing the original Douay-Rheims Bible of 1609 into modern spelling and slight smoothing out of the ‘Yoda-like’ phrasing. We should have the New Testament done by December, with all the wonderful very orthodox footnotes, marginal notes, and cross-references. Plus it will be sold for the price of production (non-profit), so it will be the most affordable Study Bible on the market! Single volumes are already out, all the Gospels are done with the exception of John which will be released within 2 or 3 weeks, as will be all 4 Gospels in a single volume. The Catholic Epistles and Revelation combined will be released in about a week, while Revelation is already available in single volume.

 

[Khalid]

Idk why either. For me, DRB is the only Bible translation I prefer. The RSV-CE is good if you don’t want to read through the archaic language but I have a few big beefs with the RSV

• It’s based off of the Protestant bible (ie not original)
• John 19:5 (Ecce Homo = Behold the Man…not “Here is”)
• The “thees and thous” that everyone hates actually serves a purpose…it signifies a close relationship. Something modern English sadly lacks today
• “Stop no more of this!” (Luke 22:51) terrible translation compared to the superior “Suffer ye thus far”

So basically I don’t think it’s possible for there to be a “modern” orthodox translation because there is nothing in modern English to signify the difference when someone speaks to a stranger and a loved one.

My personal translation, a “Catholic KJV” if you will (signified in monographs by a superscripted number, and “Author’s Translation” noted,) most definitely retains the T-V distinction. It’s something that, I agree, is required to be faithful to the Greek (I know very little Hebrew,) as Greek itself contains a similar distinction (although, unlike in French, whence the name is derived, it’s not “tu-vous”, but other words signifying the same).

I’m sure you’ve noticed how the RSV was the height of liberal Protestant scholarship when it was released, denying miracles and prophecy absolutely. I’m not sure if you ever noticed how the sneaky translators used “thou” very consistently in reference to the Deity (God the Father) throughout all books (this is an implicit refutation of the statement that some make, that the translators used “thou” only in poetry; when the Unitarian god speaks, they always used “thou”; when the Trinitarian God speaks, always “you”, regardless of the format of the translated writing,) but purposefully never used “thou” in reference to Jesus Christ, but only “you”, thus implicitly denying his Godhead.

 

[thistle]

I’m in the process of editing the original Douay-Rheims Bible of 1609 into modern spelling and slight smoothing out of the ‘Yoda-like’ phrasing. We should have the New Testament done by December, with all the wonderful very orthodox footnotes, marginal notes, and cross-references. Plus it will be sold for the price of production (non-profit), so it will be the most affordable Study Bible on the market! Single volumes are already out, all the Gospels are done with the exception of John which will be released within 2 or 3 weeks, as will be all 4 Gospels in a single volume. The Catholic Epistles and Revelation combined will be released in about a week, while Revelation is already available in single volume.

I look forward to that.

 

[Ron_Conte]

The problem with making a good Bible translation is found in the people, not the texts.

Many Catholics have fallen away from orthodoxy, in many ways, and so they want a Bible translation that is looser, with footnotes that are in accord with their own views. Many Catholics are poorly catechized, and so they cannot distinguish orthodox views from error.

There is a trend among Biblical scholars to treat the texts as the object of scientific study, rather than as the inspired word of God. Scholarship then takes precedence over faith, and the translation (as well as the annotations) suffer greatly.

There is an assumption among some commentators that if only the Pope or the Holy See or the Bishops would take control of a translation, all would be well. But the infallibility of the Magisterium does not apply to all the judgments of the prudential order that would be needed to make a decision on each point of translation.

There are over 35,000 verses in the Catholic Bible, with at least a few significant translation decisions per verse. So the number of translation and editing decisions needed is easily over 100,000. The Pope cannot exercise papal infallibility 100,000 times to make a Bible translation that is infallible in its translation decisions.

So it does not necessarily improve the text if you have only one version and it is controlled by the Pope and the Bishops.

 

[tvknight415]

I wonder if we shouldn’t leave the obsessing over the ‘perfect’ English translation to the scholars and accept that if a translation has been reviewed and approved as free of moral or doctrinal error, it’s ok to use. We can all have pur favorite and opinions on which are more orthodox, but remember we read the Bible for spiritual nourishment, not necessarily as a history lesson. If the footnotes reflect concerns about historical details but don’t deny the spiritual truths of God, then they are still valid. Our authority does not come solely through scripture, but rather through the teachings of Christ as taught by the church. If one of the authors embellished a few details to teach truth and scholars want to debate it in footnotes then that’s their business.

The church, through her bishops, have approved a number of translations for us to use. If we want a very traditional choice, we read the Douay. If we want the absolute latest in textual scholarship we read the NRSV. If we want something literary and aren’t concerned with word for word accuracy, we go for the Jerusalem or New Jerusalem. If we want modern language, accuracy, but no inclusive language, we have the RSV. If we want the liturgical translation we turn to the NAB, NRSV, or Jerusalem, depending on where we live. No translation will please everyone, so ultimately use the one or ones you prefer.

 

[EphelDuath]

The problem with making a good Bible translation is found in the people, not the texts.

Many Catholics have fallen away from orthodoxy, in many ways, and so they want a Bible translation that is looser, with footnotes that are in accord with their own views. Many Catholics are poorly catechized, and so they cannot distinguish orthodox views from error.

There is a trend among Biblical scholars to treat the texts as the object of scientific study, rather than as the inspired word of God. Scholarship then takes precedence over faith, and the translation (as well as the annotations) suffer greatly.

There is an assumption among some commentators that if only the Pope or the Holy See or the Bishops would take control of a translation, all would be well. But the infallibility of the Magisterium does not apply to all the judgments of the prudential order that would be needed to make a decision on each point of translation.

There are over 35,000 verses in the Catholic Bible, with at least a few significant translation decisions per verse. So the number of translation and editing decisions needed is easily over 100,000. The Pope cannot exercise papal infallibility 100,000 times to make a Bible translation that is infallible in its translation decisions.

So it does not necessarily improve the text if you have only one version and it is controlled by the Pope and the Bishops.

I wouldn’t expect the Holy See to create its own English translation of the Bible, for the same reasons you have mentioned. That being said, I don’t know why the Holy Office or Congregation for Divine Worship can’t intervene in some regard and declare the NAB and NRSV to be improper translations and should not be utilized by the Catholic Church (or, conversely, to take a good translation like the RSV2CE and laud it above the others). The Holy See has already said that the NAB’s Psalms are a no-go, and declared the Grail Psalms (and then the Revised Grail Psalms) to be the official English Psalter of the Catholic Church. I’m just wondering why they don’t go one step extra and do the same for the whole Bible.

I wonder if we shouldn’t leave the obsessing over the ‘perfect’ English translation to the scholars and accept that if a translation has been reviewed and approved as free of moral or doctrinal error, it’s ok to use. We can all have pur favorite and opinions on which are more orthodox, but remember we read the Bible for spiritual nourishment, not necessarily as a history lesson. If the footnotes reflect concerns about historical details but don’t deny the spiritual truths of God, then they are still valid. Our authority does not come solely through scripture, but rather through the teachings of Christ as taught by the church. If one of the authors embellished a few details to teach truth and scholars want to debate it in footnotes then that’s their business.

If only the problems are as mild as you seem to be saying they are. I wouldn’t care if the footnotes told me the factual statement that there’s little archaeological evidence for the Exodus or that Judith has to be a parable because it makes no historical sense.

What bothers me, in the NAB at least, are the opinionated footnotes that directly challenge Catholic doctrine. The NAB’s footnotes told me that Matthew misunderstood the prophecy of the *** and the colt to produce an “awkward picture”, thus both implying that the Gospel was not divinely inspired, and that the event never really happened. It also says that Matthew had to have been written after AD 70 because it predicts the destruction of the Temple, and of course prophecies can’t really happen, right? How anybody can look at this and think it appropriate to be the official English translation of the Bible for the United States is utterly baffling to me.

I’m not obsessing over a perfect translation. I am, though, “obsessing” over the fact that it would be SO EASY for a readable and orthodox translation be declared official by the Holy See, thus both eliminating prevailing heterodoxy and unifying English-speaking Catholics world-wide, but they have not. And so translations that implicitly deny Christ and His Church like the NJB, NRSV, and NAB are being read at Mass.

 

[ProVobis]

The church, through her bishops, have approved a number of translations for us to use.

Yes, but let’s put things into some perspective here. The Vatican website has translated colere into English as “worship” and Catholics are accused of “worshipping” Mary. Are you ready to defend any one of the “approved” translations of the Bible? As someone pointed out, there is nothing infallible about translations.

That said, AFAIK there is no unapproved version of the Bible so each has to do his own DD.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

The closest to that mark is the RSV2CE, which has only a handful of imperfections. If Rome would just intervene make a few edits, it could very well be used as the official international English Bible of the Catholic Church, and not have any problems in terms of inclusive language, heterodox footnotes, or bizarre, inelegant and trite renderings like the NAB, NJB, and NRSV have. Yet curiously this has not happened. Why the RSV2CE is the only translation which has conformed to Liturgiam authenticam, and therefore also why no Bishops’ Conferences have adopted it, is quite honestly bewildering.

Follow the money. The U.S. Bishops hold the copyright on the NAB/NABRE and they are not going to just toss that for another version where they would forego royalties.

ncronline.org/news/us-bishops-biblical-association-resolve-dispute

 

[mccorm45]

It is important to be aware that the USCCB, along with the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, have begun a process by which they are going to produce an edition of the NAB that matches what is heard in the lectionary. This was announced last year and will likely take about ten years. This includes a revision to the NAB NT, some slight adjustments to the recently revised NABRE OT, and a revision of the NAB NT notes.

catholicnewsagency.com/news/new-american-bible-to-be-revised-into-single-translation/

 

[Ron_Conte]

The NAB in all its editions, including the latest NABRE, has serious issues. Having a single USCCB approved edition does not really solve or address those problems.

An approved translation, by the USCCB or the Holy See, is not necessarily a perfect or even a better translation. It is Pharisaical to assume so.

 

[ProVobis]

Follow the money. The U.S. Bishops hold the copyright on the NAB/NABRE and they are not going to just toss that for another version where they would forego royalties.

ncronline.org/news/us-bishops-biblical-association-resolve-dispute

It’s about time someone has addressed this.

One thing I might add is that copyrights expire after so many years, which means we’re due for more and more translations in years ahead, while everyone dreams about his perfect Bible.

 

[BobDanners]

It is important to be aware that the USCCB, along with the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, have begun a process by which they are going to produce an edition of the NAB that matches what is heard in the lectionary. This was announced last year and will likely take about ten years. This includes a revision to the NAB NT, some slight adjustments to the recently revised NABRE OT, and a revision of the NAB NT notes.

catholicnewsagency.com/news/new-american-bible-to-be-revised-into-single-translation/

I guess 5 times a charm

Whatever they come out, I ain’t gonna read it. If you can’t get it right the second time (as with the Douay and RSV)…you aren’t worth the time. I’ll happily keep my DR-CB, Vulgate, RSV-CE, and Knox thank yah!

 

[BobDanners]

The NAB in all its editions, including the latest NABRE, has serious issues. Having a single USCCB approved edition does not really solve or address those problems.

An approved translation, by the USCCB or the Holy See, is not necessarily a perfect or even a better translation. It is Pharisaical to assume so.

Exactly! there ain’t no baby in this bath…throw it all out and start from scratch.