What would be the point of translating from Greek into Latin and then into English? Why not just miss out the middle section and go straight from Greek (or Hebrew) to English?Hello everyone. I have heard rumors that there will be a modern translation of the Latin Vulgate. Is this true? Also, what will the translation method be? Will it be a literal translation, dynamic equivalence translation, or a paraphrase? Thanks!
See, my problem with this argument is that the bibles we have are a a bit of a mishmash. Some verses are translated according to the massoretic text, some from the dead sea scrolls, some arrange passages a bit closer to the Septuagint order, and the critical NT shows influence from three different manuscript families.What would be the point of translating from Greek into Latin and then into English? Why not just miss out the middle section and go straight from Greek (or Hebrew) to English?
That’s news to me but interesting. What is your source to show that any Bibles have texts translated from the Dead Sea scrolls?See, my problem with this argument is that the bibles we have are a a bit of a mishmash. Some verses are translated according to the massoretic text, some from the dead sea scrolls, some arrange passages a bit closer to the Septuagint order, and the critical NT shows influence from three different manuscript families.
The diversity of ancient versions is startling. Some add passages, some omit passages, some shed light on eachother.
With this being the situation, when someone asks why translate from a translation, I say why not?
Fine, keep the critical edition at the pulpit and in the study group. Even tag it as the only volume that can rightfully be called a “The Bible”, if measures that draconian are necessary. By why must this possibly preclude also having an official translation of the Vulgate? An official translation of the Septuagint? The Peshitta, Ge’ez, Armenian, Slavonic and Old Latin? Having those kinds of resources, hand in hand with good Catholic commentary, can only be a blessing.
Less is not more. More is more.
No it isn’t. The words of the scriptures are the words of God. The scriptures were written in Greek not Latin.Because sometimes Latin conveys the original sense of what the writers said than Greek does.
When that is the case Latin translated into English is more accurate than Greek translated into English.
No it isn’t.The “Middle Man” is without doctrinal error.
I guess you have made me your enemy because I reject your proposition. Latin is inferior to Greek in the study of scripture and I will go further and say it is inferior to Syriac as well.The people who want to get rid of that middle man in textual renderings that refer to doctrine are enemies of the Catholic Church.
I’ll say more. Even if we had the original manuscripts, later manuscripts have certain advantages over the original. The text of the Bible evolves through centuries of editing and translation and comparison of different translations. In this way, certain meanings present in the original wording, but obscure there, become clearer and more easily comprehended.Scholars have (finally) learned today that critical attempts to deduce the “original” text is elusive at best, if not downright impossible. And if I may propose more radically, the attempt to derive the “original” text is worthless from the point of view of human salvation. The way the Churches have read Scripture through the centuries, with all its divergences and recensions, have more value and importance than the critically reconstructed “original” text. Theologically speaking, God’s inspiration need not be limited only to the original text (and modern biblical scholarship showing the development and elaboration of the text tells us emphatically that inspiration is not restricted only to the original author).
The Nova Vulgata is a paraphrase translation of the Hebrew and Greek. It frequently abandons the Latin scriptural tradition altogether. It does not represent the Living Tradition.Thus the Vulgate (and Nova Vulgata) have value because it represents how the Latin Church have read (and continues to read) Scripture through the centuries. Similarly, the Septuagint and the Byzantine texts represent how the Eastern Churches have read (and continues to read) Scripture, and ditto for the Peshitta etc. The living reading of Scripture by the Church, the Body of Christ, is what turns the dead words of a book into the life-giving Word of God.
I don’t agree with this assertion. The Nova Vulgata is the result of a dialogue between the Latin scriptural tradition and biblical scholarship basing on the different manuscripts. The Nova Vulgata is the present official Latin Bible of the Latin Church presently and truly represents how the the Church of Rome reads Scripture according to her perennial and Holy Tradition. Why should the work of the Holy Spirit be limited to only a period of time in the past? Our God works through history, but he is not fixated in history.The Nova Vulgata is a paraphrase translation of the Hebrew and Greek. It frequently abandons the Latin scriptural tradition altogether. It does not represent the Living Tradition.
If you have a New American Bible, just read the Old Testament Introduction.That’s news to me but interesting. What is your source to show that any Bibles have texts translated from the Dead Sea scrolls?
I have that but it does not say any parts of Bibles have been translated using the Dead Sea Scrolls.If you have a New American Bible, just read the Old Testament Introduction.
Very simple.What would be the point of translating from Greek into Latin and then into English? Why not just miss out the middle section and go straight from Greek (or Hebrew) to English?
Ok, I just realized that the preface actually is online, I’ll quote it. 7th Paragraph:I have that but it does not say any parts of Bibles have been translated using the Dead Sea Scrolls.
The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls simply confirmed that scriptural text over the centuries had been largely copied correctly.
As I read the upper paragraph, and see that it is as quoted from the reference, it is clear, that though the translation might not be from the DSS, the DSS were consulted to judge between LXX and Massoretic.[sign]Originally Posted by thistle
I have that but it does not say any parts of Bibles have been translated using the Dead Sea Scrolls.
The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls simply confirmed that scriptural text over the centuries had been largely copied correctly.[/sign]
Ok, I just realized that the preface actually is online, I’ll quote it. 7th Paragraph:
“The Massoretic text of 1 and 2 Samuel has in numerous instances been corrected by the more ancient manuscripts Samuel a, b, and c from Cave 4 of Qumran, with the aid of important evidence from the Septuagint in both its oldest form and its Lucianic recension. Fragments of the lost Book of Tobit in Aramaic and in Hebrew, recovered from Cave 4 of Qumran, are in substantial agreement with the Sinaiticus Greek recension used for the translation of this book.”
The bit about the DSS largely confirming the present text is only partially accurate. If the scrolls were just more carbon copies, there wouldn’t be a need to make corrections based on them. The scrolls recovered at Qumran did verify the antiquity of quite a bit of the biblical text, but divergences also exist - sometimes agreeing with the Septuagint against the Massoretic, sometimes the reverse, and sometimes going it’s own way. Here’s a chart that unfortunately only gives one side of the argument (I don’t know of one that shows where the DSS agree with the Massoretic.)