Biblical Translation

[Nightingale 0]

This was written by Fr. Felix Just, SJ, Ph.D. He's a Jesuit priest and a professor of theology at Loyola Marymount University.

I was just wondering what everyone thought of it.


The Bible was not written in English -- not even "King James English"! Most of the books of the Old Testament were originally composed in Hebrew (with a few portions in Aramaic), while the entire New Testament was originally written in Greek (although some books may also incorporate Aramaic sources).

Thus, what most people today read is not the original text, but other people's translations of the Bible.

But why are there so many different English translations of the Bible? And why can't churches or scholars agree on just one translation?

No original manuscript of any biblical book has survived! All of the texts written by the biblical authors themselves have been lost or destroyed over the centuries. All we have are copies of copies of copies, most of them copied hundreds of years after the original texts were written.

The extant manuscripts contain numerous textual variations! There are literally thousands of differences in the surviving biblical manuscripts, many of them minor (spelling variations, synonyms, different word orders), but some of them major (whole sections missing or added).

Important old manuscripts were found in the last 200 years! Recent discoveries of older manuscripts (esp. the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Codex Sinaiticus) have helped scholars get closer to the original text of the Bible, so that modern translations can be more accurate that medieval ones.

The meanings of some biblical texts are unknown or uncertain! Some Hebrew or Greek words occur only once in the Bible, but nowhere else in ancient literature, so their exact meanings are unknown; and some biblical phrases are ambiguous, with more than one possible meaning.

Ancient languages are very different from modern languages! Not only do Ancient Hebrew and Greek use completely different alphabets and vocabularies, but their grammatical rules and structures (word order, prepositions, conjugations of verbs, etc.) are very different from modern English.

Every "translation" is already inevitably an "interpretation"! Anyone who knows more than one modern language realizes that "translations" often have meanings that are slightly different from the original, and that different people inevitably translate the same texts in slightly different ways.

All living languages continually change and develop over time! Not only is "Modern English" very different from 16th century English, but the language used in Great Britain, America, Australia, and other countries are slightly different from each other (in spelling, grammar, idioms, word meanings, etc.).

Cultural developments require new sensitivities in language! Recent awareness of the evils of racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, and other forms of discrimination have shown have certain language is slanted or biased, with corresponding efforts to develop more "inclusive" language alternatives.

Thus, no translation is "perfect" (none of them can be completely "literal" or 100% identical to the original texts) and there is no "best" translation (all of them have some advantages and some drawbacks). In general, however, the most recent translations (1980's or 1990's) are better than the older ones (esp. the KJV or the Douay-Rheims, both about 400 years old), not only since the English language has changed significantly over the centuries, but more importantly because of the ancient biblical manuscripts that have been discovered in the last 50 to 150 years which are much older (and thus closer to the originals) than the manuscripts that were available to the translators of previous centuries.



definitely something to think about.

[Luv2Fall 0]

Somewhat along the lines of what I've explained before.

[TomAiello 26]

It's interesting to note that the Koran _was_ written in Arabic.

It was apparently handed down by Allah in Arabic, thus providing evidence that, in fact, Arabic is the language of the divine. This is the reason that many Muslims study Arabic (to read the Koran in Allah's own words), and has also been used as a justification for wars of conquest (to spread the Arabic language, and hence Allah's own words in his own language).

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[pajarito 0]

I've posted this before and some didn't like it, of course, but I do and think it provides an interesting perspective, whatever you believe. I exported it from a .pdf file to a text file and only copied chapter 3 concerning the reliability of the New Testament text. The rest of the study is very interesting as well. Let me know if you're interested. I can only post in chunks, however, due to the attachment size limitation. If you don't want to read the whole thing at first, the conclusion at the bottom gives a nice overview. Later...

[TheAnvil 0]

Quite interesting.

Something along the same lines is why certain texts were omitted from the Bible as we know it. The greek Didache for instance. I also think some of the non-canonical gospels quite fascinating - such as the Gospel of St. Thomas.

Beers to all,

Vinny the Anvil

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[Nightingale 0]

we read segments of Thomas in school... quite interesting. I did track down the entire translation later.


Portions of Greek versions of the Gospel of Thomas were found in Oxyrhynchus, Egypt about one hundred years ago and these can be dated to about 140 A.D. or somewhat before. A complete version in Coptic (the native Egyptian language written in an alphabet derived from the Greek alphabet) was found in Nag Hammadi Egypt in 1945. That version can be dated to about 340 A.D. The Coptic version is a translation of the Greek version. Thus most, if not all, of the Gospel of Thomas was written prior to 140 A. D.

http://www.misericordia.edu/


interesting... I remember some of the above stuff from school, but not then pre 140 AD thing...

[TheAnvil 0]

I read the Nag Hammadi translation. Isn't that whole find just fascinating?

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[JackC 0]

No original manuscript of any biblical book has survived!

So nobody knows what it actually said.

The extant manuscripts contain numerous textual variations!

So those that read it couldn't agree on what nobody knows what it actually said, said.

Important old manuscripts were found in the last 200 years!

So there is more to the story than those that read it who couldn't agree on what nobody knows what it actually said, said.

The meanings of some biblical texts are unknown or uncertain!

So we don't even know what more to the story than those that read it who couldn't agree on what nobody knows what it actually said, said; actually meant.

Ancient languages are very different from modern languages!

So we can't interpret what we don't even know what more to the story than those that read it who couldn't agree on what nobody knows what it actually said, said; actually meant.

Every "translation" is already inevitably an "interpretation"!

Except that people try to interpret what we can't interpret what we don't even know what more to the story than those that read it who couldn't agree on what nobody knows what it actually said, said; actually meant.

All living languages continually change and develop over time!

So that which people try to interpret what we can't interpret what we don't even know what more to the story than those that read it who couldn't agree on what nobody knows what it actually said, said; actually meant, has changed.

Cultural developments require new sensitivities in language!

And now we must change again that which people try to interpret what we can't interpret what we don't even know what more to the story than those that read it who couldn't agree on what nobody knows what it actually said, said; actually meant, has changed.



I always wondered why they call it the wholly babble.

[vonSanta 0]

ROFL JackC, that's succintly put

Santa Von GrossenArsch
I only come in one flavour
ohwaitthatcanbemisunderst

[EricaH 0]

That is all very nice - now tell me something I didn't know . Pajarito, from my very brief overview, your attachment looks very interesting.

I basically have this to say. The Bible is a Holy book to Christians, parts of it to those of the Jewish faith & additions to those of variants of the Christian faith (including Catholic). This we know.

That said, the Bible was given to us as a map. It is not a precise map, otherwise our human right to chose would be removed. There are a few clear items in the Bible. The most important ones are:
1. Believe in Jesus & that he is the Son of God. and
2. Do unto others as you would have done unto yourself.

Do these and per the New Testament; Jesus says you will be welcomed into the Kingdom of Heaven. Any faith is just that faith. So I have faith that the people led by my God to translate the Bible into a form which may be read by me, translated it as clearly and precisely as possible.

Now, based on such & such a translation, it says you shouldn't wear make up, or such & such says not to shave your beard, or____ or blah, blah, blah. Do any of these argumentsfit into either of the 2 "golden rule" topics? If not, it's probably semantical religious jargon being thrown around. If so, than it is very important to your own soul's well being that you look more deeply into the issue.

Besides my personal beliefes, translations are not in themselves faulty. However, it is paraphrasing that is faulty. There are also many Christians that study ancient Greek so they can read the New Testament in it's original form, there are fewer that learn ancient Hebrew, but they are there. Also, for translations in Coptic text, these were some of the first "Christian" writings and in my opinion, the most correct.

I'm sorry, I have too many points to argue & I absolutely hate typing; so I'm going to go now.

There is no can't. Only lack of knowledge or fear. Only you can fix your fear.

PMS #227 (just like the TV show)

[Nightingale 0]

the problem is, when translating one language into another, is that you lose the connotations of the words.

for example, in Spanish, the word "meja" means "my daughter". However, it means so much more than that. But, a direct translation is "my daughter" and that's what pops up on a subtitled movie, or whatnot. The translation is correct, but all the cultural nuances are missing.

That's the problem with reading a translation, ANY translation. Even the translators will tell you that reading the original and reading the translation is not the same. EVER.

[EricaH 0]

I understand that the deeper cultural meanings are lost. And that is why paraphrasing is inserted.

However, it is not my beliefe that every sentance/word of the Bible must be taken in precise meaning. context must be used; where was the setting, to whom was it directed (specifically).

"meja" is like saying my sweetes, dearest person that is my daughter, however, it also means my daughter. The meaning is not changed, it is just viewed in a different light.

There is no can't. Only lack of knowledge or fear. Only you can fix your fear.

PMS #227 (just like the TV show)

[Nightingale 0]

paraphrasing, by definition, is a translator's interpretation of the text. you're reading someone's idea of what it means.

if translating were as exact as you seem to think, all the translations would be much closer to the same.

[EricaH 0]

I do not know. I take it on faith, which is what being a Christian is.

I'm done w/ this discussion. I don't like typing this much. It is "work" to me. I also am tired of people pressing the same issues over & over whilst refusing to look at more indepth already pointed out discussions done by people far more knowledgable than I.

No one knows nor can they hope to know everything. You can only hope that you don't give too much false knowledge, least it become truth.

There is no can't. Only lack of knowledge or fear. Only you can fix your fear.

PMS #227 (just like the TV show)

[Gawain 0]

I like your points. It also explains why any belief needs faith to sustain it.

When that faith becomes blind however, that's when any belief begins to lose its attraction (IMO).

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[pajarito 0]

I agree. Paul stated to be prepared to give answers to questions, study to show yourself approved, and to reason with others. Definitely argues against "blind faith."

[Gawain 0]

On top of that, even some of these basic beliefs talk about the fallibility of man, or imperfection of man, by God's own definition. Thus, if man (imperfect) wrote all of these doctrines, then they too, are imperfect.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Nightingale 0]

even if you believe that the initial writers were divinely inspired, obviously all the translators were not, since there are so many different translations.

[pajarito 0]

*** Summary of the study done in the paper by Don Stewart that I posted before. Just a viewpoint. ***

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION TO THE RELIABILITY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT TEXT

After looking at the evidence for the reliability of the New Testament text, we can summarize as follows.

1. The time span between the date of composition of the books of the New Testament and the earliest
surviving manuscripts is relatively short. Most other ancient works have a much longer gap between the
time when they were written and the earliest available manuscript. There is in existence a complete New Testament manuscript (Codex Vaticanus) which was copied within 250 years of the time of the writing of the New Testament. In addition, we have over fifty fragments of the New Testament that go back even earlier. The classical writings (Plato, Aristotle, etc.) are viewed as having been transmitted in a reliable manner, yet, the time span, between the original and their earliest copy, is over a thousand years. The New Testament documents, if evaluated on the same basis, also must be viewed as trustworthy.

2. Not only is the interval shorter between the writings of the New Testament and the earliest existing manuscripts, the number of manuscripts (over 5,000 in Greek) is far superior to any other ancient work. Given the axiom, “The more manuscripts, the better chance to reconstruct the original,” we again see that the New Testament is in much better shape than other ancient works.

3. The Greek New Testament was translated into other languages at an early date. Those versions
provide further evidence in establishing the true text. The number of manuscript copies of the different versions is around 20,000. Most other ancient writings were never translated into another language.

4. A further line of evidence is found in the writings of the church fathers, where verses, passages and
entire books are cited. If the other sources for the New Testament were non-existent (Greek manuscripts and versions) the text still could be reconstructed through the writings of the church fathers alone. There is nothing like this for any other ancient work. 5. It should be remembered that there were different groups who carefully watched the transmission of the New Testament text. These groups were opposed to one another in various beliefs and practices. They would certainly be watching each other to make sure the text was not altered in any way. 6. The variant readings that do exist, do not affect the reliability of the text. The number of places where there are variants is relatively small and they do not affect any Christian doctrine. In fact, there are only about fifty places in the entire New Testament where they are of any consequence whatsoever.

7. Therefore, three important facts demonstrate the New Testament can be trusted:

(1) The short time span between the original and the manuscript copies
(2) The great number of manuscripts, and
(3) The lack of any substantial variation between the manuscripts.

Given the above facts, we conclude that the New Testament has been accurately transmitted throughout history. Any contrary conclusion is based either on a willful desire not to accept the evidence as it stands, or ignorance of the facts.

[hairyjuan 0]

www.truthbeknown.com has more truth about the "bible" assembled, since it was originally compiled at the Council of Nicea around 300a.d.(common era)

we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively


wishers never choose, choosers never wish

[AlexCrowley 0]

Using historical facts will be negated by the faithful's historical facts.

It's like trying to explain the evolution of the old testament vs 'moses wrote it because the bible says so'.

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[GTAVercetti 0]

Could this thread be round 2?

I don't think it has the staying power. Its almost like we took part of the other thread and pasted it here.

In anycase, I think Jesuits are quite smart. I would rather listen to them, particularly a PhD, than this guy:

http://www.donstewartassociation.com/

If that IS the Don Stewart given.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.