Protestant Translations of the Bible
(08-12-2019, 09:42 AM)Alphonse il Segundo Wrote: Paul, I think this gets to the heart of the question. Why are there variant readings in the Greek? Is this what makes the Protestant translations deficient?

Because the original manuscripts don't exist anymore, and variations have crept in. That's why the Protestants include "For thine is the kingdom..." at the end of the Lord's Prayer. But that's not the only variant: the Clementine Vulgate gives 1 John 5, 7-8 as, "Quoniam tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in cælo: Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus: et hi tres unum sunt. Et tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in terra: spiritus, et aqua, et sanguis: et hi tres unum sunt." Early versions of the Bible don't have that entire verse. It's "Quoniam tres sunt, qui testimonium dant: spiritus, et aqua, et sanguis: et hi tres unum sunt." St Clement quotes the verse in the shorter form, even though he writes much about the Trinity.

And then there's Genesis 3, 15, which St Jerome translated as 'ipsa conteret', 'she shall crush', when most Hebrew manuscripts have a masculine pronoun, although it could be translated 'it' where 'seed' is neuter. The ages in Genesis 11 are 100 years less in the Masoretic text (and the Vulgate) than in the Septuagint.

But despite these differences, Catholic translations - especially the Vulgate, which the Council of Trent declared free from error in faith and morals, and the Church uses in her liturgy - are approved by the Church. Protestant translations are not, and, as other posters noted, translate in a non-Catholic way. "Elders" instead of "priests", "favoured one" instead of "full of grace".

(08-12-2019, 09:42 AM)Alphonse il Segundo Wrote: And what makes the Vulgate superior over a Greek manuscript? I love Jerome, I would trust him over any modern "scholar", but he is just a translator.

St Jerome had access to manuscripts we don't, but what makes the Vulgate important is the Church and her use of the Vulgate in the liturgy. I wouldn't say superior to all versions - the Septuagint is up there, too, but even that isn't the original manuscript of the New Testament.

For liturgical purposes (and I'm talking of the Latin rites), if we have to have the vernacular, I don't think it matters what the Greek or Hebrew say. The original text of the Mass is in Latin, and translations should be from that. For private use, while there's nothing wrong with translating from the original languages instead of from a Latin translation, I don't really see a need for it. It's the role of the Church, not the laity, to interpret the Scriptures, and the modern emphasis on "reading your Bible" strikes me as very Protestant. There's plenty of Scripture at Mass. There's even more in the Office, but even if someone only goes to Mass on Sunday, he hears what he needs to from the Bible. I'm not saying it's sinful for the laity to read Scripture, but you need a good commentary, and have to be careful, especially if you go into it with a "where is that in the Bible?" or "how can both these passages be true?" attitude.
(08-12-2019, 02:01 PM)Bonaventure Wrote: I don't see how in good conscious, later (i.e., post VCII) translations could skip the et ieiunio (i.e., and fasting), or even relegate it to a footnote.

Because it's not in the Greek. Or at least not in all the Greek manuscripts.

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)