Jerome and banning Translations

[LittleLambofJesus]

Big Norsk,

I am pressed for time at the moment, and so I plan to return later to address your post more fully...but let me leave you with this tidbit in the meantime...



I certainly would not say that he wrote "Roman" - that is to say Western - theology into the translation. Rather, what he did was to translate the ANCIENT APOSTOLIC meaning of the Greek words in such a way that Western ears could more accurately grasp what the Sacred Text writers actually meant to convey. You are suggesting that my previous posts implied Jerome unnaturally forced alien meanings into his translation.

Quite the contrary.

Remember that Jerome did his work while living IN THE EAST so that way he could gain the most accurate understanding of what the Greek text was not only *literally* saying BUT, just as importantly, what the Greek speaking Church in the East always knew that the words MEANT (that is to say its PROSCRIPTIVE meaning).

So when Jerome translated Kecharitomenae in Luke 1:28 as gratia plena in Latin (or "full of grace" in English) he did not do so to unnaturally force a "Roman" theological principle into the text (as if Jerome would have any clue what controversies would arise centuries later over his word-choice in this particular text) but rather he deliberately chose that proscriptive phrase because that is how the ancient Greek-speaking Church in the EAST always understood it.

Therefore whatever theological implications and doctrinal developments that occured LATER in the Western Church due to the phrase "gratia plena" happened not because the Latins made stuff up, but rather because it was reflecting on the ANCIENT APOSTOLIC meaning of the text itself, regardless of the language (Greek, Latin, whatever...) of the translation itself. Thus there is an organic connection between the doctrinal developments and the Apostolic Traditions of the Church herself.

Protestants, on the other hand, are somewhat handicapped because many of them have *intentionally* divorced themselves from the Traditional understanding of the text - and hence an organic connection to it - and THEY have been the ones to unnaturally force ALIEN concepts into THEIR translations when they (in true tail-wagging-the-dog fashion) refuse to consider the authentic meaning of Luke 1:28 (as per Jerome's correct translation when living within the Greek-speaking ancient Church who maintained the Apostolic Traditions as they were called to in Scripture itself - see 1 Cor 2:11, 2 Thess 2:15, and 2 Thess 3:6). It is Protestants who have inserted their own theologies into their translations because to admit that Mary could possibly have been "full of grace" is...gasp...just too Catholic for Protestant sensibilities.

Please understand I am not accusing anyone of acting outside of good faith. Protestants, I know, love the Lord and would never *intentionally* mistranslate a biblical text. However, that is precisely what happens. It even happens with a few poorly done modern day Catholic translations too.
Modernists within Christianity - and within Catholicism too - have wrecked havoc with various translations. They may mean well, but their actions have made Christendom the poorer for it, imho.

Until later...

God's Peace,

NewMan

I would tend to agree. The key word being "intentionally"

...

 

[winslow]

.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

.

Is that morse code?

.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Of course that was in a different thread...but I figured it bore repeating here since TRUTH MATTERS...and I am sure that LLOJ is likewise concerned about truth. Boettner is the one who should be faulted the most here.

But now that LLOJ has been informed, the burden shifts to him to remove the false assertion.

How do I do that?




.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I don't have an answer for you.. I will have to read up about this..
I do not know much about Jerome or even who he is...

Me neither....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome

Saint Jerome (Latin: Eusebius Sophronius Hieronymus; Greek: Εὐσέβιος Σωφρόνιος Ἱερώνυμος; c. 347 – 30 September 420) was a Latin Christian priest, confessor, theologian and historian, who also became a Doctor of the Church.
He was the son of Eusebius, of the city of Stridon, on the border of Dalmatia and Pannonia. He is best known for his translation of the Bible into Latin (the Vulgate), and his commentaries on the Gospel of the Hebrews. His list of writings is extensive.[1]

He is recognised as a saint by the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Lutheran Church, and the Church of England (Anglican Communion).[2] Jerome is commemorated on 30 September with a memorial.

Translations and commentaries

Jerome was a scholar at a time when that statement implied a fluency in Greek. He knew some Hebrew when he started his translation project, but moved to Jerusalem to strengthen his grip on Jewish scripture commentary.
A wealthy Roman aristocrat, Paula, funded his stay in a monastery in Bethlehem and he completed his translation there. He began in 382 by correcting the existing Latin language version of the New Testament, commonly referred to as the Vetus Latina. By 390 he turned to translating the Hebrew Bible from the original Hebrew, having previously translated portions from the Septuagint which came from Alexandria.

He believed that the Council of Jamnia, or mainstream rabbinical Judaism, had rejected the Septuagint as valid Jewish scriptural texts because of what were ascertained as mistranslations along with its Hellenistic heretical elements.[15][16] He completed this work by 405.
Prior to Jerome's Vulgate, all Latin translations of the Old Testament were based on the Septuagint not the Hebrew. Jerome's decision to use a Hebrew text instead of the previous translated Septuagint went against the advice of most other Christians, including Augustine, who thought the Septuagint inspired...............






.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I believe the latin text is where the word aeternam came from .

 

[MoreCoffee]

Everyone here pretty much knows I am a stickler about Translations and most arguements on GT appear to stem more on oral traditions handed down as I am sure not everyone had a Bible to read during the early centuries.

But this simply SHOCKED me, as after the Canon had been finalized, why is it that only Jerome and the RCC had authority to TRANSLATE it?

Your stated claim is incorrect, brother LittleLambofJesus, The Greeks translated the bible into Russian and various Slavic languages and Catholics translated the bible into numerous western European languages, Polish, Czech, and Hungarian.

Latin was the official language for Church documents and scholarly discussion thus making it possible for people from many different language groups to converse in scholarly forums (because they all learned Latin).

 

[prodromos]

St Jerome did some monumental work with his translations but they weren't perfect. In the two passages with the Lord's Prayer, he translates the exact same phrase in Greek, differently in each passage

Matthew 6:11
τον αρτον ημων τον επιουσιον δος ημιν σημερον
panem nostrum supersubstantialem da nobis hodie

Luke 11:3
τον αρτον ημων τον επιουσιον διδου ημιν το καθ ημεραν
panem nostrum cotidianum da nobis cotidie

The only difference between these two verses is Matthew says "give us today", and Luke says "give us each day".

The Greek word "επιουσιον" is a word not found in any earlier Greek texts and seems to have been constructed to give a particular emphasis, which I believe is a reference to the eucharist. It means, as Jerome correctly translated in Matthew's Gospel, "super-substantial", "that which is most essential". It does not mean "daily", which is how he translated the passage from Luke. There are several other words in Greek for "daily" which could have been used if that was the meaning intended, but "επιουσιον" isn't one of them.
Unfortunately, guess which of St Jerome's translations found its way into common use for the Lord's Prayer which almost all translations seem to follow. Thus, the deeper meaning is lost on non speakers of Greek.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Your stated claim is incorrect, brother LittleLambofJesus, The Greeks translated the bible into Russian and various Slavic languages and Catholics translated the bible into numerous western European languages, Polish, Czech, and Hungarian.

Latin was the official language for Church documents and scholarly discussion thus making it possible for people from many different language groups to converse in scholarly forums (because they all learned Latin).

Who printed the first Bible in English?

http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/pre-reformation.html

By 500 AD the Bible had been translated into over 500 languages. Just one century later, by 600 AD, it has been restricted to only one language: the Latin Vulgate!
The only organized and recognized church at that time in history was the Catholic Church of Rome, and they refused to allow the scripture to be available in any language other than Latin. Those in possession of non-Latin scriptures would be executed!

This was because only the priests were educated to understand Latin, and this gave the church ultimate power… a power to rule without question… a power to deceive… a power to extort money from the masses. Nobody could question their “Biblical” teachings, because few people other than priests could read Latin. The church capitalized on this forced-ignorance through the 1,000 year period from 400 AD to 1,400 AD knows as the “Dark and Middle Ages”.

http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/

William Tyndale was the Captain of the Army of Reformers, and was their spiritual leader. Tyndale holds the distinction of being the first man to ever print the New Testament in the English language. Tyndale was a true scholar and a genius, so fluent in eight languages that it was said one would think any one of them to be his native tongue. He is frequently referred to as the “Architect of the English Language”, (even more so than William Shakespeare) as so many of the phrases Tyndale coined are still in our language today.


.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

St Jerome did some monumental work with his translations but they weren't perfect. In the two passages with the Lord's Prayer, he translates the exact same phrase in Greek, differently in each passage

Matthew 6:11
τον αρτον ημων τον επιουσιον δος ημιν σημερον
panem nostrum supersubstantialem da nobis hodie

Luke 11:3
τον αρτον ημων τον επιουσιον διδου ημιν το καθ ημεραν
panem nostrum cotidianum da nobis cotidie

The only difference between these two verses is Matthew says "give us today", and Luke says "give us each day".

The Greek word "επιουσιον" is a word not found in any earlier Greek texts and seems to have been constructed to give a particular emphasis, which I believe is a reference to the eucharist.
It means, as Jerome correctly translated in Matthew's Gospel, "super-substantial", "that which is most essential".
It does not mean "daily", which is how he translated the passage from Luke. There are several other words in Greek for "daily" which could have been used if that was the meaning intended, but "επιουσιον" isn't one of them...........

which earlier texts are you talking about?

http://www.greeknewtestament.com/index.htm

Matthew 6:11
τον αρτον ημων τον επιουσιον δος ημιν σημερον
panem nostrum supersubstantialem da nobis hodie

ton arton hmwn ton epiousion doV hmin shmeron

Luke 11:3
τον αρτον ημων τον επιουσιον διδου ημιν το καθ ημεραν
panem nostrum cotidianum da nobis cotidie

Luke 11:3
ton arton hmwn ton epiousion didou hmin to kaq hmeran

1967. epiousios ep-ee-oo'-see-os perhaps from the same as 1966; tomorrow's; but more probably from 1909 and a derivative of the present participle feminine of 1510; for subsistence, i.e. needful:--daily.
1966. epiousa ep-ee-oo'-sah feminine singular participle of a comparative of 1909 and heimi (to go); supervening, i.e. (2250 or 3571 being expressed or implied) the ensuing day or night:--following, next.


.