Bible Differences in Names and Titles
Q: I notice in reading my Bible that the names of the Old Testament books have often been changed to correspond with the Protestant Bible. Any particular reason for this? I have had to go to many of my "old" biblical reference books and write in the changes for convenience during my daily Bible-reading sessions.
A: Start by realizing that the Bible itself is a collection of writings made over centuries of time. The Bible didn't come fresh from the press of a modern publisher in a handy one-volume hardcover book. Copyists and editors gathered the various books of the Bible and put them together.
From early on, not all agreed on which writings were inspired and to be placed in what we call the Bible. Around the time of Christ, and after, Jerusalem Jews differed from the Hellenist Jews of the Diaspora (dispersion) concerning what books were inspired. The Hellenist Jews regarded more Greek-written books as inspired than did the Jerusalem Jews. For them the books had to have been written in Hebrew.
Those differences were carried over among Christians who would also, in the beginning, differ concerning what books of the Christian era were inspired. All that led to the Church's action at the Council of Trent in 1546. Trent defined what books were to be taken as inspired and thus included in the canon of Scriptures. Just as differences among language groups over what books were inspired went back to their languages of composition, differences in names and spellings sometimes go back to the languages translators used.
It was not until the fourth and fifth centuries (A.D.) that biblical manuscripts divided the Gospels into smaller sections. The division into chapters now followed by all goes back to Stephen Langton of the University of Paris in the 13th century. This division was then used in the Parisian edition of the Vulgate (Latin translation of St. Jerome). The division into verses came with Robert Estienne in the 16th century.
The point is that a lot of hands were involved in shaping modern editions and translations of the Bible.
The name used for the books sometimes depends on the translators or editors, what language they used and how they divided the manuscripts. For instance, did the translator treat Kings and Chronicles as one or separate works?
Working from different languages, did the translators use Greek or Hebrew forms of titles, names and spellings? For example, did the translator follow the Greek and say Isaias or the Hebrew and write Isaiah? Did translators, as they did in the case of the Douay Bible, take over the Greek, titling the writing "Paralipomenon" or go directly back to the Hebrew and use the name "Chronicles"? Did the translator, as in the case of the Douay Bible, think of a manuscript (Kings 1, 2, 3 and 4) as one writing following the Greek system or as separate, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings?
I take it you are using the New American Bible translation most often read in Catholic Church celebrations. The translator of this version, like those of the Jerusalem Bible, went back to the original languages or oldest existing forms of the biblical texts.
In doing so, said Pope Paul VI in an introduction to the New American Bible version, "The translators have carried out the directive of...Pius XII in his famous encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu and the decree of the Second Vatican Council (Dei Verbum) which prescribed that 'up-to-date and appropriate translations be made in the various languages by preference from the original texts of the sacred books' and that 'with the approval of Church authority, these translations may be produced in cooperation with our separated brethren' so that 'all Christians may be able to use them.'"
A: Start by realizing that the Bible itself is a collection of writings made over centuries of time. The Bible didn't come fresh from the press of a modern publisher in a handy one-volume hardcover book. Copyists and editors gathered the various books of the Bible and put them together.
From early on, not all agreed on which writings were inspired and to be placed in what we call the Bible. Around the time of Christ, and after, Jerusalem Jews differed from the Hellenist Jews of the Diaspora (dispersion) concerning what books were inspired. The Hellenist Jews regarded more Greek-written books as inspired than did the Jerusalem Jews. For them the books had to have been written in Hebrew.
Those differences were carried over among Christians who would also, in the beginning, differ concerning what books of the Christian era were inspired. All that led to the Church's action at the Council of Trent in 1546. Trent defined what books were to be taken as inspired and thus included in the canon of Scriptures. Just as differences among language groups over what books were inspired went back to their languages of composition, differences in names and spellings sometimes go back to the languages translators used.
It was not until the fourth and fifth centuries (A.D.) that biblical manuscripts divided the Gospels into smaller sections. The division into chapters now followed by all goes back to Stephen Langton of the University of Paris in the 13th century. This division was then used in the Parisian edition of the Vulgate (Latin translation of St. Jerome). The division into verses came with Robert Estienne in the 16th century.
The point is that a lot of hands were involved in shaping modern editions and translations of the Bible.
The name used for the books sometimes depends on the translators or editors, what language they used and how they divided the manuscripts. For instance, did the translator treat Kings and Chronicles as one or separate works?
Working from different languages, did the translators use Greek or Hebrew forms of titles, names and spellings? For example, did the translator follow the Greek and say Isaias or the Hebrew and write Isaiah? Did translators, as they did in the case of the Douay Bible, take over the Greek, titling the writing "Paralipomenon" or go directly back to the Hebrew and use the name "Chronicles"? Did the translator, as in the case of the Douay Bible, think of a manuscript (Kings 1, 2, 3 and 4) as one writing following the Greek system or as separate, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings?
I take it you are using the New American Bible translation most often read in Catholic Church celebrations. The translator of this version, like those of the Jerusalem Bible, went back to the original languages or oldest existing forms of the biblical texts.
In doing so, said Pope Paul VI in an introduction to the New American Bible version, "The translators have carried out the directive of...Pius XII in his famous encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu and the decree of the Second Vatican Council (Dei Verbum) which prescribed that 'up-to-date and appropriate translations be made in the various languages by preference from the original texts of the sacred books' and that 'with the approval of Church authority, these translations may be produced in cooperation with our separated brethren' so that 'all Christians may be able to use them.'"
posted by See Tho Zhang Jacob at
6:50 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home