|
|
 |
Anonymous Gavin
wrote:
|
|
Hi, guys —
Greetings.
I am asking a question regarding how licit it would be canonically to “translate” the Bible as I’m describing. I have been working on a personal project for the past month or two, which involves taking the original text of the Douay-Rheims Bible and attempting to modernize the spelling of words without changing the text. I intended to make this for personal use.
- I was wondering if this is valid and would still retain the imprimatur of the original?
- If not, should I cease my efforts, as only the Church can approve translations?
Anonymous Gavin
|
| {
How licit would be to “translate” the Bible; would this be valid and retain the imprimatur? }
|
|
Eric replied:
|
Gavin —
It's unclear to me what your request involves. You can do whatever you want for personal use.
If you want to publish it, it would likely need full review by the Church since they can't take your word that all you changed was the spelling of the words.
Eric |
Mike replied:
|
Gavin,
You said:
- I was wondering if this is valid and would still retain the imprimatur of the original?
- If not, should I cease my efforts, as only the Church can approve translations?
No.
Yes.
Mike
|
Bob replied:
|
Hi, Gavin,
You said:
- I was wondering if this is valid and would still retain the imprimatur of the original?
I would say if you are doing this for your own use, no imprimatur is necessary. The whole idea behind Church approval is for the sake of publishing, and that is not what you are doing.
Peace,
Bob Kirby |
|
|
|
