Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: Scriptural Translations
ROME, OCT. 24, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.
After our Oct. 10 piece on the use of Scripture in the liturgy, an English priest wrote: "I wish Father McNamara had included in his answer that the Church encourages the private reading of the Bible, that much can be gained from reading the context of the passages used at liturgy, and that our inquirer should be encouraged to maintain his devotion to Scripture."
As they say, better late than never, and I happily add my full agreement with our correspondent's suggested addendum.
A reader from Virginia wrote: "The subject article on scriptural translations touches on an important aspect of using the Bible. In speaking about the Bible, in forming thoughts for the day, and in literary discourse, people frequently quote the Bible, many times from what they have memorized. With the multiplicity of translations, especially within one language, we have generated another Tower of Babel, a work of the devil. Do the bishops realize the confusion they have created?"
In all fairness, I do not believe that the bishops are in any way responsible for the confusion mentioned by our correspondent, if indeed such confusion really exists. Indeed, in the long run, using a single liturgical translation for each country is likely to bring about greater, rather than lesser, harmony in biblical knowledge within a nation.
Certainly some difficulty might be caused in international settings, but people who travel frequently are also likely to be equipped to handle these minor differences.
I would also observe that while the King James Bible held sway for a long time in Protestant English, other translations were on offer. And Catholics could also choose from several English versions from well before the use of the vernacular entered into the liturgy.
Thus, there has never been much uniformity in translations and people memorized and quoted whatever Bible they happened to have.
Another question entirely is if the bishops' choice of translation is really the best, from the point of view of literature, pastoral use, and other criteria. On such questions experts may disagree. But in the end all must respect the bishops' choice as they have weighed all of the issues and have opted for what they considered best for the people of God.
Another reader asked: "I was wondering why the New American Bible (St. Joseph Edition) has verses divided up different from the 'Protestant' Bible. For instance, Job 41:1 in the New American Bible is 41:9 in the King James version. Also, periodically through some of the New American Bible the verse numbers are changed around. For instance, in Job 31 it goes verses 2-8 and then goes to 38-40, then to 1 then to 9. What would the reason be for that?"
Chapters and verses do not form part of the original text but were inserted over the centuries by scholars and printers. They are therefore open to question on some points and may sometimes be revised.
Contemporary biblical scholars have access to more ancient manuscripts that did the translators of the King James Bible and one of their tasks is to establish, as far as possible, the original text of each book. They therefore have to judge possible copyist's mistakes and other such interventions.
After much painstaking work, most modern interpreters consider that the above-mentioned verses in Job 31:38-40 were erroneously placed at the end by an earlier copyist and the proper order is as described above. Likewise most experts now consider that Job 41:1-8 really belongs to the conclusion of Chapter 40.
In order to respect the traditional division of chapter and verses, and allow for comparisons between different versions, some modern English Bibles start Chapter 41 at verse 9 instead of creating a new system.
Biblical texts in the liturgy must follow the chapter and verse division of the New Latin Vulgate so as to be sure as to which text the Church proposes for liturgical proclamation.
Finally, some readers asked, When can we expect the new English translation of the Missal?
As one high prelate involved in the process once said: "Two years ago I replied to reporters that the translation would be ready in about two years. Today I can say I am sticking to my original estimate."
The process of translation and approval is slow but is constantly progressing. Seeking a translation that can stand up for many decades and even centuries is no easy task and it should be worth waiting another "two years."
After our Oct. 10 piece on the use of Scripture in the liturgy, an English priest wrote: "I wish Father McNamara had included in his answer that the Church encourages the private reading of the Bible, that much can be gained from reading the context of the passages used at liturgy, and that our inquirer should be encouraged to maintain his devotion to Scripture."
As they say, better late than never, and I happily add my full agreement with our correspondent's suggested addendum.
A reader from Virginia wrote: "The subject article on scriptural translations touches on an important aspect of using the Bible. In speaking about the Bible, in forming thoughts for the day, and in literary discourse, people frequently quote the Bible, many times from what they have memorized. With the multiplicity of translations, especially within one language, we have generated another Tower of Babel, a work of the devil. Do the bishops realize the confusion they have created?"
In all fairness, I do not believe that the bishops are in any way responsible for the confusion mentioned by our correspondent, if indeed such confusion really exists. Indeed, in the long run, using a single liturgical translation for each country is likely to bring about greater, rather than lesser, harmony in biblical knowledge within a nation.
Certainly some difficulty might be caused in international settings, but people who travel frequently are also likely to be equipped to handle these minor differences.
I would also observe that while the King James Bible held sway for a long time in Protestant English, other translations were on offer. And Catholics could also choose from several English versions from well before the use of the vernacular entered into the liturgy.
Thus, there has never been much uniformity in translations and people memorized and quoted whatever Bible they happened to have.
Another question entirely is if the bishops' choice of translation is really the best, from the point of view of literature, pastoral use, and other criteria. On such questions experts may disagree. But in the end all must respect the bishops' choice as they have weighed all of the issues and have opted for what they considered best for the people of God.
Another reader asked: "I was wondering why the New American Bible (St. Joseph Edition) has verses divided up different from the 'Protestant' Bible. For instance, Job 41:1 in the New American Bible is 41:9 in the King James version. Also, periodically through some of the New American Bible the verse numbers are changed around. For instance, in Job 31 it goes verses 2-8 and then goes to 38-40, then to 1 then to 9. What would the reason be for that?"
Chapters and verses do not form part of the original text but were inserted over the centuries by scholars and printers. They are therefore open to question on some points and may sometimes be revised.
Contemporary biblical scholars have access to more ancient manuscripts that did the translators of the King James Bible and one of their tasks is to establish, as far as possible, the original text of each book. They therefore have to judge possible copyist's mistakes and other such interventions.
After much painstaking work, most modern interpreters consider that the above-mentioned verses in Job 31:38-40 were erroneously placed at the end by an earlier copyist and the proper order is as described above. Likewise most experts now consider that Job 41:1-8 really belongs to the conclusion of Chapter 40.
In order to respect the traditional division of chapter and verses, and allow for comparisons between different versions, some modern English Bibles start Chapter 41 at verse 9 instead of creating a new system.
Biblical texts in the liturgy must follow the chapter and verse division of the New Latin Vulgate so as to be sure as to which text the Church proposes for liturgical proclamation.
Finally, some readers asked, When can we expect the new English translation of the Missal?
As one high prelate involved in the process once said: "Two years ago I replied to reporters that the translation would be ready in about two years. Today I can say I am sticking to my original estimate."
The process of translation and approval is slow but is constantly progressing. Seeking a translation that can stand up for many decades and even centuries is no easy task and it should be worth waiting another "two years."
posted by Chipi Buenafe at
3:54 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home