www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Great Quote!

In another place on this Forum, an article by Bishop Donald Trautman was posted that contains many excellent thoughts and explanations. I particularly like this quote and would be interested in having a discussion about the role of any translator. After the quote, I will post a particular question I have been struggling with for your comments and thoughts.


My question has to do with scripture and the way it is translated. I have noticed that in almost all translations the word "nations" appears frequently. (For example, think about the Great Commission. This word also repeatedly shows up in the Psalms.) I wonder about this -- given that the our understanding of "nation" and "nationalism" is so radically different than that of the first century -- if perhaps the point of Scripture is lost because of our modern conceptions of "Nation" and "nationalism."

This is especially important as we move into what many political scientists believe is the beginning of the post nation-state age. How can we preserve the meaning of Scripture (and the Liturgy) without holding it hostage to modern ideas and concepts?

I can appreciate the desire of fine men like Bishop Trautman to present the biblical and liturgical message in a relevant and understandable way. I strongly disagree with much of what he has proposed in the past because it has very much been an adaptation of Scripture and liturgical texts to the spirit of the times (which is why Rome rejected quite a bit of the work of ICEL and promulgated Liturgiam Authenticam [vatican.va]).

Scripture and liturgical texts should not be recast into new forms every generation to stay relevant. To do so is to make them dated as soon as they are promulgated (and we can easily see that the Revised Divine Liturgy from the Ruthenian Church that was promulgated in January is already very dated because the translations cater to cultural ideas that were popular back in the 1970s and 1980s, ideas the Church has now abandoned).

Scripture and liturgical texts should be translated as exactly (literally) as is possible and as elegant as possible. Yes, the Church needs to present both Scripture and the liturgical texts in grammatically correct English. But the truths of Scripture and our liturgical texts transcend man�s experience. Should nation-states disappear from the earth (which I doubt will happen anytime soon) one does not rewrite the Scriptures and the liturgical texts to remove such concepts. One teaches each generation what the Scriptures and liturgical texts meant in their original contexts.

Literal accuracy and integrity together with elegance. Uniformity, consistency and stability through many generations. Change in texts and translations should be almost imperceptible and only occur where absolutely necessary. Even the idioms of the original text should come through in translation (even if people need to be catechized in Scripture and Liturgy to understand them). The Church (esp. in Liturgiam Authenticam) has spoken quite eloquently to these ideas.

We should love our fellow man enough to want to present to him God's word exactly as it comes to us from the original texts. To give him anything less (i.e., what translators think he ought to hear or what they think he is able to grasp) is to do him a grave injustice.

So, if I understand you right, the translator is simply a "machine" that tries to reduplicate the original into English. My question, and I really hope people use my example of "nations" and "nationalism" because it will allow us to discuss the issue without the emotionalism of gender discussions, really asks whether this is possible.

I also note that Bishop Trautman is endorsing a different understanding of the translator. I believe Trautman's view of the gift of translation is actually closer to our Catholic/Orthodox tradition's view -- my proof of this is the veneration of St. Jerome and the attachment of Catholic believers through the centuries to the Vulgate. St. Jerome did more than simply "substitute words" (as the Admistrator suggests); he interpreted the meaning of the text within the context of Catholic theology. And he has been glorified for this grace.

That is a worthwhile quote. As to what that "balance" should be I was impressed by the maxim given in the preface to the NRSV: "As literal as possible, as free as necessary." Would that both Bishop Trautman and the NRSV translators followed their own advice.

The dilemma about the term "nations" is to the point. It got me thinking, what do I as a 21st c. American really know about, for instance, "kingdom" or "tribe".

It seems the best we can do is go back to the original words as used in Scripture and then try to grasp the nuances and range of meanings and usages. For instance:

Mat 28:19 has panta ta ethnē, so the term is ethnos (all, panta)

One finds in the LXX ethnos in e.g.:

Psa 2:8 ethnē, goyim in the MT (nations, not including Israel?); cf the same in Psa 134(135):10.

Psa 112(113):4 panta ta ethnē, MT: kol goyim (all nations, including Israel?)

And also for the Table of Nations:
Gen 10:32 ethnē, MT: goyim (including Israel, Gen 10:31)

But in Psa 105(106) 34, LXX: ethnē, but MT: āmim, peoples.

And just keep digging.

Dn. Anthony

This is an important discussion.


There is a judgment call here. And your first post recognizes it:


The judgment must be made whether the translation is making the meaning of Scripture, the Liturgy and the faith hostage to modern ideas and concepts. Modernism, condemned by the magisterial office of the Church (perhaps somewhat too harshly but nonetheless still rightly), brings with it serious implicit attacks on the faith. These cannot be ignored by the translator because there is real threat that the faith is lost in translation. Unless the translator is absolutely sure this will not occur, he better "err" on the side that the Administrator suggests. This may require more work (ie more catechesis) for those, like yourself, in the trenches, but it insures that the Scripture, Liturgy and the faith are handed on in their original integrity.

And properly so, but also, putting it diplomatically, questioned:

Luke 1:28 gratia plena

Romans 5:12 in quo omnes peccaverunt

But, agreeing also with Jerome:

Matthew 5:9 beati pacifici quoniam filii Dei vocabuntur

filii for huioi as opposed to the new 2006 people's book, p24, children, which is just following the NAB.

I'm really astounded at the seemingly inconsequential and thoughtless (but thorough) way the NAB translators sacrificed accuracy and the profound (Catholic) theology of sonship that is in the scriptures for ... for what?

The approach I suggest actually seems to take into account what St. Jerome's great gift. Since we live in modern times in the most modern of societies, it is safe to assume that all of us are, one way or another, modernists without actually having to think too much about it. Since the goal is to pass on the faith against the onslaught of modernity, being slavishly accurate to the original texts will be the means by which we get over our almost innate tendicies to accept modern presuppositions unreflectively.

Im, you seem to have missed my point. Modernism is more than feminism -- modernism includes our view of the nation-state, our understanding of human rights, etc.

You argue that being faithful to the text is the way to overcome it, but my point is that the words we use MEAN something different than the words used in the text. This is my point in bringing up the "nation"/"nationalism" issue. The word "nation" today envisions a political entity (often multi-ethnic and multi-lingual). The word that is translated "nation" in the original language denoted a "tribal" or "mono-ethnic" homogeneous grouping. Thus, to answer that all we need to do is translate exactly misses the point that all translations are by their very nature INTERPRETATIONS.

As an American and Latin Rite Catholic, I have to agree with everything the Administrator said in his post (without deprecating what others have said). I would suggest that, if anyone has not had the chance to read Liturgiam Authenticam, he avail himself of the link provided by the Administrator.

The reason I say this, is that it discusses the most important issues in this area, making suitable distinctions between Sacred Scripture and the Sacred Liturgy, and has been the source for the courage of those who have been fighting tenaciously against the good bishop in question and the BCL (USCCB Bishops' Committee on the Liturgy) in trying to provide Catholics of the Latin Rite with a beautiful and worthy translation of the Sacred Liturgical prayers, and the Scriptures used at Mass, rather than the original ICEL translations. And, in my opinion, the worst translations (in your opinions) of the texts done in the Eastern Rites are far better than what we Latins have had to endure in English for the last 35+ years, even though much better translations have existed for all that time.

Regarding "literal" vs. "modern" translation, I would only say this. If we possess a literal, or near-literal translation of the text, it is possible to catechetize in every generation as to what the contemporary meaning is; that is not possible to do once the near-literal text is glossed into contemporary terms. And that requires new translations every time it is felt that the target language has moved on.

For a large groups of Americans, many of whom I work with in the southwest, such a translation to "nation" would be perfectly acceptable and understood in the sense in which you speak.

Being slavishly accurate will not help us to "overcome" the text, but with proper instruction, enter into it more deeply. Why do we have to immediately understand these texts anyway? Maybe that desire itself is very modern. That short cut is often self-defeating. If I had the time, I would want to know Hebrew, Greek and Latin. But since I don't, I want the best access to the original text I can get. And I too am I modern man.

And I don't think all translations are merely interpretations. If they are, then bag them all together, because you ought not to want my interpreation or I yours. But since we have a common human nature, accurate translations will ring true with our nature. I don't doubt there is room for disagreement, but it needs to be honest. In the talk by Bishop Trautman, he makes the dishonest claim that anthropos always means human being. That's just not true:

"It is good for a human being(?) (anthropos) not to touch a woman."

Accurate translations of divine texts will have the effect of transfiguring us, which is the end we seek. We don't want us to transfigure them.

In the example you take, to translate nation as "tribe" might make us think we can understand the reality, but it also suggests a kind of superiority which may not in fact exist. Could any modern man produce a text of such unbelievable sophistication as the Illiad? What about Genesis? Accuracy above all.

I actually do not think one is possible without the other -- hence the needs for St. Jeromes in this world.

Again, it seems to me that Gen. 10:31 indicates it's not so simple. Comparing some standard translations:


RSV Genesis 10:31 These are the sons of Shem, by their families, their languages, their lands, and their nations.

NAB Genesis 10:31 These are the descendants of Shem, according to their clans and languages by their lands and nations.

NIV Genesis 10:31 These are the sons of Shem by their clans and languages, in their territories and nations.

VUL Genesis 10:31 isti filii Sem secundum cognationes et linguas et regiones in gentibus suis

LXX-E Genesis 10:31 These were the sons of Sem in their tribes, according to their tongues, in their countries, and in their nations.



The LXX terms, in order, are: phulē(phylē), glōssa, chōra, ethnos.


Dn. Anthony

\

Both of these translations seem very consistent with the people I work with here in the southwest. They have clans (extended families). It is their custom to introduce themselves by the clans of which they are a part. They have their own language and lands. And they are, in fact, their own sovereign nation.

No, not a machine. A translator�s goal should be to take the original text and translate it into English (or whatever language) preserving everything from the original language as exactly as is possible. This includes nuance and idiom. This is not possible for a machine. A translator translates. He does not alter content or even nuance or idiom.

It is not always possible to capture every shade of nuance of the original text (which is always why the Church will always look to the original texts, and why the Latin Church keeps Latin as the standard for official texts).

It is certainly possible to produce translations that make the original text clear in the language it has been translated to. The reader should be able to clearly identify the meaning of the original text. The translator translates. He does not retell the story afresh according to his own prejudices for his audience.

Yes, translators do inject their own bias into the translation. That is where the peer review process comes in. When there are multiple reviewers it is more easy to discern (and remove) bias that is of the translator.

Nations and nationalism are two different concepts. One does not change the original texts merely because one�s audience might not understand the differences. One educates and raises up one�s audience to understand. If the words have multiple meaning in today�s culture one lifts up the culture. Christians are not supposed to adapt the Gospel to the societal culture. We are supposed to lead the society to accept the Christian culture.

Think of �Blessed is the Kingdom.� Do we get rid of the term �kingdom� because it might be offensive to some? Or misunderstood by others? No. We teach man what the Kingdom of God is and what the Kingship of Christ in our lives really means.

Well, now that PrJ has placed words in my mouth (incorrectly) he seems to want to clobber me with words that are his and not mine!

St. Jerome used the methods of scholarship that were dominant at the time he lived. Some of his �Lives of the Saints� are not historically accurate. Having said that, his translation style is very much closer to what we now call a �word for word� translation. It was most certainly not a �thought for thought� paraphrase. The �thought for thought� style of paraphrasing (also known as �dynamic equivalence�) always winds up recasting the original text into something else, something that is more pleasing to contemporary culture than it is faithful to the original text.

I have not seen the details of the forthcoming (in 2009) update to the Latin Vulgate. My friends who are knowledgeable in Latin tell me that the changes from the earlier editions (including the original from St. Jerome) reflect the availability of better manuscripts, and that they are not huge.

--

The translator does not and should not have control of the text.

The text must always be understood in its original context (this means the translator should see it from the context of the author in his original time as well as the reader in that time understood it). The translator is not free to impose his own values and prejudices on the text.