Comments for Lost in Translation at http://www.thecatholicthing.org , comment 1 to 19 out of 19 comments http://www.thecatholicthing.org Wed, 22 May 2013 13:18:46 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/lost-in-translation.html#comment-9020 In the Doxology at the end of the Canon, the new translation repeats the mistaken inversion as it was in the old translation: omnis honor et gloria = all glory and honor. And the solecism of the old translation in repeated in the new translation’s wrong verb agreement: all honor and glory IS yours Very annoying. I assumed without that this would have been one of the most obvious corrections. How could something so glaring have been overlooked? - Bill Russell Sun, 27 Nov 2011 10:04:05 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/lost-in-translation.html#comment-9018 I am genuinely sorry to have rubbed you up the wrong way (the more so since I have enjoyed your "Commentary" on the new translation of the Roman Missal), but you are now defending a personal preference whereas I was originally disputing your claim that "produce" was a mistranslation. First off, I don't take your point that "produce" (or "crop") is "pallid" or "bland"; and even if it was, that has nothing to do with the question of correct or incorrect translations. You claimed that "produce" is a mistranslation of τοὺς καρποὺς αὐτοῡ at Mt.21:34 (repeated at v. 41), and I suggested otherwise. We disagree, evidently, but I don't see why I should be taken to be kidding just because I don’t agree with you. In context, the phrase refers to the rent payable by the tenants and it can, with equal exactitude be translated "fruit" or "produce". My access to multiple English translations of the NT is limited, but not only NAB (1986), but also NJB (1985) and NRSV (1989) all give "produce" at both places, while NIV (1984) gives "fruit" at v.34 and "produce" at v.41. My French translation (Maredsous text, éditions Brepols, 1977) gives "produit de sa vigne" and "le produit" respectively, and my Die Gute Nachricht of the Deutsche Bibelgesellscaft (1982) offers "Ertrag" ("yield" or "produce") in both places. Furthermore, there is nothing "plainly abstract" about the word "produce" (or "crops" come to that). It is generic, but that doesn't make it abstract. And in the context of the parable, "fruits" isn't particularly specific, since the subject is clearly grapes. The same goes for Gospel references to the fruit of trees, In most cases the fruit genus is supremely irrelevant (e.g., Mt.3:10, 7:18, 12:33; Lk.3:9, 6:43). The anecdote about the fig tree is the only exception that comes to mind (Mt.21:19, cf. Mk.11:14; Lk.13:6). My rather unexceptionable point was that word associations are not necessarily relevant and may even be misleading. The issue you haven't addressed is how, exactly, a word association with, say, forbidden fruit or any of the other "fruit" examples you offered (at least one of which was misconceived), has the remotest relevance to the parable of the wicked tenants. *** Finally, it is not helpful to say "Jesus uses the word 'fruits' quite often" since that is begging the question. The evangelists report uses of καρπός, sometimes meaning fruit, and sometimes field crops (I can add to Mt.13:26 further citations at, e.g., Mt.13:8, 26; Mk.4:7, 29; Lk.12:17; Jn.4:36) where "fruit" would definitely not be correct English. In fact it is impossible to identify the crop alluded to at Lk.12:17 or Jn.4:36 as either fruit or grain. Even in the case of trees, καρπός does not necessarily refer to fruit, since the word can also apply to nuts : καρπός is what the tree brings forth, what it produces. - Bain Wellington Sat, 26 Nov 2011 13:22:34 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/lost-in-translation.html#comment-9011 TeaPot 562, I am pleased to see the new, corrected translation and pray it will have great effect on the faithful who attend the Novus Ordo. That said, I think the "benefit" of hearing the readings (and the entire Mass) in the vernacular is debatable. I think the vernacular has played a part in bringing the Mass down to the people instead of elevating the people up to the Heavenly Banquet. And yes, one could read their missal while Father 'does his thing'. One could also properly assist at Mass with his prayerful silence. The idea that audible recitation of set responses makes for better participation at Mass is also debatable. Lastly, for the benefit of those without missals, the Epistle and Gospel are read in English prior to the homily at the Traditional Latin Mass. - Petros Fri, 25 Nov 2011 07:25:59 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/lost-in-translation.html#comment-9010 All due respect to the learned and the wise Anthony Esolen. I prefer to keep the Traditions of Holy Mother Church and speak the Church's antique language and trust in the Holy Spirit's inspiration in St Jerome and myself. It is my duty to accept what is handed down from antiquity and Tradition in The Church, not give into arrogance and make it up as I go along. Inclusive language being a most hostile and rebellious example. I hold to Pope Leo Xiii encyclical On The Study of Holy Scripture. ..."Hence those preachers are foolish and improvident who, in speaking of religion and proclaiming the things of God, use no words but those of human science and human prudence, trusting to their own reasonings rather than to those of God. Their discourses may be brilliant and fine, but they must be feeble and must be cold, for they are without the fire of the utterance of God."... As for the rest of you? Go your own way. - Kevin Fri, 25 Nov 2011 06:40:29 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/lost-in-translation.html#comment-9004 Brian, you have got to be kidding. I know quite well that there are different registers of language in Scripture. But "produce"? What is gained by that word? The concrete, specific word "fruits" does indeed translate karpous, and of course it includes in its signification everything that "produce" includes. If someone talked about the fruit of the land, or the fruit of someone's labor, or about a project that bore fruit, we would know what he meant. Jesus uses the word "fruits" quite often -- I would hesitate before saying that there are no interesting associations to draw between this use of the word and the others. Given the choice between the striking and the pallid, or the rich and the bland, or the concrete term which implies the abstract, and the plainly abstract, I'll choose the former every time. As for "interest": that's what the word in that context literally means; we could not say "offspring." On Esther: it's my understanding that that is simply the name Ishtar, the Babylonian Venus. Am I mistaken in that? - Tony Esolen Thu, 24 Nov 2011 20:00:17 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/lost-in-translation.html#comment-9003 Michael Paterson-Seymour's observation on the text of Esther is revealing. However, the English translation presents the story line. No one-voluime translation of the Bible could contain all such commentary. Only perhaps a commentary like the New Jerome Biblical Commentary could try to do justice to all the nuances of every passage. It would probably call for a one volume translation and commentary as in the Anchor Bible series. - Flamen Thu, 24 Nov 2011 11:54:15 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/lost-in-translation.html#comment-9002 While the promotion of sacral language in prayer is very welcome, different considerations apply to Sacred Scripture where there are numerous "registers", from high to low. Viewed in this perspective, there is nothing bathetic about "produce" in this parable of the wicked tenants, any more than there is anything to object to in the use of "interest" in the parable of the talents (33rd Sunday in Ordinary time). The landlord wanted his rent in the former parable, and it was rent in kind. Indeed, "produce" is not a mistranslation of καρπός which applies not only to fruits that can be plucked from trees and vines, but also to field crops (Mt.13:26) and, by extension, to human progeny (Lk.1:42). Trees produce leaves in spring, do they not (Lk.21:30)? As for the imagery that has allegedly been squeezed out by the use of "produce" instead of "fruit(s)", none of the examples suggested by Professor Esolen has any relevance to the parable, that I can see (for example, Christ as the firstfruits of those who died – 1Co.15:20,23 – is purely accidental in English; Greek and Latin use other words for that which concentrate on the firstliness and ignore the fruitliness, so to say). Word associations are not always relevant, and can even be counter-productive. - Bain Wellington Thu, 24 Nov 2011 07:36:54 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/lost-in-translation.html#comment-8999 The task of the translator is always challenging and sometimes impossible. To take one example, in the Book of Esther, when Queen Esther says “Let the king and Haman come today" (5:4), the Hebrew has “Yavo Hamelech V'Haman Hayom,” which is an acronym of the Divine Name. This serves to remind us that the very name of the book, Megillas Esther means “the revealing of the hidden,” for the word Megillah, a scroll comes from “galuy,” meaning “revealed” and the name Esther is from “hester,” meaning “hidden” Indeed, the whole story is about the hidden hand of God. What is the translator to do with this? - Michael Paterson-Seymour Thu, 24 Nov 2011 02:42:14 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/lost-in-translation.html#comment-8994 Thanks for the encouragement, gentlemen. To Dave: a comrade of mine in the trenches for preserving a knowledge of Christian literature has recently suggested that he and I come up with a revised Douay-Rheims-Challoner, after the fashion of the revised King Jameses. I think it's a terrific idea. (My comrade is not even Catholic.) Also: Baronius Press has for several years been just about to publish a Psalter based on the Vulgate texts. Yours truly was commissioned to translate 100 of the Psalms. That was before I learned a little Hebrew ... Meanwhile ... the great historian (and convert) Robert Louis Wilken has given me an article on the deliberate leveling and desacralizing that went into the post-Vatican II Mass. I haven't read the article yet. I will say, frankly, that I've attended the Novus Ordo all my life, and that any desacralizing that was done in the Latin text was as nothing compared with the desacralizing done in the English translation. My most recent reading of Sacrosanctum Concilium suggests to me that the Council fathers wanted to make the beauty of the liturgy, of the daily office, and of the Church's treasury of chant and hymnody MORE readily available to the people, not less. That is, if you read the document itself and not the tendentious notes that editors append to it, you will see how flagrantly its directives have been disobeyed, and in the very name of the council itself. Priests and liturgists and bureaucrats and renegade nuns invoked the council to contradict what the council expressly said, in favor of a vast land of conditionals and subjunctives: what they would have said, what they might have said, if only, if only. I'd dearly love to hear a conversation like this someday: "Why are we chanting this prayer in Latin during Advent?" "Because Vatican II says we should." "Why are we dusting off the pipe organ?" "Because Vatican II says we should." I have blamed the Council for not seeing the train careening toward the brick wall -- the sexual revolution. A more careful reading of the texts shows me that the Fathers did indeed address that matter. There were all kinds of stupid mistakes made afterwards, some of them in bad faith.... - Tony Esolen Wed, 23 Nov 2011 17:52:06 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/lost-in-translation.html#comment-8993 @Scaevola: Please cite for me precisely in the Acts of the Apostles where the Novus Ordo Missae "seemed good to the Holy Spirit". The Extraordinary Form was THE Ordinary Form until 1972 which is why on Nov. 27th you will hear in English the responses of the traditional Mass. - Manfred Wed, 23 Nov 2011 16:41:48 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/lost-in-translation.html#comment-8992 Dr. Esolen, I join the other commenters in thanking yoiu for an insightful and inspiring piece, and in hoping the the lectionary might be the next priority for liturgical translation along the "functional equivalence" lines used in the corrected translation. And I am also thankful that we have an imminent answer to your ultimate question, at least with regard to the Ordo, to wit, this coming Sunday! Pax et bonum, Keith Töpfer - Martial Artist Wed, 23 Nov 2011 15:14:56 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/lost-in-translation.html#comment-8991 @Manfred One must remember that the Novus Ordo is also the Ordinary Rite of the Church. A rite, it must be added, that "seemed good to the Holy Spirit," to quote Acts of the Apostles. - Scaevola Wed, 23 Nov 2011 13:50:00 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/lost-in-translation.html#comment-8989 Thanks for an inspiring piece. Modern education has dumbed down our language, not to mention the effects of texting. A good example, (which Fr. Neuhaus repeatedly pointed out) is the NAB translation in 2 Timothy4:7 "I have competed well", rather than following the imaginative words in other translations "I have fought the good fight". We need more uplifting language. - senex Wed, 23 Nov 2011 12:14:54 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/lost-in-translation.html#comment-8988 @Petros: For the 98% of weekly Catholic Mass attendees who do not understand Latin: Would you have us just read the old Fr. Stedman weekly missals while the presider does his thing? If we are to get any benefit from the Epistle, Gradual and Gospel readings, they must be in a language that we can understand. TeaPot562 - TeaPot562 Wed, 23 Nov 2011 11:14:28 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/lost-in-translation.html#comment-8987 Thank you for this beautiful essay. It is so well stated. We are often so mechanistic today. But, as you point out, we are made to love beauty, savor food, and to speak soulfully. At a practical level, it might be nice for some of us, whether you or others in the blogosphere, to begin to collect our concerns by way of example. I personally stumble over a lot of the current lectionary when proclaiming it just because my soul is soaring but the words, often so dull and earthbound, drag me down. Again, thank you. - Msgr Charles Pope Wed, 23 Nov 2011 09:30:26 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/lost-in-translation.html#comment-8986 "Cardboard Twinkie" -- perfect! But of course now you must apologize to Twinkies! - Mack Hall Wed, 23 Nov 2011 09:11:36 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/lost-in-translation.html#comment-8985 Three words: Traditional Latin Mass - Petros Wed, 23 Nov 2011 08:17:16 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/lost-in-translation.html#comment-8984 Thank you, Professor Esolen, thank you. The translations used in the Breviary seem somewhat better; but the RSVCE is, understand, the official English translation of the Church. Seems to me it should be the translation used in the lectionary. Better yet, an updating of the Challoner Douay-Rheims Bible, retaining its poetry while eliminating archaic usages, would go far to restore the poetry of the text and place the language of the readings at the same elevated level as the now correctly translated Novus Ordo. However and alas, the USCCB owns the copyright on the NAB, so I fear no change is in sight. Let us hope they authorize an update of CDR and own that copyright as well. - Dave Wed, 23 Nov 2011 01:45:34 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/lost-in-translation.html#comment-8983 @Dr. Esolen: This is the third English translation in forty years. Would you not suspect that this indicates that the Novus Ordo Church has gotten other things wrong as well? How about Bauhaus moral theology? Instead of just replastering the wall every few years to cover the blunders, I think it is time for Council of Trent II or Vatican III. Would you not agree? - Manfred Wed, 23 Nov 2011 01:28:06 +0100