jhpb@lancia.att.com (06/07/89)
There's a publisher in Illinois who is going to reprint the Douay-Rheims
translation of the Bible. He sent out a letter that explains why he's
doing this, given that there are several more modern Catholic
translations available. Some of his reasons were illuminating.
Some background:
The Douay-Rheims is a "slavishly" literal translation of the Latin
Vulgate edition. (Though the Douay-Rheims edition I have -- the same
one that's going to be reprinted -- notes that the translation was done
with an eye on the original languages.)
The Vulgate was put together by St. Jerome around the year 400, from the
original languages. (A somewhat novel concept at the time, for which
St. Jerome was criticized. The Septuagint was regarded by a number of
people back then as an inspired translation.) It eventually became
"the" translation in the West, though this took centuries.
There are a few things about the Vulgate that should not be ignored,
even when working with the original languages. Namely, St. Jerome had
access to manuscripts that are no longer extant, his Hebrew and Greek
were as fluent as our English, and he was 1600 years closer to the
originals than we are.
The importance of the Vulgate in the Catholic Church is due to a
decision of the Council of Trent:
"...[the Council] has decided and declares that the said old Vulgate
edition [of all the Latin versions in existence], which has been
approved by the Church itself through long usage for so many centuries
in public lectures, disputations, sermons, and expositions, be
considered authentic, and that no one under any pretext whatsoever dare
or presume to reject it."
The Vulgate was chosen for theological reasons (its long usage in the
Church), not critical. (Interestingly enough, the Vulgate is, according
to an encyclical on Sacred Scripture by Pius XII, "entirely free of
error" in matters of faith and morals.) Note also that this decision of
Trent only applies to Latin versions.
On to the letter I mentioned.
The publisher (Thomas A. Nelson) [no connection with the Protestant
Bible publisher Thomas Nelson --clh] finds fault with modern Catholic
translations for several reasons, two of which are:
- the use of word meanings that, while generically correct, are not
correct in context.
- the expression of the translator's ideas of what a verse means, rather
what the original literally says.
And he gives some interesting examples. Here is Luke 1:34 in the
original Greek:
pos (how) estai (shall be done) touto (this) epei (because) andra (man)
ou (not) ginosko (I know).
The DR has:
How shall this be done, because I know not man?
So far so good, a strictly literal translation. But here's how it gets
mangled:
How can this be since I do not know man? (New American Bible)
But how can this come about, since I am a virgin? (Jerusalem Bible)
"How can this be?" said Mary, "I am still a virgin." (New English Bible)
Notice the (significant) change from "shall" to "can", making the
Blessed Virgin Mary appear to doubt the words of the angel who is
appearing to her. Very strange for a Roman Catholic Bible.
Notice also that the JB and the NEB introduce the word "virgin", which
is not in the original. The translators have rather paraphrased than
translated.
Also, the NEB version, by inserting the word "still", suggests that our
Lady planned to settle down and have children some day.
Here's Luke 1:28 in the DR:
Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee...
and in the NAB:
Rejoice, O highly favored daughter!...
The word translated "grace" in the DR ("gratia" in the Vulgate) is "charis"
in Greek.
Mr. Nelson notes that "it does not take any particular mental acumen to
distinguish the difference between being 'full of grace' and 'highly
favored'. 'Favor' or 'favored' is one of the meanings for 'charis', but
not the one intended by the writers of Scripture."
This verse is a little scandalous; the NAB version is apparently the one
used in the Roman Catholic liturgy in this country. Somehow the new
"Hail Mary" just doesn't have the same ring to it: "Rejoice, Mary, O
highly favored daughter!..."
I don't intend to suggest that it's the ultimate translation in all
points, but I don't think I'll give up my Douay-Rheims any time soon.
Joe Buehler
[I'm supplying the following for those without access to the Greek who
want to understand the specific texts involved. (Though that's really
irrelevant to the purpose of the article -- I'm sure Joe didn't really
intend to start discussions on those specific passages. They're just
examples that Nelson cited.)
Lk 1:34: The literal translation would be "how will this be?" POS can
(but need not) mean "how is it possible that", and ESTAI (future tense
of "to be") is, as in many languages, capable of many meanings. So
I'm not surprised to see that depending upon their reading of the
context DR seems to read this question as being a request for
information on how the angel's promise will be implemented and others
read it as "how can this be?" Note that DR is not a literal
translation. By adding "done" they are choosing one possible
interpretation. A literal translation would leave both options open,
as in RSV and NIV, which opt for the more literal but ambiguous "how
shall this be?" NEB, NAB, TEV, and JB opt for "how can this be?"
This particular split is not surprising, since NEB, TEV, and JB are
"dynamic equivalence" translations. I would read "how can this be?"
as simply an expression of surprise. It needn't imply that Mary was
seriously questioning the revelation.
Interestingly, the second edition of JB moves from "virgin" back to
"since I have no knowledge of man", a phrase quite inconsistent with
JB's usual idiomatic use of English.
There's no separate word for "still", but I don't know enough about
the subtleties of Greek verbs to know whether it's implied in some
way. Only the NEB has "still". Of course Protestants would assume
that Mary did in fact plan to settle down and have children, or she
wouldn't have been marrying Joseph. However there is a Catholic
tradition that she and Joseph had taken a vow of abstinence.
Interestingly, JB first edition has a footnote saying "this phrase
indicates that Mary is in fact a virgin and perhaps expresses also her
intention to remain so." JB second edition says "Nothing in the text
suggests a vow of virginity."
Lk 1:28: "full of grace" is from Joe's comments a translation of the
Latin rather than the Greek. There is no indication of any textual
issues in this passage in the UBS Greek. "full of grace" translates a
single verbal form KECHARITOMENE, the perfect middle of the verb
CHARITOU: bestow favor on, favor highly, bless. The word CHARIS,
meaning favor, grace, help, etc., is certainly related, but is not
actually in the text. Joe has suggested that my lexicon may be biased
in not mentioning "full of grace" as as possible translation of
CHARITOU. Again, I make no claim to Greek expertise, so I should
probably just report what I find in standard reference books. (I'm
using the compact edition of Gingrich, a standard NT Greek lexicon.)
But I'd think even if you used a form with grace in it, it would be
not "full of grace" so much as "one to whom grace has been shown". In
effect it would be "graced" rather than "blessed". Here is how the
translations I have translate this:
JB (2): "you who enjoy God's favor
JB (1): "so highly favored"
TEV: "The Lord ... has greatly blessed you"
NAB: "Oh highly favored daughter"
NEB: "most favored one"
NIV: "you who are highly favored"
RSV: "O favored one"
TEV and the second edition of JB both add God as the agent. In effect
they read KECHARITOMENE as being "favored by God". Jewish tradition
was to avoid mentioning God's name, so they often used passive
constructs where we would use active ones with God as the subject. I
assume that's what TEV and JB are postulating here.
--clh]