L
lak611
Guest
. . . continued from last post.
Here’s the 22nd Psalm from the Douay-Rheims:
Here’s the 22nd Psalm from the Douay-Rheims:
- Status
E
Epistemes
Guest
I own a copy of the Second Edition New American Catholic Study Bible. At the front of this study bible is a reading guide, including articles from various people regarding biblical archaeology, Catholic interpretation of the Bible, and one section, authored by Ronald D. Witherup, S.S., Ph.D., concerning “The Challenges of Biblical Translation.” Initially reading his summary of these challenges caused me to be sympathetic to the NAB – as mentioned above (in another post).
I’ve always been sympathetic when it comes to OT passages, not knowing Hebrew myself but knowing enough to allow that it’s a fairly ridiculous language to translate into English. Anyone who doesn’t cross-reference the LXX is a fool.Ronald D. Witherup, SS., Ph.D., is Provincial of the U.S. Province of Supicians and former academic professor of Sacred Scripture at St. Patrick’s Seminary in Menlo Park, California. He holds a doctorate in biblical studies from Union Theological Seminary in Richmond, Virginia. That’s the man’s credentials for commenting on the difficulties present in every translation. And here’s what he has to say about “the case of inclusive language”:
He begins by saying,
The NAB, for instance, has taken the stance that moderate attention to horizontal inclusive language is appropriate for a contemporary English translation…because…*Inclusive language means language that includes rather excludes. *
He goes on by saying,
The principle of inclusivity has also been applied to biblical language about God (e.g., vertical inclusive language). Some object to the overabundance of masculine terminology for God in the Bible, although it is an understandable outgrowth of a patriarchal culture. Theologically, since God is a spirit and is neither male nor female, biblical language about God, in fact, has its limitations. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church points out:
God transcends all creatures. We must therefore continually purify our language of everything in it that is limited, image-bound or imperfect, if we are not to confuse our image of God - “the inexpressible, the incomprehensible, the invisible, the ungraspable” - with our human representations. Our human words always fall short of the mystery of God. (CCC 42)
To refer to God as “he” or to call God a rock or a fortress, a sheperd, etc. is to use metaphorical and analogous language to describe how God acts toward people or how we experience God.
…
Then, beneath his summation on the “characteristics of the NAB translation,” he mentions:
The NAB utilizes modest horizontal inclusive language wherever possible and where it would not distort the text. As much as possible, where the text necessarily requires an inclusive reading, such is rendered in the English translation. The translation does not employ vertical inclusive language.
Obviously, the last sentence is misleading since the Psalms, as evidenced, do include vertical inclusive language. So much for sympathy.
M
mmortal03
Guest
Or, it is simply to use what has always been in English the first person singular pronoun. See: dictionary.reference.com/search?q=he&x=0&y=0 , definition 2.
There is the case where “he” is used to mean a male individual, and then there is the case where “he” is used to mean one human individual. The first case should be left alone. The second case should ALSO be left alone, because using, literally, “he or she” and also using “everyone” along with “his or her” are tedious, and using “they” or “those” loses the singular context.
M
Manfred
Guest
Oh, my; there are alarms sounding all over the place here. My sympathies on your being taken in by this “scholar”.I own a copy of the Second Edition New American Catholic Study Bible. At the front of this study bible is a reading guide, including articles from various people regarding biblical archaeology, Catholic interpretation of the Bible, and one section, authored by Ronald D. Witherup, S.S., Ph.D., concerning “The Challenges of Biblical Translation.” Initially reading his summary of these challenges caused me to be sympathetic to the NAB – as mentioned above (in another post).
Ronald D. Witherup, SS., Ph.D., is Provincial of the U.S. Province of Supicians and former academic professor of Sacred Scripture at St. Patrick’s Seminary in Menlo Park, California. He holds a doctorate in biblical studies from Union Theological Seminary in Richmond, Virginia. That’s the man’s credentials for commenting on the difficulties present in every translation. And here’s what he has to say about “the case of inclusive language”:
He begins by saying,
The NAB, for instance, has taken the stance that moderate attention to horizontal inclusive language is appropriate for a contemporary English translation…because…*Inclusive language means language that includes rather excludes. *
He goes on by saying,
The principle of inclusivity has also been applied to biblical language about God (e.g., vertical inclusive language). Some object to the overabundance of masculine terminology for God in the Bible, although it is an understandable outgrowth of a patriarchal culture. Theologically, since God is a spirit and is neither male nor female, biblical language about God, in fact, has its limitations. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church points out:
God transcends all creatures. We must therefore continually purify our language of everything in it that is limited, image-bound or imperfect, if we are not to confuse our image of God - “the inexpressible, the incomprehensible, the invisible, the ungraspable” - with our human representations. Our human words always fall short of the mystery of God. (CCC 42)
To refer to God as “he” or to call God a rock or a fortress, a sheperd, etc. is to use metaphorical and analogous language to describe how God acts toward people or how we experience God.
…
Then, beneath his summation on the “characteristics of the NAB translation,” he mentions:
The NAB utilizes modest horizontal inclusive language wherever possible and where it would not distort the text. As much as possible, where the text necessarily requires an inclusive reading, such is rendered in the English translation. The translation does not employ vertical inclusive language.
Obviously, the last sentence is misleading since the Psalms, as evidenced, do include vertical inclusive language. So much for sympathy.
M
Manfred
Guest
And to think that some are amazed that the Vatican posts all the books of the NAB (1970 OT, 1986 NT) except for the Psalms on its web site. It’s a real shame the Vatican didn’t demand the USCCB either post the 1970 Psalms or take the rest of the NAB off as well.
I have a friend, a former co-worker now retired and living in Florida, who insists that inclusive language is dead. Sure it is.
C
Cranch
Guest
Well, if your bible contains the revised Psalms of 1991, then his statement is in contradiction with the NAB’s own footnote in this case.Then, beneath his summation on the “characteristics of the NAB translation,” he mentions:
The NAB utilizes modest horizontal inclusive language wherever possible and where it would not distort the text. As much as possible, where the text necessarily requires an inclusive reading, such is rendered in the English translation. The translation does not employ vertical inclusive language.
Obviously, the last sentence is misleading since the Psalms, as evidenced, do include vertical inclusive language. So much for sympathy.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
This may only partially answer your question, but, where the earlier NAB Psalms used masculine singular “man”, the revised psalter has used the plural. The main problem with this is that a particular instance, now interpreted as applicable to all of mankind, er, humanity, tends to obscure any reference to Christ the Man.
That’s speciesist - say instead “perthingkind”. “Personkind” is boyist, which is not allowed. (I wonder whether feminists studying Russian history object to reading about boyars)
Psalm 32 - “Blessed is the man whose sins are forgiven…” is now “Blessed are those whose…”. This sort of thing is a very bad idea, because it substitutes vagueness for precision & inaccuracy for accuracy - in addition to which, it blurs the Christological application of the Psalms; which is in some ways the most serious loss of all. The “man” of Psalm 1 is above all, because in the fullest sense, Christ Himself - pluralising the noun loses this reference.
M
Manfred
Guest
Careful about Psalm 32(31); the D-R reads thus:That’s speciesist
1 Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. 2 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord hath not imputed sin, and in whose spirit there is no guile.
The RSV, however, does agree with what you indicate:
1 Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered.
2 Blessed is the man to whom the LORD imputes no iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no deceit.
For Psalm 1, however, only weenie translations changed “man” to something else.
- Status