New mistakes in new translation

  • Thread starter Thread starter Qoeleth
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Q

Qoeleth

Guest
The most recent translation of the Mass seems to have introduced an error into the translation of the Nicene Creed, at the following point:
“Et incarnátus est de Spíritu Sancto xx María Vírgine, et homo factus est.”

Now, the new translation renders it thus:
“And by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man.”

It seems as if they are taking some licence in using “became man”. The verb is clearly “factus est”- “is made.”
 
I do not think that it is a misatake, it is simply more of a dynamic translation than a purely literal one. The same comment could be made with “rose again” when translating “resurréxit”.
 
Qoeleth said:
The most recent translation of the Mass seems to have introduced an error into the translation of the Nicene Creed, at the following point:
“Et incarnátus est de Spíritu Sancto xx María Vírgine, et homo factus est.”

Now, the new translation renders it thus:
“And by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man.”

It seems as if they are taking some licence in using “became man”. The verb is clearly “factus est”- “is made.”
Click to expand...
You can always let ICEL know. 😉
 
This isn’t an error; it just isn’t taken literally. Besides, if one said “is made,” that may imply that Jesus (as God) had a beginning. Or, at the very least, I can see people easily thinking that, and commenting on why one part of the Creed says he wasn’t made, and another says he was.
 
I’m far to tired to comment on specifics, but as some have said before, the corrected translation isn’t perfect either, it’s just much, much better. Mark Thompson has a good post somewhere outlining some similar type problems in the agnus dei.
 
Qoeleth said:
It seems as if they are taking some licence in using “became man”. The verb is clearly “factus est”- “is made.”
Click to expand...
Indeed. Except it’s perfect tense. So is “incarnatus est” for that matter.
 
Qoeleth said:
The most recent translation of the Mass seems to have introduced an error into the translation of the Nicene Creed, at the following point:
“Et incarnátus est de Spíritu Sancto xx María Vírgine, et homo factus est.”

Now, the new translation renders it thus:
“And by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man.”

It seems as if they are taking some licence in using “became man”. The verb is clearly “factus est”- “is made.”
Click to expand...
Factus est cannot necessarily be taken at face value as being the passive of facio, intended in the hands-on sense of “do, make.” It could mean that, of course. The problem is that fio, which means “become, take place, be done,” is defective and lacks a perfect tense. The perfect of fio is conventionally supplied by the perfect passive of facio (much as fio itself almost always stands in for the extremely rare present passive of facio).

One should really understand the Greek word ἐνανθρωπήσαντα before trying to decide whether the ambiguous Latin expression “factus est” is better rendered in English in an active (became) or passive (was made) sense. For that, though, you will need a Greek scholar. Either way, it is definitely not just a “translation mistake” in some facile Latin 101 sense. I can at least say that according to this source it means to “put on man’s nature” and is in the active voice. That would seem to indicate that “was made man” would be a dead wrong translation.

Hope this helps.
 
ProVobis said:
Indeed. Except it’s perfect tense. So is “incarnatus est” for that matter.
Click to expand...
I have some problems with the practice of translating Latin passive perfect with “was” combined with the passive past participle. I mean, we would translate “consummatum est” as “it IS finished”, never “it was finished.”

By analogy, it would seem more faithful to tranlate “factum est” as “is made”, and “incarnatus est” as “is incarnated”. There is more dynamism and closer fidelity to the Latin by using the present perfect.
 
Qoeleth said:
The most recent translation of the Mass seems to have introduced an error into the translation of the Nicene Creed, at the following point:
“Et incarnátus est de Spíritu Sancto xx María Vírgine, et homo factus est.”

Now, the new translation renders it thus:
“And by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man.”

It seems as if they are taking some licence in using “became man”. The verb is clearly “factus est”- “is made.”
Click to expand...
Historical Present.

This is Latin 201.

Elsewhere in the Creed: “passus et sepultus est”, not “erat”.

Historical Present is a literary feature of John’s Gospel too, in Greek, and for the most part Jerome translated it accordingly.

HP is rare in English except in informal speech, e.g “So last night we arrive at the restaurant, and she says to the hostess, ‘Table for two, please’”, etc.
 
Qoeleth said:
I have some problems with the practice of translating Latin passive perfect with “was” combined with the passive past participle. I mean, we would translate “consummatum est” as “it IS finished”, never “it was finished.”

By analogy, it would seem more faithful to tranlate “factum est” as “is made”, and “incarnatus est” as “is incarnated”. There is more dynamism and closer fidelity to the Latin by using the present perfect.
Click to expand...
There is some truth to that. Translations usually involve philosophies and to an extent, consistencies. If one is given instructions to capture all the nuances, then the translator would probably come up with phrases which wouldn’t make grammatical sense in the English. OTOH, if the instructions are to make everything literal AND grammatically correct, then the closest cognate would be chosen (for example, consubstantial, incarnate, visible, etc.) and the voice and tense adjusted to make it consistent throughout. That is not to say that the translation is perfect, however, because it very seldom is, especially when translating an ancient language in its ancient wording to a modern changing language. (Try translating it back into the Latin and see if you get the same Latin.) Also, there are some differences between the Latin and the Greek which further complicate the translation process. As I’ve stated before, English is a wonderful analytical language but as far as translations into it go, not so much.
 
It is “homo factus est” not just “factus est” thats a difference.
 
Qoeleth said:
I have some problems with the practice of translating Latin passive perfect with “was” combined with the passive past participle. I mean, we would translate “consummatum est” as “it IS finished”, never “it was finished.”

By analogy, it would seem more faithful to tranlate “factum est” as “is made”, and “incarnatus est” as “is incarnated”. There is more dynamism and closer fidelity to the Latin by using the present perfect.
Click to expand...
Qoeleth:

Regardless of our preferences, “factum est” (it has become, it has been made), “consummatum est” (it has been finished), and “incarnatus est” (he has been enfleshed) are all perfect tense, and not present tense.

In Latin, the present tense form for “it is made” or “it becomes” would be “fit” rather than “factum est”; “it is finished” would be “consummatur”; “he is enfleshed” would be “incarnatur”.

You will learn these things in Latin 101.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top