Yes, it is. That is the difference between equivalent and equal. You may not agree, but one can’t deny that at least somewhere, some educated translators thought it an acceptable equivalency. No, I will not buy into Mark’s conspiratorial assigning of motive, either, though considering how he worded his first sentence, I believe my signature to be applicable.
No, in many places – and I impute no motive, and frankly suspect that they had good (if misguided) motives – they simply opted to rewrite. Let’s look at the Prayer Over the Gifts for the Eighth Sunday of Ordinary Time:
Latin
Deus, qui offerenda tuo nomini tribuis, et oblata devotioni nostrae servitutis ascribis, quaesumus clementiam tuam, ut, quod praestas unde sit meritum, proficere nobis largiaris ad praemium.
New Translation
O God, who provide gifts to be offered to your name and count our oblations as a token of devoted service, we ask of your mercy, that what you grant as the source of merit you may also bestow upon us as a prize.
1973 Translation
God our Creator, may this bread and wine we offer as a sign of our love and worship lead us to salvation.
You see, of course, that the general theme of the prayer is roughly the same, but that whole chunks of meaning, including the whole last half of the prayer, were simply
removed – not “translated” in any way, shape, or form. Some bits were added too, like God “our Creator.” I’m well aware of what dynamic translation is, and I favor it in certain cases and to a limited measure over too-mindless literalism. The above is not an authentic example of dynamic translation.
