The new translation is horrible

[MarkThompson]

Hi Michael,

I agree that “and with your Spirit” is a good translation of the Latin text.

However, it’s the “be” in “The Lord BE with you” that’s incorrect for the reasons that I explained above, so I’d have to disagree with your translation of that phrase. The correct translation of “Dominus Vobiscum” is: “The Lord IS with you,” which is a statement of fact, not an “entreaty,” neither here nor in the ostensible biblical quote. This problem also affects the meaning and understanding of the people’s response, it seems to me.

I suppose Catholics could say that this is just a minor problem that should be overlooked in light of other improvements. But it seems to me that it’s generally distasteful to be using the imperative in any prayer addressed to God–we are not here to order God around and to do our bidding (which is why I put entreaty in quotes)–especially in a prayer that is repeated so often. Since the translation is incorrect anyway, this seems to only add insult to injury.

Just a couple of notes:

1. “The Lord be with you” is not grammatically an imperative.
2. Our prayers to God, in both English and Latin, are absolutely packed with imperatives. Think of “Give us this day our daily bread” . . . “Deliver us, Lord, from every evil” . . . “Pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death” . . . and on and on. You’d have a hard time finding a prayer that didn’t address God with an imperative.
3. “Dominus vobiscum” doesn’t really mean “The Lord IS with you.” In the Latin there’s really no verb at all, so supplying a verb (or the sense of one) is left to our best interpretation of what the intended sense and implication of the greeting is. Imagine trying to translate English “Good morning!” into another language where those two words by themselves didn’t form a grammatically sufficient phrase. Would you wind up with “The morning is good!” or “You are having a good morning!”, or something more like “Have a good morning!” or “May you have a good morning!” The first two (indicative-mood) constructions add as little as possible to the direct words of the English, but it’s the last two (an imperative and a subjunctive construction) that make for successful translations. My understanding is that that’s likewise the case with “The Lord be with you” for Dominus vobiscum.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

?? I am not seeing the inclusive language (but then, I didn’t look at the currecnt LOTH). What are you referring to?

In Ps. 98:13, from the Hebrew text we have something like “…to quiet/calm him in the days of evil until a pit is dug for the wicked.” (The sense being that one of the roles of the law and discipline of the LORD is to calm those who are experiencing “days of evil”; it’s essentially a result clause. A nice message I think!)

NAB, according to the Adoremus Bulletin (I don’t have it in front of me) says: “You give him rest from evil days, while a pit is being dug for the wicked.” Not too bad, but the above is better, in my opinion

Revised Grail, again according to the Adoremus Bulletin, has: …to whóm you give péace in evil dáys, while the pít is being dúg for the wícked.

“Him” in the Hebrew text and the NAB is translated: “to whom.” Changing masculine pronouns in the original texts (he/him) to a relative pronoun (whom) in this manner is a very common technique for those who wish to present translations that are more inclusive. Again, we can’t judge from one snippet, but it does make you wonder what is actually happening.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Just a couple of notes:

1. “The Lord be with you” is not grammatically an imperative.
2. Our prayers to God, in both English and Latin, are absolutely packed with imperatives. Think of “Give us this day our daily bread” . . . “Deliver us, Lord, from every evil” . . . “Pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death” . . . and on and on. You’d have a hard time finding a prayer that didn’t address God with an imperative.
3. “Dominus vobiscum” doesn’t really mean “The Lord IS with you.” In the Latin there’s really no verb at all, so supplying a verb (or the sense of one) is left to our best interpretation of what the intended sense and implication of the greeting is. Imagine trying to translate English “Good morning!” into another language where those two words by themselves didn’t form a grammatically sufficient phrase. Would you wind up with “The morning is good!” or “You are having a good morning!”, or something more like “Have a good morning!” or “May you have a good morning!” The first two (indicative-mood) constructions add as little as possible to the direct words of the English, but it’s the last two (an imperative and a subjunctive construction) that make for successful translations. My understanding is that that’s likewise the case with “The Lord be with you” for Dominus vobiscum.

I think we’d have to disagree on #1.

#2–good point. I still don’t like the imperative in prayers at all, but good point.

#3 Agree there’s no verb in Latin; this is the copula where part A of the sentence is equivalent to part B. As I pointed out in my post above the sentence is very similar to the Hail Mary, excluding the number of people being addressed.

The real problem is that the sense of “may” is expressed using the subjunctive in Latin. “May it be done unto me…” Latin has this option, but it’s not here. And in any case, there’s no sense of the subjunctive/jussive in the Hebrew text that this text seems to be quoting.

Perhaps if you know of some other Latin examples where the copula is used in this way, it would help your case–and I would be very interested to see them. Though then I would have to question you as to why we don’t say “Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord BE with you.” This is also a greeting, by the way.

 

[SimonDodd]

If they are all the same, the why the need to “amp up the tone”? I have said it many time, Truth needs no exaggeration.

So because you have the philosophy that truth needs no exaggeration, you reject the possibility that other writers disagree? That’s not a tenable position. I happen to agree with your point, but it’s very common for people to exaggerate the force of their opinions or arguments. The insecure intellect can’t rest on the balance of probabilities; he feels that a persuasive argument isn’t good enough, and so puffs it up into the facade of an irrefutable one. We needn’t look far abroad for an example: you will find one in the OP of this thread!

Please note that this quotation appeared in an article in L’Osservatore Romano on March 19, 1965, more than four full years before the Mass of Paul VI was promulgated.

Yes, March 1965, more than a year after the consilium began its work. See Marini, op. cit. a te, at 16-17. Nor is there any reason to suppose that Bugnini began work as a blank slate, with no formed opinions on the matter. Have you ever met a liturgist without opinions on the liturgy? I can scarcely imagine such a thing!

Accordingly, I don’t understand why you would choose to impose such a strict construction on Bugnini’s statement, no matter (it seems) that the broader understanding fits our knowledge of what Bugnini believed and of what the consilium actually did. The text doesn’t require it, and the context makes it doubtful.

Suppose you’re watching a Senate debate on amending a spending bill, and Senator McCain stands up: “I’m against pork.” Do you take him to mean he’s against the specific bill under consideration? Or do you factor in what you know of the man, and correctly read his statement as a specific application of a broader principle? The latter seems far more likely, and so it is with Bugnini. I’ll readily concede that Bugnini was speaking immediately about the Good Friday prayers, but it’s commonplace that in addressing the specific, we articulate the general.

 

[otjm]

In Ps. 98:13, from the Hebrew text we have something like “…to quiet/calm him in the days of evil until a pit is dug for the wicked.” (The sense being that one of the roles of the law and discipline of the LORD is to calm those who are experiencing “days of evil”; it’s essentially a result clause. A nice message I think!)

NAB, according to the Adoremus Bulletin (I don’t have it in front of me) says: “You give him rest from evil days, while a pit is being dug for the wicked.” Not too bad, but the above is better, in my opinion

Revised Grail, again according to the Adoremus Bulletin, has: …to whóm you give péace in evil dáys, while the pít is being dúg for the wícked.

“Him” in the Hebrew text and the NAB is translated: “to whom.” Changing masculine pronouns in the original texts (he/him) to a relative pronoun (whom) in this manner is a very common technique for those who wish to present translations that are more inclusive. Again, we can’t judge from one snippet, but it does make you wonder what is actually happening.

I don’t read it that way, as the sentence starts out in #12: "Blessed the man whom you discipline…whom you train… to whom you give peace…

If they used “whom” without it referring back to "man, as all three in the sentence do, I would agree, perhaps. However, the sentence starts with “the man to whom…” and “whom” in each phrase after refers back to “the man”.

Look at it again; it may not be the best translation (as in, literal, or almost literal, from the Hebrew), but it does appear to be decent English and I just don’t see it as any more inclusive than the word “man” (if we were to take that from the Latin, “hominem”). Not trying to pick a bone, but I just don’t see it as anything but good English, and not as gender neutral, or inclusive language.

 

[Geremia]

There’s no “may” or “be” at at. (If the Latin text wanted to say this, it would be done using a subjunctive form of the verb “to be.” Dominus vobiscum is a simple copula.)

The correct translation is: “The Lord is with you.” As a simple illustration, think about the way the Hail Mary prayer is rendered in English. The words in Latin are the same, except Gabriel is speaking to a singular Mary (te) as opposed to the “y’all” form (vobis). The Hail Mary doesn’t go, “…full of grace, the Lord BE with you.”

Also, “dominus vobiscum” is ostensibly a quote from Ruth 2:4. There is no “may” or “be” there either, which would be rendered in Hebrew using jussive form of the verb “to be.”

The Latin equivalent of the English verb “to be” (sum) was—as it was also, relatively, in English, too—a late invention.

 

[patrick457]

If it never was, then why was the first translation into Latin called the Vulgate.
dictionary.reference.com/browse/Vulgate

You do have to remember though that the Vulgate came to be known as such because it was the versio vulgata, the ‘common[ly-used] translation’. ‘Common’ in the sense in that it was the standard, default translation of the Western Church at the time and was the counterpart to the Greek editio vulgata (i.e. the standard Greek text of the Bible used by the Greek Church, consisting of the Septuagint for most of the OT with the version of Theodotion used for the book of Daniel and the NT according to the Byzantine text-type), not because it was written in Vulgar Latin. Not to mention that the name was only was only applied to it during the Middle Ages, in the 13th century by Roger Bacon. St. Jerome actually never tagged his work with a name.

Throughout Late Antiquity and most of the Middle Ages, the name vulgata was applied to what is known as the Greek Vulgate, but as the acceptance of Jerome’s version overtook that of the various and manifold Vetus Latina translations in the Western Church, it too began to be considered as an editio vulgata, a Latin analogue to the older Greek editio vulgata.

 

[patrick457]

If it never was, then why was the first translation into Latin called the Vulgate.
dictionary.reference.com/browse/Vulgate

Whoa there. The word “Vulgate” comes from the adjective or participle vulgata which usually accompanied editio, and meant at first ‘current’, ‘common’ or ‘regularly used text’. It was originally used as the equivalent of the Greek phrase koine ekdosis.

Now, here’s something that I bet many Catholics don’t know: St. Jerome never tagged his work with a name. Unlike today, where translations are known by epithets such as New American Bible or Good News Translation or Revised Standard Version or Douai-Rheims Challoner, the ancients simply translated ‘the Bible’. They would sometimes use descriptive phrases to describe a particular version, but it seems that the concept of having a specific name for a translation is still foreign by that time. So no, St. Jerome never called his own work ‘the Vulgate’.

In his day, the phrase editio vulgata meant only one thing: the Greek Septuagint - or more properly, that edition of the Septuagint + Theodotion in use among Christians. St. Jerome, ironically, uses the phrase to refer to the Septuagint: “Hoc juxta Septuaginta interpretes diximus, quorum editio toto orbe vulgata est” (Comm. in Isa. 65:20; ib 30:22) Elsewhere he actually gives the Greek words (of the Septuagint) as found in editione vulgata (Comm. in Osee 7:13). St. Augustine also identifies the expression with the Septuagint (De doctr. christ., xvi. 10): “Secundum vulgatam editionem, hoc est interpretum Septuaginta.” The term was next extended to the form in which the Septuagint was at first known to the West—the Old Latin versions, although there does not appear to be any instance in the age of Jerome of the application of the term to the Latin version of the Old Testament without regard to its derivation from the Septuagint or to that of the New Testament, so that St. Jerome usually intended the Septuagint though he quoted it in Latin form. Vulgata editio, having acquired the meaning of the current or ordinarily used text of Septuagint, was once again extended to mean a corrupt or uncorrected text as opposed to the standard emended Septuagint version of Origen’s Hexapla, and in this sense is used by Jerome as synonymous with antiqua or vetus editio.

It was only very slowly that St. Jerome’s version acquired this name, the phrase editio vulgata being applied to the Septuagint or the Old Latin versions of the Septuagint sometimes down to medieval times, while Jerome’s translation was known in rather vague terms such as “our edition” (editio nostra) or “our books” (codices nostri). Friar Roger Bacon was apparently the first, in the 13th century, to apply the term vulgata in the similar sense (not exclusively, but also to the Septuagint/Vetus Latina), and this usage became classic through its acceptance by the Tridentine Council (“vetus et vulgata editio”).

So no, vulgata editio does not necessarily imply that the work was written in Vulgar Latin (or more properly, Late Latin).

 

[pnewton]

So no, vulgata editio does not necessarily imply that the work was written in Vulgar Latin (or more properly, Late Latin).

So Latin is not the unchanging language that is so frequently represented. Interesting.

 

[pnewton]

Just a couple of notes:

1. “The Lord be with you” is not grammatically an imperative.

I think I see what you are saying the phrase literally means The Lord with you. Right? The “is” verb is implied with only the context to determine meaning. So is the Lord is with you, the Lord be with you, the Lord was with you, the Lord shall be with you all equally valid, depending onf context?

 

[japhy]

So Latin is not the unchanging language that is so frequently represented. Interesting.

Of course the language developed over time, but eventually it stopped. And again, liturgical Latin was its own “dialect” of Latin, with words and constructs and characteristics not found in typical Latin.

 

[MarkThompson]

I think I see what you are saying the phrase literally means The Lord with you. Right? The “is” verb is implied with only the context to determine meaning. So is the Lord is with you, the Lord be with you, the Lord was with you, the Lord shall be with you all equally valid, depending onf context?

No, I mean that even in English “The Lord be with you” is not a grammatical imperative. It’s just not. Imperatives would be “Have the Lord with you!” (directed at the other person) or “Lord, be with him!” (directed at the Lord). A statement directed at one person expressing a hoped-for action on the part of a different person isn’t an imperative.

As far as the translation goes, the goal is to translate the sense of the Latin Dominus vobiscum into something that makes sense in English. I suspect that a breezy “Lord withya!” would come closest, as it has no verb at all but is clearly a greeting expressing a hope (rather than a statement of fact), like “Good morning!” or “Good luck!” The problem is that breeziness is not acceptable for a liturgical translation, and a more formal “The Lord with you” does not really read as a complete English thought. So if a verb is to be added to produce a usable liturgical translation, one must figure out from the context how the phrase is used, and add the right one.

 

[pnewton]

No, I mean that even in English “The Lord be with you” is not a grammatical imperative. It’s just not. Imperatives would be “Have the Lord with you!” (directed at the other person) or “Lord, be with him!” (directed at the Lord).

That is because there is no third person imperative in English. There are in other languages, so the concept can still exist.

 

[VetA]

I’m sorry, but I’m just stating facts.

This applies only to Catholics in the United States, by the way.

I mean come on. “And with your spirit”? That makes no sense in the context we say it in. “Lord I am not worthy that you be under my roof”? Taken from the Gospels, but makes no sense in the context that it’s said in during Mass. And no more “Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again”? That’s a pretty important thing to say and believe.

The Mass wasn’t too conversational. People should be able to talk to God easily and in language they understand. Now it just sounds too stiff, formal, and makes no sense.

it is more literal… Et cum spiritu tuo is the Latin. that most assuredly does not mean And also with you.

The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is not about talking with God, it is about worshiping Him and receiving His Body Blood Soul and Divinity.

the translation that is horrible is the one we currently have it is not literal enough and quite possibly cause some confusion about church doctrines IMO

 

[Dave_Noonan]

I think I see what you are saying the phrase literally means The Lord with you. Right?

Yes, exactly.

The “is” verb is implied with only the context to determine meaning. So is the Lord is with you, the Lord be with you, the Lord was with you, the Lord shall be with you all equally valid, depending onf context?

#1 is the default in Latin. #2 is more of a wish or command, which would lead a writer of Latin to use a subjunctive form of the verb “to be”–but I’m still open to the possibility if someone can show examples that it COULD POSSIBLY mean this. #3 and #4–usually this construction of leaving out “is” in the present tense (the copula) is not used in this way, but I can think of loose examples of #3.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

No, I mean that even in English “The Lord be with you” is not a grammatical imperative. It’s just not. Imperatives would be “Have the Lord with you!” (directed at the other person) or “Lord, be with him!” (directed at the Lord). A statement directed at one person expressing a hoped-for action on the part of a different person isn’t an imperative.

As far as the translation goes, the goal is to translate the sense of the Latin Dominus vobiscum into something that makes sense in English. I suspect that a breezy “Lord withya!” would come closest, as it has no verb at all but is clearly a greeting expressing a hope (rather than a statement of fact), like “Good morning!” or “Good luck!” The problem is that breeziness is not acceptable for a liturgical translation, and a more formal “The Lord with you” does not really read as a complete English thought. So if a verb is to be added to produce a usable liturgical translation, one must figure out from the context how the phrase is used, and add the right one.

Ok, good point on the first paragraph–except I’d say that if one is forced to translate: “the Lord be with you” I’m not even sure who is being addressed–is it the priest or God? (Maybe the priest, but the people hope that God overhears?) It’s an odd manner of speaking because the origination of the action is not desired from the person addressed. When omnipotent and omniscient beings are part of the grammatical equation, it gets complicated I guess.

I agree that “The Lord with you” is not an English sentence (I think we’d have to go with “Lord with y’all” actually ). Still, the expression of wishes and desires of this manner is expressed in Latin via the subjunctive. Even in the context of a greeting (but along with the contexts of where similar phrases appear in the Vulgate) I still can’t see how it could reasonably be anything else but “the Lord is with you” as an observation of fact (again, cf. “dominus tecum” which I told you I’d quiz you about ) versus “the Lord be with you” as a hope or wish–for which Latin has a perfectly good means of expression at its disposal, but it isn’t being used here. Maybe what you’re saying is that the INTENT is the “wish/hope”? Then I’d probably respond that the Latin seems poorly utilized to express that.

BUT I’m still certainly very open to any Latin examples of a copula (a verbless sentence) where the context requires anything other than “is”.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

I don’t read it that way, as the sentence starts out in #12: "Blessed the man whom you discipline…whom you train… to whom you give peace…

If they used “whom” without it referring back to "man, as all three in the sentence do, I would agree, perhaps. However, the sentence starts with “the man to whom…” and “whom” in each phrase after refers back to “the man”.

Look at it again; it may not be the best translation (as in, literal, or almost literal, from the Hebrew), but it does appear to be decent English and I just don’t see it as any more inclusive than the word “man” (if we were to take that from the Latin, “hominem”). Not trying to pick a bone, but I just don’t see it as anything but good English, and not as gender neutral, or inclusive language.

No, I wouldn’t say it’s wrong, or an error in terms of a good English sentence that captures the broad sense of the Hebrew verse–the only thing (I’ll repeat) is that this is a very common but subtle technique used to avoid the word “he”. For example, some recent translations of the Creed (only non-Catholic ones, as far as I know) have changed the masculine pronoun “he” in referring to the Holy Spirit to “who”: e.g., “…who has spoken through the prophets” vs. “He has spoken to the prophets.” Technically, one cannot balk at all at the translation because the underlying Greek text utilizes the relative pronoun as well. Fine by me. But, I’m 100% positive that the intent–because of the CHANGE in the English text-- was to minimize using “he” to refer to Holy Spirit.

And again, one verse isn’t going to tell us anything. Still, the change is curious.

Also, (which I think I said above) I’m not sure exactly what the nature of the Psalm translation project is, other than “revision.” If the nature of the project is to move to a more LITERAL translation, then I’d say they would have had a fairly good one to use in the NAB, but chose not to use it for some reason, which is odd. If they’re trying to do something else entirely, then I guess I’d have to look at what they are doing in a different light.

 

[otjm]

No, I wouldn’t say it’s wrong, or an error in terms of a good English sentence that captures the broad sense of the Hebrew verse–the only thing (I’ll repeat) is that this is a very common but subtle technique used to avoid the word “he”. For example, some recent translations of the Creed (only non-Catholic ones, as far as I know) have changed the masculine pronoun “he” in referring to the Holy Spirit to “who”: e.g., “…who has spoken through the prophets” vs. “He has spoken to the prophets.” Technically, one cannot balk at all at the translation because the underlying Greek text utilizes the relative pronoun as well. Fine by me. But, I’m 100% positive that the intent–because of the CHANGE in the English text-- was to minimize using “he” to refer to Holy Spirit.

And again, one verse isn’t going to tell us anything. Still, the change is curious.

Also, (which I think I said above) I’m not sure exactly what the nature of the Psalm translation project is, other than “revision.” If the nature of the project is to move to a more LITERAL translation, then I’d say they would have had a fairly good one to use in the NAB, but chose not to use it for some reason, which is odd. If they’re trying to do something else entirely, then I guess I’d have to look at what they are doing in a different light.

Well, If you want to write what you would have preferred, I suppose we could see if it makes sense. However, since the whole sentence starts out with “the man whom…”, I simply do not see how you can take the use of “whom” in the next two phrases to be referring to any (thing, person) except the originally stated “man”. To not use “whom” in the next two phrases requires a lot more wordage. It is simply good use of English, and I think you are a bit overly sensitive to inclusive language, for the simple reason that I would never see it as referring to any (thing, person) other than the “man” in the first phrase.

Anyhow, if you want to re-write it, see if you can do so in a way that is not “inclusive” and does not create chaos in the sentence.

In other words, yes, elsewhere those who want inclusive language may have taken out a non-inclusive (or allegedly non-inclusive) word and replaced it with “who” or “whom”. But that does not at all appear to be the case here. It is simply a sentence with three phrases, the last two which refer to the first, which says “man”. In short, simply good English, with no reference whatsoever to inclusivety.

I guess what I am saying is that while those who want inclusive language may use “who” or 'whom" to replace words seen as not inclusive, the use of those does not necessarily automatically equate with inclusive language. They were a normal part of language before the issue of inclusive language made its way into translations.

 

[Acolythus_sum]

The Latin, from which this translation came, says for the quoted text:

Qui locutus est per prophetas.

A translation in use now in Tridentine Mass missals: Who spoke through the prophets.

A translation in use in 1934: Who spoke by the prophets.

Current translation in use: He has spoken through the prophets.

The Latin qui means, literally, who.

 

[patrick457]

The Latin, from which this translation came, says for the quoted text:

Qui locutus est per prophetas.

A translation in use now in Tridentine Mass missals: Who spoke through the prophets.

A translation in use in 1934: Who spoke by the prophets.

Current translation in use: He has spoken through the prophets.

The Latin qui means, literally, who.

Then again, the whole clause about the Holy Spirit is basically just a single sentence:

Greek: And in the Holy Spirit (literal: “the Spirit - the Holy”), the Lord, the Lifegiver, who from the Father proceeds, who together with [the] Father and [the] Son is co-worshiped (συμπροσκυνούμενον) and conglorified (συνδοξαζόμενον), who spoke through the prophets.

Latin: And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and the Lifegiver, who from the Father and the Son proceeds, who with the Father and the Son is together worshiped and conglorified, who spoke through the prophets.