Translation error in Catechism

[dcdurel]

There is a major error in the translation of the Catechism.
The English translation of parapraph 125 has

“The Gospels are the heart of all the Scriptures “because they are our principle source for the life and teaching of the Incarnate Word, our Saviour”

That is a translation that leans toward Protestantism. It makes Scripture primary and Tradition secondary when it comes to doctrine. The Church teaches that the Gospel handed down in TRADITION is the source of all saving truth, NOT the Gospel handed down in scripture. Scripture is only a witness to the teachings handed down in Tradition.

The correct translation, according to the French, Latin and to Dei Verbum from which this teaching came is:

“The Gospels are the heart of all the Scriptures “because they are our principle witness to the life and teaching of the Incarnate Word, our Saviour”

The apostles learned the entire Gospel directly from Jesus before a single word of scripture was written. Thus
Sacred Tradition is the principle source of the teachings of Jesus, NOT scripture. That is why we always interpret scripture according to Sacred Tradition.

It seems we have clandestine Protestants in the Catholic Church. There is no way anyone could mistake the French
“le témoignage par excellence” or the latin
“praecipuum testimonium”

to mean “principle source” instead of “principle witness”.

 

[dcdurel]

Now that I think about it, how many other translation errors are there in the Catechism?

If such a major blunder was made in this simple translation, how can we trust the rest of the Catechism?

I think we will have to look for anything that seems to contradict what the Church has always taught and
look up those translations also.

And who translated this to begin with?

How did none of the experts in this country notice this error?

I am only a lay person and never took theology or had any Catholic higher education. Why did our experts not catch this error?

 

[LilyM]

Now that I think about it, how many other translation errors are there in the Catechism?

If such a major blunder was made in this simple translation, how can we trust the rest of the Catechism?

I think we will have to look for anything that seems to contradict what the Church has always taught and
look up those translations also.

And who translated this to begin with?

How did none of the experts in this country notice this error?

I am only a lay person and never took theology or had any Catholic higher education. Why did our experts not catch this error?

Oh keep your knickers on.

You think plenty of errors haven’t been made in the translation of Church documents before this? Scripture itself, even? How about those translations of Genesis that incorrectly say it’s the WOMAN rather than her seed who will crush the Serpent’s head for example.

How do you know the translation of the Canons of Trent into English is correct, for example?

It’s all part and parcel of the joy of translation. Besides which, even if the Church only ever produced documents in Latin and the same Latin was the vernacular of every blessed one of us we STILL would disagree badly as to the meaning of most of it.

It’s all part of being humans and the imprecision of language.

 

[dcdurel]

Oh keep your knickers on.

You think plenty of errors haven’t been made in the translation of Church documents before this? Scripture itself, even? How about those translations of Genesis that incorrectly say it’s the WOMAN rather than her seed who will crush the Serpent’s head for example.

It turns out that WOMAN a correct translation. The word in Hebrew could be he, she or it. And woman is probably THE correct translation.

There is NO way at all that **testimonium **can be translated as source.

I don’t see how in the world this could be mistake. It looks like a deliberate error.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

The words source and witness can be interchanged, if one is using the correct definitions of source and primary. From dictionary.com:

**source **
–noun

1. any thing or place from which something comes, arises, or is obtained; origin.
2. the beginning or place of origin of a stream or river.
3. a book, statement, person, etc., supplying information.
4. the person or business making interest or dividend payments.
5. a manufacturer or supplier.
6. Archaic. a natural spring or fountain.

Definition 3 is the applicable one, here: something which “supplies information”. As to witness:

witness
–noun
6. an individual who, being present, personally sees or perceives a thing; a beholder, spectator, or eyewitness.
7. a person or thing that affords evidence.
8. a person who gives testimony, as in a court of law.
9. a person who signs a document attesting the genuineness of its execution.
10. testimony or evidence: to bear witness to her suffering.
11. (initial capital letter) a member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Note that definition 7 is something which “affords (provides) evidence”.

Now for primary:

primary
–adjective

1. first or highest in rank or importance; chief; principal: his primary goals in life.
2. first in order in any series, sequence, etc.
3. first in time; earliest; primitive.
4. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of primary school: the primary grades.
5. constituting or belonging to the first stage in any process.
6. of the nature of the ultimate or simpler constituents of which something complex is made up.
7. original; not derived or subordinate; fundamental; basic.
8. immediate or direct, or not involving intermediate agency: primary perceptions.

Definition 3 is “earliest”, and 7 is “not derived”.

The passage you cite from the Catechism can be read as such:

The Gospels are the “earliest” or “most original” (primary) “thing that provides evidence or information” (source or witness) on the life and teachings of Jesus. It does not appear to be weighing the Gospels against Tradition.

Peace,
Dante

 

[Gizmo]

I have noticed another mistranslation of the Latin. I was amazed that that could have happened. The Spanish translation is correct – that was even more back up that the English translation was wrong.

Not to be mysterious but I won’t post what paragraph I’m talking about – yet. I am in class right now and it would be wrong for me to going through all my notes on this and not pay attention to what I should be. I will post that info here eventually if there is an interest.

Also the paragraph in question is a sexual morality issue and I don’t know if I want to open that can of worms on a thread that has to do with translations.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

I have noticed another mistranslation of the Latin. I was amazed that that could have happened. The Spanish translation is correct – that was even more back up that the English translation was wrong.

Not to be mysterious but I won’t post what paragraph I’m talking about – yet. I am in class right now and it would be wrong for me to going through all my notes on this and not pay attention to what I should be. I will post that info here eventually if there is an interest.

Also the paragraph in question is a sexual morality issue and I don’t know if I want to open that can of worms on a thread that has to do with translations.

First of all, get off the forum and pay attention to your instructor!

Secondly, with respect, I don’t think you should “tease” like this.

Thirdly, I would recommend that you give the passage in question a good second look to ensure that the word choices made in the English translation are completely inappropriate. Remember: every language has its idioms, and Spanish and Latin are much more similar in style and substance than are English and Latin.

Peace,
Dante

 

[Contarini]

There is a major error in the translation of the Catechism.
The English translation of parapraph 125 has

“The Gospels are the heart of all the Scriptures “because they are our principle source for the life and teaching of the Incarnate Word, our Saviour”

That is a translation that leans toward Protestantism. It makes Scripture primary and Tradition secondary when it comes to doctrine. The Church teaches that the Gospel handed down in TRADITION is the source of all saving truth, NOT the Gospel handed down in scripture. Scripture is only a witness to the teachings handed down in Tradition.

Where does the Church teach this? It seems to me that this is your particular spin on the Church’s teaching, motivated by the rather dubious desire to get as far from Protestantism as possible.

As I understand Catholic teaching, both Scripture and Tradition are witnesses to the original deposit of faith, and precisely as witnesses they are sources for our understanding of that deposit. Thus, while “testimonium” would certainly be better translated as “witness” or “testimony” rather than “source,” I can’t see that the issue has the huge theological implications you claim. “Source” here clearly means “source of knowledge” which is the same thing meant by the Latin “testimonium” (i.e., by the witness of the Gospels we know about Jesus).

Note furthermore that Dei Verbum is speaking specifically of the Gospels, rather than Scripture as a whole. It should be uncontroversial that the Gospels are the primary source for our knowledge of Jesus’ life. You are creating an issue where none exists.

Edwin

 

[marchoi]

I don’t see how in the world this could be mistake. It looks like a deliberate error.

Umm… now, I’d be careful about how you’re wording your posts. Are you implying (not really, since you pretty much said it) that the Church, by producing what you deem is an improper translation of its catechism, is misleading the faithful ON PURPOSE?

 

[puzzleannie]

this passage is a quote from Dei Verbum, so you would be better served in criticizing the translation of DV from the Latin, than wasting your time in criticism of the CCC itself. and DV is correct, the Gospels are our principle source for what we know of the life and mission of Jesus Christ the Redeemer.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Now that I think about it, how many other translation errors are there in the Catechism?

If such a major blunder was made in this simple translation, how can we trust the rest of the Catechism?

I think we will have to look for anything that seems to contradict what the Church has always taught and
look up those translations also.

And who translated this to begin with?

How did none of the experts in this country notice this error?

I am only a lay person and never took theology or had any Catholic higher education. Why did our experts not catch this error?

Huh? I have read that paragraph a few times and never thought about it. I just have always known what it intended to say I guess. Scripture and Apostolic Tradition are One source. The majority of Catholic teaching is found clearly or explicitly in Scripture. Some is found veiled or implicitly in Scripture. Very little is found exclusively in Sacred Apostolic Tradition. Nothing found in sacred Scripture is ever opposed to Sacred Apostolic Tradition and nothing found in Sacred Apostolic Tradition is ever in conflict to Sacred Scripture. Remember that the CCC is NOT an infallible document, because there is no such thing.

 

[Cranch]

The words source and witness can be interchanged, if one is using the correct definitions of source and primary. From dictionary.com:

Definition 3 is the applicable one, here: something which “supplies information”. As to witness:

Note that definition 7 is something which “affords (provides) evidence”.

Now for primary:

Definition 3 is “earliest”, and 7 is “not derived”.

The passage you cite from the Catechism can be read as such:

The Gospels are the “earliest” or “most original” (primary) “thing that provides evidence or information” (source or witness) on the life and teachings of Jesus. It does not appear to be weighing the Gospels against Tradition.

Peace,
Dante

For the record, the phrase in question is “principle source”, not “primary source”. Primary is the OP’s word; his take on the resultant meaning of what he sees as a poor translation.

 

[ElizabethPH]

For the record, the phrase in question is “principle source”, not “primary source”. Primary is the OP’s word; his take on the resultant meaning of what he sees as a poor translation.

Even so if by principal the op means primary; then primary by definition means first or among the first in importance or rank.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

It is possible for the Catechism to have a translation error into the English–the English translation isn’t official–Latin is official.

I’m not saying that is the case here–I’m only saying that it is possible and if there was a translation error in the Catechism it wouldn’t be the end of the world.

 

[dcdurel]

Let me go more into detail.

     The English translation of parapraph 125 has

“The Gospels are the heart of all the Scriptures “because they are our principle source for the life and teaching of the Incarnate Word, our Saviour”

I noticed that this contradicted the earlier part of the Catechism which said that the Gospel the apostles preached was source of the source of all saving truth and moral discipline. That means Tradition is the source of all saving truth, not the written gospels. The apostles did not learn the Gospel by reading scripture. They learned the entire Gospel, the “source of all saving truth and moral discipline” directly from Jesus, directly from Tradition and they handed it down in its entirety to each generation entirely by Tradition.

1. 
   ]"Christ the Lord, in whom the entire Revelation of the most high God is summed up, commanded the apostles to preach the Gospel, which had been promised beforehand by the prophets, and which he fulfilled in his own person and promulgated with his own lips. In preaching the Gospel, they were to communicate the gifts of God to all men.* This Gospel was to be the source of all saving truth and moral discipline.”**
   In other words, the Church learned the teachings of Jesus directly from Jesus, NOT from scripture. The apostles then preached the Gospel. This Gospel they preached (Tradition) was the source of all saving truth and moral discipline.
   
   This also contradicts paragraph 78 of the Catechism which says:
   Through Tradition, “the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes.”
   Since Tradition transmits ALL the Church believes and since Tradition comes before scripture it would be impossible for scripture to be the principle source of the teachings of Jesus.
   
   Since paragraph 125 is referenced to Dei Verbum, I looked that up.
   Dei Verbum says in paragraph 18
   
   “It is common knowledge that among all the Scriptures, even those of the New Testament, the Gospels have a special preeminence, and rightly so, for they are the** principle witness** for the life and teaching of the incarnate Word, our savior.”
   
   But the Catechism had:
   “The Gospels are the heart of all the Scriptures “because they are our principle source for the life and teaching of the Incarnate Word, our Saviour”
   
   Notice the words “principle witness” in Dei Verbum instead of principle source.
   This is an entirely different meaning. Principle witness means the principle testimony or evidence of what is already known. Since the apostles already knew the entire Gospel, the written gospels can only be the principle witness. They cannot be the principle source.
   Principle source means the object from which this revelation arose. This revelation (the Gospel) arose from Jesus directly and the apostles handed it all down in Tradition. Scripture can only be a witness to what was already known.
   
   So I looked up the French translation of the Catechism and it had
   Catechism from the French:
   
   “le témoignage par excellence”
   means
   testimony par excellence.
   
   Testimony means witness, not source.
   
   So I looked up the Latin translation of the Catechism at the Vatican website. It had
   
   125 Evangelia sunt omnium Scripturarum cor, « quippe quae praecipuum testimonium sint de Verbi Incarnati, Salvatoris nostri, vita atque doctrina »
   
   Again, “praecipuum testimonium” means principle testimony or principle witness, not “principle source”.
   
   This is the exact words used in Dei Verbum, in Latin which says:
   1. 
      *]Neminem fugit inter omnes, etiam Novi Testamenti Scripturas, Evangelia merito excellere, quippe quae praecipuum testimonium sint de Verbi Incarnati, Salvatoris nostri, vita atque doctrina.
      Since the Catechism got this statement from the Vatican II document Dei Verbum, and since Dei Verbum had already been translated for years correctly, and since the Catechism was translating the exact same words praecipuum testimonium, then where in the world did they get a totally different translation which entirely reverses the meaning?

 

[dcdurel]

The false translation of the English Catechism puts scripture first and Tradition second. Shades of scripture alone are creeping in. Was the translator of this part of the Catechism Protestant, like some of the translators of the New American Bible?

Why does this matter? Because the false translation gives into protestantism which makes scripture primary in regards to doctrine. But the Church says that the apostles learned the entire Gospel directly from Jesus and the Holy Spirit, and the written gospels came second and only contain certain elements of this Tradition. That is why Scripture must always be interpreted in accord with Sacred Tradition.

Thus, while scripture and Tradition are equal in the sense that they are both the word of God, Tradition is primary as far as doctrine, because it alone has the entire Gospel handed down directly from Jesus.
Scripture is salvation history, and thus is primary when it comes to detailed salvation history.

This false translation makes the apostles into protestants who didn’t know most of the Gospel until
it was written in scripture.

But, even worse, it leads people to believe that we can learn the principle teachings of Jesus from scripture by reading the Gospels. That is false. We cannot even understand the mass, salvation, grace, and the Trinity by reading the written gospels. Faith comes from hearing the Gospel, that is the Gospel handed down in Tradition, NOT from reading the written gospels.

 

[Cranch]

this passage is a quote from Dei Verbum, so you would be better served in criticizing the translation of DV from the Latin, than wasting your time in criticism of the CCC itself. and DV is correct, the Gospels are our principle source for what we know of the life and mission of Jesus Christ the Redeemer.

There is more than one English translation of the Vatican II documents. So either a choice was made by the CCC English editors, or they re-rendered Die Verbum themselves. Either way, if one doesn’t like the rendering, those are the people to criticize (with charity ). The phrase in question comes from paragraph 18 of Dei Verbum. As rendered at the Catholic Information Network site it reads:18. It is common knowledge that among all the Scriptures, even those of the New Testament, the Gospels have a special preeminence, and rightly so, for they are the principal witness for the life and teaching of the incarnate Word, our savior.
As it appears in my printed copy of Vatican Council II, The Basic Sixteen Documents (“a completely revised translation in inclusive language”), edited by Austin Flannery, O.P. it reads :18. It is common knowledge that among all the inspired writings, including those of the New Testament, the Gospels have a special place, and rightly so, because they are our principal source for the life and teaching of the incarnate Word, our Savior.

Flannery, in his introduction, has this to say:We have done our best to make the translation as accurate as possible, but I know from experience that mistakes can occcur. Quod potest deficere, aliquando deficit. Readers who detect erroneous or debatable renderings would render a service if they bring them to my attention—address below. However, it has to be accepted that there will be no pleasing everybody…

 

[dcdurel]

I looked in the beginning of the Catechism. Paragraph 125 is a quote from Vatican II. But the translation of Vatican II that the Catechism used was by Austin Flannery.

So I looked up his translation accuracies.
According to one blog at archiseek.com/content/showthread.php?t=4691&page=61

“Flannery made a complete mess of the translation of the documents of the Second Vatican Council. At best, they are patchy and depend largely on who did the translating work. They are worse than useless for any sort of serious work because you cannot rely on the text of the translation and have to check every single reference and, more often than not, you end up having to translate the relevant Latin yourself.”

At the same site another writes,
“Absolutely, Praxiteles. It is now standard practice in academic circles and in scholarly journals to insist on using Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils (2 vols), edited by Norman P. Tanner, S.J., original text established by G. Alberigo, J.A. Dossetti, P.-P. Joannou, C. Leonardi, and P. Prodi, in consultation with H. Jedin (London: Sheed and Ward and Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 1990). The work presents the conciliar texts from Nicea to Vatican II with the Greek and/or Latin text on one page and English on the other, If you dispute the translator’s efforts, you can see right away what the original text says.
Flannery makes a good door stop or, by times, a useful weapon to settle the cat when he’s harassing the budgey.”

So, my question is, if it was well known that Flannery’s traslations were so bad, then why did the bishops in this country insist on using it for their quotations of Vatican II in the Catechism?

Now I have to check every translation of the Catechism when it quotes from Vatican II because the bishops used a known incompetant translater as the source of Vatican II docuements.

Can these bishops do anything right?

 

[Cranch]

Even so if by principal the op means primary; then primary by definition means first or among the first in importance or rank.

I believe he does, however I have not seen this word defined as you have done, to include “among the first”. I think the only sense of this word that is other than a singular, superlative one (other than unique usages like primary colors) is as a synonym for fundamental or basic, which I don’t think is what the OP means here.

 

[Teflon93]

My, my—how quick we are to pull the fire alarm!

Talk about your distinctions without a difference. Since the Gospels were written down and brought into the canon of Scripture, of course they’ve been the principle source and witness of our knowledge of Christ and his ministry. The apostles are long dead and we rely on their accounts in the Gospel to faithfully represent what Christ said and did and what they said and did.

At every Mass, these same Gospels are read from—indeed, they are treated with special reverence. It’s not just a Protestant practice to revere Scripture, after all. We simply don’t worship it as an idol.

Moreover, Catholics know full well that Scripture is a product of Tradition and Magisterium. Protestants may believe the Bible just showed up on the doorstop one day, but we know where it came from.

Let’s go one further—there have been mistranslations in the Bible itself. While that sends Fundamentalists into a tizzy, it shouldn’t be a cause for alarm for those of us who take Scripture as a whole and are not limited to the level of an infallible oracle which must be rendered in one language. We don’t claim that God dictated the Bible, as Muslims do the Koran, after all.

Does anyone really believe there was some sort of conspiracy at work in the Catechism? I know some complain it’s less clear than the previous version, but do any really think the Church tried to warp its own teaching for some nefarious reason?