Norm2: fidelity to the sacred worship.

Continuing our series on the recently received Vatican Norms on Bible translating and "inclusive" language, we comment now on Norm Two. (For Norm One, see Jan/Feb 1998, page 29.)

Norm Two speaks about fidelity or faithfulness. This also means accuracy or rigor, literalness or exactness. But the use of only the term fidelity suggests the special dimension of faith in receiving a text that is holy or sacred because, inspired by God, it is truly called word of God. Norm Two is the most dense of all six norms. It needs to be read with close attention.

Norm Two

"The first principle (Editor: i.e., rule) with respect to biblical texts is that of fidelity, maximum possible fidelity to the words of the text. Biblical translations should be faithful to the original language and to the internal truth of the inspired text, in such a way as to respect the language of the human author in order to be understood by his intended reader. Every concept in the original text should be translated in its context. Above all, translations must be faithful to the sense (Ed.:i.e., meaning) of sacred scripture understood as a unity and totality, which finds its center in Christ, the Son of God incarnate (cf. Dei verbum III and IV) (Ed.:a major document of Vatican II on revelation) as confessed in the Creeds of the Church."

How much fidelity must the translator show? The maximum possible. This word possible reminds us that total fidelity is not always achievable, because often the best corresponding English word or expression does not fully or unambiguously convey the given Greek or Hebrew or Latin word. How does one translate the Hebrew Amen? It means truly, surely, it is true, so be it. To introduce more emphatic assertion, Jesus will say Amen, amen I say unto you. . . . Various Bibles translate Believe me when I tell you this, I solemnly tell you, Truly I say to you, and like expressions. (One suspects they are careful not to copy each other). This cacophony is an obstacle to Bible memorization, is awkward for singing, and is surely no increase in fidelity. (Apocalypse 3:14 calls Jesus "the Amen.") Norm Two seems to be saying Yes, retain the simple word Amen: Amen, Amen I say to you. Any paraphrase, if desired, can be placed in a footnote. What if the closest English word to a given biblical terms is archaic? Such is the case with behold, drachma, ninth hour, and so forth. These archaic words are simply not a problem. People readily understand them. They are far more accurate than any modern substitute word. Behold does not quite mean see or listen. Moreover, see and listen are important biblical words, often with theological meaning, and it is misleading to confuse them with behold.

Language in two senses

Be it noted that we are not arguing for the use or retention of words which are obsolete, that is, which no longer bear the sense required. For example, entreat no longer means deal with or treat, but ask strongly. Pitiful no longer means full of pity but pitiable. Prevent no longer means lead but impede or stop. All these words appear in the Authorized (King James) Version in the old or obsolete sense.

The Norm calls for fidelity, not to the text, but to the words of the text. This reminds us that an "equivalent expression" (dignified by some translators as "dynamic equivalent") for a group of words is even more likely to stray from fidelity, and likely to be different for every translator attempting it. It goes without saying that a slavish, stilted, and obscure translation is fidelity carried to a fault, and is to be avoided.

Norm Two speaks of language in two senses: "the original language" (meaning Hebrew or Greek) and "the language of the author," meaning probably his customary use of words, as when we say "the language of scholars," or of street kids, or of sports writers. The Norm calls us to be faithful to the "internal truth of the inspired text." This seems to mean the higher, divine truth, not fully expressible or accessible in mere earthly language, and likely to be present in many a bible passage, precisely because its principal author is God and not man. To be faithful to this "mystery" dimension is a spiritual challenge, and this surely forbids obscuring the version with English words that take liberties with the sacred text.

Why must we take all this faithful care? "(So) as to respect the language of the human author (who seeks) to be understood by his intended reader." This reminds us not to translate for the 1960s or the 1990s, nor for college graduates, nor for "the man in the street." We must simply say faithfully what the original says, because the conscious scope and purpose of the inspired author is decisive for all subsequent hearing (even if transcended by some "fuller sense" not perceived by him). This scope is to be respected in his actual words, not conjectured or guessed in some more or less plausible English wording. Such might, however, be appropriate in a footnote.

Let us take an example. In John 13:1, at the last Supper, we read of Jesus: "Having loved his own that were in the world, he loved them unto the end." That was an exact and faithful rendering, in the Douai Rheims Bible (1582, rev. 1752). The Jerusalem Bible, 1966, has "... he showed how perfect his love was." Knox Bible, 1945, reads: "He loved them to the very end." The New American Bible, 1970 (unrevised) gives: "He would show his love for them to the very end." The New English Bible, 1970, (unrevised) renders: "He was to show the full extent of his love." The New International Version, 1973, is almost identical.

This dismaying variety in renderings of a simple short text, creates a discordance making memorization impossible-as well as undesirable. The principle of paraphrase, here exemplified, has been exceedingly harmful to biblical culture and consequently to faith. Norm Two from the Vatican seems to turn us firmly away from paraphrase, and back to verbal fidelity.

Fidelity to Christ-Centredness

Finally, Norm Two calls for fidelity to the quality of Christ-centredness in the Bible, as expressed in Church creeds. This profound theological fact ("Christo-centricity") seems, here, to mean translating references to Christ throughout the Bible in a way as to convey or at least not obscure their Christological meaning. For example, some psalms are accepted as "messianic," i.e., prophetic of Christ (Messiah) in certain lines. Matthew 1:23 tells us that the virgin birth of Jesus was predicted by Isaiah 7:14, "Behold, a virgin shall conceive." The Hebrew word for virgin, Almah, can also mean young woman, but Matthew makes clear that a virgin in the formal sense is indicated, and he quotes the revered Greek translation, the famous Septuagint, of the Old Testament; and this Greek uses the word parthenos, meaning virgin. Norm Two seems then to suggest that Isa. 7:14 be translated virgin, so as more clearly to convey here the birth of Christ. The authoritative Latin Vulgate Bible here uses virgo, the Latin for virgin. Other instances of Christ meaning in the Old Testament will emerge with later Norms.

It is noteworthy that the Norms do not use the word "literal" to describe an accurate or desirable translation. Literal means exact, or word-for-word, but in some minds it may mean slavish. Norm Two says, "every concept in the original text should be translated in its context." This rule is somewhat obscure, because concepts can only be conveyed through actual words, and the context is basically the rest of the text or passage being translated. In this light, that portion of Norm Two seems to be saying, "translate every word with the closest corresponding word, having due regard to the larger passage." Many would simply call this honest, literal translation. It was the usual way of Bible translation until the mid-twentieth century.

Neither do the Norms ever mention translating in a way "suitable for public proclamation." It is notable that those responsible for some recent bibles, which had been translated too freely, have salved their conscience in part by boasting of this "proclaimable" quality, as if the old bibles were less easy to grasp when heard. This is untrue. The bible is intrinsically "proclaimable" from the start, having arisen in an oral culture when few people could read, and everybody had to listen.

Men of such a culture precisely cultivated a clear, oratorical hearer-friendly way of speaking. Words like and, but, for, yet and the like were freely employed as oral punctuation. It is an error to omit these, as some translators have done. An oral writer would never write a line or two of quotation, and then append "said Jesus" or "replied Peter." The reader of a novel can see that coming with his eye on the printed page. But the hearer of a Gospel can do no such thing. The quote must be preceded, not followed by And Jesus said or But Peter replied. Such is always the way in biblical quotations in the original languages. The best way to keep the bible hearer-friendly is to translate it as it is, with the good taste and judgment and faith of a mature, professional Christian translator.

Fr. Stephen Somerville, an associate editor of Catholic Insight, was for many years a member of the International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL) and as such did extensive work in the translation of sacred texts.