Vatican's norm three: an ancient or modern sounding Bible.

In this issue we come to Norm Three of the six Vatican norms for Bible translation (see previous issues for Norms One and Two). It answers the question: should the translation retain or remove the rough edges, the antique sound, the obscurities of the original?

Norn Three

The translation of Scripture should faithfully reflect the Word of God in the original human languages. It must be listened to in its time - conditioned, at times even inelegant, made of human expression without "correction" or "improvement" in the service of modern sensitivities.

a) In liturgical translations or readings where the text is very uncertain or in which the meaning is very much disputed, the translation should be made with due regard to the Neo-Vulgate.

b) If explanations are deemed to be pastorally necessary or appropriate, they should be given in editorial notes, commentaries, homilies, etc.

This third norm for bible translators is telling them to translate "warts and all," maintaining the tone and flavour of the original Hebrew or Greek. This is "time-conditioned" language (of a millennium before Christ and a half century after Him, and not the language of our own time or some intervening period). It is language "at times even inelegant." Let all this come through honestly in the translation. Make no presumed "corrections" or "improvements" to accommodate "modern sensitivities." These would be an error. All of this is an application of the principle of fidelity: translate the Bible "as is." Do not adjust, or polish, or politicize it.

One "modern sensitivity" is toward references to violence and to sex. The Bible has plenty of these, though they are never prurient or entertaining, as they are in so much modern writing. Violent and sexual content are more unsettling on the lips of a woman. We should enlist for this task of reading more readers who are men. Another, quite recent sensitivity is toward masculine inclusive language, such as Blessed is the man who . . . I will draw all men to myself. . . He knew what was in man, and so forth.

The modern-day, politically-correct demand for gender-neutral, feminist, or "inclusive" language in the Bible (and all of life) is an offshoot of 1970s feminism. It is the principal if not sole reason why these norms became necessary, although this fact is tactfully left unstated and "inclusive language" unmentioned in the text. Confirmed modernist scholars and clerics are given to demand "inclusive" language as a matter of truth and justice, of "correcting" and "improving" the Bible. The norm's use of inverted commas round these two words indicates that the Vatican authors deny them to be genuine correction or improvement.

Certain brief passages here and there in the Bible are uncertain in meaning, or their sense is disputed. If this is "very much" so, the norm directs us to translate according to (literally with due regard to) the traditional Catholic Latin rendering, as found in the Vulgate Bible, with recent scholarly amendments, making it the so-called Bible Neo-Vulgata (New Vulgate). This is the official Bible of the Latin Church. Some would say it is unscholarly to translate from a translation. But, in fact, the Vulgate Bible is an invaluable witness to the original Greek and Hebrew writings because these first manuscripts had long since perished. St. Jerome, Vulgate translator in the fourth century, had access to older manuscripts than those now extant. Moreover, the Church is guardian of the Scriptures, and we must have the reverence of faith for the Church's actual achievement of preserving the written word of God for our sake. Vulgate means rendered into the common language (which Latin once was for many nations). Far from being unscholarly to translate from this monumental translation, it is of positive value for reverence, uniformity, tradition in Catholic Bibles of all nations to be rendered out of the Vulgate, or at least with an eye to it, and "due regard."

In the Norm One commentary, I noted that conveying the (biblical) text and instructing in its meaning are two separate tasks. One must not expand or change the translation with a view to facilitating the grasp of its meaning. Norm Three now tells us that if explanations are needed in a "pastoral" way (the way of a good Sunday sermon or RCIA instruction class, not an academic way), these should be given in footnotes, introductions, sermons, and the like.