N THIS Sunday’s Responsorial Psalm, we notice a strange phrase: “Sing to God, chant praise to his name; whose name is the Lord.” Throughout our series, we’ve explained how various shell the corporations have fraudulently claimed ‘ownership’ over translations they don’t own. But there’s another problem. The undisclosed experts (who consider themselves the adults in the room) assure us their work is necessary because they have “gone back to the Hebrew” when it comes to translating the PSALTER. But this isn’t as impressive as it sounds, since the first complete Hebrew PSALTER (the so-called “Massoretic” version) comes from circa 900AD, as far as we can tell. That’s a huge problem, because it’s about 600 years after Saint Jerome’s translations.
They Did Not Consult The Hebrew • Regardless of the actual value of manuscripts from such a late date, the ‘experts’ have not consulted the Hebrew in a serious way. Had they done so, they wouldn’t have chosen a meaningless phrase like: whose name is the Lord. They seem unaware that a name is different than a title. “Lord” is a title. Monsignor Ronald Knox unraveled all this 76 years ago—utilizing humor in addition to his characteristic brilliance—so there’s little sense in our explaining it here. The various shell corporations have had 60+ years to get their act together but have failed to do so. The more one “looks under the hood,” the more terrifying the situation becomes!
Dynamic Equivalence • Some will never understand responsible translation. Even when the situation is explained to them, it doesn’t make any difference. They embrace something which might be called “Rigid Formal Equivalence” (RFE). Those who embrace RFE insist upon a mindless, artless, word-for-word translation. For instance, they would translate Psalm 77:2 (Loquar propositiones ab initio) as: “I will utter propositions from the beginning.” But serious translators realize each language has its own idioms and expressions which must be taken into consideration. Unfortunately, many are wary of “dynamic equivalence” because of what ICEL did in the 1970s. Consider this comparison chart showing the COLLECT for the 15th Sunday in Ordinary Time. The 1970s ICEL ‘translation’ was contemptible.
Cognate Overemphasis • Speaking of “dynamic equivalence,” look at the following example, which is the COMMUNION CHANT (Luke 12:42) for 3 September:
Fidélis servus et prudens,
quem constítuit dóminus
super famíliam suam:
ut det illis in témpore
trítici mensúram.
For those married to RFE, the only ‘valid’ or ‘acceptable’ translation of famíliam would be what Father Lasance has:
A faithful & wise steward, whom
the Lord has set over His family;
to give them their measure
of wheat in due season.
IMPRIMATUR (1937) by Cardinal Hayes.
But competent translators realize the flaws of RFE, and often choose a different word for famíliam:
He was a faithful and wise servant,
one whom his master entrusted
with the care of his household, to
give them their allowance of food
at the appointed time.
IMPRIMATUR (3 December 1960).
Here’s another example:
A loyal and provident steward,
the Lord has given him the
management of his household, to
give to each his measure of wheat
at the appointed time.
IMPRIMATUR (16 August 1961).
Here’s how it appears in the Saint Andrew Missal:
The faithful and prudent servant
whom the master will
set over his household
to give them their ration
of grain in due time.
IMPRIMATUR (4 April 1966).
“Leading A Horse To Water” • For those married to RFE, none of this will make any difference. They will go to the grave with that mindset. But the truly competent translator realizes that, in the final analysis, we translate ideas not words. It goes without saying that the use of “dynamic equivalence” for ideological reasons—to conceal the text’s true meaning—is reprehensible. Incredibly, Paul Inwood was not ashamed to rejoice publicly at the inaccuracy of 1970s ICEL translation, writing:
“Seventh-century theology, spirituality, and culture are very far from where most of the Church is now. The 1973 translation concealed this fact from us. If we had known what the prayers really said, we would not have wanted to pray them any longer. Now we are faced with that question 40 years later, and it is not any easier.”
Although Paul Inwood claims not to have known what the prayers really meant, he’s wrong to claim nobody knew. In those days, many (although not all) Catholic priests were fluent in Latin. For example, Monsignor Richard J. Schuler certainly knew what was being done, as this 1990 article proves beyond a doubt.
Conclusion • We hope the generous reader will forgive this digression on the subject of “dynamic equivalence.” The goal of our series (Serious Problems with the Lectionary Translation) is to get to the bottom of who has made these decisions. For 60+ years, faithful Catholics in the pews have been tricked. They have been forced to pay for ‘translations’ being sold fraudulently. At a minimum, the ones paying the bills (without knowledge or consent) are owed transparency.
ROBERT O’NEILL
Former associate of Monsignor
Francis “Frank” P. Schmitt
at Boys Town in Nebraska
JAMES ARNOLD
Formerly associated w/ King’s College, Cambridge
A convert to the Catholic Church, and
distant relative of J. H. Arnold
MARIA B.
Currently serves as a musician in the
Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte.
Those aware of the situation in
her diocese won’t be surprised she
chose to withhold her last name.
