Hi Stephen, I have two major concerns about the argument you put forward. The first, and less serious, is that the translation is somehow very British, to the point it is unintelligible to an American audience. Of the very many valid critiques of the current translation used in Mass, I’m not sure this one is accurate. If individuals are …
Hi Stephen, I have two major concerns about the argument you put forward. The first, and less serious, is that the translation is somehow very British, to the point it is unintelligible to an American audience. Of the very many valid critiques of the current translation used in Mass, I’m not sure this one is accurate. If individuals are unable to understand the faith because of the usage of “before, of, and divine” as described above, in charity, it is not the translation that is the source of the problem. Those happen to be perfectly acceptable usages in American English. And in the case of divine, that’s actually it’s primary use.
Now, if the ancient Israelites transported the 10 commandments in the boot of a lorry, we might want to table that issue. But until then, I don’t think that’s the problem.
My bigger complaint would be about your demand that all names be translated. This is actually a much trickier subject than you made it appear. Among the examples you provided was Mary, not Miryam. Except that we keep Miriam as Moses’s sister, so your explanation cannot be sufficient. What if, for example, in a polyglot region, Thomas was literally called Didymus by fellow speakers of Aramaic? In that case, it wouldn’t be proper to call him “the twin” because that would lose the author’s intent. Similarly, Barnabas is not translated as “son of encouragement” everywhere, they stick with the transliteration. The largest example of this, however, is the choice of how to translate the name of the prophet Moses said would follow him. Two men fit the description who both have the same name. The first we call Joshua. The Second we call Jesus. But it’s the same name, and yet we expect it to be translated differently.
As a proud colonialist rebel, I am more than willing to consider examples of the Britishness of the current translation that show a disdain for Americans. I’m just not seeing it from your post or my “lived experience” (😂).
Critique accepted. My lived experience was what I listed. The translation prior to the one currently in use did say “twin”. Sticking to transliterations rather than translating is a problem. The point made was that we do not have a good American English translation in our liturgy - and we should, for the points made. Another example that has confused young people here is “deliver us from evil” - which is neither a translation nor a transliteration. In our language it means to take something to somewhere or to give birth. The actual meaning is “rescue us from the evil one”. Seriously, we don’t say that firefighters “deliver” a baby from a burning house when we mean “rescue”. When young people hear “rescue” it grabs their attention because they don’t know that we NEED to be rescued. It goes deeper - pedophilic clergy prefer kids to not understand the Faith in their own language - it facilitated molestation. I will admit that my career in law enforcement amped my desire for intended victims of all kinds of evil to know they need rescuing, and by whom.
The Lord does not require people to worship in only one language. High time we got one of our own.
"Save us from the evil one" is found in various Eastern liturgical texts. Though more often it is "Deliver us from the evil one."
I'm more concerned about the the awful translation "Lead us not into temptation..." The regularly elicits questions, especially from younger folks as to why God would lead us into temptation.
Yes, I know the usage is enshrined in popular piety and has centuries of vernacular use. It is still misleading.
This is opposed to what the original text actually says, "Save us in time of trial..." or "Do not let us be tempted beyond our strength..."
Hi Stephen, I have two major concerns about the argument you put forward. The first, and less serious, is that the translation is somehow very British, to the point it is unintelligible to an American audience. Of the very many valid critiques of the current translation used in Mass, I’m not sure this one is accurate. If individuals are unable to understand the faith because of the usage of “before, of, and divine” as described above, in charity, it is not the translation that is the source of the problem. Those happen to be perfectly acceptable usages in American English. And in the case of divine, that’s actually it’s primary use.
Now, if the ancient Israelites transported the 10 commandments in the boot of a lorry, we might want to table that issue. But until then, I don’t think that’s the problem.
My bigger complaint would be about your demand that all names be translated. This is actually a much trickier subject than you made it appear. Among the examples you provided was Mary, not Miryam. Except that we keep Miriam as Moses’s sister, so your explanation cannot be sufficient. What if, for example, in a polyglot region, Thomas was literally called Didymus by fellow speakers of Aramaic? In that case, it wouldn’t be proper to call him “the twin” because that would lose the author’s intent. Similarly, Barnabas is not translated as “son of encouragement” everywhere, they stick with the transliteration. The largest example of this, however, is the choice of how to translate the name of the prophet Moses said would follow him. Two men fit the description who both have the same name. The first we call Joshua. The Second we call Jesus. But it’s the same name, and yet we expect it to be translated differently.
As a proud colonialist rebel, I am more than willing to consider examples of the Britishness of the current translation that show a disdain for Americans. I’m just not seeing it from your post or my “lived experience” (😂).
Critique accepted. My lived experience was what I listed. The translation prior to the one currently in use did say “twin”. Sticking to transliterations rather than translating is a problem. The point made was that we do not have a good American English translation in our liturgy - and we should, for the points made. Another example that has confused young people here is “deliver us from evil” - which is neither a translation nor a transliteration. In our language it means to take something to somewhere or to give birth. The actual meaning is “rescue us from the evil one”. Seriously, we don’t say that firefighters “deliver” a baby from a burning house when we mean “rescue”. When young people hear “rescue” it grabs their attention because they don’t know that we NEED to be rescued. It goes deeper - pedophilic clergy prefer kids to not understand the Faith in their own language - it facilitated molestation. I will admit that my career in law enforcement amped my desire for intended victims of all kinds of evil to know they need rescuing, and by whom.
The Lord does not require people to worship in only one language. High time we got one of our own.
"Save us from the evil one" is found in various Eastern liturgical texts. Though more often it is "Deliver us from the evil one."
I'm more concerned about the the awful translation "Lead us not into temptation..." The regularly elicits questions, especially from younger folks as to why God would lead us into temptation.
Yes, I know the usage is enshrined in popular piety and has centuries of vernacular use. It is still misleading.
This is opposed to what the original text actually says, "Save us in time of trial..." or "Do not let us be tempted beyond our strength..."
I pray: “Don’t let us be tested…”