You can see it here.
Text of Revised Grail Psalter released
by
Comments
64 responses to “Text of Revised Grail Psalter released”
-
Thank you for sharing this link… off to work I go!
-
Does anyone know of any Kindle or iPad versions of GIA publications? A version for the of the revised Grail, especially for the smaller Kindle, could be convenient for those who pray the Liturgia Horarum but need an English translation as an occasional crutch. Or simply like to compare multiple versions and translations.
-
Unfortunately, when it comes to modern media, GIA seems to be behind the curve more significantly than other Catholic publishers. Even now, only a scant representation of their musical library is available as downloadable PDFs.
If the demand is there, though, they’ve shown that they can respondโjust very slowly.
-
The psalms do exist in both Word and PDF formats, pointed and unpointed, in psalm order and Sunday Lectionary order, so it ought to be possible to make a download available. They would probably ask you to pay, however, since Conception and the Grail would expect to receive royalties on sales of the books.
-
There’s a lot more to getting text onto e-readers than simply converting a pdf into an e-reader format. There are shareware programs such as Calibre that will do just that. However, one needs full Adobe Acrobat to resection a large pdf into the smaller chapters necessary for an e-reader format like *.epub.
For example, the 1962 Missal is available for pdf download at Sancta Missa. My nook e-reader refuses to recognize the chapter markers. Also the conversion software shrinks the pdf pages to 1/2 the screen size. Journal articles and “homemade” pdf documents are a similar pain.
I suspect that the lack of e-reader ready files from Catholic publishing houses stems from a lack of expertise, production costs, and the licensing of DRM (digital rights management) encryption. DRM might close off Catholic publishing house products from some Linux-based e-readers. PC users that run a Linux distribution will most certainly be locked out. Yes, we do exist ๐
For that reason I don’t see copyrighted missals, bible translations, and hymnals appearing on e-readers any time soon. However, I would be more than glad to participate in a proofreading and e-reader conversion project for the 1962 and 1970 Missals, the Breviarium Romanum, the Liturgia Horarum, and other liturgical documents if financially and legally feasible.
-
-
It’s interesting to compare the new Grail to the 1994 inclusive ICEL psalter and wonder what an inclusive Grail would look and sound like…
For example
Psalm 1
Revised Grail1 Blessed indeed is the man
who follows not the counsel of the wicked,
nor stands in the path with sinners,
nor abides in the company of scorners,2 but whose delight is the law of the LORD,
and who ponders his law day and night.3 He is like a tree that is planted
beside the flowing waters,
that yields its fruit in due season,
and whose leaves shall never fade;
and all that he does shall prosper.4 Not so are the wicked, not so!
For they, like winnowed chaff,
shall be driven away by the wind.5 When the wicked are judged they shall not rise,
nor shall sinners in the council of the just;6 for the LORD knows the way of the just,
but the way of the wicked will perish.Psalm 1
1994 ICEL1 If you would be happy:
never walk with the wicked,
never stand with sinners,
never sit among cynics,2 but delight in the Lordโs teaching
and study it night and day.3 You will stand like a tree
planted by a stream,
bearing fruit in season,
its leaves never fading,
its yield always plenty.4 Not so for the wicked,
like chaff they are blown by the wind.5 They will not withstand the judgement,
nor assemble with the just.6 The Lord marks the way of the upright,
but the corrupt walk to ruin. -
re: Kindle, I emailed them and they said they plan to do it eventually.
You can indeed cut and paste the psalms from their website into a word document which can be converted by Amazon into Kindle format. To my mind that’s ok if you are buying the book in some form from them.
-
I am glad to see that the revised Grail translation did not follow ICEL’s unjustifiable “If you would be happy….” for Psalm 1. As given to us by the post-exilic community, Psalm 1 was composed as a preface to the psalter and uses “man” as a reference to the hoped-for messiah and as a “tone-setter” for the entire psalter. It is in this spirit that the Church has always prayed the psalms. Let’s preserve that spirit!
Fr. Kenneth Hein, O.S.B., D.Th.-
Perhaps. But the hoped-for-Messiah was defined not by being a man, but by faithfulness to God and a leadership that would restore the Chosen People to a Covenant relationship.
Many of us look to the qualities given for the faithful servant of God and look to emulate them. That this person is Moses, Judith, Jesus, or St Elizabeth Ann Seton is irrelevant. We don’t need a second one of any of these people. We need every man, woman, and child living out the Gospel today in their own God-inspired way.
-
People have always died of cancer, too – I suppose we shouldn’t try to find a cure for that either.
-
Isn’t praying Psalm 1 in a “tone setter” frame of mind, projecting a mystical foretelling of the coming of Christ, really just praying someone else’s prayer, injecting someone else’s meaning — a historical curiosity, but not as helpful as praying the psalm in a “this applies to me first of all” frame of mind?
Are we not confusing biblical exegesis and the isogesis of official formulas with using the psalms for actual personal prayer?
Or is a translation like the Revised Grail merely an official formula with an official explanation, to be used officially or not at all?
And is a translation like ICEL 94 more suited to personal prayer and “in the trenches” Christianity?
Are we in the middle of a divergence, an institutional cognitive dissonance, where we all know what the official line is but know it’s not all that helpful sometimes to the spreading of the Good News, whether this applies to exclusionary translating, Latin exactness, or even to clerical pomp and honour?
-
-
Father Hein is exactly right. The constant loss of the Christological link in inclusive translation was marked out as the central reason for disallowing it.
Despite what Mr. Flowerday says, being a man does matter. We pray the psalms as Christians, not ancient Jews or modern feminists. Each implication and foreshadowing of Christ in the Psalms is essential to our understanding of them and our use of them as Catholic liturgical prayer. The reference is indeed common to every single patristic commentary on the Psalter.
For my part, I think I’ll stick with Augustine.
EXPOSITION ON THE PSALMS:
“Blessed is the man that hath not gone away in the counsel of the ungodly” (ver. 1). This is to be understood of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord Man. [6] “Blessed is the man that hath not gone away in the counsel of the ungodly,” as “the man of earth did,” [7] who consented to his wife deceived by the serpent, to the transgressing the commandment of God. “Nor stood in the way of sinners.” For He came indeed in the way of sinners, by being born as sinners are; but He “stood” not therein, for that the enticements of the world held Him not. “-
Exactly right, indeed, Jon. And if—as alleged—inclusive language similarly destructive of Christological understanding was among the reasons the abortive 1998 missal translation was torpedoed, then let us say Deo gratias and good riddance!
Incidentally, since the beginning of Advent Iโve compared the 2008 and 2010 corrected translations semi-regularly, and find that on a daily basis the difference between them is not so consequential as some have feared. If my sampling is indicative of the whole, then—assuming the obvious rough spots are smoothed in the usual final editing (perhaps with some thanks to vigilant PrayTellers)—I can hardly wait until this coming Advent when Catholics will hear these more authentic propers proclaimed by faithful priests at altars throughout the English-speaking Church.
-
Would love to see some documentation that proves that it was theological and christological reasons for why Rome did not act on the 15+ english bishops’ conferences that approved the 1998 translation.
Yes, there have been numerous and constant rumors that Rome took no action on 1998 for these reasons…..would suggest that this is “myth” …..or it is the interpretation of a small group that came to those conclusions based on what?
HE – your last part has been thoroughly debunked – again, your opinion and “aplogia” to a flawed project.
-
-
But it clearly can’t require a masculine term in order to be Christological, or the Latin text would thereby fail to be Christological.
-
Why? The Latin of Psalm 1 is “beatus vir qui non abiit in consilio impiorum”
That “vir” is a masculine term (remember all the drama lately over “viri selecti” on Holy Thursday?)
Also see in Psalm 111, for instance, “beatus vir qui timet”.
-
-
Jon,
From St. Basil the Great:
“‘Blessed is the man who walks not in the council of the wicked.’ What is truly good, then, is first and foremost the most blessed, and that is God. So Paul, too, discusses Christ, ‘awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ’ (Titus 2:13). For truly blessed is the goodness that all things await and all things desire: an unchangeable nature, noble dignity, peaceful existence, a happy way of life in which there is neither change nor alteration…
“But foolish and worldly men, ignorant of the nature of good itself, often bless what is worthless…Blessed is he, then, who has what is valued the most…How do we know him? He ‘walks not in the counsel of the wicked.’…
“But why, we may ask, does the prophet single out ‘man’ for happiness? Are women excluded? No! For the virtue of man and woman is the same, since creation is equally honored in both; and so both receive the same reward.”[from Aquilina and Bailey, _Praying the Psalms with the Early Christians_, p. 20]
***
I can see the importance of recognizing the Christological meaning in Old Testament texts in general. But when translating particular Biblical texts into a new language, if multiple levels of meaning are accepted (such as “literal; allegorical; tropological or moral; and analogical”), on what basis is one chosen? If a translation clarifies one meaning, but obscures another, which one should be chosen?
Is there a rubric in applying tradition for prioritizing Augustine’s emphasis instead of Basil’s, which seems more focused on the literal sense?
-
-
Just wondering how one knows when liturgical prayers are being proclaimed by “faithful” priests…
-
A first clue is whether they “Say the Black, Do the Red”. Some here have suggested there are hordes of unfaithful priests out there. I myself have no reason to think that their numbers are so legion.
-
And you’d be the expert on things ‘legion’ . . . I do wish to Christ you’d get whatever it is that’s bugging you fixed, you and the other Prophets of Doom who prowl the Internet looking for something to bitch about.
-
I’d suggest “Say the Black, Do the Red” is a rather weak description of faithfulness.
-
-
-
How so, Deacon?
The first verse of Psalm 1 in the Vulgate reads:
Beatus vir, qui non
abiit in consilio
impiorum, et in via
peccatorum non stetit,
et in cathedra pestilentiae
non sedit.“Vir” as we all know after our yearly go-’round with Holy Thursday foot-washing, is Latin for “male.”
I fail to see how “the Latin text would thereby fail to be Christological.”
-
My remark was about Latin texts in general, in response to the question about the 1998 translation (of course it would make the point rather neatly if the Latin of psalm 1 used homo instead of vir, but if wishes were horses . . . ).
For the record, I’m happy to have “vir” translated as “man.” But I would not want to say that texts that use “homo” ought not be read Christologically, would you?
-
I should read all the way down before replying!
-
-
Hominibus in the Gloria: people.
Homines in the Credo: men.
Liturgiam authenticam: “The Latin must be translated exactly.” Except when it isn’t.
-
-
“The constant loss of the Christological link in inclusive translation was marked out as the central reason for disallowing it.”
It is a falsehood that one needs an explicit male reference for something to be Christological. We also live in an era in which we do not look to the first coming of Christ, but to the second, and that all people, including women, are called to imitate Christ to spread the Gospel and to prepare for the Reign of God.
In fact, it might be argued that an exclusive male reference chains us more deeply in the past, and refuses to acknowledge that for Christians, the messianic event/incarnation is now an experience of human history, and the task for today’s faithful is far different than it was twenty-five to thirty centuries ago.
On this matter, I’m fine with the “accuracy” solution: translate “vir” as man, “femina” as woman, and “homo” as some appropriate generic reference for people.
-
Only comments with a full name will be approved.
But this is scripture, and what matters is what the original text says in the language in which it was written, and not the Vulgate or neo-Vulgate says
Why? The Latin of Psalm 1 is โbeatus vir qui non abiit in consilio impiorumโ
That โvirโ is a masculine term (remember all the drama lately over โviri selectiโ on Holy Thursday?)
Also see in Psalm 111, for instance, โbeatus vir qui timetโ.
-
The Hebrew is ‘ashri ha-ish asher lo halakh ba-atzat r’sha’im”. The word that is causing the consternation is ‘ha-ish’ – the man (male, or vir in Latin). I don’t have a copy of the Septuagint (I need to add it to my amazon wish list!), so I don’t know how it’s expressed in Greek.
Interestingly, the Hebrew contains a play on words that is very much lost in translation. The word for happiness used here is ‘ashri’ which is derived from a form of the verb ‘ashar’ which means ‘to go straight, advance’. This resonates strongly with ‘asher lo halakh ba-atzat r’sha’im’ (‘that does not walk in the advice of the wicked’).
-
+JMJ+
The LXX uses แผฮฝฮฎฯ (aner), which corresponds to the Hebrew and the Latin. It means “a male human”.
-
-
There is an html error in RB Burke’s 9:40 PM post. The first paragraph “But this is scripture” was not written by me.
My response was written in reply to Deacon Bauerschmidt’s response about the Latin, not to the general issue of translation, however, I disagree with RP Burke (who I take is expressing his own opinion where he has mistakenly “quoted” me). The Vulgate matters because it is the record of the interpretation of the Psalms in our faith and also because the Psalms that we pray in the official texts of the liturgy are the Latin psalms. I have no Hebrew of my own, but Richard Verver suggests that the Latin use of a term for males does reflect the Hebrew.
-
-
If anyone has a copy of Christian Prayer by Catholic Book Publishing Co. They use the Revised Grail Psalter for the psalms contained in the Hours for all but Ps. 95! This is no surprise for anyone who prays the Office! Good work!
-
Tim, forgive me if I seem confusedโbut this appears to be the 1993 Grail revision rather than the latest revision by Conception Abbey, conforming to the principles in Liturgiam Authenticam.
-
-
All the people commenting on this thread so far are men. That explains why no one has talked about the cognitive dissonance that happens to many women whose prayer starts with “Blessed be the man” and who are trying to make it relevant to themselves as well as to Christ.
One translation makes the connection to Christ less explicit, the other makes the connection to the woman praying less explicit. If women matter, then that’s a real concern, especially when that problem is systematic. If they don’t, then, just let them deal with it!
-
But when we pray the psalms liturgically, isn’t it always the case that it is the voice of Christ, the Bridegroom, praying in his Bride, the Church. Otherwise who would dare pray the psalms protesting our innocence before God?
When we pray the psalms devotionally, we are free to use whichever version and psalm that resonates with our circumstances. The publication of the Revised Grail Psalter doesn’t remove that freedom, so why should some see this as a political issue?
Unless I’m mistaken, both the Orthodox and Catholic Churches insist on using masculine terms for Christological links. It’s nice that we have ecumenical agreement, isn’t it?
-
” … isnโt it always the case that it is the voice of Christ, the Bridegroom, praying in his Bride, the Church.”
No, it’s not. That’s a metaphor, and a useful one no doubt, but it is not the only metaphor for the relationship of Christ and the Church.
Claire’s point is well-taken. Is the point of praying the psalms to recite an academic exercise, or is it to inspire holiness in the faithful? Given the institution’s woeful record with women, this may well be an area where it is better to accede to a certain pragmatism where the reference to a believer is concerned.
-
Is the point of praying the psalms to recite an academic exercise, or is it to inspire holiness in the faithful?
Praying the psalms Christologically is hardly an academic exercise divorced from the inspiration of holiness in the faithful.
-
-
โ But when we pray the psalms liturgically, isnโt it always the case that it is the voice of Christ, the Bridegroom, praying in his Bride, the Church.โ
Yes, for those who accept Vatican II on the Divine Office as per Sacrosanctum Concilium, Chapter IV:
โ83. Christ Jesus, High Priest of the New and Eternal Covenant, taking human nature, introduced into this earthly exile that hymn which is sung throughout all ages in the halls of Heaven. He joins the entire community of mankind to Himself, associating it with His own singing of this canticle of Divine Praise.โ
โ84. By tradition going back to early Christian times, the Divine Office is devised so that the whole course of the day and night is made holy by the praises of God. . . . . . it is truly the voice of the Bride addressed to her Bridegroom; lt is the very prayer which Christ Himself, together with His Body, addresses to the Father.โ
Perhaps this sounds merely metaphorical to those who think what happens at the words of consecration is merely symbolic.
-
I have followed this thread with some interest since it articulates very clearly issues in both scriptural and liturgical exegesis and hermeneutics that I find fascinating. The problem with blogs, of course, is that it is difficult to untangle particular issues and follow them through. So I would like to offer three issues arising for me from the discussion so far, hoping that we might explore them in some systematic way, whether by making them separate discussion threads on this blog or identifying which of the issues we’re addressing.
ISSUE ONE: THE LATIN LANGUAGE APPROPRIATION OF HEBREW TEXTS. I have noted that our concern is with the proper English translation of a Latin text. For example, Mr. Kabel notes that the Vulgate for the opening of Psalm 1 is “Beatus vir.” I believe that the neo-Vulgate is the privileged Latin translation of the scriptures for use in the Roman Rite OF, so much so that LA calls for translations to be made from it with consultation of the underlying Hebrew or Greek text. But that places quite a constraint on the translators since we are aware that the “original” of this text is would be “‘Ashre ha ‘ish” (and please forgive my mixing and matching of transliteration patterns for the Hebrew since my computer system doesn’t transcribe this well. Does vir (as opposed to femina or homo) in the Latin system = ‘ish (as opposed to ‘ishah or ‘adam) in the Hebrew system? Does beatus in the Latin system = ‘ashre in the Hebrew system? Since neither language supplies a verb copula here how should the affirmation be brought over into English? For our purposes, what “weight” should the original language have in determining meaning (especially when it is claimed as a revelatory text)? I’ll raise my next issue in another post.
-
Against my better judgement, let me resume the role of curmudgeonly skunk at this euphoric lawn party celebrating a newly-restored Christological translation of the Psalms.
Did I misunderstand the point of the project, or was not this Revised Grail version supposed to recover (or preserve) not only the Christological references in the Psalms but ALSO keep an eye on the Vulgate (or neo-Vulgate) so that the richly nuanced ecclesial/liturgical mode of praying the Psalms might be recovered (in accordance with Liturgiam authenticam: “the greatest care is to be taken so that the translation express the traditional Christological, typological and spiritual sense” 41) ?
Referring back to the “AREAS OF DIFFICULTY WITH THE RECEIVED TEXT” (section 10), it would appear that this Revised Grail has failed to do that in multiple instances, since with the posting by GIA of the Revised Grail text, it is now clear that the “Received Text” quoted in the “Areas of Difficulty” is, in fact, the very Revised Grail that has received the confirmatio of the Congregation!
Has the Congregation, then, simply abandoned the goal of maintaining in vernacular translation the treasury of meaning contained in these venerable antiphonal texts? Or did the Congregation, once again (as in so many other areas of the Received Text) fail to follow its own guidelines? If the latter, then surely this raises new/additional questions about the competence of this Congregation.
Let me see if I can refresh memories by posting the examples given in the “Areas of Difficulty” document. Or should I simply anticipate what seems to be the increasing reaction of posters on this blog: “Oh enough! At least we have a new translation. At least it’s better than the old one. At least . . . ”
At least THAT will give heart to Vox Clara’s anonymous tinkerers!
-
1. Entrance Antiphon, Saturday, First Week of Lent
Cf. Psalm 18 (19):8 (Missal Text)
Lex Domini irreprehensibilis, CONVERTENS ANIMAS;
TESTIMONIUM Domini fidele, sapientiam PRAESTANS PARVULIS.Received Text Version (NOW REVEALED TO BE THE REVISED GRAIL)
The law of the Lord is perfect; IT REVIVES THE SOUL.
The DECREES of the Lord are steadfast; they give wisdom TO THE SIMPLE.Gray Book Version
The Law of the lord is perfect, CONVERTING THE SOUL;
the DECREE of the lord is faithful, giving wisdom TO LITTLE ONES.Whereas the Neo Vulgate text, a modern translation based on the Hebrew text, reads, REFICIENS ANIMAS, the Missal text reads, CONVERTENS ANIMAS. In the context of Lent, โconvertingโ is preferable and a more accurate translation of the Latin.
2. Entrance Antiphon, Monday, Second Week of Lent
Cf. Psalm 25 (26): 11-12 (Missal Text)
Redime me, Domine, et miserere mei.
Pes ENIM meus stetit IN VIA RECTA,
in ECCLESIIS benedicam Dominum.Received Text Version (NOW REVEALED TO BE THE REVISED GRAIL)
Redeem me, O Lord, and have mercy on me.
My foot stands ON LEVEL GROUND:
I will bless the LORD IN THE ASSEMBLY.Gray Book Version
Redeem me, Lord, and have mercy on me,
FOR my foot stands ON THE RIGHT PATH.
IN THE ASSEMBLIES I will bless the Lord.Whereas the Neo Vulgate text reads, DIRECTO (tr. โon level groundโ), the Missal text reads IN VIA RECTA, translated in the Gray Book as โON THE RIGHT PATH.โ โON THE RIGHT PATHโ is more suitable in the context of Lent and a more accurate translation.
3. Entrance Antiphon, Saturday, Fourth Week of Lent
Cf. Ps 17 (18):5,7 (Missal Text)
Circumdederunt me GEMITUS mortis,
DOLORES INFERNI circumdederunt me;
et in tribulatione mea invocavi Dominum,
et exaudivit de templo SANCTO suo vocem meam.Received Text Version (REVISED GRAIL)
The WAVES of death rose about me;
the SNARES of the grave surrounded me.
In my anguish I called to the LORD;
from his temple he heard my voice. -
Gray Book Version
The GROANS of death surrounded me, the PAINS OF HELL were about me;
in my trouble I called on the Lord, and from his HOLY Temple he answered my cry.As illustrated in [CAPS] in each text, it is clear that the Gray Book version translates the Latin text, and the Received Text translates the Hebrew text (cf. Neo Vulgate, FLUTUS MORTIS instead of GEMITUS MORTIS; TORRENTES BALIAL instead of DOLORES INFERNI; DE TEMPLO SUO instead of DE TEMPLO SANCTO SUO). Furthermore the Gray Book version, as a translation of the Missal text, has more Christological overtones.
4. Entrance Antiphon, Tuesday of Holy Week
Cf. Psalm 26 (27): 12 (Missal Text)
NE TRADIDERIS ME, Domine,
in animas PERSEQUENTIUM ME:
quoniam insurrexerunt in me testes iniqui,
et MENTITA EST INIQUITAS SIBI.Received Text Version (NOW REVEALED TO BE THE REVISED GRAIL)
DO NOT LEAVE ME to the will of MY FOES, O Lord,
for false witnesses rise up against me,
and THEY BREATHE OUT VIOLENCE.Gray Book Version
DO NOT HAND ME OVER, Lord, to the will of THOSE WHO PURSUE ME,
for unjust witnesses have risen against me
AND WICKEDNESS HAS LIED TO ITSELF.As illustrated in [CAPS] in each text, the Gray book Version translates the Latin text and the Received Text, the Hebrew text. The Gray Book version reflects the strong Christological reading of the Psalm, especially in the phrase โDO NOT HAND ME OVER.โ In fact the Communion Antiphon (Romans 8:32) for that same day reads, โGod did not spare his own Son, BUT HANDED HIM OVER for us all.โ
This section concludes with several other sample examples of Lenten Antiphons from the Received Text where the Latin text of the Missal is not being translated.
So, did I misunderstand the project, or has the Congregation changed its mind, or failed in its responsibilities? Ramifications for PROPERS Projects, anyone?
-
According to Ratio Translationis p.100 “A serious duty laid upon the Bishop’s Conference is the final judgement that a given publication has met all of the various standards for the publication of a liturgical book in the Roman Rite, as described both in the LA and in RT.” So ultimately (“final” judgement) it seems that the Bishop’s Conference will have to reject the final publication, unless this respects RT (that insists on biblical language). When the translation guidelines exceed 100 pages, it is hard to know which rules have priority among sets of necessarily conflicting rules.
-
-
-
ISSUE TWO: THE CHRISTIAN APPROPRIATION OF JEWISH TEXTS. There have been some very interesting posts on the necessity of holding open a possible Christological interpretation of Psalm 1, i.e., at its simplest level identifying the “vir”/”ha ‘ish” of the psalm text with Jesus. Because, as a Catholic who subscribes to the Biblical Commission’s document _The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church_ I believe in the multivalence of revelatory texts, it is quite easy for me to recognize that there are multiple meanings that can be discovered/co-created by engagement with this text, thus it would be quite legitimate for Christians to find/create in this text meanings that go beyond its meanings as articulated within Jewish communities. But because of my training, I would want to explore, as far as possible, what the text might have meant for the putative original (human) author and audience that employed it BEFORE (not instead of) exploring its possible meanings as my religious community has appropriated the text. Thus Psalm 1 would seem to me to be, in the first place, connected to Hebrew wisdom literature, and the “man” of the psalm to be an idealized portrait of an Israelite sage, one who studies the “torah YHWH” (“law of the LORD”) and “murmurs it” (a characteristic way of memorizing and interiorizing the written torah) “day and night.” This doesn’t foreclose ALSO reading the text as related to Jesus (in fact, for me it enriches my understanding of Jesus to think of him as a sage in the light of some of the disputes over torah the New Testament records). I’ll raise my final issue in my next post.
-
ISSUE THREE: THE APPROPRIATION OF POETIC TEXTS. Finally I think there is an issue of translating poetry, namely how does one move from the concrete images with their wealth of resonances in a particular culture, era, and language to another culture, era and language. I think this is incredibly difficult for most prose and overwhelmingly difficult for poetry. I find it helpful always to ask: what task did the translator set for him/her/themselves? In the case of the Grail/revised Grail/Conception Abbey Grail a major issue seems to be a translation that is singable according to the “pulsed” Gelineau psalm-tones. That surely constrains the translator(s) in ways that other translations would not be. Mr. Wilson quotes the 1994 ICEL Psalter Psalm 1 above. It clearly doesn’t attempt to offer a word-for-word translation of the Hebrew original or a Latin translation. But it was written to be sung (to tones created by Howard Hughes based on the genre of psalm assigned) AND to reflect the translators’ decisions about the genre: thus if Psalm 1 is a “wisdom psalm” and one wishes to communicate that to a contemporary English speaking group, perhaps recasting the opening as a proverbial saying would be appropriate. (Sr. Mary Collins, OSB, who was intimately involved in this Psalter project has written extensively on the intentions behind the translation.) Of course, one may judge that this is closer to paraphrase than to translation, if one is willing to articulate the principles by which one makes that judgement. And the Church is also free to declare that a given translation might be useful for private devotion but not for public recitation or liturgical use (although in this era of transparency it might be helpful if the principles by which such a judgement is made were also articulated). I would like to conclude this point with two more examples in my next post.
-
It might help to reduce the burden on this translation to recall that the universe of translations that are permitted for *sung* use is wider than for recitation. This is often overlooked.
For reference, go deeper within this thread:
-
-
Finally, I’d like to offer two further examples of English translations of Psalm 1 to show how poetic sensibility conjoined to scriptural scholarship can produce some very interesting translation/paraphrase. Back in 1967 a group of Dutch scholars and poets grappled with creating contemporary psalm translations; in 1973 Seabury Press brought out an English translation of their work under the title _Fifty Psalms: A New Translation_. After commenting “with its emphasis on the Law and its oracular tone in the vein of the Jewish wisdom-tradition, it is a typically Jewish meditation, impersonal, moralistic, and a bit conventional.” Here is how it begins: “Happy is the man / who does not seek advice from godlessness, / who does not set his foot in the ways of evil, / who will not sit in circles where they laugh / at God and at his law. / Happy is that man — / he seeks with all his heart the word of God, / and savours words of wisdom night and day.” I think you can see how freely these translators felt to repeat phrases, substitute abstracts for concretes, rearrange patterns, etc. Even more radical is Francis Patrick Sullivan’s version of Psalm 1 from _Lyric Psalms: Half a Psalter_: “What grace! / never to be partner / to a crime / nor thick with the lawless / or cynics, / but able to be with God / law by law / night and day eagerly….” Though this is far from the original Hebrew text or Latin translation, at least for this reader, it shocks me with what I take must have been part of the original power of the poem, the expected “thick with thieves” becoming “thick with the lawless and cynics”. Would I ever suggest these last two translations for liturgical use? No, but I do appreciate what the translators were trying to do and try to judge their accomplishments on the basis of what they state they are attempting.
-
Thank you, Mike, for bringing up this salient (but so far unmentioned) characteristic of the Grail translation-sprung rhythm. I have been amazed that this point has not been considered along the way. Is mandating the use of this translation created for use with a particular rhythmic chanting practice a good idea, since in many instances it will be sung to different formulas or settings, or recited? I’m just raising the question, not implying an answer. Surprised that I have not seen discussion on this point.
-
I’m a little rusty on the history of all of this, but was not Gelineau’s French translation of the psalms (and their subsequent translation as the Grail Psalter) an attempt to recover “sprung rhythm” of the Hebrew psalms? If so, couldn’t the retention of this rhythmic covvention be considered an application of “formal equivalence?” Gelineau’s psalm tones then but one musical solution among many possible?
-
Kevin’s point about sprung rhythm is exactly right. The Bible de Jรฉrusalem aimed to emulate the rhythms of the Hebrew originals.
It would be a shame to become fixated on the Gelineau tones, which are not as widely used elsewhere as they are in the US. UK Catholic cantors, choirs, congregations and religious communities have been singing the Grail psalms to other kinds of tones (non-pulsed, with reciting notes and terminations, etc) without problem for over 40 years now.
The fact that the texts can be sung in a pulsed way does not mean that they have to be. I personally am pleased that the decision was taken to release the revised texts in both pointed and unpointed formats, for that very reason.
-
-
-
One of the most amazing aspects of Gelineau’s psalm tones is the ability for the tones to work with French and English psalm translations. In the French, the strong syllable frequently falls at the end of the word, in English we typically lean on the first part of the word. Thus when hearing the psalms chanted in French on these tones, there is a wonderful upward sweep from phrase to phrase. I’d be anxious to hear if the tones are used are used with other language translations.
-
Chris McConnell :
Iโd suggest โSay the Black, Do the Redโ is a rather weak description of faithfulness.Say the black
Do the red
Buy the fancy wine
Cook the gourmet meals
Fly all over the world
Set up your Amazon wish list
Let the dimwitted laity buy you everything from your birdseed to $400 altar missals
What a life: and it is yours, O converted Lutheran priest (who never goes to his diocese) of Jesus Christ!WHAT A JOKE
And he’s got the Prophets of Doom all convinced he’s Something Else!
-
Chris you will be disappointed to find out you can’t buy the Father that Benziger Missal he posted that he wanted La Befana to bring him. Say but the word Father and some adoring layperson will have it delivered to you. But not to worry he’s going to say Mass for the giver’s intention. What a racket that guy has.
-
-
Here’s an interesting take on the whole concept of Psalter translation (with a reference to the original Grail) from the Episcopal Church’s Prayer Book Psalter Revised (1973), the non-inclusive precursor to the more-inclusive Psalter that ended up in the Book of Common Prayer 1979, and thence to the Anglican Use’s Book of Divine Worship (the only instance I can think of where an inclusive language psalter was given a Concordat cum originali from . . . are you ready? . . . Monsignor James P. Moroney!)
“The very excellencies of the several modern versions militate against their suitability for the Church’s purposes. With one exception (the English Revised Psalter), they are attempts, and some of them brilliantly successful attempts, to render into contemporary English speech the received Hebrew text of the Psalms, and even to press behind the received text (where it offers difficulties) to probable original readings. This is a laudable ambition in Biblical translation, and one rightly values the results of such scholarship in liturgical readings and for study. The Psalter, however, is not just another Old Testament reading; it is a thoroughly naturalized Christian literature; so that the question is not only, ‘What did this passage mean to the Jewish worshiper in pre-Christian Jerusalem?; but also, ‘What does the passage mean to the Christian Church which continues to use it in its worship?’
-
continued:
“The Prayer Book Psalter, unlike the rest of the Great Bible of 1536, was not translated ‘out of the original tongues.’ It was an English translation, with reference to contemporary German versions from the Latin Vulgate Psalter; and that, in turn, was St. Jerome’s revision of an older Old Latin version, not his own translation from the Hebrew. Finally, the Old Latin itself was a translation from a Greek translation made in the second and first centuries before Christ (the “Septuagint”). Our Psalter, then, stands at several removes from the Hebrew original, and comes to us steeped in centuries of Jewish and Christian worship and interpretation.
“Moreover, the Psalter is not primarily a body of readings to which one listens, or which one reads in solitude. It is a hymnal intended for corporate congregational recitation. A version of the Psalms for public worship, therefore, must lend itself to congregational singing and reading. Any text, of course, can be set to music and sung by trained choirs; but the Prayer Book Psalter is demonstrably suitable, because of its flexible prose lines and its strongly rhythmical terminal patterns, both to reading and singing, not only by solo voices, but also in unison, antiphonally, and responsively, by a worshiping congregation. The metrical Psalters and the modern “Grail” version are designed for singing, but their strong metrical pulse makes for monotony and jerkiness in reading.”
Preface, The Prayer Book Psalter Revised (1973)
-
-
Dr. Rindfleisch’s citation of the preface from the 1973 _The Prayer Book Psalter Revised_ brilliantly addresses what I listed as ISSUE TWO: THE CHRISTIAN APPROPRIATION OF JEWISH TEXTS. I hope that the example I gave makes it clear that I take a similar stance: the question is not only “‘What did this passage mean to the Jewish worshiper in pre-Christian Jerusalem [or elsewhere]?’; but also ‘What does the passage mean to the Christian Church which continues to use it in worship?’” I also appreciate the fact that the Prayer Book Psalter was not translated “out of the original tongues.” I do have two follow-up questions: 1) What does it mean to say that the Psalter is “a thoroughly naturalized Christian literature” (presumably in (a) way(s) that other parts of the First/Old Testament are not? and 2) Is Dr. Rindfleisch arguing that just as The Prayer Book Psalter must be treated in a special way in terms of translation theory, so too the Missal Text of the psalmic antiphons is better served by the Grey Book translations stemming from the Old Latin or (neo-)Vulgate translations than from the new Grail Psalter’s translations stemming from the Hebrew originals? Are there cases where the Old Latin or (neo-)Vulgate translations simply “get it wrong”, i.e., where they do not accurately represent at least a nuance of the Hebrew text, but misunderstand the underlying text? What should the Church then do? In the latest issue of _Worship_ Gail Ramshaw writes about her childhood reading of Psalm 22 in _The Lutheran Hymnal_ and wondering why we prayed to be saved from the “horn of the unicorn,” acknowledging that recent psalm translations render this was “wild oxen.” This is a genuine question for me: I’m not simply asking it as though I had an answer or it was settled. Any enlightenment from Dr. Rindfleisch or others would be gratefully accepted.
-
Fr. Joncas, I’ve been following this blog for the past few weeks. I’ve found the discussions here to be quite stimulating, and I hope that your “issues” provoke further discussion. They resonate with some of the questions I’ve had as I’ve been reading the threads on translation.
Do you know of any book or literature that discusses the role of the Holy Spirit in the transmission (and translation) of Scripture beyond its initial inspiration?
(I’ll elaborate on my question in response to another post below.)
-
Dear Father Joncas:
First of all, I am so sorry that my posting and yours coincided, so that my unseemly rant appears sandwiched between your very cogent points, all of them worth much pondering and discussion! I am sorry about that! A technological illiterate in almost every way, I should have waited until YOU finished your postings.
This is just a quick response to your question about the Grey Book vs. the Received Text as far as the Missal’s psalmic antiphons. That quick answer is YES! Why, oh why could the Vox Clara tinkerers not left those antiphons alone? So the Revised Grail is to be the super-duper one-and-only approved Psalter for future liturgical use (if it is). But as the “Areas of Difficulty” document pointed out, those antiphons need to be translated from the Missal’s Latin: the clearest example being that Introit antiphon from Tuesday in Holy Week, “Do not hand me over,” where the Communion antiphon from Romans “matches” it, “but handed Him over for the sake of us all.”
My “umbrella point”, if I may put it so, is that whoever is running this Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments is really “asleep at the switch” – or the word processor, as the case may be. Let me close by restating the point I made in the first essay I prepared for this blog: The Holy Father is being ill-served by people in whom he has placed an excessive amount of trust – and far too much authority. As for the anonymous tinkerers of Vox Clara, the old professor thinks their ambitions far outstrip their skills.
-
-
โthe question is not only, โWhat did this passage mean to the Jewish worshiper in pre-Christian Jerusalem?; but also, โWhat does the passage mean to the Christian Church which continues to use it in its worship?โโ
True, of course. But it seems to me that the former contributes valuable perspective for the latter. When I want to know WDTPRS (the ubiquitous acronym meaning, of course, โWhat Does The Psalm Really Sayโ), I look first at
Robert Alter, The Book of Psalms: A Translation with Commentary
A Kindle version is available, so if you pray or study the Divine Office privately, you can hold your Kindle right beside your Liturgia Horarum.
-
Fr. Joncas, of course there are many instances of variance between different Latin and English translations. In regard to the verse Psalm 22(21):22 which you mention, we see:
cornibus unicornium (old and new Vulgate)
horns of the unicorns (King James and Douay-Rheims)
horns of the wild oxen (Revised Standard Version)Whereas Alter gives โhorns of the ramโ as the sense of the original Hebrew.
-
The Psalms (and all Scripture) are not just inspired texts they have been and are inspiring texts not simply in the original (which we may not exactly have) but in other various influential forms (Greek, Latin, English, etc).
So we should consider how the Greek text(s) of the psalms fit into the Greek texts of the OT and NT, (the Greek morphological text in BibleWorks is an easy way to do this electronically) and the long use of Greek texts in traditions such as the Byzantine.
Similarly the Latin text(s), especially the Vulgate have a history of inspiring western spirituality; the same may be said for the King James Version for English speaking people. Surely all this spirituality deserves some consideration when we make translations. (As well as other things, such as how language and words are used today)
Two things should be clear from all this history.
First there is no one way to translate any scripture. Even if one limits oneself to the Greek, it is very difficult to convey the relationship of a word to all the other occurrences of that word in similar contexts in OT and NT let alone its subsequent use in the Byzantine tradition. So the whole idea that we should have only one translation should be abandoned!
Second, traditions (Greek, Latin, English) can develop in directions that are either limited culturally in time and place or else just wrong (e.g. texts interpreted to bolster Anti-Semitism).
Finally seeing the Psalms as hymns to be sung versus the rest of Scripture as something to be read ignores much of liturgical tradition that chants all of scripture (indeed all of the liturgy) because as Father Greeley once said in the book Religion as Poetry, religion functions in our lives more like poetry rather than prose. (The bible is not an ownerโs manual). It ignores the early history of the monastic office where the psalms were usually chanted by one person while everyone listened (still the case in the Byzantine Office today).
-
Given the history of transmission of the Psalms,
Hebrew >> Greek >> Latin (multiple translations) >> English (multiple translations)
my question is how to choose a particular meaning or nuance to convey? It seems like the decision in the current guidelines is for a particular version of the Latin texts. Dr. Rindfleisch indicates that for the antiphonal texts, someone made a different choice to follow the meaning of the Hebrew text.
On what basis does–or should–one choose to emphasize a particular meaning/nuance? On what basis is the meaning and structure of the Latin chosen over the Hebrew, Greek, or English?
Yet if the continued development or inspiration of the text is accepted, would anyone think that the 1973 ICEL text contains some spirituality worth considering (or developing) in future translations?
-
-
In regard to the discussions several places above about the Latin โvirโ which is how the Greek โanerโ is usually translated:
If one looks at the Pentateuch and historical books โanerโ almost always refers to someone who is clearly male, a husband, father, brother, soldier, etc.
However when one comes to the wisdom literature, โanerโ becomes a word that rarely is clearly male, e.g. husband in relationship to wife. Rather it becomes the word used for the generic person who is being encouraged to be wise, whether that person is described as blessed or wicked.
Now most of the time not only in the ancient world, but right up until the early 20th century this potentially wise person was in fact a male. William James writing at the beginning of the 20th century on the value of a college education, defined it as โto know a good man when you see him.โ This is just the classical wisdom literature definition of a man of VIRtue.. It set up ideals for how a male person should conduct himself in society. In fact in his essay on The Ph.D. Octopus in which James criticizes the rise of credentialing, he expresses the hope that we will be delivered from a future โso unmanlyโ that credentials will substitute for the pursue of wisdom.
We have traveled a far distance since the beginning of the 20th century. To translate โvirโ or โanerโ as if the wisdom literature applies mainly to males today, is to be out of touch with the vast changes that have taken place in postindustrial societies.
-
Xavier, at least one of the “2010 received texts” has been changed.
Entrance Antiphon, Saturday, Fourth Week of Lent
Cf. Ps 17 (18):5,7 (Missal Text)
Circumdederunt me GEMITUS mortis,
DOLORES INFERNI circumdederunt me;
et in tribulatione mea invocavi Dominum,
et exaudivit de templo SANCTO suo vocem meam.The waves of death rose about me;
the pains of the netherworld surrounded me.
In my anguish I called to the Lord,
and from his holy temple he heard my voice.This FINAL RM text is not that of the Gray Book version, or the Received Text Version, or even the final Grail text.
-
I am just a linguist here, and I do not understand the concept of translating into English from a Latin translation of a Hebrew original. It seems about as useful as translating into English from a German translation of a Russian original, say, War and Peace.
Leave a Reply