Ancient Texts, Translation and
Doctrine
How the Church translates ancient
holy texts is of critical importance.
Translation can be an avenue for sound and sure knowledge of the style
and content of the sacred texts, or it can be a means to modify, change, and
obscure their meaning. Hebrew was the
original language of the Old Testament.
It was translated into Greek by seventy Jewish scholars in
In the sixteenth century, the whole of the Scriptures was translated and published in English. The many books used in Latin worship were translated into the Book of Common Prayer in 1549. The King James or “Authorized Version” of the Bible (1611) with the Book of Common Prayer (1662) were essential elements of any Anglican service through the mid-twentieth century. Since the 1960’s, there has been a deluge of translations and paraphrases of the Bible.
There are two major approaches to translation of both the Bible and the Book of Common Prayer. These two approaches have quite different effects on the doctrine and devotion of the worship service. Many recent versions have “NEW” in the title and seem to indicate that its translation is set apart from the traditional approach. The first approach to translation is known as “essentially literal.” These seek to capture the precise wording of the original text and personal style of the writer. The emphasis is on a “word for word” correspondence. The King James (KJV), Revised Standard (RSV) and English Standard (ESV) versions fit this category.
The other approach is known as
“dynamic equivalence.” Any foreign or
unclear phrases are translated to what the translator thinks the reader will
understand as dynamically equivalent.
The emphasis is on a “thought for thought” correspondence. The “essentially literal” approach aims to make the translation transparent to the original text. The “dynamic equivalence” approach aims to make the text transparent to the reader.
In the 1970’s, Roman, Episcopal and Ecumenical committees were working on producing modern liturgies. They looked first at their target audiences; and then sought to render the original texts in a way that would be accessible, meaningful, appropriate, and receivable by them, according to the estimated capacity and needs of that target audience.
In the 1928 BCP, Psalm 1:1 reads,
“Blessed is the man that hath not walked in the counsel of the ungodly.” In the 1979 Prayer Book it reads, “Happy are
they who have not walked in the counsel of the wicked.” Are happy and blessed synonyms? The Benedictus in the 1928 BCP reads,
“Blessed be the Lord God of
In the Nicene Creed, the 1928 BCP says, “Jesus was conceived by the Holy Ghost.” The 1979 Prayer Book says, “Jesus was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit.” This removes the uniqueness of Jesus’ conception; as all conceptions, even kittens, are by the power of God. The 1928 BCP says Jesus is, “the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of his Father before all worlds.” The 1979 Prayer Book says He is, “the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father.” Was Jesus begotten before or as part of the eternity created by God? The 1928 BCP says Jesus is, “of one substance with the Father.” Option 2 in the 1979 Prayer Book says He is, “of one Being with the Father.” This could be taken as there is only one Divine Being who is both Father and Son. That is not what was intended by the Nicene Creed.
In the Te Deum Laudamus, the 1928 BCP says, “We praise thee, O God: we acknowledge thee to be the Lord. All the earth doth worship thee, the Father everlasting…” Rite 2 in the 1979 Prayer Book, it says, “You are God: we praise you; You are the Lord: we acclaim you; You are the eternal Father: All creation worships you…” This infers that mere sinful creatures dare to stand before the Lord God and address him without the reverence and awe due the creator of heaven and earth. This change in the way God is addressed is a major difference between the piety, devotion, and spirituality of the classic “traditional language” of public prayer and the “contemporary language” of the new liturgies.
In the traditional idiom, language is stretched and poetically formed in order to produce reverence and awe before Almighty God who is the holy and merciful One. The modern liturgical language of Rite Two tends to be commonplace and pedestrian in order to “scale down” the majesty of God and make worshippers feel more comfortable with Him. The theory is that this reduction in grandeur will make them feel more welcome in God’s Church.
The 1979 Eucharist claims to have its origin in the Greek Liturgy of St. Chrysostom. The Divine Liturgy of the Orthodox Churches says, “Blessed is the kingdom of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, now and ever, and unto ages of ages.” In the 1979 Prayer Book, the priest says, “Blessed be God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” The people respond with, “And blessed be his kingdom, now and for ever. Amen.” This again leads one to believe that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are simply three names for God and leaves us wondering whether this is Unitarianism or Trinitarianism.
Consider the meaning behind the salutation or greeting. Rite Two contains, “The Lord be with you. And also with you.” The 1928 BCP contains, “The Lord be with you. And with thy spirit.” Rite two uses “dynamic equivalency”, assuming that this is simply a Christian greeting as between two friends meeting on the street. It ignores the theology of ordination and the existence of a priest engaged in the sacramental ministry. The idea behind “And with thy spirit,” is that there is in the soul of the priest the spiritual gift given to him at ordination and that here is a prayer for the arousal and use of this gift as he celebrates the Eucharist. “And also with you,” does not permit even the contemplation of this possibility.
As we delve into the newly translated or paraphrased contemporary texts, we realize the correlation between the objective of the liturgists and the method of translation chosen. If appealing to a new world or a new generation that survived the 1960’s is the primary objective, “essentially literal” translations are not going to be effective. To satisfy that objective it is necessary to forsake solid learning and sacred content for comfort and acceptance in this culture. The result of the novelties and innovations introduced in the 1979 Prayer Book is that it no longer has the internal coherence and stability to be a lasting Formulary for a Church in the Anglican tradition.
The crowd at the Cross of Jesus on Good Friday confused his cry, “Eli, Eli, Lama Sabachthani?” They thought he was calling for Elijah because the word for God and the word for Elijah were so similar. They failed to recognize he was quoting the first line from the 22nd Psalm.
Dynamic equivalency is a valid tool to explain the ancient cultures in terms clearly understood today. If it replaces essentially literal translations altogether, the original meaning is lost forever. The reason is that dynamic equivalence is satisfied by similarity. Essentially literal translations require exactitude to the greatest degree possible.
When we bear in mind the Protestant assumption that the translation of every text must be self-explanatory, without the need for a preacher or teacher; confusion and ignorance of enormous magnitude can creep into the life of the Church.
For more details, read “Neither Orthodoxy Nor A Formulary” by The Rev. Dr. Peter Toon, M.A., D.Phil.
and The Rev. Louis Tarsitano
(Preservation Press of the Prayer Book Society of the USA 2004