Did you know, as Cardinal Wiseman wrote, that the way we pray the Ave Maria now in our present day is different than the way it was prayed, and that this change came as a result of the Challoner Bible? Read the quotes, it's very interesting. Cardinal Wiseman was very distressed by such a small thing: changing "Our Lord is with Thee" to "the Lord is with Thee."
A
tempest in a cardinalatial
teapot, methinks.
In his chapter(?) "Catholic Versions of Scripture" (1853), His Eminence [‡] can be seen to argue both sides of the issue of
literal translation. In his discussion of "
vaniloquia" (2 Tim. ii. 16), in which he prefers the translation "vain speech" in the "Rheimish" Version over the translation as "babblings" in the Challoner Version, he argues convincingly for its
literal translation.
But in the essay for which Card. Wiseman is touted in this CathInfo
topic, he argues for a "Rheimish" Version translation that's
not literal, but instead
distorted to fit the wording to which he says Victorian-Era English Catholics had become "accustomed":
There is another alteration of more importance, especially when considered in reference to the present times, and the influence it has had upon established forms of Catholic speech. In the first edition, in conformity to Catholic usage in England, the word "Dominus" is almost always translated by "Our Lord." The emended text changed the pronoun into an article, and says, "The Lord." In the Ave Maria, Catholics have always, till lately, been accustomed to say, "Our Lord is with thee;" as it is in that version, and as it was always used in England, even before that translation was made. But, in conformity with the change of the text, we have observed of late a tendency to introduce into the prayer a similar variation, and to say, "The Lord is with thee:" a change which we strongly deprecate, as still, cantish, destructive of the [↑p. 76/p. 77↓] unction which the prayer breathes, and of that union which the pronoun inspires between the reciter and Her who is addressed. We have no hesitation in saying, that this difference, trifling as many will consider it, expresses strongly the different spirits of our, and other, religions. It has never been the custom of the Catholic Church to say, "The Redeemer, the Saviour, the Lord, the Virgin;" "Redemptor noster, Dominus noster," and so "our Saviour,our Lord,our Lady," are the terms sanctioned; and therefore, consecrated by Catholic usage since the time of the Fathers. [....]
Where "first edition" apparently means the "Rheimish" Version, and phrases like "emended text" or "the change" are identified earlier in the page as "1750", thus 1 of the Challoner Versions.
Let's look into the Vulgate and Challoner New Testament, to read what His Eminence "deprecates":
[28] Et ingressus angelus ad eam dixit : Ave [Maria] gratia plena : Dominus tecuм : benedicta tu in mulieribus. [†]
[28] And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail [Mary], full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. [†]
This should an easy example.
Oh, wait! I'm still debating Catholic translations of the Holy Bible into
English, with people who do
not know Latin!
So I'll try to keep the explanation simple: There is
no pronoun where His Eminence advocates it. "
Dominus", means at most "
the Lord", with an optional
definite article. Notably in this instance, there is
no phrase "
Dominus noster", which would be required to supply the Cardinal with the English
pronoun "Our" that he advocates.
His Eminence fights on regardless, appealing to the authority of the agents of the
distortion in the "Rheimish" translation:
The Rheims translators have explained their reason for their translation in a note, p. 585, as follows: "We Catholics must not say The Lord, but Our Lord; as we say Our Lady for his mother, not The Lady. Let us keep our forefathers' words, and we shall easily keep our old and true faith, which we had of the first Christians."
Really, now!? The advocated pronoun simply isn't in the Vulgate! Please direct complaints to
forefathers St. Jerome, St. Robert Bellarmine, Pope Clement VIII, and maybe St. Luke himself! At least 3 of them are certainly in Heaven: They'll hear you!
Those who read farther in the
Essays will see that His Eminence admitted to the absence of the corresponding pronoun in (whatever text he means by) "the Greek" (i.e., the original language of the Gospel of St. Luke), and the
insertion of the advocated pronoun to the Syriac version that's derived from it. The Cardinal finally concedes the situation (which is contrary to what had previously been touted in this CathInfo
topic):
[....] If, therefore, it be considered too great a departure from accuracy in translation to restore the pronoun in the text of our version, let us at least preserve it in our instructions, and still more in our formularies of prayer.
It would indeed be a "
departure from accuracy", because what the author calls "
restor[
ing]
the pronoun" would actually be a
linguistically unjustified insertion of a word that does
not exist, whether in the Vulgate or in "the Greek". Where his reference to "our version" is, in effect, some potential future English revision that would satisfy the complaints published (in the excerpted work) by His Eminence.
-------
Note
†: "DR + LV" Luke ch. 1: <
http://drbo.org/drl/chapter/49001.htm>. In Lk. 1:28, I've taken the liberty of inserting Mary's name in gray to conform to the wording of the prayer & hymn derived from the quoted verse (doing so does
not alter any other words in that verse
at all). St. Luke didn't need that insertion, because he'd already identified the woman in his preceding verse (1:27).
Note ‡: Source as cited in "#19 on: October 08, 2017, 20:14:48". <
https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/do-you-have-the-real-douay-rheims/msg571427/#msg571427>.
Topic: Do you have the REAL Douay-Rheims? (Read 5870 times)