QL 97 (2016) 141-170 doi: 10.2143/QL.97.3.3197403 © 2016, all rights reserved

THE AS AN “AUXILIARY TOOL” OF

Historical Perspectives on

On March 28, 2001, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Disci- pline of the under the leadership of Cardinal Estévez released the Fifth Instruction for the implementation of Sacrosanc- tum . Entitled Liturgiam authenticam, “On the Use of Languages in the Publication of the Books of the Roman Liturgy,” it pre- scribes the use of the Latin Vulgate as an “auxiliary tool” in the textual production of Scriptural for the vernacular liturgical books (no. 24). With regard to the vernacular in particular, it adds that “[i]f the biblical translation from which the Lectionary is composed exhib- its readings that differ from those set forth in the Latin liturgical text, it should be borne in mind that the Editio is the point of refer- ence as regards the delineation of the canonical text. Thus, in the transla- tion of the and wherever else there may exist var- ying , the liturgical translation be prepared in accordance with the same manuscript that the Nova Vulgata has followed” (no. 37).1 This post-conciliar policy of Biblical translation soon became a matter of controversy. In a letter to the US Conference of dated August 13, 2001, the Executive Board of the Catholic Biblical Association of America aired its criticism against the curial document:

Our main concerns have to do with the presentation of the Nova Vulgata as the model for Scripture translations in various ways and the provisions that translations conform to it, even to the point of requiring conformity to the Nova Vulgata in the tradition of original language used for translation. Such procedure and others mandated in the document would

1. Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Liturgiam authenticam, March 28, 2001, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/ documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20010507_liturgiam-authenticam_en.html. [This and all other Internet references have been accessed December 20, 2016.] 142 Oliver G. Dy

produce an inferior product. The problem is compounded by the attempt to make the translation so produced the only one in general use for Catholics in the given language.2

Rising in defense of Liturgiam authenticam, Cardinal Estévez responded to what he regarded as misimpressions about it:

Indeed, some even seem to have reached the erroneous conclusion that the Instruction insists on a translation of the Bible from the Latin Nova Vulgata rather than from the original … This interpretation is contrary to the Instruction’s explicit wording in n. 24, according to which all texts for use in the Liturgy ‘must be made directly from the original texts, namely the Latin, as regards the texts of ecclesiastical composition, or the Hebrew, , or Greek, as the case may be, as regards the texts of Sacred Scripture’.

Concerning the use of the Vulgate as an auxiliary tool of translation, he argued that “it can only be beneficial for a translator to consider the Latin text as a window through which to view the same Hebrew, Greek, or Ara- maic text from the standpoint of a healthy sympathy with the best insights of the Latin over the centuries.”3 A proposed example of such a translational use of the Vulgate is the case of :6 which appears in the recommended lectionary reading for the Feast of the Dedication of the Lateran Basilica.4 In the Latin litur- gical text, the feminine pronoun “eam” is said to contain an allusion to the subject-Church. Hence, one should employ, so it is argued, the feminine pronoun “she” rather than the neuter “it” in the English translation of the verse so as to bring out the subtle ecclesiological signification in the Latin original as deployed in the liturgical celebration. From this, one can gen- eralize the auxiliary use of the Vulgate to mean that the translator of the Latin liturgical text first formulates or borrows a translation made from the original texts of Scripture, and then accordingly revises this to mirror the

2. For the complete letter, see Executive Board of the Catholic Biblical Association of America, “Letter and Critique on Liturgiam Authenticam,” in Origins (October 11, 2001) 314-316. 3. Jorge A. Medina Estevez, “Litterae Congregationis. Prot. N. 2071/01/L,” in 27, no. 11-12 (2001) 521-526. 4. See K. Magee, “From the Bible to the Lectionary of the Holy : Norms and Principles,” in Notitiae 47, no. 1-2 (2010) 57-60. Psalm 45:6 reads: in medio eius, non commovebitur; adiuvabit eam Deus mane diluculo. Its textual counterpart in the used in the liturgical celebrations in the United States of America is :6, which reads: “ is in its midst; it shall not be shaken; God will help it at break of dawn.” Incidentally, the possible errors in the existing vernacular due to the differences in versification (e.g., Ps. 45:6 vs. Ps. 46:6) is one of the points for rectification raised by Liturgiam authenticam (no. 37). The Latin Vulgate as an “Auxiliary Tool” of Translation 143 peculiar function of the Vulgate verse/s in the original Latin liturgical con- text. For all intents and purposes, the revisions following the application of the Vulgate as an auxiliary tool may turn out to be, after all, only minor and sparse. Nevertheless, there is a deeper ecclesiological issue at stake in this po- licy on Biblical translation established in Liturgiam authenticam. At the heart of the recent dispute in Biblical translation appears to lie a tension between the texts of two general Councils. On the one hand, Trent’s on the Vulgate (Insuper) of April 08, 1546 highlights the importance of this particular Latin translation of Scripture in the life and of the :5

Moreover, the same holy council considers that noticeable benefit can ac- crue to the church of God if, from all the Latin editions of the sacred books which are in circulation, it establishes which is to be regarded as authentic. It decides and declares that the old well known Latin Vulgate edition which has been tested in the church by long use over so many centuries should be kept as the authentic text in public readings, debates, and expla- nations; and no one is to dare or presume on any pretext to reject it.6

Liturgiam authenticam references this decree in article no. 37, thereby sug- gesting that the choice of use of the Vulgate as an auxiliary tool of trans- lation in article no. 24 is justified also on the basis of the declared authen- ticity of the Vulgate.7 On the other hand, the Vatican II on Divine () of November 18, 1965 gives priority to the original texts of Scripture in the textual production of popular vernac- ular :

22. Easy access to Sacred Scripture should be provided for all the Christian faithful. That is why the Church from the very beginning accepted as her own that very ancient Greek translation of the which is called the ; and she has always given a place of honor to other

5. This follows the first decree on the “acceptance of the sacred books and apostolic traditions” which listed the canonical books of Scripture “as contained in the Vulgate edition.” See Norman Tanner (ed.), of the Ecumenical Councils [Trent- Vatican II] (London: Sheed & Ward; Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 1990) 2: 663-664. 6. Ibid., 2: 664. The Latin original reads: “Insuper eadem sacrosancta synodus consider- ans, non parum utilitatis accedere posse ecclesiae Dei, si ex omnibus latinis editionibus, quae circumferuntur sacrorum librorum, quaenam pro authentica habenda sit, innotescat: statuit et declarat, ut haec ipsa vetus et vulgata editio, quae longo tot saeculorum usu in ipsa ecclesia probata est, in publicis lectionibus, disputationibus, praedicationibus et exposition- ibus pro authentica habeatur, et quod nemo illam reiicere quovis praetextu audeat vel prae- sumat.” 7. See Liturgiam authenticam no. 37, n.b. 32. 144 Oliver G. Dy

Eastern translations and Latin ones especially the Latin translation known as the vulgate. But since the word of God should be accessible at all times, the Church by her authority and with maternal concern sees to it that suit- able and correct translations are made into different languages, especially from the original texts of the sacred books [praesertim ex primigenis Sacrorum Librorum textibus]. And should the opportunity arise and the Church authorities approve, if these translations are produced in coopera- tion with the separated brethren as well, all Christians will be able to use them.8

Furthermore, there seems to be yet another tension between another pair of conciliar texts within the documentary corpus itself of Vatican II. The expressed preference for the original texts of Scripture in article 22 the 1965 Constitution on Divine Revelation seems to overrule article 36.4 of the earlier 1963 Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy that speaks of “[t]ranslations from the Latin text into the mother tongue intended for use in the liturgy.”9 The First Instruction of 1964 brings out the tension bet- ween these two conciliar more clearly:

[40.a] The basis of the translations is the Latin liturgical text. The version of the biblical passages should conform to the same Latin liturgical text. This does not, however, take away the right to revise that version, should it seem advisable, on the basis of the original text or of some clearer ver- sion.10

The translational dilemma can be described as follows: Latin is, by default, the translational “original” in the vernacularization of Latin liturgical texts. However, in the context of Scriptural translation, it does not share the same status as the original languages of Scripture. Put alternatively, Latin is the source language of translation in which the liturgical texts are originally expressed; on the other hand, it is a target language of translation in the historical composition of the Vulgate. Thus the dilemma: in formulating the vernacular texts of Scripture for the liturgical books, can one also trans- late at times from the Vulgate inasmuch as it is precisely the Vulgate text that appears in the liturgical books in the Latin original; or should one be absolutely confined to “the Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek, as the case may be,” inasmuch as these express “the original texts of the sacred books” (Dei

8. Dei Verbum, November 18, 1965, http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ ii_vat- ican_council/documents/vatii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html. Emphasis mine. 9. , December 04, 1963, http://www.vatican. va/archive/hist_ councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_ en.html. Emphasis mine. 10. Sacred Congregation of , Inter oecumenici, September 26, 1964, no. 40.0a, https://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDWINOEC.HTM. The Latin Vulgate as an “Auxiliary Tool” of Translation 145

Verbum 22) out of which the Vulgate was historically produced in the first place? The present article seeks to clarify these tensions by bringing into focus four historical points of context which previous commentaries on Litur- giam authenticam have not given sufficient attention to.11 These are: 1) the diminishing choice and extent of use of the Vulgate as a Biblical of translation during the late Tridentine era; 2) the liturgical custom on the vernacular Scriptures during the immediate pre-Vatican II era; 3) the compositional-redactional history behind the word “especially” [praesertim] in Dei Verbum 22; and 4) the absence of the lexical unit “au- thentic” in Vatican II’s discourse on the Vulgate. Each of these are succes- sively unpacked below, and they altogether form the basis of our assess- ment of the recent liturgical policy promoting the use of the Vulgate as an “auxiliary tool” of translation.

1. Introduction: The Choice and Arrangement of the Source Texts of Translation as an Issue in Biblical Translation

Among the key factors that shape and determine the outcome of any act of Biblical translation are the intended audience or readership in the target language of translation (e.g., adults vs. children); the operative ideologies permeating the social context where the translation is composed (e.g., gen- der-sensitive language); and the or manner of translating (literal vs. loose translation; formal equivalence vs. dynamic/functional equiva- lence).12 Another parameter, one also often taken for granted in the analy- sis of translations, is the choice of the source text/s of translation: from which source text in particular is the translation produced? In addition, in case more than one source text is chosen, there is also the arrangement of the sources to consider (e.g., which of the chosen sources respectively acts

11. Dale Launderville, “Translating Biblical Texts within an Ecclesial Context,” in God’s Word and the Church’s Council: Vatican II and Divine Revelation, ed. Mark O’Brien – Christopher Monaghan, Vatican II Series (Adelaide: ATF , 2014) Kindle loc. 3229-3506; Anthony Ward, “The Vernacular in the Western Liturgy at the and After,” in Notitiae 48, no. 11-12 (2011) 603-636; Joseph Smith, “Liturgiam Authenticam: The Authority of the Vulgate and the Neo-Vulgate,” in Landas 20 (2006) 310-319; Joseph Jensen, “Liturgiam Authenticam and the New Vulgate,” in America, Au- gust 13, 2001; Richard J. Clifford, “The Authority of the Nova Vulgata: A Note on a Recent Roman Document,” in The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 63 (2001) 197-202. 12. See for example Scott S. Elliott – Roland Boer (eds.), Ideology, Culture, and Trans- lation, Semeia Studies 69 (Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012); Mark L. Strauss, Distorting Scripture? The Challenge of Bible Translation and Gender Accuracy (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1998); Eugene A. Nida, “ of Translation,” in Language 45, no. 3 (1969) 483-498, doi:10.2307/411434. 146 Oliver G. Dy as the primary and the secondary source). Procedurally speaking, this act of selecting and arranging the source text/s of translation is an aspect of “pre-translation” rather than a formal part of the translation itself.13 From a semiotic perspective, any text for that matter can actually be- come a source text of translation:

I will grant that originals existed before someone translated them; but be- fore translating begins, nobody knows that a certain text will become an original. So, anything that can be translated is potentially an original, but it actually becomes one only when it is part of a translation process. Both the source texts qua source and the target text qua target are translation prod- ucts.14

However, the fundamental openness of any text to be transformed into a source text of translation is delimited at once by the assumption that not all texts can serve as legitimate or proper source texts of transla- tion. Thus, for example, Liturgiam authenticam prohibits that “translations be produced from other translations already made into other languages” (no. 24). Similarly, in the of professional translation, one usually translates from the critical edition of the autograph: from the German, Søren Kierkegaard from the Danish, and Jacques Derrida from the French original – to name a few. There are translational situations, however, where the normative source text may actually “exist in more than one version” and “in more than one language,” thereby creating “a multitude of candidates for a source text.”15 This holds markedly true for the Biblical text where the textual critic and the translator face the same fundamental question at the outset: Which among the different manuscript families, variant manuscripts, individual fragments, and other textual forms should be given priority or primacy?16

13. See Daniel Gouadec, Translation as a Profession, Benjamins Translation Library 73 (Amsterdam – Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, 2007), esp. 21-25, 68-72. 14. Ubaldo Stecconi, “A Map of Semiotics for Translations Studies,” in Similarity and Difference in Translation, ed. Stefano Arduni – Robert Hodgson Jr. (: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 2007) 153-167, 155. 15. Gideon Toury, Descriptive and Beyond, revised ed. (Amster- dam: Benjamins, 2012) 99-100. 16. Kent D. Clarke, “Original Text or Canonical Text? Questioning the Shape of the We Translate,” in Translating the Bible: Problems and Prospects, ed. Stan- ley E. Porter – Richard S. Hess, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 173 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999) 281-322; Emanuel Tov, “The Tex- tual Basis of Modern Translations of the : The Argument against Eclecti- cism,” in Hebrew Bible, Greek Bible, and Qumran: Collected Essays, Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 121 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008) 92-106; Bertil Albrektson, Text, Translation, Theology: Selected Essays on the Hebrew Bible (London – New York: Routledge, 2010) Kindle loc. 3841-4208 [Chapter 10: “Masoretic or Mixed: On Choosing The Latin Vulgate as an “Auxiliary Tool” of Translation 147

For the translator, the range of choice would have to additionally include the critical editions, of which there can be several for a single version. To address this complexity, the choice of the main source text of translation is often determined by ecclesiastical ruling or formal agreement: thus Liturgiam authenticam (no. 24) specifies the use of the Neo-Vulgate and not any other Vulgate edition;17 likewise, for ecumenical Bible transla- tions, the Greek critical edition of the United Bible Societies is stipulated for the New Testament, and the Stuttgartensia of the Ger- man is recommended for the Old Testament.18 The “pre-translational” choice and arrangement of the source texts of translation already emerges as an issue in in the discussion between and Augustine as to whether the translation of the Old Testament should be based on the Hebrew original (Jerome’s bias) or the Greek Septuagint translation (Augustine’s preference).19 One impli- cation of the position of Augustine is that one can actually produce a legit- imate Bible translation based on another Bible translation, provided that the latter is held as authoritative in the tradition.20 It is true that a translation is often regarded only “as a vicarious object, a substitute which must constantly be referred back to its source…[,] merely derivative, lack- ing in substance, and always to be checked against the original for faults

a Textual Basis for a Translation of the Hebrew Bible”]; Hans Peter Rüger, “Was überset- zen Wir? – Fragen zur Textbasis, die sich aus der Traditions- und Kanonsgechichte erge- ben,” in Die Übersetzung der Bibel – Aufgabe der Theologie: Stuttgarter Symposion 1984, ed. Joachim Gnilka – Hans Peter Rüger, Texte und Arbeiten zur Bibel 2 (Bielefeld: Luther- Verlag, 1985) 57-64; Rolf Schäfer – Roger Omanson, “The Textual Base for Modern Trans- lations of the Old Testament,” in Review & Expositor 108 (2011) 241-252, doi:10.1177/003463731110800207. 17. On some of the earlier editions of Vulgate, see Henri Quentin, Mémoire sur l’éta- blissement du texte de la Vulgate (Rome: Desclée; Paris: Gabalda, 1922) 75-208. 18. Guidelines for Interconfessional Cooperation in Translating the Bible, November 16, 1987, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/ general- docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19871116_guidelines-bible_en.html. 19. See Paul B. Decock, “Jerome’s Turn to the Hebraica Veritas and His Rejection of the Traditional View of the Septuagint,” in Neotestamentica 42 (2008) 205-222; Carolinne White, The Correspondence (394-419) between Jerome and , Studies in Bible and Early 23 (Lewinston – Queenston – Lampeter: Edwin Mellen Press, 1990) 35-42, 65-72, 90-94, and 112-179. 20. In translation theory, this is known as an “,” formally defined as a “translation based on a source (or sources) which is itself a translation into a language other than the language of the original, or the target language.” See Harald Kittel – Armin Paul Frank (eds.), Interculturality and the Historical Study of Literary Translations, Göt- tinger Beiträge zur Internationalen Übersetzungsforschung 4 (Berlin: Schmidt, 1991) 3. 148 Oliver G. Dy and shortcomings.” If “[t]he original enjoys logical and chronological pri- ority, whereas the translation is a derived and secondary product,” why therefore translate from a translation?21 However, one cannot be so easily dismissive when it comes to authori- tative Bible translations, for there are times when parts of the historical originals can be reconstructed or corrected based on a retroversion of the translation.22 Furthermore, in the tradition of Scripture, one must take into account of the historical and religious processes whereby a translation comes to acquire a textual authority in its own right. The reception of the Septuagint in Jewish religious history and its reception in the composition of the New Testament and in the writings of early bestow on it an authority that interplays with the authority of the Hebrew text. The same applies to Vulgate which, having acquired a status of authority in the Latin Church throughout the course of the centuries, was chosen and de- clared by Trent, precisely for this , as the Latin version which is to be singularly held as “authentic” in the public discourses on Scripture. Thus, the tension between the Greek Septuagint and the Hebrew text in the early patristic debate, and the tension between the Vulgate and the original texts of Scripture in recent debate surrounding Liturgiam authenticam, dis- tinctly express one and the same predicament in Bible translation arising from the very character of Scripture as constituted and expressed by a mul- tiplicity of competing, not to say sometimes conflicting, authoritative tex- tual forms.23

21. Theo Hermans, Translation in Systems: Descriptive and Systemic Approaches Ex- plained, Translation Theories Explained (Manchester: St. Jerome, 1999) 37 and 56. 22. For example, in ’s bilingual New Testament of 1516, the final verses of the missing in the Greek manuscript were back-translated from the Vulgate. See Jan Krans, Beyond What Is Written: Erasmus and Beza as Conjectural Critics of the New Testament, New Testament Tools and Studies 35 (Leiden: Brill, 2006) 54-58. On the possible use of the Septuagint translation in the production of a critical edition of the He- brew text, see Ronald Hendel, “The Oxford Hebrew Bible: Prologue to a New Critical Edi- tion,” Vetus Testamentum 58, no. 3 (June 1, 2008) 324-351, 328, doi:10.1163/ 156853308X302006: “... the textual critic can proceed cautiously but profitably in the text- critical use of the Septuagint. In other words, the fact that much important textual evidence exists in translation documents does not render this evidence unusable for . Because of the importance of the Septuagint, it may be relatively more difficult to produce a reliable critical text for the Hebrew Bible than it is for other texts, but this does not dimi- nish the desirability or possibility of the task.” 23. On the textual divergences between the various Scriptural versions, suffice it to mention here, as an instructive example, the well-known differences in the Biblical chro- nologies of the Septuagint and Hebrew texts. See William Cuninghame, The Septuagint and Hebrew Chronologies (London: Nisbet, 1838). On the impact of these Scriptural vari- ations in the China mission, see Nicolas Standaert, The Intercultural Weaving of Historical Texts: Chinese and European Stories about Emperor Ku and His Concubines (Leiden: Brill, 2016) 155-160 and 310-314. The Latin Vulgate as an “Auxiliary Tool” of Translation 149

One can redescribe the choice and arrangement of the source texts as an issue in Biblical translation as follows: the issue is not about how a cho- sen text of Scripture is, or should be, translated into another language; the focus is not on the literary style or manner of translation pertinent to issues on the translational “equivalence” or fidelity, however this may be defined, between the chosen source text/s and the produced translation (e.g., whether the translation is “literal” or “free”). Rather, one problematizes the fact that some text is, in the very first place, chosen and designated as a source text of translation. Furthermore, one should not confuse this with the textual provenances of a translation as may be evidenced, for example, by comparing a translation with previous translations in the same target language. Textual borrowing seems to be a rather common phenomenon in Bible translation.24 However, regardless how much or how little a trans- lation copies from older translations, the produced translation is ultimately packaged and projected (especially by the and prefaces) as having been translated from a textual authority recognized in the faith tradition.25 What therefore defines the identity of a Bible translation is not so much its discoverable or subtle borrowings from other translations as much as its paratexts that express how the (re)translator genuinely wishes the work to be seen and perceived by the public (also giving the benefit of the doubt that there is no malicious paratextual falsification involved here).26

24. See for example Leslie K. Arnovick – Henry Ansgar Kelly, “ Challoner’s Ecumenical Revision of the Douai-Rheims Bible by Way of King James,” The Review of English Studies 66, no. 276 (September 1, 2015) 698-722, doi:10.1093/res/hgv012. The authors argue that around 11% of the revisions in the of Luke likely come from the 1611 . Of this 11% taken from the KJV, some 75% can be further traced back to the of 1525-1535, and 11% to the Bishop’s Bible of 1568. 25. In the sixteenth century, heterodox were confiscated, after which the more theologically-sensitive verses were retranslated in such a way as to more literally reflect the Vulgate text. They were then put back into the book market under new titles and other paratextual revisions that cast the Vulgate as the primary source text for the /re- . For more on these “Vulgatized” Bibles, see Wim François, “The and the Vernacular Bible in the Low Countries: A Paradigm Shift in the 1550s?,” in Dis- covering the Riches of the Word: Religious Reading in Late Medieval and Early Modern Europe, ed. Sabrina Corbellini – Margriet Hoogvliet – Bart Ramakers, Intersections 38 (Leiden – Boston, MA: Brill, 2015) 235-236; “Vernacular Bible Reading and Censorship in Early Sixteenth Century. The Position of the Louvain Theologians,” in Lay Bibles in Europe. 1450-1800, ed. August den Hollander – Mathijs Lamberigts, Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 198 (Leuven: Peeters, 2006) 86-92; “De Vor- stermanbijbel van 1528 en later: Naar een katholieke bijbel,” in De Bijbel in de Lage Landen: Elf eeuwen van vertalen, ed. Paul Gillaerts (Heerenveen: Royal Jongbloed, 2015) 237-265; “The Compositors’ ‘Neglect’ or the True Story Behind the Prohibition of Vor- sterman’s Dutch Bibles,” in Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 91 (2015) 239-256. 26. On this function of the paratext in relation to texts in general and to the Biblical text in particular, see Gérard Genette, Paratexts: Thresholds of Interpretation, trans. Jane E. Lewin (New York – Melbourne: Cambridge University Press, 1997); August den Hollander 150 Oliver G. Dy

In sum, the issue is simply about the very decision of a translator to assign, use, and acknowledge some particular text/s as the translational “origi- nal/s.” This, in brief, is what is meant by the choice and arrangement of the source texts of translation as a unique problematique in Bible translation.

2. The Relativization of the Latin Vulgate in the Field of Translation

The activity of Bible translation in the Church can be framed and depicted as a “field,” heuristically defined here as a bounded domain of action in- habited by a network of agents with the proper competencies and authori- ties. The central actors in the “field of Catholic Bible translation” are the scholarly and expert translators of Scripture, either lone individuals or committees of translators, to whom belongs the primary responsibility of producing the vernacularized texts of Scripture that circulate across the various linguistic communities of the Catholic world. Never operating ar- bitrarily or in complete isolation, Catholic translators are embedded in a historically longer and confessionally broader tradition of translation, so that it would not be surprising to find newer translations borrowing from, or else closely imitating, older ones. Catholic Bible translators are also sur- rounded by a host of other actors such as ecclesiastical authorities, censors, exegetes, theologians, publishers, editors, technical consultants, and print- ing press workers who are accordingly involved – or who at any rate bother to involve themselves – in the production leading to the published Bible. It belongs to the translators along with these secondary actors to carry out the requisite decisions that not only shape the field of translation locally, but more importantly, the broader landscape of the vernacular Scriptures in the life and history of the Church.27

– Ulrich Schmid – Willem Frederik Smelik (eds.), Paratext and Megatext as Channels of Jewish and Christian Traditions: The Textual Markers of Contextualization, Jewish and Christian Perspectives 6 (Leiden – Boston, MA: Brill, 2003). 27. To be sure, the dynamics of Bible translation is not immune from the trends and developments in Biblical and theology. At the same time, however, one must make the fine distinction between the vernacular Bible as such and the Biblical commentary in terms of genre and target readership. While the translator is presumably a good exegete, not all exegetes are credited as authors of popular Bible translations. The unique value of the translator lies precisely in creating a common point of access whereby the text of Scrip- ture becomes linguistically intelligible to others. It is usually through the published popular vernacular Bible (with its marginal exegetical notes) rather than the scholarly exegetical commentary (with its translations of Scripture) that the Biblical text comes to be read and understood by the greater majority of both believers and non-believers alike. The Latin Vulgate as an “Auxiliary Tool” of Translation 151

When read against the broader history of the field of Catholic Bible translation, the mentality underlying the opposition to Liturgiam authenti- cam’s use of the Vulgate as a source text of translation is fairly recent. If one surveys the claims and statements in the titles, prefaces, and the other relevant paratexts in the English, German, and French Catholic Bibles pro- duced and published between 1546 and 1965 (from Insuper to Dei Ver- bum), one discovers that before the mid-nineteenth century, there are actu- ally only a few translations whose translators profess to have used the orig- inal texts of Scripture as the primary source texts of translation.28 In other words, it was the Vulgate rather than the original texts of Scripture that was portrayed by Catholic Bible paratexts as having the role and place in the translational process itself. If the original texts of Scripture were at all employed, they were acknowledged only as optional secondary source texts of translation surrounding the Vulgate, or they otherwise found their proper place in the marginal exegetical-theological commen- taries that served to support and justify the Vulgate-based translation lying at the center of the page.29 A shift away from this held centrality of the Vulgate in the field of Catholic Biblical translation begins to occur only around the late nine- teenth century, and here, Providentissimus Deus (1893) can be taken as the

28. A non-exhaustive list includes the following: [English:] Alexander Geddes, The Holy Bible, or the Books Accounted Sacred by Jews and Christians; Otherwise Called the Books of the Old and New Covenants: Faithfully trans- lated from Corrected Texts of the Originals with Various Readings, Explanatory Notes, and Critical Remarks [Genesis–] (London: R. Faulder, 1792); Anonymous [John Lingard], A New Version of the Four , with notes, critical and explanatory. By a Catholic (London: Joseph Booker, 1836). [French:] Nicolas Le Gros, La Sainte Bible: Traduite sur les textes originaux avec les dif- férences de la Vulgate (Cologne, 1739). [German:] Joseph Lauber, Die göttliche Schrift des alten und neuen Testamentes aus dem Grundtexte in eine dem gemeinen Manne verständliche deutsche Sprache (Wien: Matth. Domicy bey der St. Peterskirche, 1786); Dominic Brentano, with later revisions by Anton Dereser – Johann Scholz, Die heilige Schrift des neuen/alten Testaments (1790-1837); Le- ander van Ess – Carl van Ess, Die heiligen Schriften des Neuen Testaments (Braunschweig, 1807; Sulzbach, 1810-1840); Leander van Ess, Die heiligen Schriften des Alten Testaments (Sulzbach, 1822-1840). (The New Testament of Ess was placed in the Roman index in 1821. See Alexander Schnütgen, “Zur Vorgeschichte der Indizierung Leanders van Ess im Jahre 1821,” in Theologie und Glaube 5 [1913] 627-633.) 29. On June 13, 1757, Benedict XIV required Catholic vernacular Bibles to have exe- getical and theological notes: “Those Bibles made in the vernacular languages are permitted if approved by the , or edited with the proper annotations taken from the Fathers of the Church or learned Catholic scholars [Quod si huiusmodi Bibliorum versiones vulgari lingua fuerint ab Apostólica Sede approbatae, aut editae cum annotationibus de- sumptis ex Sanctis Ecclesiae Patribus, vel ex doctis, catholicisque viris, conceduntur].” See Index Librorum Prohibitorum juxta exemplar Romanum jussu Sanctissimi Domini Nostri [Gregory XVI] (Mechelen: P.J. Hanicq, 1838) xv. 152 Oliver G. Dy symbolic event. In his on Scripture, Leo XIII reasserts the her- meneutical indispensability of the Latin Vulgate, but counterbalances this with a call for the exegete to pay keen attention to the original texts of Scripture:

[13] The Professor, following the tradition of antiquity, will make use of the Vulgate as his text; for the decreed that ‘in public lectures, , preaching, and exposition’, the Vulgate is the ‘au- thentic’ version; and this is the existing custom of the Church. At the same time, the other versions which Christian antiquity has approved, should not be neglected, more especially the more ancient MSS. For although the meaning of the Hebrew and Greek is substantially rendered by the Vulgate, nevertheless wherever there may be ambiguity or want of clearness, the ‘examination of older tongues’, to quote St. Augustine, will be useful and advantageous.30

Although the encyclical focuses more on the pedagogical interpretation of Scripture rather than the methodology of Bible translation as such, it can- not but also bear implications and consequences for the field of Catholic Bible translation. The impact can be perceived in the French Bible series of Augustin Crampon (1826-1894). His Gospels of 1864 and complete New Testament of 1884 were at first translated from the Vulgate.31 Crampon soon changed course after Providentissimus Deus, this time translating the Old Testa- ment and revising the former New Testament primarily “from the original texts” of Scripture but “with regard for the Vulgate.”32 The reason for this shift is explained in the posthumous edition of 1904:

30. Leo XIII, Providentissiumus Deus, November 18, 1893, http://w2.vatican. va/con- tent/leo-xiii/en//documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus- deus.html. 31. Augustin Crampon, “Préface,” in Les Quatre Évangiles. Traduction nouvelle ac- compagnée de notes et de dissertations (Paris: Tolra et Haton, 1864) ix: “For the translation, we have followed the Latin Vulgate whose is today recognized by the best critics such as Lachmann and Tischendorf; the rare and slight differences of the Greek text are indicated in the notes [Nous avons suivi, pour la traduction, la Vulgate latine, dont le mérite est aujourd’hui reconnu des meilleurs critiques, tels que Lachmann et Tischendorf; les rares et légères différences du texte grec sont indiquées en note];” id., Le Nouveau Testament de Notre Seigneur Jésus- traduit sur la Vulgate avec introductions, notes et sommaires. Les quatre Évangiles (Tournai: Desclee, Lefebvre and Co., 1884). 32. See La Sainte Bible traduite en français sur les textes originaux, avec introductions et notes, et la Vulgate en regard. Les Prophètes (Paris, Rome, Tournai: Desclée and Co., 1901), https://archive.org/stream/lasaintebibletra05cram#page/n7/mode/2up. In the page, one reads: “The printing of this work, interrupted after the first volume by the death of the author, was continued with the cooperation of many professors of Scripture – Rev. Fr. Corluy, SJ and Rev. Frs. Piffard and Griesbach of the same Society – following the manuscripts left behind by Mr. Crampon.” [L’impression de cet ouvrage, interrompue après The Latin Vulgate as an “Auxiliary Tool” of Translation 153

That the knowledge of the original texts is of primary interest for the study and understanding of Scripture, St. Jerome has declared in many places in his letters and commentaries: the Latin translation had no other reason its existence than to put within the reach of the faithful these texts too often disfigured by the translations then in circulation in the Church. … It is al- ready much to make available to the public a satisfactory translation of the Greek and Hebrew texts as they appear in the Bibles, and to provide students and those interested in the Bible a handbook that will allow enable them to more easily have recourse to the original text upon which the ex- perts and critics base their research.33

By the time one reaches (1943), there is already evidence of a growing translatorial trend towards the original texts of Scripture:

Nor is it forbidden by the decree of the Council of Trent to make transla- tions into the vulgar tongue, even directly from the original texts them- selves, for the use and benefit of the faithful and for the better understand- ing of the divine word, as We know to have been already done in a laudable manner in many countries with the approval of the Ecclesiastical author- ity.34

The clarification that Pius XII makes here with regard to the interpreta- tion of Trent’s decree on the Vulgate vis-à-vis the work of Bible translation suggests that the said decree of the sixteenth-century Council was, for a long time and in general, received as a norm of Bible translation that bound

le Ier volume par la mort de l’auteur, a été continuée après le manuscrit laiseé par M. Cram- pon, avec le concours de plusieurs professeurs d’Écriture , le R.P. Corluy, S.J., et les R. P. Piffard et Griesbach de le même Société]. 33. “Avant-Propos,” in Augustin Crampon, La Sainte Bible. Ancient Testament. Tra- duction d’après les textes originaux par l’abbé Chanoine d’Amiens. Édition revisée par des Pères de la Cie de Jésus avec la collaboration de Professeurs de S. Sulpice (Rome – Paris – Tournai: Desclée, Lefebvre and Co., 1904), http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k75755t: “Que la connaissance des textes originaux soit d’un intérêt capital pour l’étude et l’intelli- gence de la Bible, saint Jérome l’a déclare en maints endroits de ses lettres et de des com- mentaires: sa traduction latine n’a pas eu d’autre raison d’être que de mettre à la portée des fidèles ces textes trop souvent défigurés par les versions alors en cours dans l’Église … C’est beaucoup déjà de mettre à la disposition du public une version satisfaisante des textes grecs et hébreux, tels qu’ils figurent dans les Bibles officielles; de fournir aux étudiants et à ceux qui s’intéressent à la Bible un manuel qui leur permette de recourir plus facilement au texte original, sur lequel se basent en leurs recherches les savants et les critiques.” 34. Pius XII, Divino afflante Spiritu, September 30, 1943, nos. 16 and 22, http://w2.vat- ican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_30091943_divino-af- flante-spiritu.html. 154 Oliver G. Dy or prompted Catholic translators to produce and acknowledge their trans- lations as primarily from the Vulgate rather than the original texts of Scrip- ture. Here, one comes to realize that the enacted and/or acknowledged choice of the primary source text of translation in the production of the vernacularized books of the Old or New Testament is indicative and con- stitutive of the (ongoing) historical reception of Trent’s decree on the Vul- gate in the life of the Church. Divino afflante Spiritu also makes its mark in the English-speaking world where Providentissimus Deus’s earlier reaffirmation of the decree on the Vulgate was mistakenly assumed by many to mean that Catholic vernacular Bibles had to be made primarily from the Vulgate.35 The Con- fraternity Bible series in English (1941-1969), the forerunner of the New American Bible of 1970, attests to a belated shift away from the use of the Vulgate as the primary source text of translation. In 1941, the of Christian released its Rheims-Challoner New Testament edi- tion newly revised according to the Vulgate.36 In 1943, the incumbent Ap- ostolic Delegate to the United States (and later Cardinal) Amleto Giovanni Cicognani gave a speech to the translation committee wherein, in the spirit of the recent papal encyclical, he highlighted the importance of the original texts in translating the Bible.37 The subsequent titles of the Confraternity volumes of the Old Testament (1948-1969) thereupon announce the origi- nal texts as the principal basis for the translation.38 The prefatory remarks (1952) of the French-language translators Joseph Bonsirven and Alphonse-Élie Tricot summarize how Trent’s decree on the

35. See Gerald P. Fogarty, “The Catholic Church and of the Old Testament,” in Hebrew Bible / Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation, ed. Magne Saebø. Vol. 3.1: The Nineteenth Century-a Century of Modernism and (Göt- tingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013) 244-261, 248. 36. The New Testament of Our Lord and Savior Christ. Translated from the Latin Vulgate. A Revision of the Challoner-Rheims Version Edited by Catholic Scholars Under the Patronage of the Episcopal Committee of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine (Pat- erson, NJ: St. Anthony Guild Press, 1941). 37. “,” in The New American Bible. Translated from the Original Languages with Critical Use of All the Ancient Sources by Members of the Catholic Biblical Associa- tion of America. Sponsored by the Bishop’s Committee of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine (New York: P.J. Kennedy & Sons; London: Collier-Macmillan, 1970) v-vii. See also “Biblical News,” in The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 6 (1944) 363-364. 38. See The Holy Bible. Translated from the Original Languages with Critical Use of All the Ancient Sources by Members of the Catholic Biblical Association of America. Spon- sored by the Episcopal Committee of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine. The (Paterson, NJ: St. Anthony Guild Press, 1948). The are however not trans- lated from the original texts, but from the Novum Psalterium of Pius XII [Versio Piana]. During this time, there also appeared hybrid Bibles combining the Old Testament transla- tion based on the original texts with the New Testament based on the Vulgate. For digital captures of the title pages of these Bibles, see “Douay Confraternity Hybrid Editions,” http://bibles.wikidot.com/douay-confraternity. The Latin Vulgate as an “Auxiliary Tool” of Translation 155

Vulgate was reread by Catholic Bible translators, thanks to Providentissi- mus Deus and Divino afflante Spiritu, in the years leading to Vatican II:

Without doubt, there existed for the French-speaking public esteemed and worthy translations of the Latin Vulgate, the translation which the Council of Trent proclaimed as the authority in matters of doctrine on account of its ancient use. The Roman Church had done this for the reason of its sub- stantial conformity to the original texts. But between these same original texts and the translations made from the Vulgate, this official and venerable translation interposed itself a bit in the manner of a screen or a third party. There was interest and appeal to make the screen disappear or to suppress the intermediary.39

From here, it becomes clear that Vatican II in its expressed policy on the choice of the primary source texts of translation only aligns itself with the trend contemporaneously prevailing in the field of Catholic Bible trans- lation. The stipulation in Dei Verbum 22 to produce Scriptures “especially from the original texts of the sacred books” is therefore not a novelty in- troduced by the Council, but rather the culminating point of a whole his- torical process of the relativization of the Vulgate in the field of Catholic Bible translation that gained momentum since around the time of Provi- dentissimus Deus. The unique contribution of the Council, however, lies in precisely inscribing into formal legislation the existing state of affairs in Bible translation. By crystallizing what was already the general practice among Catholic Bible translators, it becomes even less likely, not to say almost impossible, that popular Catholic vernacular Bibles of the future would be produced, or revised anew, based primarily on the Latin Vulgate.

3. The Preconciliar Liturgical Practice on the Vernacular Scriptures

Does Dei Verbum 22 however imply that the vernacular lectionary should strictly follow the same translational methodology prescribed for popular

39. Joseph Bonsirven – Alphonse Tricot, “Avant-Propos,” in La Sainte Bible du Cha- noine Crampon. Traduction d’après les textes originaux. L’Ancient Testament traduction revisée par J. Bonsirven, S.J. et le Nouveau Testament traduction nouvelle par A. Tricot. Société de Saint Jean l’Évangéliste (Paris – Tournai – Rome: Desclée, 1952): “Sans doute, il existait pour le public de langue française des traductions estimées et estimables de la Vulgate latine, version dont le Concile de Trente avait proclamé l’autorité en matière de doctrine, tant à cause de l’usage séculaire qu’en avait fait l’Église romaine qu’à raison de sa conformité substantielle aux textes originaux; mais, entre ces mêmes textes originaux et les traductions faites sur la Vulgate, cette version officielle et vénérable s’interposait un peu à la manière d’un écran ou d’une tierce personne. Il y avait intérêt et avantage à faire disparaître l’écran ou à supprimer l’intermédiaire.” 156 Oliver G. Dy vernacular Bibles?40 The complication surrounding the vernacular - ary has to do with the fact that, by genre, the lectionary is both a book of Scripture and a book of the liturgy. In this regard, the textual production of the lectionary can be placed at a nexus between the field of Catholic Bible translation and the field of the liturgy. To be more precise, one is speaking here of the liturgy not “in the way it is achieved, the liturgy in actu,” but as “liturgical discourse as it has been published”: the former concerns the performative use of the liturgical books in the actual liturgical celebration, while the latter touches on the production of texts appearing in the liturgical books.41 The central actors in the field of the liturgy are the liturgists, which can broadly refer to a range of agents including the Apos- tolic See in the persona of the Roman for liturgical affairs, the episcopal conferences, the local bishops, competent ecclesiastical authori- ties, experts translators in the liturgical commissions, and other actors as particular cases may require.42 The point to stress here is the existence of a possible tension between the Bible translator and the translator of liturgical texts in the production of the texts of Scripture for liturgical use. The case of the Latin lectionary is rather unproblematic. The longstanding liturgical custom dictates that it should ordinarily acquire its texts from the Vulgate translation, which since the late sixteenth century has been affixed to mean the existing papal editio typica. Thus, the pre-Vatican II epistolarium and evangelarium, and the Latin lectionary of 1969 (following the Ordo Lectionum Missae, editio typ- ica), all borrow from the Sixto-Clementine edition. On the other hand, the Latin Lectionary of 1981 (following the Ordo Lectionum Missae, editio typica altera) should reflect the text of the 1979 Neo-Vulgate edition. The Bible translator, as it were, hands over the Vulgate already as a fixed and prepared translation to the liturgist, who then excerpts from it the necessary pericopes to produce the texts of Scripture in the Latin lectionary arranged according to the prescribed liturgical order of readings. By contrast, the case of the vernacular lectionary is more complicated. There is a dilemma as to whether one should translate also from the Vul- gate with a view to liturgical sensitivities, or else should only limit oneself to the original texts in accordance with the contemporary trends in the pro- duction of Bible translations for popular use. At first glance, Liturgiam authenticam paves a way out of this ambivalence by sharply distinguishing between “the texts of ecclesiastical composition,” in which case one should translate from the Latin liturgical text; and “the texts of Sacred Scripture,”

40. For purposes of simplification, we take here the lectionary as the prime representa- tive of the text of Scripture appearing in the different liturgical books. 41. Gerard Lukken, “Liturgy and Language: An Approach from Semiotics,” in Ques- tions Liturgiques/Studies in Liturgy 73 (1992) 36-52, 39, doi:10.2143/QL.73.1.2015133. 42. See Sacrosanctum concilium 36; Liturgiam authenticam 70-108 and 126-128. The Latin Vulgate as an “Auxiliary Tool” of Translation 157 in which case one should translate from “the Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek, as the case may be” (nos. 23-24). However, it simultaneously obfuscates this neat schema by additionally proposing the use of the Vulgate as an “auxiliary tool” of translation. In effect, the freedom in translating from the original texts of Scripture is restricted to the range of translational pos- sibilities specifically allowed by the nuances in the Vulgate text.43 To its credit, however, Liturgiam authenticam makes it categorically clear that one cannot simply and right away translate from the Vulgate-based texts of Scripture in the Latin liturgical books as a way of ensuring conformity to the Latin liturgical text. If anything, the present confusion and controversy is understandable. One must keep in mind that the Roman lectionary in the vernacular rarely existed before Vatican II.44 Not even the twentieth-century preconciliar li- turgical movement, for all its advocacies on the use of the vernacular in the liturgical celebration, actually produced a published vernacular lection- ary in the form one commonly sees today.45 Rather, it is only thanks to the Vatican II policy on liturgy language expressed in Sacrosanctum concilium (especially nos. 36 and 54), along with the rapid and widespread post-con- ciliar turn to the vernacular liturgy it enabled, that the Roman lectionary in the vernacular emerges from relative obscurity and makes an appearance on a much broader geographic scale.46 The recency of this development in the field of the liturgy means that there is no time-honored precedent on how to translationally proceed in generating the texts of Scripture for the vernacular lectionary.

43. See Magee, “From the Bible to the Lectionary of the Holy Mass: Norms and Prin- ciples,” 58: “There is no question at all here of altering the sense of the original text. Instead, it is a question of the translator’s awareness of those elements within the original text that have been highlighted in different ways within the Church’s tradition, and his respect for this dimension of the ecclesial reception of the text.” 44. Some historical exceptions include the vernacular lectionaries of the local churches of the European East belonging to the Roman . See Angelus A. De Marco, Rome and the Vernacular (, MD: The Newman Press, 1961); Cyril Korolevsky, Living Languages in Catholic Worship: An Historical Inquiry, transl. by Donald Attwater (London – New York – Toronto: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1957). 45. On the promotion of the use of the vernacular in the preconciliar liturgical move- ment, see Mathijs Lamberigts, “The in and the Low Coun- tries,” in La théologie catholique entre intransigeance et renouveau: La réception des mouvements préconciliaires à Vatican II, ed. Gilles Routhier – Karim Schelkens – Philippe Roy-Lysencourt, Bibliothèque de la Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique 95, Louvain-la-Neuve: Collège Erasme; Leuven: Universiteitsbibliotheek, 2011, 91-121. 46. See Austin Flannery, “The Growth in the Vernacular,” in Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents, ed. Austin Flannery, new revised, Vatican Col- lection 1 (Pasay City, Philippines: Daughters of Saint Paul, 2001) 39. 158 Oliver G. Dy

Nevertheless, there is a preconciliar liturgical custom that can homolo- gously serve as a historical point of reference for considering the transla- tional production of the present-day vernacular lectionary. When the lit- urgy was still predominantly celebrated in Latin, there arose the practice of holding a supplementary reading of the vernacular texts of Scripture corresponding to the Vulgate pericopes in the Latin lectionary earlier read out by the celebrant. This optional rereading of Scripture in the vernacular was not considered a formal part of the liturgical action, for it took place during the /, the only place designated by liturgical tradition where vernacular speech is unarguably allowed.47 Cardinal James McIn- tyre, the of Los Angeles, testifies to this liturgical custom on the vernacular Scriptures when he defended the total use of Latin in the liturgical celebration during the 1962 conciliar debate on the Schema of the Liturgy:48

During the days of and feast days, after the [lectio of the] Gospel of the Mass in Latin, the Mass is interrupted. From the , the celebrant or another reads the and of the Mass in the ver- nacular. Afterwards, he briefly explains the Epistle and the Gospel with a brief commentary, or else elaborates on a catechetical instruction. The Mass is then resumed with the ‘’ in Latin.49

47. The Armenian and Glagolitic liturgies of the had historical dispensa- tions to conduct a bilingual reading of Scripture as a formal part of the liturgy. See Anthony Ward, “The Western Experience of the Vernacular before the Second Vatican Council,” in Notitiae 48, no. 9-10 (2011) 548-569, 556; Nikolaus Kowalsky, “Römische Entschei- dungen über den Gebrauch der Landessprache bei der heiligen Messe in den Missionen,” in Neue Zeitschrift für Missionswissenschaft 9 (1953) 241-251; Joseph Andreas Jungmann, The Mass of the Roman Rite: Its Origins and Development, trans. Francis Brunner, vol. 1 (London: Burns & Oates; repr., Notre Dame, IN: Ave Maria, 2012, 1951) 407-409. 48. On the conciliar debate on the language of the liturgical celebration, see among others Mathijs Lamberigts, “The Liturgy Debate,” in History of Vatican II, ed. Giuseppe Alberigo – Joseph A. Komonchak. Vol. 2: The Formation of the Council’s Identity: First Period and Intersession October 1962-September 1963 (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis; Leuven: Peeters, 1997) 107-166; “The Liturgy Debate at Vatican II – An Exercise in Collective Responsibility,” in Questions Liturgiques/Studies in Liturgy 95 (2014) 52-67, doi:10.2143/QL.95.1.3030645; Oliver G. Dy, “Liturgical Language as a Course for Theo- logical Thought: The Case of Dom Prosper Guéranger and the Vatican II Council,” in Lan- das 27, no. 2 (2013) 51-84; Monika Selle, Latein und Volkssprache im Gottesdienst: Die Aussagen des Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzils über die Liturgiesprache (Ludwig-Maximi- lian University of Munich, 2001). 49. Acta Synodalia Sacrosancti Concilii Oecumenici Vaticani [henceforth AS] III/II, 108-109: “In diebus dominicis et in diebus festis post Evangelium Missae in lingua latina, Missa interrumpitur. Celebrans aut alius sacerdos in pulpito Epistolam Evangeliumque Missae in lingua vernacula legit. Deinde Epistolam Evangeliumque cum commentario brevi explicat, aut instructionem de catechismo exponit. Deinde Missa cum ‘Credo’ in lin- gua latina resumitur.” The Latin Vulgate as an “Auxiliary Tool” of Translation 159

Given that there was no published vernacular lectionary at this point in time, the question arises as to which type of vernacular Bible was used for this liturgical custom. Partial evidence can be found in the paratexts of the contemporaneously produced Bibles in English. In 1945, , a priest-convert from the Anglican Church, released his new translation of the New Testament based on the Latin Vulgate. In the ecclesiastical en- dorsement, the Archbishop of Westminster [Bernard Griffin] clarifies that “this translation [of Knox] does not mean that the Rheims version of the New Testament is to be displaced. On the contrary, we now have two of- ficial versions in the Church in this country.”50 In another work, Knox sug- gests that his New Testament translation is suited more for private devo- tional reading whereas the Rheims version is more apt for liturgical pur- poses.51 The paratextual introduction to the complete Bible of the Confra- ternity of Christian Doctrine of 1950 relates a brief history of how the Douay-Rheims Bible became historically interwoven with the Latin lit- urgy:

It was with this aim that the Council [of Trent] fixed upon the Vulgate as the standard Latin Bible for purposes of common reference. Hence it is that Catholic version of the Scriptures in modern tongues are commonly taken from the Vulgate, and must be so if destined to any public use. For exam- ple, the English version of the Gospel which is read at every Sunday’s Mass must be translated from the Vulgate, and not directly from the Greek.52

In 1954, another Catholic Bible translator, James Kleist, published his English New Testament based on the original Greek. In his preface, he identifies the Douay-Rheims revised by Challoner as the particular edition used in the English-speaking Catholic world for the liturgical rereading of Scripture in the vernacular.53 The operative logic in all these is made clear

50. “Preface to the First Edition,” in Ronald Knox, The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. New Translated from the Vulgate Latin and Authorized by the Hierarchy of and Wales and the Hierarchy of Scotland (London: Burns & Oates, 1945). 51. Ronald Knox, Trials of a Translator (New York: Sheed & Ward, 1949) 4: “If you are translating for the benefit of a who wants to learn Latin by following the gospel in a when it is read out in the church, then you ‘Arms and the man I sing’ [Arma virumque cano, Virgil, Aeneid, I, 5] is exactly what he wants. If you are translating for the benefit of a person who wants to be able to read the word of God for ten minutes on end without laying it aside in sheer boredom or bewilderment, a literary translation is what you want – and we have been lacking it for centuries.” 52. See “Preface,” in New American Catholic Edition. The Holy Bible. Old Testament Douay Version, with Psalms from the New Latin Version Authorized by Pius XII. New Testament Confraternity Edition (New York: Benziger Brothers, 1950) vi-vii. 53. James A. Kleist, “General Foreword,” in The New Testament Rendered from the Original Greek with Explanatory Notes. Part One. The Fourth Gospels Translated by 160 Oliver G. Dy by one of the norms of translation guiding the production of the 1941 Con- fraternity New Testament: “The text is based upon the Vulgate. The reason for this is that it was desired that the Confraternity Edition be used for liturgical purposes, e.g., reading of the and Gospels in English at Sunday Mass, and such readings must be based upon the Vulgate.”54 There is, in fact, a juridical ruling behind this line of reasoning that runs: since it is the Vulgate text that appears in Latin lectionary, it is only proper that translations from the same Vulgate be used in the homiletic rereading of Scripture in the vernacular. In the early 1930’s, the Dutch bishops sub- mitted a dubio to Rome inquiring “whether it can be permitted in the churches that the liturgical pericopes of the Epistles and the Gospels be recited to the people using a translation not from the ‘old Latin Vulgate edition’, but from the original texts, whether Greek or Hebrew.”55 In April 1934, the Pontifical Biblical Commission replied: “Negative; but in fact, the translation of Sacred Scripture read out publicly to the Christian faith- ful is that which is made from the [Latin] text approved by the Church for the sacred liturgy.”56 Later in August 1943, the same Commission issued two additional clarifications:

1. The translations of Sacred Scripture in the vernacular, whether made from the Vulgate or from the original texts, provided these are with the published permission of competent ecclesiastical authority according to the norm of 1391, can be devotionally read and used by the faithful for their personal piety…. 2. The translation of the Biblical pericopes in the vernacular that, after the celebrating priest of the sacred Mass has read the liturgical text itself, are perchance read out to the people according to custom or opportunity, should be conformed to the Latin, that is to say, the liturgical text, preserv- ing intact however the possibility that the same translation, if needed, be

James A. Kleist, SJ. Part Two. , Epistles and Translated by Joseph L. Lilly, C.M (Milwaukee, WI: Bruce Publishing, 1954) vi-vii: “I have aimed at doing what, after all, every Catholic priest is actually doing in the pulpit Sunday after Sun- day. First, namely, he reads the pertinent passage from the official Douay-Challoner ver- sion. Next he lays down the book and launches forth into an exposition of its contents in language ‘understanded of the people’. On this principle, then, I have avoided obsolescent words and expressions ... [not] readily understood by the average today.” 54. For the complete list of norms, see Proceedings of the Catholic Biblical Association of America (Saint-Meinrad, IN: Abbey Press, 1938) 133-142. 55. AAS 26 (1934) 315: “Utrum permitti possit in ecclesiis populo praelegi pericopas liturgicas Epistolarum et evangeliorum secundum versionem non ex ‘veteri vulgata latina editione’, sed ex textibus primigeniis sive graecis sive hebraicis?” 56. Ibid.: “Negative; sed versio Sacrae Scripturae christifidelibus publice praelegatur quae sit confecta ex textu ab Ecclesia pro sacra liturgia approbato.” The Latin Vulgate as an “Auxiliary Tool” of Translation 161

fittingly elucidated with the help of the original texts or another clearer translation.57

With the approval of Sacrosanctum concilium in 1963, the implicit is- sue arises as to whether the vernacular lectionary should retain the Vulgate as the primary source text of translation in accordance with the spirit of the preconciliar liturgical custom described above. In 1969, the Sacred Con- gregation for Divine Worship instructed that for the lectionary, the “[v]er- nacular texts may be taken from Bible translations already canonically ap- proved for individual regions, with the of the Apostolic See.”58 As it turns out, the first generation of post-Vatican II vernacular lectionaries adopt their pericopes from popular Catholic vernacular Bibles translated not primarily from the Vulgate, but from the original texts of Scripture: the English lectionary for adults approved for use in the United States of America borrows from the 1970 New American Bible; the lec- tionary of England and Wales from the 1966 Bible as well as from the 1963 Grail ; the Canadian English lectionary from the 1966 Catholic edition; the French lectionary from the Bible de Jérusalem; and the German lectionary from the 1980 ecumenical translation.59 In other words, there is a discontinuity between the pre- and post-conciliar periods with regard to the choice of the primary source texts of translation for the vernacular translations of Scripture connected to the performative liturgical lectio of Scripture. Given this background, one could read Liturgiam authenticam as an attempt to make the next generation of vernacular lectionaries approxi- mate, even if only limitedly, the type of translations used in the preconcil- iar liturgical rereading of Scripture in the vernacular. The limitation lies precisely in the fact that the Council has imposed a ruling that translations for the use of the faithful should be made “especially” from the original texts of Scripture. In this, Vatican II prevents a total recuperation of the preconciliar past where the liturgical policy on the vernacular Scriptures clearly manifested and sustained the primacy of the authentic Vulgate na- tively exhibited by the Latin lectionary.

57. AAS 35 (1943) 270-271. 58. Sacra Congregatio pro Culto Divino, “Decretum: Ordo Lectionum Missae. Prot. N. 106/69,” in Notitiae 5, no. 7-8 (1969) 237; Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship, “De- cree: Prot. N. 106/69 (May 25, 1969),” in Lectionary I (London: Collins; New York: Chap- man, 1981). 59. Lectionary for Mass (New York: Catholic Book Publishing, 1970); “Sacred Scrip- ture: Versions approved for use in the liturgy,” http://www.liturgyoffice.org.uk/Re- sources/Scripture/Versions.shtml; Lectionary: Sundays and (Ottawa: Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, 1992); Lectures pour les Messes de Semaines (ad experi- mentum), vol. 2 (Centre National de Pastorale Liturgique, 1966) v-x; Die Bibel: Altes und Neues Testament. Einheitsübersetzung (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1980). 162 Oliver G. Dy

4. On the Meaning of the Adverb “Especially” in Dei Verbum 22

At this juncture, there is need to determine the exact sense of the word “especially” [praesertim] in the norm of translation in Dei Verbum 22. In the popular understanding of the term, “especially” denotes only an asym- metry between options, and not the absolute exclusion of the disfavored or neglected option/s. From here, it strongly appears that Vatican II allows for the use of translational sources other than the original texts of Scripture. The compositional-redactional history of the word at the Council reveals that this indeed is the case. There is still no modifier present in the text of the rejected Schema De fontibus revelationis of 1962 (Form C) in the place where it praises the fact that there are “very many translations of the sacred books [that] have been made into the vernacular languages from the same original texts [of Scrip- ture] for the use and profit of all.”60 There is also none in reworked Schema De divina revelatione of 1963 (Form D) where it speaks about “accurate vernacular translations [that] are composed from the preeminent original texts of the sacred books.”61 A qualifying adverb first appears only in the Schema De divina Revelatione of 1964 (Form E):

… so that accurate translations [of Scripture] to be used in the liturgy and and also in pious reading are composed into various languages namely [scilicet] from the original texts of the sacred books.62

There is no information in the conciliar acta as to why or how the restric- tive term “namely” [scilicet] entered the text. There is, however, reference to Paul-Léon Seitz, the French-born Bishop of Kontum (Vietnam), whom the subcommission in charge of the Schema credits for the addition of the

60. AS I/III, 24: “… ad omnium usum et bonum conversions plurimae Librorum sacro- rum ex iisdem textibus primigeniis in vulgatas linguas confectae sint.” Emphasis mine. For the designations of the different Schemas, we follow the abbreviations of A. Grillmeier spelled out in Joseph Ratzinger, “Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation. Origin and Background,” in Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II, ed. Herbert Vorgrimler. Vol. 3: [Declaration on the Relationship of the Church to Non-Christian Religions, Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, Decree on the of the (London: Burns & Oats; New York: Herder and Herder, 1969) 155-166, 165-166. On Forms A, B, and C, see Karim Schelkens, of Revelation on the of Vatican II: A Redac- tion History of the Schema De Fontibus Revelationis (1960-1962), Brill’s Series in Church History 41 (Leiden: Brill, 2010). 61. AS III/III, 102: “… accuratae in linguas vernaculas versiones e praecellentibus Sacrorum Librorum textibus primigeniis conficiantur.” 62. Ibid., 103: “… ut accuratae exarentur in varias linguas versiones, in liturgia atque catechesi necnon in pia lectione adhibendae, ex primigeniis scilicet sacrorum librorum tex- tibus.” Emphasis mine. The Latin Vulgate as an “Auxiliary Tool” of Translation 163 phrase that specifies the liturgy, catechesis, and devotional reading as dis- tinct ecclesial contexts where the use of Scripture should be properly lo- cated. The underlying fear here was the privatistic interpretation of Scrip- ture.63 In the next Schema of 1965 (Form F), this clause on the three areas of the use of Scripture in the life of the Church was deleted. The adverb “namely” [scilicet] was also replaced by “even/also” [etiam]:

Form E, article 22: namely from the original texts of the sacred books [ex primigeniis scilicet sacrorum librorum textibus]. Form F, article 22: even/also from the original texts of the sacred books [etiam ex primigeniis sacrorum librorum textibus].64

Incidentally, the same word “etiam” appears in Divino afflante Spiritu when it speaks about the original texts of Scripture as the translational sources of popular vernacular Bibles.65 The accompanying reference note (“H”) explains the change in qualifying adverb:

It appears necessary to the subcommission to alter the text in some way, lest the impression arises that the authority of the Church everywhere im- poses for liturgical use translations in the vernacular [made from the orig- inal texts].66

Keeping in mind the 1934 and 1943 decrees of the Pontifical Biblical Com- mission, the assumption here is that the liturgy possesses some autonomy in determining the specific type of translation to be used in the liturgical celebration. In other words, leeway is tacitly given for the employment of the Vulgate in the production of vernacular translations of Scripture for liturgical use. In the succeeding schema (Form G), the adverb was again modified from “etiam” to “praesertim.” The remarks explain the revision:

63. AS III/III, 107 and 878. Paul-Léon Seitz was born on Dec. 22, 1906; ordained priest on Jul. 04, 1937; ordained of Catula in Oct. 03, 1952; appointed Bishop of Kontum, Vietnam on Nov. 24, 1960; and passed away on Feb. 23, 1984. He attended the First, Second, and Fourth Sessions of Vatican II. See “Léon Seitz Bishop Paul-Léon Seitz, M.E.P.,” http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bseitz.html. 64. Ibid., 372. Emphasis mine. 65. Divino affante Spiritu, no. 22: “Nor is it forbidden by the decree of the Council of Trent to make translations into the vulgar tongue, even [etiam] directly from the original texts themselves….” 66. Ibid., 376: “(H) Subcommissioni necessarium visum est, textum aliquomodo mu- tare, ne impressio oriatur Ecclesiae auctoritatem pro usu liturgico ubique versiones in lin- gua vernacula imponere.” 164 Oliver G. Dy

Eleven fathers request that, in place of ‘etiam’, praesertim may be placed, because translations from the original texts should not only to be tolerated, but commended.67

The group of fathers referred to are mostly from the Apostolic Region of Provence-Mediterranean, and they had intervened as follows:68

The following text is proposed: ‘... translations made especially [praeser- tim] from the original texts of the sacred books for liturgical and catechet- ical use, and for the reading by the faithful’. The are as follows: 1. It is good to retain the mention of the type of translation that is for liturgical use, for catechetical use, and for the reading by the faithful. However, from the words omitted in the former text, it appears that (as the subcommission well notes) that the Church imposes the vernacular translations for liturgi- cal use. 2. The expression ‘etiam’ should be changed to ‘praesertim’ lest it appears that the Church only tolerates translations from the original texts.69

In response to their proposal to have the phrase concerning the liturgical, catechetical, and devotional uses of Scripture restored, the subcommission reasoned that the items are mentioned in article 24, so that it would be redundant to additionally insert them in article 22.70 In summary, when seen in the light of its compositional-redactional his- tory, the word “especially” [praesertim] in Dei Verbum 22 can be seen as a compromise between the more restrictive “namely” [scilicet] that would have precluded the use of the Vulgate as a source text of translation, and the looser “even/also” [etiam] that would have more liberally allowed for it. The adverb ultimately chosen by the Council expresses how it navigates the delicate balance in the work of Bible translation between the preemi-

67. AS IV/V, 731: “Undecim Patres petunt ut, loco ‘etiam’, ponantur: praesertim, quia versiones ex primigeniis textibus non sunt tantum tolerandae sed commendandae.” 68. AS IV/II, 998-999. The names of the bishops are Cardinal Albert Meyer, Arch- bishop of Chicago; Paul Richaud, Archbishop of Bordeux; Tulio Botero Salazar, Arch- bishop of Medellin; , Archbishop of ; Christophe Zoa, Archbishop of Yaoundé; André Bontemps, Bishop of Maurienne; Louis Ménager, Bishop of Meaux; Rich- ard Cleire, Titular Bishop of Tadamata; Eduard Schick, Titular Bishop of Aradi and Aux- iliary Bishop of Fulda; Leo Volker, General of the of Africa. (The acta lists only ten names.) 69. Ibid., 998-999: “[Ad n. 22.:]. Proponitur textus sequens. ‘… versiones, ad usum liturgicum atque catecheticum necnon pro lectione fidelium, praesertim ex primigeniis sacrorum librorum textibus’. Rationes: 1. bonum est mentionem retinere scopi versionum, qui est usus liturgicus, usus catecheticus et lectio fidelium; attamen e textu priore omittuntur verba quibus apparebat (ut bene notat subcommissio…) Ecclesia imponere versiones in lingua vernacula pro usu liturgico. 2. Vox ‘etiam’ mutetur in ‘praesertim’ ne Ecclesia ver- siones ex textibus primigeniis tantummodo tolerare videantur.” 70. AS IV/V, 731. The Latin Vulgate as an “Auxiliary Tool” of Translation 165 nent original texts of Scripture and the other revered translations of Scrip- ture, particularly the Vulgate, which is visibly coupled to the Latin liturgi- cal text. The Council does not therefore absolutely shut the door to the translational use of the Vulgate, but it only narrows down this possibility to the field of the liturgy in particular. In the process, however, the Council also opens up the field of published liturgical discourse to become an arena of possible contestations in Biblical translation. It is exactly this scenario that plays out some forty years later with the of Liturgiam authen- ticam.

6. Bible Translations in the Light of the Ecumenical Agenda of Vatican II

A final point to consider for assessing the recent inclusion of the Vulgate as a source text for Scriptural translations for liturgical use is absence of the Tridentine terminology of “authenticity” in Vatican II’s discourse on the Vulgate. The 1962 Schema De fontibus Revelationis (Form C) had ac- tually highlighted the decree on the Vulgate, quoting it almost in verba- tim.71 The decree is consequently given no mention in the succeeding Schema De divina Revelatione (Form D) of 1963.72 This erasure was put in question by a number of Council fathers:

[Jose Cuenco, Archbishop of Jaro, Philippines:]73 I am asking the Sacred Council whether or not the declaration of authenticity still remains in vigor,

71. AS I/III, 23-24 [Form C]: “[De versione latina Vulgata]. Sine praeiudicio praecel- lentis auctoritatis primigeniorum textuum Sacrae Scripturae, inter plures quae olim circum- ferebantur latinas versiones, Ecclesia latina decursu temporis unam praetulit, ‘Vulgatam’ nempe, quam authenticam seu geuinum fidei testimonium habet. Ex legitimo enim huius versionis tot saeculorum usu in Ecclesia, patet eandem in rebus fidei et morum ab omni prorsus errore ese immunem, prout ab Ecclesia intellecta est et intelligitur, et in disputa- tionibus, in lectionibus concionibusque tuto ac sine errandi periculo citari posse. Tanta enim cum Magisterio ipsius Ecclesiae fuit ‘Vulgatae’ connexio, ut traditionis auctoritate pollere dicenda sit. Simul autem haec Sacrosancta Vaticana Synodus reverenter excipit alias ven- erandas vulgatasque in Ecclesiis orientalibus versiones, in primis graecam illam antiquis- simam Veteris Testamenti versionem a Septuaginta viris nuncupatam, ipsorum Apostolo- rum usu probatam.” 72. AS III/III, 789-90 [Form D]: “22. [Commendantur accuratae versiones]. Ut autem Christifidelibus ad Sacras Scripturas aditus late pateat, sua auctoritate com- mendat et materna sollicitudine curat ut, ad penitiorem cognitionem et uberiorem declara- tionem verbi Dei, accuratae in linguas vernaculas versiones e praecellentibus Sacrorum Librorum textibus primigeniis conficiantur.” 73. José Maria D. Cuenco was born in Carmen, Philippines on May 19, 1885; ordained priest on Jun. 11, 1914; appointed of Jaro and Titular Bishop of Hemeria on Nov. 22, 1941; ordained bishop on Dec. 27 1942; appointed Bishop of Jaro on Nov. 24, 1945; appointed Archbishop of Jaro on Jun. 29, 1951; and passed away on Oct. 08, 1972. 166 Oliver G. Dy

as the Sacred of Trent has established thus: ‘The Vulgate edition … is to be held as authentic in public lectures, disputations, preachings and expositions and that no none is to dare or presume to reject it under what- soever pretext’ (Denz. 785).74

[Robert Pobožný, Bishop of RožĖava, Slovakia:]75 Having held to the au- thority of the Vulgate translation, so too it should be upheld today. Thus throughout the ages, the holy Church – the sacred and the Supreme Pontiffs; and in the twentieth century, Pius X, Benedict XV, and Pius XI – frequently upheld the authority of this translation. When the revision and emendation of the Vulgate was thus given note, the were commissioned. Such authority of this Vulgate translation is necessary in the theoretical as much as the practical aspects of sacred theology, in the conceptual knowledge of sacred theology and in the preaching of the word of God….76

[The German and Scandinavian Bishops Conferences:] The text may be augmented as follows: ‘no. 22. (Accurate versions are recommended). So that access of the Christian faithful may lie widely open, the Church of God in her authority mandates, and in her maternal solicitude exerts care, that the word of God be more interiorly known and more fruitfully proclaimed; and that the Latin translation called the Vulgate used throughout many cen- turies be given recognition; and that accurate translations in the vernacular employed in the liturgy and be made from the preeminent origi- nal texts of the sacred books’.77

He attended the First, Third, and Fourth Sessions of Vatican II. See “Archbishop José Maria Diosomito Cuenco,” http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bcuenco.html. 74. AS III/III, 826: “Postulatur a Sancto Concilio declaratio authentica utrum in vigore pergat an non, Sanctae Tridentinae Synodi provisio qua statuitur: ‘Vulgata editio …in pub- licis lectionibus, disputationibus, praedicationibus et expositionibus pro authentica ha- beatur et quod nemo illam reicere quovis praetextu audeat vel praesumat’ (Denz. 785).” 75. Robert Pobožný was born in Tisovec, Slovakia; ordained priest on Sept. 04, 1913; appointed Apostolic Administrator of RožĖava, Slovakia and Titular Bishop of Neila on Jul 25, 1949; ordained its Bishop on Aug. 14, 1949; and passed away on Jun. 09, 1972. He attended the Second, Third, and Fourth Sessions of Vatican II. See “Bishop Robert Pobožný,” http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bpobozny.html. 76. AS III/III, 865: “Auctoritas versionis Vulgatae tuenda, tenenda est hodie quoque. Sic auctoritatem huius versionis S. Ecclesia tuebatur decursu temporum pluries: S. Synodi et Summi Pontificis. Hoc saec. xx S. Pius X, Benedictus XV, Pius XI; revisio et emendatio Vulgatae uti notum est, commissa est filiis S. Benedicti. Quae auctoritas huius versionis Vulgatae necessaria est in s. theologia tam theoretica quam practica: in scientiis s. theolo- giae et in praedicando verbo divino….” 77. Ibid., 913: “[Patres conciliares linguae germanicae et conferentiae episcoporum scandinaviae:] Textus ita augeatur: ‘n. 22 (Commendantur accuratae versiones). Ut autem christifidelibus aditus late pateat, Ecclesia Dei sua auctoritate mandat et materna sollici- tudine curat ut, ad penitiorem cognitionem et uberiorem declarationem verbi Dei, et illa ex multis saeculis usitata versio latina quae Vulgata nuncupatur recognoscatur et accuratae in The Latin Vulgate as an “Auxiliary Tool” of Translation 167

[The Bishops Conference of Apulia, :] Insofar as it pertains to the translations of the sacred Books, one should not pass over in silence the ‘Latin Vulgate’ and the ‘Greek Alexandrian [Septuagint]’, at least not on account of the witness of tradition, so to speak.78

In the next Schema (Form E), mention of the Vulgate is restored, but not of its characterization as an authentic text of Scripture. At this point, this portion of the draft text is already very close to the final and approved form of 1965. One difference worth noting is that the Latin Scriptures are still in the grammatical singular here while they are in the plural in Dei Verbum 22.79 The change is thanks to the intervention of the same group of French fathers mentioned above:

Regarding no. 22, … a slight change is proposed with regard to the Latin versions: ‘has always held in honor other Eastern and Latin translations, especially that which they call the Vulgate’. The reason is that, as regards the Latin translations, the word should be in the plural, for in use in the Latin Church throughout the centuries was the translation called the ‘’. This is also used today in various liturgical texts. The special im- portance the Vulgate has in the tradition may be well expressed by the ad- verb ‘especially’.80

The quoted text above sheds additional light on the discussion in the preceding section. In his commentary on Dei Verbum 22, Joseph Ratzinger [Benedict XVI] explains that by moving away from the terminology of authenticity and by resituating the Vulgate within the broader tradition of Scripture, the Council shatters “the isolation and the virtual absolutization linguas vernaculas versiones in liturgia atque catechesi adhibendae e praecellentibus Sacro- rum Librorum textibus primigeniis conficiantur’.” 78. Ibid., 918: “[Conferentia Episcoporum Apuliae:] ad versiones Ss. Librorum quod attinet, ne silentio praetereantur ‘Latina Vulgata’ et ‘Graeca Alexandrina’, tanquam, saltem, traditionis testimonia.” 79. AS III/III, 101-02 [Form E]: “[22.] … Qua de causa iam ab origine sua Ecclesia graecam illam antiquissimam Veteris Testamenti versionem a LXX viris nuncupatam sus- cepit, quam sicuti alias versiones orientalis et versionem latinam quam Vulgatam vocant, semper in honore habet... .” Cf. Dei Verbum 22: “... Qua de causa Ecclesia inde ab initiis graecam illam antiquissimam Veteris Testamenti versionem a LXX viris nuncupatam ut suam suscepit; alias vero versiones orientales et versiones latinas, praecipue illam quam Vulgatam vocant, semper in honore habet …” Emphasis mine. 80. AS IV/II, 998: “Ad n. 22 … Parva mutatio proponitur pro textu de versionibus lat- inis: ‘alias vero versiones orientales et latinas, praesertim illam quam Vulgatam vocant, semper in honore habet’. Rationes: de versionibus latinis sermo fiat in plurali, nam per saecula in Ecclesia latina in usu fuit version dicta ‘vetus latina’ quae nunc etiam usurpatur in diversis textibus liturgicis. Momentum speciale quod habuit Vulgata in traditione bene exprimitur adverbio praesertim.” 168 Oliver G. Dy of the Latin Church … so that one cannot speak of the Latin tradition alone, though before they are mentioned, the same things must also be said about the tradition of the East.”81 Furthermore, he also highlights the importance of the translational bias towards the original texts of Scripture in the light of the conciliar project of the common Bible for all Christians:

if both the Catholic and the Reformed Churches are going back beyond the classical translations of their own tradition to the source [text] that unites them all, the way is opened up for new translating in common, and with translating, reading and understanding in common.82

The historical presupposition here is that the Catholic methodology of translating mainly from the Vulgate was polemicized by Protestants who do not recognize the Vulgate as authoritative even if they sometimes con- sult it.83 Consequently, the professed use of the Vulgate as the/a source text of translation becomes a customary paratextual feature and distinguishing mark of identity of the Catholic vernacular Bible under the climate of the interconfessional conflict of the next centuries. It was only during the late Tridentine era with the emergent trends in Biblical scholarship signalled by the papal encyclicals on Scripture that Catholic translators that found themselves more decidedly returning to the very methodology of transla- tion long maintained and advanced by Protestant translators. Along with the disappearance at Vatican II of the vocabulary of authen- ticity introduced by Trent, one finds the emergence of a new register of discourse on Scripture centered on the language of translation. This new conciliar “style of discourse”84 on Scripture within which the decree on the Vulgate is received and reinterpreted, is representative and constitutive of a broader shift in Catholic towards . In Dei Ver- bum 22, the stream of ecumenism with the Greek Eastern churches sym- bolized by the Septuagint translation, and the stream of ecumenism with the Protestants signified by the common Bible translation for all Christians,

81. Joseph Ratzinger, “Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation. Chapter VI: Sa- cred Scripture in the Life of the Church,” in Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II, ed. Herbert Vorgrimler, 3: 262-272, 264-265. 82. Ibid., 265. 83. Josef Eskhult, “Latin Bible Versions in the Age of and Post-Refor- mation: On the Development of New Latin Versions of the Old Testament in Hebrew and on the Vulgate as Revised and Evaluated among the Protestants,” in Kyrkohistorisk Års- skrift 106, no. 1 (2006) 31-67, esp. 34-40; Stefan Sonderegger, “Geschichte deutschspra- chiger Bibelübersetzungen in Grundzügen,” in Sprachgeschichte: Ein Handbuch zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und ihrer Erforschung, ed. Werner Besch – Oskar Reichmann – Stefan Sonderegger, vol. 1 (Berlin – New York: de Gruyter, 1984) 172-173. 84. John O’Malley, What Happened at Vatican II (Cambridge: Belknap Press of Har- vard University Press, 2008) 43-49, 95, 149, 163, 174, and 307. The Latin Vulgate as an “Auxiliary Tool” of Translation 169 become strategically allied in expressing this “translational” type of eccle- siology coming out of the Council. Here, one comes to a greater awareness that translations, both Biblical and liturgical, along with their methodolo- gies of translation, are an index of ecclesiology; and that translation is a human activity that commonly permeates and historically binds Scripture and Tradition.85

7. Conclusion

Technically speaking, Vatican II allows for the translational use of the Vul- gate in the specific case of Scriptural translations for liturgical use – but only as much as a secondary source text of translation: on this point, Litur- giam authenticam clearly falls within the sense and ambit of the conciliar norm as illuminated by the conciliar acta. One can say that the Fifth In- struction simply exploits this possibility of the translational use of the Vul- gate subtly contained in the adverb “especially” in Dei Verbum 22. However, this step taken by the Roman also rehabilitates the logic historically tied to the older interconfessional polemics on Bible translation centered around Trent’s decree on the Vulgate.86 If Liturgiam authenticam is therefore to be upheld, the Church must take extra effort to convince its counterparts in the ecumenical of the delicate position it adopts here.87 The framers and defenders of Liturgiam authenticam have to espe- cially clarify how the translational (re)turn to the Vulgate figures into one of the stated goals of the liturgical reforms of Vatican II, namely “to foster whatever can promote union among all who believe in Christ.”88 In the recent times, there have been moves that apparently aim to draw attention to the traditional role and place of the Vulgate in the life of the Latin Church: Liturgiam authenticam (2001) seeks to integrate the use of the Vulgate in textual production of Biblical translations for liturgical use; (2007) legitimizes and encourages a return to the

85. This generalized statement is hinted in Ratzinger, “Dogmatic Constitution on Di- vine Revelation. Chapter VI: Sacred Scripture in the Life of the Church,” 264-266. 86. On the decree on the Vulgate as an obstacle to an envisioned reconciliation between Catholics and Protestants, see for example Beda Mayr, Vertheidigung der natürlichen, christlichen und katholischen Religion nach der Bedürfnissen unsrer Zeiten: Sammt einem Anhange von Möglichkeiten einer Vereinigung zwischen unsrer, und der evangelisch-lu- therischen Kirche, vol. 1 (Augsburg: Matthäus Rieger, 1789) 359-360, http://www.mdz- nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn=urn:nbn:de:bvb:12-bsb10398798-0. 87. For a sample opposition to Liturgiam authenticam among the Protestants, see Hor- ace T. Allen, “Ecumenist Calls Rome’s Translation Norms Unrealistic, Authoritarian,” in National Catholic Reporter 37, no. 33 (June 29, 2001) 22-23; John L. Allen, “Liturgist Says Ecumenical Dialogue Is ‘Dead’,” in National Catholic Reporter 38, no. 29 (May 24, 2002) 7. 88. Sacrosanctum concilium 1. 170 Oliver G. Dy liturgical celebration in Latin with its lectio of Scripture from the Vul- gate.89 The issue of greater concern and here is whether such contemporary assertions of Catholic identity, firmed up as they are by an appeal to the decree on the Vulgate, presently facilitate or hinder Vatican II’s programmatic goal of ecumenism vitally defining the shape of the Church today.

Research Unit of History of Church and Theology Oliver G. DY of Theology and KU Leuven [email protected]

Mailing Address: Windmolenveldstraat 44 BE-3000 Leuven

89. Summorum pontificum, July 07, 2007, http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/ motu_proprio/documents/hf_ben-xvi_motu-proprio_20070707_summorum-pontificum. html.