QL 97 (2016) 141-170 doi: 10.2143/QL.97.3.3197403 © 2016, all rights reserved THE LATIN VULGATE AS AN “AUXILIARY TOOL” OF TRANSLATION Historical Perspectives on Liturgiam Authenticam On March 28, 2001, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Disci- pline of the Sacraments under the leadership of Cardinal Jorge Medina Estévez released the Fifth Instruction for the implementation of Sacrosanc- tum concilium. Entitled Liturgiam authenticam, “On the Use of Vernacular 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 translations for the vernacular liturgical books (no. 24). With regard to the vernacular lectionary 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 Nova Vulgata Editio is the point of refer- ence as regards the delineation of the canonical text. Thus, in the transla- tion of the deuterocanonical books and wherever else there may exist var- ying manuscript traditions, the liturgical translation must be prepared in accordance with the same manuscript tradition 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 Catholic Bishops 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 manuscripts 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 Bible 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 initial 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 biblical languages … 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, Aramaic, 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 Church over the centuries.”3 A proposed example of such a translational use of the Vulgate is the case of Psalm 45:6 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 Notitiae 27, no. 11-12 (2001) 521-526. 4. See Michael K. Magee, “From the Bible to the Lectionary of the Holy Mass: Norms and Principles,” in Notitiae 47, no. 1-2 (2010) 57-60. Psalm 45:6 reads: Deus in medio eius, non commovebitur; adiuvabit eam Deus mane diluculo. Its textual counterpart in the New American Bible used in the liturgical celebrations in the United States of America is Psalm 46:6, which reads: “God 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 lectionaries 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 decree on the Vulgate (Insuper) of April 08, 1546 highlights the importance of this particular Latin translation of Scripture in the life and history of the Latin Church: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, sermons 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 Constitution on Divine Revelation (Dei Verbum) of November 18, 1965 gives priority to the original texts of Scripture in the textual production of popular vernac- ular Bible translations: 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 Old Testament which is called the septuagint; 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 old Latin Vulgate edition.” See Norman Tanner (ed.), Decrees 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 Constitutions 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.