Missal 3: The tale of two translations

The biggest task facing the International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL) in 1969 was the translation of the Order of the Mass.  The 1969 Roman Missal provided the original text and this had to be translated from Latin into appropriate English. The big question was “How do we do it?”
The concept of Dynamic Equivalence had been used in the translation of the Bible for some years and some of the translations that had resulted from this proved to be very popular. They were already used extensively in other Christian churches. The best known of these were the Living Bible and Good News Bible, but there were others. The intention here was to produce a text that was easier to read and to understand than the King James version which was written in what had become archaic English.

Dynamic Equivalence involved interpreting the Latin, Aramaic, Greek or archaic English (depending on which source material was being used) and re-writing it in a way that gave the reader an insight into the intention of the original writer and, through that, of the meaning of the text, as interpreted by the editor/translator. The objective was to give people a version of the Bible that could be read as easily as a newspaper article or modern novel.

ICEL took the view that the use of this approach to translating the Order of the Mass would bring the Mass to life for the “average Catholic”, and it definitely succeeded in making the language of the liturgy more tangible and easier to understand, more everyday in style, less mysterious, almost conversational.

One of the reasons why many people have been unhappy about the new English translation in the liturgy has been the return to the almost “mysterious” wording of the Latin original in the Roman Missal, which has always focused on the mystery of the presence of Jesus’ passion, death and resurrection in our celebration of the Eucharist.

It is interesting that it is this very aspect that has led to the decision for ICEL to move back to direct translation (also known as Formal Equivalence). The view developed over time that the Dynamic Equivalence version did not provide a full encounter with the profound mysteries that are explored every time we come together to participate in the passion, death and resurrection of Jesus, and simultaneously to celebrate the other mysteries that we find in the community elements of priesthood, prophecy and kingship.

Another concern was that the use of Dynamic Equivalence for the English translation differed from many other language translations of the universal Church (most of which had followed Formal Equivalence) and was therefore out of step. This was particularly evident in our own country where the translations used for most of the African languages were Formal Equivalence translations from the Latin, but the English translation in use was noticeably different. This was at odds with the concept of a united people of God, with unity of worship and with community.

Over the next couple of weeks we will examine some of the changes that have emerged from the decision to change to the Formal Equivalence approach to translation that we now find in the new translation. As you will see, the Dynamic Equivalent versions are simpler, more everyday English — a very attractive characteristic. On the other hand, the direct translations make it clear that we are dealing with deep, complex, mysterious matters of both theology and philosophy that demand study and guidance.

The mind of the Church is that we should all embark on this journey of discovery and through this to deepen our experience of our faith through the liturgy.

Of course the other important motivator for these changes is that the English translation now moves back into line with the translations used for other languages — including the indigenous languages of South Africa. This ensures that people will not experience a different sense when they celebrate Mass in different languages.