As a reminder, past editions of the New Translation Catechesis can be accessed via the top menu bar.
This week we present the second part in our catechesis on the Gloria. The first part can be found here. The first part of this ancient hymn is addressed to God the Father. The second part is addressed to God the Son. Let’s being by reminding ourselves of the current translation:
Lord Jesus Christ, only Son of the Father,Lord God, Lamb of God,you take away the sin of the world: have mercy on us;you are seated at the right hand of the Father: receive our prayer.For you alone are the Holy One, you alone are the Lord,you alone are the Most High, Jesus Christ,with the Holy Spirit, in the glory of God the Father.Amen.
In Advent 2011 the faithful will sing instead:
Lord Jesus Christ, Only Begotten Son,Lord God, Lamb of God, Son of the Father,you take away the sins of the world, have mercy on us;you take away the sins of the world, receive our prayer;you are seated at the right hand of the Father, have mercy on us.For you alone are the Holy One, you alone are the Lord,you alone are the Most High, Jesus Christ,with the Holy Spirit, in the glory of God the Father.Amen.
I have placed in bold those parts that differ.
A line-by-line comparison it a bit difficult because some of the changes involve moving the text around. For instance, the pair of phrases in the first part:
you take away the sin of the world: have mercy on us;you are seated at the right hand of the Father: receive our prayer
will be replaced with three lines:
you take away the sins of the world, have mercy on us;you take away the sins of the world, receive our prayer;you are seated at the right hand of the Father, have mercy on us.
Having the triple invocation (“have mercy on us ... receive our prayer ... have mercy on us”) is reminiscent of similar structures found in the Agnus Dei and Kyrie. It is also more faithful to the Latin structure of the hymn:
qui tollis peccáta mundi, miserére nobis;qui tollis peccáta mundi, súscipe deprecatiónem nostram.Qui sedes ad déxteram Patris, miserére nobis.
The word qui is actually translated as “who” rather than “you.” The second person singular is certainly the pronoun to whom the prayer is addressed, so repeating it in the English is appropriate, but a more literal translation might have been “You who take away the sins of the word, have mercy on us,” and so on through the other two lines. The word dexteram translates literally as “right” (noun) but in other forms and contexts can stand for “right hand.” Other than the fairly insignificant elimination of “who” (qui), the new translation is spot on in comparison to the Latin.
There is one other minor change in these lines that is worth mentioning. The current translation uses “sin” for the Latin word peccata. Secular Latin students may not see this in the first year, but those enrolled in Latin programs in a Christian setting will often experience peccatum as a very early vocabulary word, mostly because (1) it is a second declension noun, so easy to work with, and (2) it occurs frequently in Christian literature (biblical, liturgical, and theological). These early students will waste no time in telling you that the form peccata is plural, not singular. The new translation fixes this with “you take away the sins of the world. While a minor change in comparison to the rest of the Gloria, there is an important theological point to be made here. When we say that Christ came to take away the sin (singular) of the world, we speak rightly, but we are emphasizing that he combats sin in general, perhaps even referring to original sin. This is certainly true, but Christ also came to take away personal sins, and it is this reality that is seemingly emphasized in the Latin text of the Gloria (as well as the Agnus Dei). Again, this takes nothing away form the reality that Christ destroys evil in general and that Baptism washes away the stain of original sin, but the word in the Gloria is specifically plural, and hence recognizes our own personal sins and the saving reality of Christ’s grace.
Finally, there two changes to how Christ is addressed in the first two lines of this section. The Latin for these lines reads:
Dómine Fili Unigénite, Iesu Christe,Dómine Deus, Agnus Dei, Fílius Patris,
Fili Unigenite is an ancient and venerable title given to Jesus. A similar construction occurs in the Nicene Creed: Fílium Dei Unigénitum. The new translation of the Creed renders this as “Only Begotten Son of God.” Likewise the Gloria renders its version as “Only Begotten Son.” This is precisely how the Latin should be translated, and the adjective “begotten” contains a precise theological reality: that the Second Person of the Trinity proceeds forth from the Father yet is no less divine, no less an eternal Person in the Blessed Trinity.
The second change is the restoration of the title “Son of the Father” at the end of the second line. (Actually, it seems that the current translation combined “Only Begotten Son” and “Son of the Father” into “Only Son of the Father.”) “Son of the Father” is a perfect translation of Filius Patris.
This concludes our presentation of the major changes to the people’s parts. Next week we will dedicate a column that quickly goes through the rest of the changes, all minor in scope to what has been presented the past fifteen weeks.
Regarding the sin/sins question:
ReplyDeleteI think I see what the previous English translators were after when they rendered that word in the Gloria as "sin" instead of "sins".
That line in the Gloria comes from John 1:29:
"The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him and declared, "Here is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!"
["Altera die vidit Joannes Jesum venientem ad se, et ait: Ecce agnus Dei, ecce qui tollit peccatum mundi."]
The Vulgate has "peccatum" here, and the Greek has "τὴν ἁμαρτία" (ten hamartia), both of which are singular. So the singular "sin" is the proper translation of this verse from the Gospel, and I suspect the English translation of the Gloria was attempting to capture that.
However, that doesn't seem to me to be the job of the translator. The fact is, that for whatever reason, the Mass has "peccata" and not "peccatum", and therefore ought to be corrected to "sins", as you note.
Great article!
Dragoo,
ReplyDeleteVery insightful. You are correct that the corresponding passage is John 1:29, and both the Nova Vulgate and the Vulgate of Clement read as you put it [qui tollit peccatum mundi], in the singular. (Though the Clement version contains an extra "ecce"]. This exact line occurs in the Lamb of God itself and more precisely after the Lamb of God, when the priest says, "Behold the Lamb of God ... " Even in this case, in the Latin liturgical text, the plural is used [peccata] rather than the scriptural singular [peccatum]. What is curious here is that in the Lamb of God, the nominative is used [Agnus], when it really should be the vocative. Fortesque muses that this is in part so that the text will line up with its Scriptural roots. Why is this curious? If the Mass text went to the extent of making a grammatical mistake in order to preserve Scripture, why did they change peccatum to peccata? I don't have an answer for you.
To make matters more curious, one of the earliest versions of the Gloria from the Apostolic Constitutions, contains the singular as it found in John 1:29 [qui tollit peccatum mundi]. I don't have information on when this changed. If you do, let me know.
I would offer a final observation. While the John passage is most certainly the obvious reference for this, we also have a verse from 1 John 3:5: "You know that He appeared in order to take away sins (NASB)," which in Latin uses "ut peccata tolleret" ... plural.
Nevertheless, as you pointed out, the job of the translator is to translate the text, and when we consider this ... well, the use of the plural is obvious.
You might be a bit too kind in assuming that the original translators wished to be faithful to Scripture. I say this not to be overly harsh, but the stark reality is that they deliberately avoided clear Scripture references in several cases ("Lord I am not worthy" comes to mind immediately). I have a feeling that the use of the singular had more to do with avoiding talk of personal sins. Call me a cynic; I suppose we'll never know for sure.
Thank you kindly for contributing to this conversation.
Yours,
Jake