Print

Print


Peter,

As a proclaimer (which I have been), I would not hesitate to put misplaced modifiers in their correct place (though, as a proclaimer, I would not change the words or their intended [yeah, I know that's a dodge] meaning).  There are two types of congregants, with some subtypes.  There are those who are truly listening, liturgically.  They will not notice your rearrangement of modifiers.  There are those who are reading along with you.  They are either will be tolerant of your changes, because they are trying to "listen" with two senses, or they will be intolerant, because they're only listening for errors, not for Truth [please note the u.c.].  Then there may also be the liturgical presider, to whom you may have to defend your editorializing.

Finally, never forget that, as a proclaimer (and please, TSE list, forgive the pastoral comments), you are not responsible for anything other than communicating the meaning of the text.  The impact of that communication on the reader rests in hands (or wings, if you prefer that imagery) higher than yours.

Jerry




________________________________
From: Peter Montgomery <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Fri, January 22, 2010 12:20:42 AM
Subject: Re: TS Eliot: "the heart of light" (by now, rather OT)

  
Excellent points. As a proclaimer I am not 
necessarily looking for poetic or rhetorical resonance,
although I love it in Isaiah and Jeremiah. I do 
think that coherent order of elements in a sentence
should be a preference. Missplaced modifiers 
abound, but to what purpose? I'm just asking
for awording that works. Perhaps the NRSV just 
isn't fit for liturgical purpose. I'm glad it works
for your purposes.
 
Thanks for the excellent 
clarifications.
 
Peter
 
 
----- Original Message ----- 
>From: Jerome 
>  Walsh 
>To: [log in to unmask] 
>Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 9:44 
>  PM
>Subject: Re: TS Eliot: "the heart of 
>  light" (by now, rather OT)
>
>
>Peter and Rick,
>
>In re: "the Holy Ghost" in Sirach (or in 
>  Wisdom).  "Secondary" in your commentary, Peter, probably does mean, more 
>  or less, "interpolation."  Certainly I have found no source for Jerome's 
>  inclusion of the words in his translation of Sirach.  And Wisdom 1:4-7 
>  has to be stretched a very long way indeed to supply even the words.  The concept, however, is clearly an example of 
>  erroneous translation.  The "Holy Ghost" is a uniquely Christian 
>  theological concept, and there is nothing in Israelite or Jewish thought that 
>  could remotely support reading that concept into a Jewish text.
>
>I don't 
>  want to open up the "translation theory" can of worms.  I'm an amateur in 
>  that regard, though I think I have a pretty decent practical ability to 
>  translate ancient Hebrew.  Let me simply raise a few questions as the 
>  sort of thing I think one must wrestle with in asking about (or making) 
>  translations.  (1) How does one translate a flat, pedestrian, perchance 
>  even borderline ungrammatical text (like Mark's Gospel)?  Does one render 
>  it in rich, euphonious, stylistically striking English because it is "Holy 
>  Writ"?  Or does one respect the way the text would have been perceived by 
>  its original audience, and render it in flat, pedestrian, borderline 
>  ungrammatical English? (2) What impact should one's intended audience have on 
>  one's translation choices?  Should one translate differently when the 
>  result is intended for liturgical proclamation versus when the result is 
>  intended for technical study by students innocent of the original 
>  languages?  (3) How does one handle issues like ambiguity?  (This in 
>  particular should interest people whose metier is the interpretation of 
>  difficult poetry!)  Is it one's job to disambiguate, so that the 
>  translation's reader gets a clear understanding from the text (but is deprived 
>  of the experience of reading a text that is not soclear)?  Or is it one's job to preserve, insofar as possible, the 
>  ambivalences of the original in translation, so that the reader of the 
>  translation, just like the reader of the original, is responsible for choosing 
>  among the ambiguities?  (4) If one is translating poetry, which of its 
>  nature is as much an experience of verbal music as of lexemes, does one 
>  translate it "faithfully" if one's translation is prose?  Or would that 
>  reduce the three dimensions of syntax, semantics and style to two, and thereby 
>  deprive the poetry of precisely what makes it be what it is?  (Close to 
>  half of the Old Testament is poetry....)
>
>As to the NRSV, I find it 
>  quite satisfactory for classroom use.  It is, on the whole, an accurate 
>  rendering of the semantic meaning of the original Greek, Hebrew, and 
>  Aramaic.  On the other hand, the NRSV's commitment to gender-inclusive 
>  translation, while politically correct (and, in general, not entailing any 
>  betrayal of the original languages), makes it slightly more difficult to work 
>  with as a substitute for the original.  It is, I agree, not as 
>  mellifluous as the NJB (or, even more so, the earlier JB).  But the NJB 
>  (and, even more so, the earlier JB) sometimes makes translation choices that 
>  are not always the most accurate renderings of the original (in the opinions 
>  of many).  So how does one weigh the options?  How many semantic 
>  flaws counterbalance a superbly turned English phrase?  And vice 
>  versa.
>
>As for Eliot's comment about feeding pearls to pigs, I agree 
>  heartily that that phrase clunks, whereas "casting pearls before swine" has 
>  glorious resonance.  (Some [all?] of that resonance, of course, comes 
>  from our familiarity.  I note, for instance, that "feeding pearls to 
>  pigs" has an alliterative quality lacking in the other, which those who prefer 
>  the traditional version either overlook or consider of no value.  I think 
>  it would be very interesting to know precisely what those who consider the 
>  traditional rendering stylistically preferable would point to as its superior 
>  qualities.)  My questions, however, would be what Eliot means by "the 
>  meaning is quite destroyed."  I have no doubt at all that he was quite at 
>  home in Greek.  But is that what he means here?  Does he mean "the 
>  meaning [that the original author's word choices suggest he intended to 
>  communicate to his audience] is quite destroyed" or does he mean "the meaning 
>  [I am used to and love from the tradition] is quite destroyed"?
>
>Jerry 
>  Walsh
>
>
>
>
________________________________
 From: Peter Montgomery 
>  <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Sent: Thu, January 21, 2010 9:02:53 
>  PM
>Subject: Re: TS Eliot: 
>  "the heart of light"
>
>Yes!! I have Eliot's article in the Times 
>  somewhere.
>A very thorough review.
>
>Cheers,
>Peter
>----- 
>  Original Message ----- 
>From: "Rickard A. Parker" <[log in to unmask]>
>To: 
>  <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: 
>  Thursday, January 21, 2010 4:19 PM
>Subject: Re: TS Eliot: "the heart of 
>  light"
>
>
>> Peter Montgomery wrote:
>> >
>> > As 
>  for the NRSV I would appreciate any general thoughts you have about
>its 
>  language quality.
>> > It has been adopted by the Catholic Church in 
>  Canada as THE official
>translation for use in liturgies. As a proclaimer of 
>  the word and an english
>teacher, I am astounded at the grammatical laxness 
>  especially in sentence
>structure and paragraphing. In some cases
>> 
>  > I have found it nigh on impossible to proclaim in such a way that 
>  it
>makes real sense.
>> >
>> > I fear accuracy of 
>  translation has triumphed over all other values
>including the
>> > 
>  real meaning of the original.
>> >
>> > Frankly I'm appalled. 
>  The New Jerusalem Bible is sweet poetry 
>  in
>comparison.
>>
>>
>> An Eliot quote:
>>    
>  After a few pleasantries, he asked me if I had read The New 
>  English
>>    Bible.  When I said I hadn't he said, "I 
>  think you will be dismayed by
>>    it, as I am, William.  
>  Not just stylistic losses, nuances gone,
>language
>>    
>  forced, but, for example, instead of being admonished not to 
>  cast
>pearls
>>    before swine, we are now instructed, 'Do 
>  not feed your pearls to pigs'
>>    -- and so the meaning is 
>  quite destroyed."
>>
>>
>> William Turner Levy was an American 
>  Episcopal priest who, although much
>> younger than Eliot became friends 
>  with him. Turner wrote of Eliot and
>> their correspondence in the 
>  book:
>>      William Turner Levy and Victor 
>  Scherle,
>>      "Affectionately, T.S. 
>  Eliot"
>>      J.B. Lippincott, New York, 1968
>> The 
>  quote above was from page 127
>>
>> Regards,
>>    
>    Rick Parker
>