New Coverdale Psalter
  • Jehan_Boutte
    Posts: 264
    Has anybody come across the "New Coverdale Psalter", published by the ACNA?

    I had the opportunity to look at it. It seems to be a "modernized" version of the Coverdale Psalter ("Thou/Thee" has been replaced with "You" for instance).

    What do you think?
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 8,382
    I would not do more than having read of it.
    What is the point in such butchery?
    One does or does not appreciate Coverdale's inimitable labours.


    Thanked by 2StimsonInRehab tomjaw
  • francis
    Posts: 10,725
    Nothing is to be left untouched by modernists
    Thanked by 4StimsonInRehab ServiamScores sdtalley3 tomjaw
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 2,792
    The abbey psalms and canticles translation is atrocious.
    Thanked by 1StimsonInRehab
  • Liam
    Posts: 5,016
    You can thank Liturgicam Authenticam for that.
    Thanked by 2StimsonInRehab M. Jackson Osborn
  • davido
    Posts: 911
    I’m not sure Liturgicam Authenticam is to blame. It no better or worse than the original Grail: both versions are unmusical and un-English, just like the translations of the translations of the mass ordinary.
    These 3 and 4 syllable sequences between stressed syllables is not typical of English literature and scripture translation, but is the defining feature of the Grail. It might be typical of Hebrew or some other language, but it is not an English style.
    Thanked by 4M. Jackson Osborn tomjaw Charging3296 BGP
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,421
    I have become firmly attached to the 1963 Grail, and loathe changes in words and phrases. And it's true that the original forms of English poetry had this sort of pattern, but it is twice three times as old as Coverdale. Of course the inspiration was from Hebrew via French, which has a more suitable syllable flow.
    Thanked by 3Paul F. Ford Liam M. Jackson Osborn
  • Liam
    Posts: 5,016
    Liturgicam Authenticam, in its reaction, deliberately missed the opportunity to underscore euphony of versification according to the particular genius of the receiving tongue as an important value in translation, especially of lyrical idioms of Scripture and other source texts.

    Yes, I can and do very much blame Liturgicam Authenticam. It's a reminder of C S Lewis' aphorism about errors running in pairs, that one may flee from one to cling to the other.
    Thanked by 2a_f_hawkins ServiamScores
  • CantorCole
    Posts: 55
    "Those modernist Latinizers can't help but meddle with our Liturgy, for now they are changing the elegant and inspired liturgical Greek into the vulgar Latin tongue. How dare they! Greek is the language of the church!"

    -Pro-Greek Roman Christians, ca. 300AD
  • novusgordo
    Posts: 6
    Liturgicam Authenticam, in its reaction, deliberately missed the opportunity to underscore euphony of versification according to the particular genius of the receiving tongue as an important value in translation, especially of lyrical idioms of Scripture and other source texts. Yes, I can and do very much blame Liturgicam Authenticam. It's a reminder of C S Lewis' aphorism about errors running in pairs, that one may flee from one to cling to the other.


    It's not just Liturgiam authenticam, though, and it's not just a case of the Devil's pendulum swinging from one extreme to the other. The other problem, and the reason why ICEL in particular was so strictly monitored by the DDW, is that the English translations serve a dual role. Obviously, they're used as liturgical texts in and of themselves, for liturgical celebrations in the English language. However, for smaller languages where native speakers who are also fluent in Latin might be hard to come by, liturgical translations are often prepared working from the ICEL English instead. For that reason, the ICEL English needs to be closer to a literal translation of the Latin than might otherwise be ideal. (At least, that was part of the reason for the original Vox clara reforms. Some of the changes that happened after that... *shrug*)
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,749
    @CantorCole
    Have you read the work of the expert on early Christian languages, Prof C. Mohrmann? I can't image the good professor writing such things.
    https://archive.org/details/LiturgicalLatin/mode/2up
  • Liam
    Posts: 5,016
    "For that reason, the ICEL English needs to be closer to a literal translation of the Latin than might otherwise be ideal."

    I am well aware of that deeply misguided reason.
  • CantorCole
    Posts: 55
    @tomjaw

    I wasn't saying that would be what scholars would say, I was just satirizing from the point of view of a hypothetical lay Roman Christian in late antiquity to shed light on current circumstances and debates. (After all, most of us here aren't linguistic scholars)

    I think it is good to approach subjects such as this with a more balanced lens, and find events/circumstances from past history to be helpful in this regard.

    Also, I am unable to access archive.org. Is there another location that I can find the material you referred me to?
  • Liam
    Posts: 5,016
    "For that reason, the ICEL English needs to be closer to a literal translation of the Latin than might otherwise be ideal."

    I am well aware of that deeply misguided reason.
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 8,382
  • Diapason84
    Posts: 79
    I’m reminded of Anthony Esolen’s observations on “Nabbish” and the poverty of modern English translations of liturgical and scriptural texts. One cannot translate them into the idiom of a bus schedule or a daytime talk show without alienating the faithful. Yet here we are.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • davido
    Posts: 911
    Do you have a link to the Esolen “Nabbish” article? I read it once but can’t find it anymore
  • Diapason84
    Posts: 79
    Of ccourse. https://www.firstthings.com/article/2011/06/a-bumping-boxcar-language
  • davido
    Posts: 911
    Thanks
Add a Comment