@a_f_hawkins

Yes, that was my assumption. But according to the preface of the 1974 Graduale Romanum, these chants can still be used if one so desires.

I don't have a problem using the 1964/65 translation, but seriously: no one cares if you use a hand missal that was duly approved for what you do in your own parish or for what you put as the translation when you do the Latin.

Sigh.

They were either working from a different text, the Latin having been revised at some point, or they’ translated based on some Scriptural source or sources in lieu of the Latin, which is also nonsensical.

It’s both but also: I love the little Thérèse. Her understanding is very much the latter. And it’s not really lacking, although I suppose that many preachers hack that understanding in order to water it down, i.e. God’s love is so great that no conversion and no penance are required.

@IanW

Wow that is a convoluted translation, in my opinion

@IanW

No, I just feel like the grammar is awkward when compared to the original Latin text. Not a very literal translation.

I would argue that we needn't concern ourselves with the "variageted history of the apocryphal text", since, by "original Latin text" I am referring to the translation specifically used for the proper Chant:

"Deus Israel conju(n)gat vos et ipse sit vobiscum qui misertus est duobus unicis et nunc Domine fac eos plenius benedicere te"

compared to:

"The God of Israel make you one, and may he be with you even as he had mercy of two that were the only begotten of their fathers: grant them mercy, O Lord, and finish their life in health with joy."

I find it odd that the translation used in the Ordinariate uses "only begotten", of which the Latin equivalent is not used in this text. There is a lot of theological baggage (not in a negative sense, to be clear) attached to this phrase, so I think it obscures the point of the text. (I actually took a look at the KJV of Tobit, and it appears that they simply adapted it from this translation.)

In general, it is a very wordy translation that is much longer than the Latin text itself. But with the KJV aspect, it makes sense that it is not as faithful a translation, since the base text of the KJV was not the vulgate.

The version given by @GerardH appears to be a much more faithful and concise translation.

We should stick to the Latin and translate that, like we did before the last seventy years or so.

Whatever one thinks of the Vulgate, it is the official scripture of the Church. So to deviate from it substantially based on different manuscripts seems entirely inappropriate, imho. (To say nothing of the now-jettisoned millennium of tradition built upon said official text.)

It's not directly relevant, since the Introit is not a straightforward extract from any known version of scripture, but
"the official scripture of the Church" is the Nova Vulgata, see Scripturarum thesaurus, while the 1592 'Clementine' edition remains "worthy of respect"

by virtue of this Letter we declare the New Vulgate edition of the Holy Bible as "typical" and we promulgate it to be used especially in the sacred Liturgy but also as suitable for other things, as we have said.
Finally we decree that this Constitution of ours be firm and forever efficacious and be scrupulously observed by all concerned, notwithstanding any obstacles whatsoever.
Given in Rome at St Peter's, 25 April, on the feast of Saint Mark the Evangelist, in the year 1979, the first of our Pontificate.
IOANNES PAULUS PP. II

And it fulfills the mandate of VII (Sacrosanctum Concilium, n. 91), just as the 1592 fulfilled the mandate of Trent.