by Tom Magill

Catholic Mass goers around Scotland heard the new translation of the lectionary for the first time on the first Sunday of Advent. The English Standard Version of the bible, a translation published by a group of Evangelical American scholars in 2001, was chosen by the Scottish bishops, following the English and Indian Conferences of bishops, as the text for the new Lectionary for Catholic Liturgy.

In an essay written for Open House in December/January 2021, Dr Tom Magill described the bishops’ decision as flawed. It is now too late for change – new lectionaries are in place in churches across the country, at considerable expense – but it is worth reflecting on the issues raised by the bishops’ decision. Here we reproduce Fr Magill’s reflection on the choice of translation in the light of a Catholic understanding of Scripture, Tradition and the church’s Magisterium, which takes on added significance in the light of the Synod on Synodality.

Scripture

The early Church understood the importance of drawing up a scriptural canon, a closed and authoritative list of the books considered to be divinely inspired. They understood that these books both emerged from the believing communities and in turn formed the faith and life of those communities. This process involved selecting certain texts and rejecting others. The insight of the early church was that this canon was necessary for community identity and for the unity to bind the diverse communities together in one faith. The canon thus became a benchmark for belonging. To add to it or take away from it was to damage identity and unity.

Different theologies

Martin Luther profoundly understood these insights regarding the canon’s role in fostering unity, identity and belonging. It is no accident that he chose to reformulate the canon of Scripture in order to clearly demarcate the churches of the Reform from the Roman Catholic Church. By rejecting what he called the Apocrypha, later known as the Deuterocanonicals in the Catholic Church, he created a new foundational text. From that moment there were Catholic bibles and Protestant bibles and the respective translations would reflect the different theologies, ecclesiologies and self-understandings of the divided churches. It is important to note that these differences are not superficial since all translators bring to the task in hand their own world view, presuppositions and theological horizons which are then reflected in the translated text. For instance, it is doubtful that the translators of the ESV would acknowledge what Pope Francis calls the ‘distinctively sacramental character’ of the proclaimed Word of God’ (Aperuit Illis 2).

Recent scholarship has revived interest in the study of the canon and its place in the interpretation of the Scriptures. It looks at the meaning which the overall text – in its final form – has for the community which uses it. The canon thus becomes the context in which every individual part of scripture is read and interpreted. This approach is a valiant attempt to wrest control of the interpretation of Scripture from the academy back to the believing communities for which these texts were written. ‘The words which compose the text draw their meaning from the context and setting in which they are meant to be read’ (1).

This approach highlights that the different canons within the Christian churches will influence greatly the translation and interpretation of the component parts of the canon—the context and setting in which the words are read will seep into the act of translation. Consequently, because of their different canons, Protestant and Catholic bibles are quite different texts. Adding the Catholic Deuterocanonical books to the ESV, or emending a word here or there, does not make of it a Catholic edition, far less a Catholic bible. The influence of the canon on the translation is too great and too deep and will resist emendation and addition. It is fair to say, then, that what is being offered for Catholic liturgical use is a Protestant version of the Scriptures.

Tradition

The Second Vatican Council made clear that Christ crucified and Risen is the one source of Revelation, the ‘divine wellspring’ making up a single ‘deposit of Faith’ entrusted to the Church. Both Scripture and Tradition flow from this divine wellspring which is the eternal Word of God, Christ the Lord (Dei Verbum 9, 10). Indeed, Scripture itself is part of Tradition. This understanding is quite different from the understanding of the Evangelical translators of the ESV who would hold to the reformation principle of ‘Scripture alone’. Consequently, the ecclesial dimension of the Scriptures has no role to play in in their translation process. Catholic understanding, by contrast, gives the believing community a vital role in the production, reception and handing on of these sacred texts. Absent these elements, we have a translation which does not reflect Catholic belief and practice. Scripture must be read and indeed translated in the tradition of the Church.

Tom Magill is a retired priest of the Diocese of Motherwell. He is a former lecturer in Scripture at Chesters College and the University of Glasgow and was awarded a PhD for his dissertation on St Mark’s Gospel.

(1) John Barton, Reading the Old Testament: Method in Biblical Study, Westminster John Knox Press, 1984 p 172.