From
the vantage point of 2002 and looking back into the last century,
we can see three basic phases to the massive linguistic changes
that took place in translating the Bible, creating Liturgies and
producing hymns for the
English-speaking parts of the Christian Church.
1.
Recovery of better versions of the original texts
The
first phase in the production of new versions of the Bible and
of new forms of liturgy was closely related to scholarly claims
to be working from better original texts of the originals –
be it of the Bible or of the rites/services used in the early
Church.
In
all the new Bible versions from the 1960s onwards, it is stated
in the Preface that the translators have had before them more
accurate and superior forms of the texts in both Hebrew and Greek
than did the translators of the King James Version in 1611 or
even the Revised Standard Version of the 1950s.
In
assessing this claim we need to be clear that having better original
texts to translate from does not in itself guarantee a good translation.
For translation into English is a totally different activity from
recovering and establishing the original text in a language other
than English.
In
the sphere of Liturgy, the claim is made right across the denominational
spectrum that we know through modern historical studies much more
about the shape and content of services in the Early Church than did
sixteenth-century bishops and scholars, and that these ancient
services (e.g., as recorded by Hippolytus of Rome) should become
models for either the revision of services in use or new services
to be created.
In
assessing this claim we need to be clear that having access to
new information about the Early Church’s
worship, does not in itself give wisdom
as to the best use of these texts for the modern Church.
The
engagement with better texts of the Hebrew & Greek Bible and
early Church Liturgy led to the sense of the possibility of
RENEWAL and AGGIORNAMENTO.
2.
Adopting “Contemporary Language"
First
of all, Bible translation and liturgical creation in the 1950s
and into the 1960s retained the inherited traditional language
of prayer/worship and addressed God as “Thou/Thee” ( see e.g., the RSV & NEB versions, and
the Series 2 services in the Church of England). Then, in the
late 1960s there was the generally-felt necessity to provide both
Bible versions and Liturgies wherein God is addressed in the same
way as are human beings – as You (see the result in e.g.,
the NIV and
the Series 3 services in the Church of England). These Protestant
productions followed hard on the heels of the move by the Church
of Rome, immediately after the Second Vatican Council (1962-65),
to render the Liturgy and the Bible into the vernacular of the
1960s.
At
this stage “contemporary language” meant first and foremost
the removal of the pronoun, “Thee/Thou,” with its archaic
verb endings (e.g., “thou rulest”) and of obsolete words.
However, the move to the vernacular all happened so quickly that
insufficient thought and work were devoted by Catholics or Protestants
to working out what a new language of prayer in a modern or contemporary
idiom should/ would be like. Those who called for caution and
care (e.g., The Rev’d Dr John F McHugh of Durham [RC] and Dr Stella Brook of Manchester [Anglican])
were left behind in the seeming mad rush to make everything modern
and relevant.
In
terms of Hymnody, not only was there the production from the 1960s
of an increasing number of hymns, songs and choruses addressing
God as “You;” but, there were attempts to edit the hymns
of the likes of Charles Wesley, Isaac Watts and John Henry Newman
to make them address God as “You.” And new editions
of Hymn Books revealed these tendencies (e.g., 100 Hymns for
Today in 1969 as a Supplement to Hymns Ancient and
Modern and Hymns for the Modern Church, created in
the 1970s but published in 1982).
3.
Ideology enters Contemporary Language
Some
of those who had pushed for the creation of a contemporary language
of worship realized around 1980 (or a little before or after this
date) that they had bitten off more than they could safely chew.
This was because of the deafening call from feminists for the
changes to be made in the language of prayer that were being made
in the secular language in society.
It
was realised that translating ancient texts into modern English
in a literal way means preserving what to feminists is a patriarchal,
androcentric and male-dominated religion, even when the modern
text addresses God as “You.”
The religion of the Old and New Testaments is patriarchal!
So
a new wave of versions of the Bible (NEB & NRSV) and Liturgical
texts (Experimental Liturgies within the ECUSA) and Hymns (e.g., by
Brian Wren) were produced. In these the attempt was made to accommodate the cry
of women to become equal and visible in the Church of God.
This
process of the changing of the language of prayer to keep up with
the secular language of the day and with the demands of women
clergy has put tremendous pressures upon the language of prayer
to stay faithful to the Christian Creed and Tradition and it has
led to much debate and controversy.
Further,
it is now clear that once the language of prayer has been changed
to accommodate one dominant pressure group, it is open to be persuaded
to make adjustments to accommodate other pressure groups (e.g.,
the human rights, the environmental and the lesbigay) and thus
it is always in a state of flux.
So
it is not surprising that we have seen a rapid succession of versions
of the Bible, of forms of worship and of hymnody as the attempt
is made to be relevant and to speak the language of the day.
There is no general agreement as to how little or how much
of the modern agenda to accommodate and how much can be accommodated
and still retain the Christian Faith has it has
been generally understood and known. In recent times the Vatican
has been emphatically insisting on a more conservative approach
to be adopted by translators within the Roman Catholic Church.
Conclusion
When
the call was made to address God as “You” and to make
the language of the Church relevant to the young people of the
revolutionary era of the 1960s, few if any realised that once
the long-established, inherited language of prayer was dropped
it would take more than one generation to work out precisely what
is meant by “contemporary language of/for worship.”
In fact several generations have come and gone and still there
is no agreement as to what is this contemporary language of worship
and prayer. It
comes in a variety of forms from the conservative
approach in the new English Standard Version (2002) to the
radical approach of versions of the Bible prepared for this or
that group within society.
In
this fluid and confusing situation one cannot blame some, both
young and old, who use an old translation of the Bible (e.g.,
KJV, RV, RSV) and an old Liturgy (e.g., Book of Common Prayer,
1928) and an old Hymn Book (e.g., The Hymnal of 1940) for
public worship and family devotions. For them it is not merely
a question of language but of style, of preserving in English
an authentic form of Christianity.
The
Revd Dr Peter Toon August 12, 2002
