OUP’s Supposedly ESV-like Apocrypha More Like NRSV Wednesday, Jan 28 2009

I received my copy of Oxford University Press’s new The English Standard Version Bible with Apocrypha.  The text of the Apocrypha is an updated version of the RSV translation by David A deSilva, Dan McCartney, Bernard A. Taylor, and David Aiken.  Unfortunately, the translation is more like the NRSV at two very significant points than the ESV.

In The Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Young Men, the OUP version reads,

[3] “Blessed are you, O Lord, God of our ancestors, and worthy of praise…

[29] “Blessed are you, O Lord, God of our ancestors, and to be praised and highly exalted forever…

(emphasis added)

This phrase, “God of our ancestors,” appears 8 times in the NRSV (Deut. 26:7; 1 Chr. 12:17; 2 Chr. 20:6; Ezra 7:27; Acts 3:13, 5:30, 22:14, 24:14).  In each place, the ESV reads, “God of our fathers.”  Similarly, the RSV-Second Catholic Edition, which was translated using similarly politically incorrect (i.e., accurate) guidelines renders each of these phrases as “God of our fathers.”  In fact, unlike the OUP translation, the RSV-Second Catholic Edition is consistent and renders these phrases using “fathers” in the apocryphal material as well (just as it was translated in the original RSV).

In short, these two apocryphal canticles, both of which have been retained in Lutheran liturgy, the Anglican Book of Common Prayer, and in Presbyterian and Reformed hymnody, have been rendered in the OUP translation in a way that contravenes the very translation guidelines governing the ESV itself.  I’m disappointed and can only hope that OUP corrects the mistake.  Until then, I’ll turn to the RSV-Second Catholic Edition when I need an ESV-like translation of an apocryphal text.

Comments Off

 

more on “strong presumption of guilt” Wednesday, Nov 28 2007

I am not sure whether this post was provoked by my post on “strong presumption of guilt.” In any case, I’m following up with some more detail as my point seems to have been lost.

The OED provides four definitions for the word presumption. Only two are potentially applicable to the word as it is used in the PCA BCO at 31-2.

presumption

3. a. The action of taking for granted or presuming something; assumption, expectation, supposition; an instance of this; a belief based on available evidence.

b. Law. A supposition that the court allows or requires to be made. See presumption of fact n., presumption of law n. at Phrases.

4. Grounds or reason for presuming or believing; presumptive evidence; an instance of this.

Based on the evidence supplied in my previous post, and based on the evidence RE Mattes has uncovered here, I believe that the meaning of the word in this passage of the BCO is the meaning set forth in the FOURTH OED definition.

I note here that the OED gives the following examples of this particular use of the word:

1592 A. DAY Eng. Secretorie II. sig. C3v, If you will now aske me what presumptions I haue then to charge him, more then another..I will aunswere yee. 1658 J. BRAMHALL Consecr. Bps. vi. 132 If the strongest presumtions in the world may have any place. ?1714 Brief Acct. of Dispensary (Royal College of Physicians of London) 2 The quantity of the sort call’d simply by the name made by the Wholesale Apothecaries, very much exceeds the quantity of that, which they call the Best, and demand the highest price for. Which is a strong presumption, that the worst sort, because of the lowness of the price, is most called for. 1771 Junius Lett. (1820) xliv. 239 The presumption is strongly against them. 1837 H. HALLAM Introd. Lit. Europe I. iv. 439 There seems strong internal presumption..against the authenticity of these epistles. 1880 CARPENTER in 19th Cent. Apr. 614 The presumption is altogether very strong, that these vast masses have originally formed part of a great ice-sheet, formed by the cumulative pressure of successive snow-falls. 1909 Times 9 Jan. 4/4 There is a strong presumption that many of the immigrants have remained here to nest in recent years. 1955 G. GORER Exploring Eng. Char. xiv. 249 If the children say prayers at any other time than before going to bed it is a strong presumption that the parents themselves are actively religious. 2003 Bank of Canada Rev. (Nexis) Autumn 13 Although it is difficult to determine precisely the respective contributions of cyclical and structural factors to the increased participation of the 55 and over age group, there is a strong presumption that its rise is largely structural.

Finally, I note that the OED defines the word presumptive in part as follows:

presumptive
2. Giving reasonable grounds for presumption or belief; warranting inferences. Now chiefly in presumptive evidence.

Based on this evidence, I believe that it is completely inappropriate to treat the “strong presumption of guilt” as a “presumption of law” (like “presumed innocent” or “presumed guilty”) in the sense of the OED’s 3.b. definition (which is how it has been treated by some on the internet).  Instead of referring to a legal conclusion (however tentative or open to rebuttal), the phrase “strong presumption of guilt” focuses on the grounds or basis upon which a belief of guilt could be formed. The point of the provision is to prevent accusations from casually or lightly being received and requiring, as the SJC put it in 2000, something analogous to “probable cause” before process may be instituted. 

The SJC opinion from 2000 agrees with me. The BCO documentary evidence agrees with me. The evidence from the Alabama Supreme Court and from RE Mattes all agree with me.

Whether RE Mattes himself agrees with me remains unclear.  [UPDATE: RE Mattes concurs.  I thank him for reading my posts charitably and for his cordial reply.  I do note with Keith LaMothe, however, that there is at least some tension between his statement and an earlier statement he quoted with approval from Bill Lyle here.  On the other hand, his final sentence in that comment suggests that he is reading the provision the same way I am.  (?)  In any case, I hope we're all on the same page now, at least with respect to this phrase from the BCO—and, more importantly, that we're reading it correctly.]

4 Responses »

 

“strong presumption of guilt” Wednesday, Nov 28 2007

From the horse’s mouth…

The BCO term ’strong presumption of guilt,’ has to do only with indictments and required probable cause before prosecution of the case can begin.  Once a case proceeds to trial the burden of proof of guilt rest entirely upon the prosecution.  The Session [in Ms. Smith's case] assumed, at that point in the process, that the burden of proof was on the accused rather than on the prosecution.  This assumption was wrong.  The presumption of guilt does not relieve the prosecution of the burden of proving guilt.  Even though there must be probable cause to indict, the accused is still considered innocent until proven guilty.
. . . .
The fact that the burden of proof is on the prosecution is clear from several procedures in our BCO.  First, the reason why the prosecution argues first at trial, and has the closing remarks, is because the burden of proof is on the prosecution.  Second, the accused is not required to testify[,] and the defense need not even present a case.  The prosecution, however, must present a case.  Third, if an accused person ignores repeated citations to plead, or to appear for trial, that person can be censured for contumacy.  He is not, however, censured for the offense on which he was indicted because his guilt on that charge has not yet been proven.
Before a person can be indicted on charges, BCO 31-2 requires that some kind of preliminary investigation should first result in a “strong presumption of guilt.”  BCO 31-9 uses the phrase “probable cause” in a similar vein.  Therefore, it is reasonable that a member of the Session will have already formed some opinion if he votes to indict the accused.  However, when he is called upon to sit as judge at trial, if he cannot judge with a fair mind, and judge based on the case presented at trial, then he should recuse himself.  And if a Session cannot sufficiently set aside prejudice, then the case should be referred to presbytery in accordance with BCO 43.

Beverly R. Smith v. Southwest Presbytery, No. 98-8 (PCA Standing Judicial Commission) (21-0-3), 28 PCA GA Minutes 218, 226-27 (2000).

FWIW, those interested may also find the 4th definition of “presumption” in the Oxford English Dictionary apropos.  In addition, those interested may find it helpful to consult the development of the BCO on the PCA Historical Center website, here (links at right).  Note, for example, the way it is used in the ROD draft of 1858 at ch.III, § 4.  Finally, I note the following reasoning in an opinion from Alabama Supreme Court in 1835:

If finding an indictment could operate as a conviction, I would be more disposed to demand of the Court and its officers, all vigilance in scrutinizing the jury, and none from the accused: but, in as much as indictments, when found, are but legal accusations, intended to shield individuals from frivolous or malicious prosecutions, and to subject them to trial, only on strong presumption of guilt-as, afterwards, they are secured in the right to an impartial public trial before the Court, and by a jury strictly scrutinised-entitled to be confronted by the witnesses against them, with the full benefit of all witnesses in their favor, and of counsel in their defence-I cannot apprehend danger of oppression from grand juries, constituted as ours are required to be.

Boyington v. State, 2 Port. 100, 1835 WL 531, at *17 (Ala. 1835).

One Response »