DOI: 10.4312/elope.9.2.65-85
Lidija Strmelj
university of Zadar, Croatia
On Omissions and Substitutions in the Medieval English Translations of the Gospel
Summary
his paper provides the data on the omissions and substitutions of Latin text fragments made in the Old and Middle English translations of St. John's Gospel. It aims to explore how frequently and for what reasons one or the other translator, or occasionally both of them, turned to these deviations in the process of rendering, and to find out whether there were some significant differences between the translations concerning these procedures. As the translations were composed over a span of more than 3oo years, some of the evidence certainly reveals changes in the understanding and experiencing of biblical and other terms that occurred over the course of time, as reflected in language. hese changes are first and foremost what we wish to discuss in this paper, but other matters will be also considered, such as the authors' priorities in translation and specific features of their language.
Key words: omissions, substitutions, translations, Latin, Old English, Middle English, culture, society
Izpusti in zamenjave v srednjeveških angleških prevodih evangelija
Povzetek
V članku obravnavamo izpuste in zamenjave delov latinskega besedila v staro in srednje angleških prevodih Evangelija po Janezu. Ugotavljamo, kako pogosto in zakaj sta se prevajalca odločala za ta odstopanja pri prevajanju besedila ter ali je zaradi tega prišlo do bistvenih razlik med prevodoma, ki sta nastala v razmiku 300 let. Nekateri podatki nedvomno nakazujejo spremembe v razumevanju in doživljanju bibličnih ter drugih izrazov, do katerih je prišlo v tem obdobju in se odražajo v jeziku. Poleg tega v članku namenimo pozornost tudi avtorjevim prevodoslovnim prednostim in posebnim jezikovnim značilnostim.
Ključne besede: izpusti, zamenjave, prevodi, latinščina, stara angleščina, srednja angleščina, kultura, družba.
UDK 81'225:27-247.8=124'02=111'01 = 111'02	LANGUAGE 65
On Omissions and Substitutions in the Medieval English Translations of the Gospe
1. Introduction
Biblical translators today generally follow the trend of the so-called dynamic equivalence, that is sense-to-sense or thought-to-thought translation, at least in the USA, judging from the examples found in Nida and Taber (2003). When necessary, they adapt the content and the form of the Bible to the modern time and language, and in doing so perform numerous and various deviations, chiefly in order to make the biblical events or circumstances intelligible and close to present-day readers. Opposite to modern trends, during the Middle Ages the translators endeavoured to translate the Bible or its parts as faithfully as possible, according to the dominant attitude of the Western Church, so most medieval translations belong to the so-called formal equivalence or word-for-word translations.
We may discuss now which way of translation proves to be better and for what reasons, but apart from this, it is certain that the medieval, literal style of translation enables us to research accurately the Old and Middle English vernaculars in which the biblical translations were composed. If in the medieval biblical translations we find deviations such as omissions and substitutions of the source text fragments, we may reasonably guess that the translators simply had to perform them because there was no word in the target language for the concept from the source or there was a word but it was unknown to most of the authors' contemporaries. It is equally possible that the meaning of the available word was only partially equivalent to that of the word used in the source language.
However, sweeping generalizations about such a complex topic are not what we need. In order to come to any conclusion about omissions and substitutions it is necessary to examine medieval translations carefully and thoroughly, each one as a separate entity, and each as written by an individual author with specific attitudes and original approach, along with the purpose of translation, the audience at whom it was aimed and the context in which it was written. he context, that is, historical, ecclesiastical, cultural and social circumstances existing in the time and place of composition, certainly left traces on translations. he reverse is true, too, since translations were not only aflected by contemporary culture, they actually "created it" (Liuzza, 2002).
In view of this we carried out research on two English medieval translations of John's Gospel, believing that their comparison would not only reveal difl^erences in the perception and experience of biblical concepts (expressed through language), but also those in culture, society and cognition that occurred in the period between their occurrence. We took the West—Saxon Gospels (1967) from the 11'h ct. as the first target text (called in this paper the Old English (OE) translation), and the second version of Wyclife's Bible (2006) (from the beginning of the 15'h ct., as the second target text (called the Middle English (ME) translation). Both were composed after the same source text, St. Jerome's Vulgate (2006), dating from the beginning of the 5'h ct. he period of more than three hundred years that had passed between the target
texts seemed sufficiently long to produce various changes in language and therefore convenient for the study. Generally speaking, this was the longest period of interruption in the Gospel translating in the history of English. On the other hand, the temporal and spatial distances between the source text and each target text had been considerable, too, and we expected them to have affected the translations, especially in the field of culture-specific words.
We aimed to explore the:
1.	motives that forced the authors to omit or replace the source text fragments,
2.	frequency with which they performed these procedures,
3.	translators' priorities in the process of translation
4.	general differences between the translations considering the two deviations.
In the following lines we provide all the evidence of omissions and substitutions of the source text segments found in the translations. hey are not presented in the order they occur in the texts but according to the underlying causes of their performance - as we perceive them. As Nicholas Howe (1997, 85) remarks, it is not easy to enter the imaginative and cognitive world of past periods, and we can not be too certain that we know what the Anglo-Saxons or the 15'h ct. English population thought and felt about the biblical message. herefore the following text represents just an effort to better understand the past and to reconstruct the culture and biblical knowledge of the past through language.
In section 1 we analyse eleven distinct motives of omissions, and in section 2 nine motives of substitutions, each illustrated by one or more examples from the translations. hese are presented thus: we first quote the Latin fragment, then the corresponding OE or ME translation, or occasionally both of them, depending on where the deviation actually occurred.1 he AV quotation is subsequently provided within quotation marks for those readers that find the medieval texts difficult to understand. Almost all the evidence is accompanied by comments.
2. Omissions
2.1 Omissions Leading to Suspicion or Dilemma
docens in templo
8:20 haec verba locutus est in gazofilacio docens in templo 458 &as word he spraec aet ceapceamele
"these words spake Jesus in the treasury, as he taught in the temple"
According to etymological dictionaries the word temple existed in OE, which means that the concept denoted by it was present in the mind of the Anglo-Saxons, too. At present, however, it is hard to say in what way they perceived the concept and whether they imagined a temple to be just a place of prayer and religious service or as a place where money was changed and kept, business made and cattle traded, as it indeed had been in the biblical times. If the temple were
1 The numerals assigned to the OE fragments completely deviate from those assigned to Latin and ME segments, since the WSGs are written densely as a whole, with no chapter or line division.
meant only as a house of prayer, a dilemma might arise about where Jesus actually had taught and spoken - in a temple or in a vault, and the difference in conception might lead to disbelief in the whole statement. So, to avoid such a possibility the OE translator just dropped the expression.
qui erant dispersi
11:52 non tantum pro gente sed et ut filios Dei qui erant dispersi congregaret in unum 677 na synderlyce for &aere &eode. ac &aet he wolde gesomnian togaedere godes bearn "not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad."
he expression from Caiaphas's proclamation of Jesus' death refers to the Jews who had been living outside of Israel in many countries of the East from the time of the Babylonian and Egyptian exiles. Indeed, the Jewish people had a long and rich history, but it was most probably almost completely unknown to the Anglo-Saxons, and, having no great meaning for them, the fragment was dropped.
2.2 Omission of the Unfamiliar Hebrew and/or Aramaic Names
Caiaphan
18:24 misit eum Annas ligatum ad Caiaphan pontificem 1003 &a sende annas hyne to &am bysceope gebundenne "now Annas had sent him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest"
Hebrew proper names usually appear in the OE translation as slightly modified Latin loans (with rare exceptions, such as the name of Jesus). We may rightly assume that they were unfamiliar to the Anglo-Saxons and difficult to remember, too. As known, the OE translation was aimed to be read aloud in front of the listeners, since most of them were illiterate. In these circumstances the translator decides to simplify the text by omission of the name of Caiaphas since it is immediately after denoted by the apposition bishop.
quod interpretatur Missus
9:7 in natatoria Siloae quod interpretatur Missus
521^ on syloes mere
"in the pool of Siloam, (which is by interpretation, Sent)."
he word Siloae might have been omitted for the same reason as mentioned above or, even more likely, because the translator believed that it originally had some other meaning than that stated in the Latin text that was, unfortunately, unknown to him. Admittedly, Sent is a rather strange name for a bath.
super Probatica
5:2 est autem Hierosolymis super Probatica piscina quae cognominatur hebraice Bethsaida
223 On Hierusalem ys an mere. Se ys genemned on ebreisc bethsaida^ 5:2 And in Jerusalem is a waissynge place, that in Ebrew is named Bethsaida^ "there is at Jerusalem by the sheep market a pool, which is called in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda"
In the quoted Latin fragment there are three proper names in the sequence. Both translators hold this to be a burden for their listeners and readers and determine to dismiss the word Probatica as less important for the message of the sentence. Actually, the word Probatica is also one of uncertain meaning. As seen, the AV reads it as the sheep market, while the Croatian edition (Kaštelan and Bonaventura 1969) brings it as the sheep door.
qui dicitur Didymus
11:16 dixit ergo homas qui dicitur Didymus ad condiscipulos 633 &a cwae& thomas to hys geferum
"hen said homas, which is called Didymus, unto his fellowdisciples"
In this case the clause is certainly not left out because the OE translator does not know that in Latin Dydimus means a twin, since we can read later in 20:24 Thomas^ qui c^icitur Didymus > 1133 thomas^Pe ys gecweden dydimus. Paet ys gelycost on ure gePeode. It seems that at first the author hesitates to translate the clause with the noun Didymus, but realizing that it was repeated in the text, decides to incorporate it with the extra-explanation that in our languag^e means — a twin.
2.3	Omission of the Abstruse Term that is Explained Further in the Text
procedent
5:28 omnes qui in monumentis sunt audient vocem eius et procedent 260 ealle gehyra^ his stefne &e on byrgenum synd 5:28 alle men that ben in birielis, schulen here the voice of Goddis sone "all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth"
Procedere, go forth, go out, refers here to resurrection, one of the fundamental Christian concepts. Despite of this, both translators omit the word as abstruse and unnecessary in this position, since the next line explains in detail what is meant by it (they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil unto the resurrection of damnation).
2.4	Omission of a Contradictory Expression
et baptizat
4:1 quia lesus plures discipulos facit et baptizat quam lohannes 152 &aet he haefde ma leorningcnyhta &onne iohannes "that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John"
It is clear that et baptizat is released here as already the next line reads lesus non baptizaret sed discipuli eius (even though Jesus himselfdid not baptize, but His disciples).
2.5 Omission of What is Implied
et mansit
4:40 rogaverunt eum ut ibi maneret et mansit ibi duos dies
203 hig baedon hyne &aet he wunede &ar twegwn dagas maere
"they besought him that he would tarry with them: and he abode there two days"
he translator presumes that the very fact that the disciples asked Jesus to stay two more days implies his stay.
exivit
19:17 baiulans sibi crucem exivit in eum qui dicitur Calvariae locum
1054 he silf baer hys rode myd hym on &a stowe &e ys genemned heafodpannan
stow
"he bearing his cross went forth into a place called the place a skull"
he verb baiulare, carry, bear, implies motion and therefore the OE translator drops the verb ire, go, but in doing so ignores what is expressed by the Latin verbal prefix ex—, out, which here may either mean that Calvary was outside the city or that there was a clearing. Obviously he assesses this irrelevant for the message of the sentence and mentions just the place of Calvary, wherever it was.
manducare
6:31 panem de caelo dedit eis manducare
322 he sealde hym hlaf of heofene
"he gave them the bread from heaven to eat"
he OE translator considers the expression panem de caelo dedit eis as self-explanatory and finds it unnecessary to elaborate what bread is for. Nevertheless, it is also possible that he understands the expression metaphorically, as food for the soul.
habens, eum
18:10 Simon ergo Petrus habens gladium eduxit eum 980 wytodlice symon petrus ateah hys sweord "then Simon Peter having a sword drew it"
By the introduction of the possessive hys instead of the omitted Latin present participle habens and personal pronoun eum, the OE author creates undoubtedly a simpler sentence than the original one is, and in this way what is explicitly said in Latin becomes implied in OE, namely that Peter had a sword. However, by using the participial construction the Latin author might
have intended to emphasise the fact that Peter usually didn't carry a sword (after all he was a fisherman), except in the described situation when he was afraid of what was going to happen, as seen from the context. hese connotations are lost in the OE translation.
venientem
10:12 mercennarius^ videt lupum venientem dimittit oves et fugit
577 ^onne he &one wulf gesyh^. ^onne flyh^ he 7 forlaet &a sceap
"... an hireling ... seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth"
It is understood that a hireling flees not because he sees a wolf but because the wolf comes towards him, so there is no need of further explanation, especially not in the sentence containing four consecutive verbs.
ubi erat David
7:42 quia ex semine David et Bethleem castello ubi erat David venit Christus 422 &aet cryst cym& of dauides cynne. 7 of bethleaem ceastre "that Christ cometh of the seed of David, out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?"
he OE translator obviously takes it for granted that the audience can conclude directly from the phrases of dauides cynne 7 of bethleaem ceastre that King David derives from Bethlehem.
quia hic est Filius Dei
1:34 et ego vidi et testimonium perhibui quia hic est Filius Dei 43 7 ic geseah 7 gewytnesse cy&de
"And 1 saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God."
At first sight it seems quite impossible that the OE translator could omit the most important part of the sentence, as we witness in line 1:34. However, if we analyse the wider context of the sentence it becomes clear that the omitted clause does not bring any new information or content, but summarizes the guiding thought of the preceding lines. Namely, the whole prologue of John's Gospel and the first 33 lines of the Chapter 1 bring John's testimony of Jesus as the only Son of God, so the translator believes there is no need to repeat it.
2.6 Omission of Pleonasms
dicens
1:26 respondit eis lohannes dicens 30 iohannes hym 7swarode "John answered them, saying"
Similar instances are found also in 7:37 > 414, 8:42 > 489 and 4:51 > 217, where the OE
translator omits one of two semantically similar and juxtaposed verbs in the following pairs: clamare — dicere, procedere — venire and nuntiare — chicere.
2.7	Omission on Account of the Risk of Losing the Sense Due to the Text Length
et continuo clarificabit eum
13:31 Nunc clarificatus est Filius hominis et Deus clarificatus est in eo 13:32 si Deus clarificatus est in eo et Deus clarificabit eum in semet ipso et continuo clarificabit eum
795 nu ys mannes sunu geswutelod. 796 7 god ys geswutelod on hym. gyf god ys geswutelod on hym. 7 god geswutela^ hyne on hym sylfum
"now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him. If God be glorified in him, God shall also glorify him in himself, and shall straightway glorify him."
In the given example the omission is due to the author's fear that the true meaning of the message could be lost by repetition of the words God^, glorify, in him, in a series of sentences. he fear was justified since the translation was aimed to be heard, and not read, as already pointed out. In these circumstances a listener could not reconsider the text if something of its meaning was eventually lost.
2.8	Omission of a Minor Word to Highlight a Major One
Simonis
13:26 ^ dedit ludae Simonis Scariotis
789 he hyne sealde iudas scariothe
"gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon"
Despite biblical and medieval customs of adding to a person's name his father's name, in this instance the OE translator drops the name of Judas' father, because in his opinion what essentially determines Judas is not his origin, but his traitorous role. he omission of Simonis for the same reason is found also in 6:72 > 368 and 13:2 > 758.
ex
16:17 dixerunt ergo ex discipulis eius ad invicem (quid est hoc quod dicit nobis)
904 &a cwaedon hys leorningcnyhtas
"then said some of his disciples among themselves"
he preposition ex, out, from, in the quoted Latin fragment has a partitive meaning, denoting that some of Jesus' disciples spoke between themselves about the meaning of his words. However, according to the OE translation, it seems that al^l the disciples discussed the topic. Obviously the translator holds the number of the involved disciples irrelevant for the message.
2.9	Omission of a Typical Evangelical Expression Where it Does Not Fit in the Text
amen amen dico vobis
8:58 dixit eis lesus amen amen dico vobis antequam Abraham fieret ego sum 511 se haelend cwae& to hym. Ic waes aer Abraham waere
"Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am."
his expression regularly appears in the Gospel in instances where Jesus either tries to explain the essence of his divine nature or to give people the most important guidelines to achieve salvation. It often comes as a kind of conclusion at the end of Jesus' speeches, as, for example, in 3:3 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God; 5:19 Verily, verily, I say unto you, he Son can do nothing of himself^, but what he seeth the Father do; 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that heareth my word, and believeth him that sent me, hath everlasting life etc.
he quoted Latin sentence is not of that kind. It is a statement which involves Abraham, and therefore does not stylistically fit the usual conception.
2.10	Omission of the Expression without New Semantic Content
quid ergo
1:21 interrogaverunt eum quid ergo Helias es tu
24 hig acsodon hyne eart &u elias
"they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias?"
he reduced sentence quid ergo does not bring any new semantic content, but merely expresses the current Jewish dilemma about John and his mission. It is a speculation typical of spoken language, not written. But although the OE translation was aimed at listeners, it had to be used on a formal level, and therefore the aforementioned fragment was dropped.
2.11	Omission of Emphatic Repetition
manifestavit
21:1 postea manifestavit se iterum Iesus ad mare Tiberiadis manifestavit autem sic 1150 eft aefter &am se haelend hyne geswutelode &us aet &aere tyberiadiscan sae "after these things Jesus shewed himself again ... at the sea of Tiberias; and on this wise shewed he himself"
he OE translator also avoids repeating pedes eius (12:3 > 690) and amen (1:51 > 66), while both translators omit nescimus (9:21 > 538 > 9:21), de terra est (3:31 > 145 > 3:31) and et (11:48 > 673 > 11:48) since these expressions in the given context are purely emphatic. In OE, unlike Latin, the immediate repetition of a word has no emphatic function but rather a grammatical or lexical one, as seen, for example, from swa swa, meaning so as, just as, and Paer Paer meaning where.
Having presented all the data on omissions, we summarize them in the following table:
	OMISSIONS OF	OE instances	ME instances
1.	what is implied from the context	7	
2.	emphatic repetitions	6	3
3.	unfamiliar and strange Semitic names	4	1
4.	pleonasms	42	
5.	expressions that might confuse	2	
6.	minor words	41	
7.	a phrase continuously repeated in the text	1	
8.	a contradictory expression	1	
9.	an abstruse term	1	1
10.	a typical evangelical expression (where it does not fit in the text)	1	
11.	an expression with no semantic content	1	
	TOTAL:	32	5
Table 1. Types of omissions according to frequency in the OE & ME translations.
3. Substitutions
3.1 Substitution of a Word Because:
a)	the concept it refers to does not exist in the target culture,
b)	the concept it refers to exists in the target culture, but neither it nor the word for it is widely known
piscina > OE mere > ME waissynge place
5:2 est autem Hierosolymis ^ piscina
223 On hierusalem ys an mere
5:2 and in Jerusalem is a waissynge place
"there is at Jerusalem by the sheep market a pool"
Piscina denotes in Latin a pond and a swimming pool. Very likely most people of the OE period did not know what these concepts meant and therefore the translator replaced the word with semantically the nearest one, mere, a sea, which was apparently well-known. he same may be assumed for the ME period, since in its translation a quite vague phrase was used, place for washing, describing the purpose of the denoted object.
natatorium > OE mere > ME watir
_9:7 in natatoria Siloae_
2 Three out of four instances display the omission of the same word, Simonis
521^ on syloes mere 9:7 in the watir of Siloe "in the pool of Siloam"
Latin natatorium also meant a pool, literally a place for swimming, and for the aforesaid reason was rendered as a sea into OE and water into ME respectively.
crucifigere > OE hon 19:6 crucifige crucifige
1036 hoh hyne. hoh hyne "Crucify him, crucify him"
he equivalent verb of Latin crucifigere in OE did not exist, and therefore hon, hang, was used instead (just as the word rood, meaning pole, gallows, was used instead of the word cross). he lack of an equivalent is not surprising since nailing to the cross as a means of execution had stopped being practised in Europe in the 4th century AD, long before the OE translation was composed.
recumbere > OE sittan > ME sitten to mete 13:12 cum recubuisset iterum ^ 771 7 &a he saet
13:12 whanne he was set to mete ayen "and was down again"
During the Last supper, after Jesus had washed the disciples' feet, he sat down again, but since the table was probably low, as is usual in the East even today, he must have lolled. hat is why the Latin author did not employ the verb sedere, but recumbere, lie, loll, drop. Both English translators in this instance employed sit, either because the equivalent verb for lolling was missing in the language or because they interpreted the scene as sitting (intentionally or not) according to the customs of the time. Indeed, the Last supper was represented alike in the medieval and Renaissance paintings.
he ME translator complemented the verb sitten with to mete (mete meaning food, meal), which suggests that he might understand Latin recumbere only as denoting sitting/lolling in order to eat, thus contradicting the statement from 13:2 where we read: et cena facta surgit a cena, and ... he riseth.
cohors > OE folc > ME cumpenye of knyytis tribunus > OE ealdor
18:12 cohors ergo et tribunus et ministri ludaeorum comprehenderunt lesum
985 &aet folc 7 se ealdor 7 ^aera iudea ^egnas namon &one haelend
18:12 the cumpenye of knyytis, and the tribune, and the mynystris of the Jewis,
token Jhesu
"the band and the captain and officers of the Jews took Jesus"
he Romans had a whole range of well-organized military formations and a specific hierarchical order of officers that greatly differed from English ones. he word cohors, denoting a tenth part of a Roman legion, had no equivalent in the language and hence was replaced in the OE translation with more general fOlc, army, and in the ME translation with the of—phrase composed of OE knyytys (cnihtas) and French loan cumpenye, a military band.
he title of tribunus, a cohort commander, was likewise replaced with ealdor, which in OE denoted both a civil and religious authority, chiefs, leader etc.
praetorium > OE domern > ME moot halle
18:28 non introierunt in praetorium
1009 ne eoden into &am domerne
18:28 thei entriden not in to the moot halle
"they themselves went not into the judgement hall"
Praetorium is another Latin word strictly related to the Roman authorities and military organization. It denotes the main place within the Roman camp, the Roman war council and emperor's guard among many other meanings. In the absence of an equivalent, the OE translator employs the word c^mern, meaning a ju^gement^hal^l, tribunal, as praetor is also a ju^ge. Indeed, in the context in which the word appears, this meaning is the most important, because it is at that place Pontius Pilate condemns Jesus.
he ME translator renders the word as moot—halle, where mot means the assembly, meeting.
discere > OE sittan > ME sitten at the mete
21:12 nemo audebat discentium interrogare eum
1168 nan &ara te tar saet ne dorste hyne acsian
21:12 no man of hem that saten at the mete durste axe hym
"none of the disciples durste ask him"
Discentes, the pl. present participle of discere, learn, hear, get acquainted with, functions in this context as a noun and has obviously a broader meaning than the noun discipuli, which is commonly used in the source text. hat is, in the given scene of Jesus' apparition on the Sea of Galilee discentes refers not only to Jesus' disciples, listed one after another at the beginning of the chapter, but to all those people who were there and saw the miracle of Jesus.
By analogy with Latin, here the OE translator does not use the noun leorningcnihtas as usual but introduces the relative clause Pe Par saet, who sat there, for lack of a more suitable expression. Similarly, the ME translator uses that saten at the mete, that sat to eat. he complement at the mete is probably added because previously Jesus invited his disciples and others to come and eat.
cena > OE gebeorscipe
12:2 fecerunt autem ei cenam ibi 688 hig worhton hym &ar gebeorscipe "there they made him a supper"
Cena, a dinner, is rendered into OE as gebeorscipe, which meant a feast, banquet. he substitution of the term could happen for two possible reasons. Firstly, we can well assume that the daily distribution of meals as we know today did not exist in the OE period, at least among ordinary people, so dinner was not common. he very fact that the words dinner and supper were borrowed from French in the ME period when the upper class members began to imitate the French behaviour, supports this argument. he word breakfast, on the contrary, is of Germanic origin, but denotes a humble meal, which is taken after a certain period of fast. herefore, it might have been so that during the OE period all occasions when people met and ate together in the evening were perceived as an unusual and outstanding event, a real feast. Considering the composition of the word gebeorscipe, namely its prefix ge—, which is a typical marker of collectiveness, then beor, beer, mead, and scipe, shape, it seems that in such occasions more was drunk than eaten.
Nevertheless, in the given context the word feast is possibly used for a special treat, as the event took place in the house of Maria, Martha and their brother Lazarus whom Jesus had raised from the dead, so the translator might assume that the family arranged a thanksgiving dinner for Jesus and his disciples. If so, this example of non-literal translation could be classified into the following subchapter.
3.2 Substitution Due to the Translator's Assumption
sedere > OE ridan on
12:14 invenit lesus asellum et sedit super eum
704 se haelend gemette anne assan 7 rad on uppan &am
"Jesus, when he had found a young ass, sat thereon"
he fragment concerns Jesus' entry into Jerusalem before the Passover. Although the Latin text says only that Jesus found a donkey and sat on it as well as that it was written in the Scriptures Behold, thy King cometh, sitting on ass's colt, the translator believes this is quite sufficient to conclude that Jesus came riding into Jerusalem.
in sua > ME in to his modir
19:27 accepit eam discipulus in sua 19:27 the disciple took hir in to his modir "that disciple took her unto his own home"
Accepere eam in sua is used figuratively to mean take care of her (i.e. Mother of God), but the ME translator interprets it as take her to his mother, probably lead by Jesus' prior words to John: ecce mater tua > Lo! thi modir. He believes that John acted according to Jesus' words and treated Mary as his own mother.
We may say that the instances of substitutions given above are due to the founded translators' assumptions about described evangelical scenes. But we also found one which is obviously based on an unfounded assumption:
revertere > OE crudan
7:53 reversi sunt ^ in domum suam
432 hig crydon ealle ham
"every man went unto his own house"
Here the Jews, gathered around Jesus, were divided among themselves under the influence of the Pharisees who charged them with disobeying the Law. So, they began to diverge toward their homes. But the OE translator writes here: hig crydon ham, they rushed home, although there is no basis for such an interpretation. he Latin text reads simply they returned to their homes. At that moment there was yet no reason for fear or haste, since according to 7:44 no man laid hands on him (i.e. Jesus), and certainly not on the others. he translator obviously anticipates the future events, being fully familiar with the evangelical text.
3.3	Substitution of a Word with Another, More Specialized One
cantare > OE crawan > ME crawen 13:38 non cantabit gallus 806 ne craewt se cocc 13:38 the cok schal not crowe "the cock shall not crow"
he verb sing was the direct OE and ME equivalent of Latin cantare, but both translators replaced it by the more specialized crow as it referred here to a cock.
domus suus > OE ham
7:53 reversi sunt^ in domum suam
432 hig cyrdon ealle ham
"every man went unto his own house"
Apparently, the noun ham already in OE denoted one's own house, a home, and therefore there was no need to determine it additionally by the possessive adjective.
3.4	Substitution of a Word for its Antonym
a) stylistic, emphatic reasons
tenebrae > OE leoht
20:1 Maria M. venit mane cum adhuc tenebrae essent
1097 seo magdalenisce maria com on mergen aer hyt leoht waere "cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark"
pater > OE bearn
8:44 vos ex patre diabolo estis 491 ge synd deofles bearn "you are of your father the devil"
In the examples above the conceptual structure of the Latin and OE sentences is practically the same, but the surface structure differs. Admittedly, she came when it was d^rk and she came before it was light mean the same, just as you are of your father, the devil and you are the children of the devil, the only difference being in the choice of terms that are meant to emphasise what is particularly important.
b) grammatical reasons
In Latin only one negation was allowed in the sentence, while in OE it was quite normal to use two or more negations.
omnis > OE nan
12:46 ut omnis qui credit in me non maneat^
747 nan &aera &e gelyft on me. ne wuna&^
"that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness"
3.5 Rejection of Latin Metaphors and Metonymies to Simplify the Message
caro > OE mann
17:2 sicut dedisti ei potestatem omnis carnis 932 swa &u hym sealdest anweald aelces mannes "as thou hast given him power over all flesh"
Caro literally means meat, a piece of meat, human flesh, body, which implies also physical passion. he OE translator simplifies the expression and uses mann, man, probably because he finds the Latin metonymy abstruse.
domus > OE hywredden
4:53 credidit ipse et domus eius tota 220 he gelyfde 7 eal hys hywredden "himself believed, and his whole house"
Domus is a house, resi^nce, and in that meaning it is usually rendered into OE and ME as hus and hous, respectively. However, in the instance above d^mus symbolizes a family, kin, so the translator rather uses the word hywredden, which literally means a family, folks.
brachium > OE strenc^
12:38 brachium Domini cui revelatum est
738 hwam waes dryhtnes strenc^ geswutelod "to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed?"
Brachium Domini, he Lord.'s arm, is a symbol of God's power, strength, authority. he OE audience would certainly understand this metaphor if it were literally transferred. Yet the translator obviously prefers a realistic expression, so he employs strencP, strength.
video > OE me ^ync^
4:19 video quia propheta es tu
175 &aes &e me ^ync^ &u eart wytega
"I perceive that thou art a prophet"
Video, I see, meaning I understand, appears commonly in the source text. he OE translator drops the metaphor and uses the impersonal expression me PyncP, I think.
gustare mortem > OE beon dead 8:52 non gustabit mortem
504 ne byt he naefre dead "he shall never taste of death"
If we find previously mentioned metaphors quite common, the last one, taste death, definitely sounds unusual. Probably the OE translator held it too poetic for the simple biblical language, so he replaced it with more realistic beon dead, be dead.
tollere anima > OE gaelan lyf 10:24 quousque animam nostram tollis 592 hu lange gaelst tu ure lyf
"How long dost thou make us to doubt?"
When the Jews required of Jesus to say openly whether he were the Messiah, they asked him literally How long will you take our souls?, thinking therewith: How long will you keep us in suspense? he OE translator dropped the metaphor and interpreted it in the way he understood it, as How long will you hinder our lives?
pascere > OE healdan > ME feden 21:15 pasce agnos meos 1174 heald myne lamb 21:15 fede thou my lambren "feed my lambs"
Both translators apparently found the Latin sentence too metaphorical, and therefore replaced the verb pascere, lead to pasture, with OE healdan, keep, guard, and ME feden, feed, respectively,
while the second part of the metaphor agnos meos, my lambs, denoting the faithful, left intact. In that way the sentence became partially simpler.
As shown in this subchapter, it was the OE translator who usually rejected the Latin metaphors and symbolism. However, he was not always consistent in this. We notice that he sometimes replaced the original metaphors with new ones, either those created by himself for the purpose of translation or those conventional in his time, as appears from the following:
mittere in corde > OE faran on heortan
13:2 cum diabolus iam misisset in corde ut traderet eum^
758 &a for se deofol on iudas heortan ^ &aet he hyne belaewde
"the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot ... to betray him"
Both the Latin and the OE translators metaphorically describe the scene in which the Devil incited Judas to betray Jesus, but in doing so they use different metaphorical expressions. he former depicts the event by the phrase: the Devil put into Judas' heart... , and the latter by: the Devil moved in Judas' heart... So basically both of them conceive of the human heart as a material object, only in the Latin perception it is conceptualized as a container into which emotions, thoughts and intentions can be inserted from outside, whereas in the OE perception as an object in which already existing, stirred emotions cause certain decisions, even of betrayal.
resuscitare > OE aweccan 6:39 sed resuscitem illum 332 ac awecce &aet^ "but should raise it up"
Latin resuscitare, meaning resurrect, is usually literally transferred into OE as arysan, but sometimes also metaphorically as aweccan, wake up, since human death is commonly conceived of as a sleep.
daemonium habere > OE deofol styca^ on 7:20 daemonium habest 392 deofol &e styca^ on "thou hast a devil"
Stician means prick, stab, stick to, adhere, so the OE translation literally reads the Devil sticks on you, which conveys a typical medieval experience of the Devil as a parasite or a leech which does not leave man alone until he tires to death.
incipere mori > OE licgan aet for^fore 4:47 incipiebat enim mori 213 so&lice he laeg aet for^fore "for he was at the point of death"
Incipere mori, start dying, conveys the fact that death is in progress. he OE translator probably found the expression strange since it described dying more as an action than as a state and therefore replaced it by lie at departure. he word forPfor was actually an OE metaphor, composed offorP, forth, forwards and for, departure, travel^ling, which reveals that death has been always perceived in the mind as a journey to the post mortal world.
3.6	Substitution of an Ambiguous Latin Concept
fratres > OE magas
7:5 neque enim fratres eius credebant in eum 375 ne hys magas ne gelyfdon on hyne "for neither did his brethren believe in him"
he OE translator apparently wants to avoid confusion or scandal which might arise from the literal translation of the word fratres, since in this case it refers to Jesus' brothers. So he renders it as magas which has a more general meaning, including both brothers in blood as well as sons, descendants, young man or man in general. hus he uses the word brothers in a typical Christian meaning, the one Jesus uses while addressing his disciples and followers.
parentes > OE magas > ME eldris
9:3 necque hic peccavit necque parentes eius 516 ne syngode he ne hys magas 9:3 nether this man synnede, nether hise eldris "neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents"
In the scene in which the disciples notice a man born blind, they ask Jesus: Who sinned^, that man or his parents, that he was born bl^in^? and Jesus answers: Neither hath this man sinned^, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him. Both translators understand Jesus' use of parents as referring not only to the blind man's mother and father, but to his extended family. herefore the OE translator renders it as magas, relatives, and the ME translator as eldris, ancestors.
3.7	Double Translation or Extra-Explanation of a Single Concept
in monumento habentem > OE for^faren 7 bebyrged
11:17 et invenit eum quattuor dies iam in monumento habentem 634 7 he waes for^faren. 7 for feower dagum bebyrged "he found that he had lain in the grave four days already"
he OE translator probably feared that the Latin expression have in grave, if literally translated, might have sounded to his contemporaries rather strange and unnatural. So he explained it by means of two common OE verbs, die and be buried, instead of one.
succingere > OE don on 7 begyrdan (21:7 > 1160)
Succingere means clothe, but also gird oneself, We assume that the OE translator could not find an equivalent term in the language and, holding both Latin meanings equally important, reached for two available verbs to express the meaning of the Latin one, i.e. put on and gird.
3.8	Substitution of Latin Units of Measurement by English Equivalents
he Latin units of length and weight as well as monetary units were substituted in both English translations by more or less equivalent English units:
stadiis > OE furlang > ME furlongis in 11:18 > 636 > 11:18, libras > OE boxam > ME pound in 19:39 > 1090 > 19:39, denariorum > OE penega > ME pans in 6:7 > 290 > 6:7
However, in the OE translation we perceive interesting differences in the measuring the daily time and human age. he Roman way of giving the time, as for example hora sexta^, corresponding to our 12 o'clock, is replaced with OE midday (4:6 > 157). Similarly, habere 50 annos, be 50years old, is replaced by beon 50 wintre (8:57 > 511).
3.9	Substitution of a Common, Everyday Word by a Poetic Image
fur et latro > ME a nyyt theef and a dai theef
10:1 ille fur est et latro
10:1 ... is a nyyt theef and a dai theef
" ... is a thief and a robber"
As shown throughout the paper, the ME author usually translated the Latin text word-for-word. However, in the example above, instead of literal translation of the common Latin words for thief and robber he employed the phrases a night thief and a day thief. Perhaps the Latin expression reminded him of the one from Matthew 24:43 (at what time of night the thief was coming), and on that basis he created the expression a night thief, and as a contrast, a day thief, too.
he table below summarizes the data on omissions in the two translations provided so far:
	SUBSTITUTIONS OF	OE instances	ME instances
1.	Latin metaphorical expressions a)	by words of literal meaning b)	by conventional metaphors in the target language	7 4	1
2.	source words by their nearest equivalents, (because a)	the concepts they referred to did not exist in the target culture, b)	the concepts they referred to existed in the target culture, but were not widely known)	9	6
3.	Latin measurement units by their English equivalents	5	3
4.	source words by their antonyms a)	for emphatic reasons b)	for grammatical reasons	2 1	
5.	source words of general meaning by more specialized ones	2	1
6.	ambiguous source words by unambiguous ones	2	1
7.	single source words by double-translations	2	
8.	source words by more appropriate ones according to a)	translator's founded assumption b)	translator's unfounded assumption	1 1	1
9.	a common source word by a poetic expression		1
	TOTAL:	36	14
Table 2. Types of substitutions according to frequency in the OE & ME translations
4. Conclusion
he research provided the evidence of 32 omissions and 36 substitutions in the OE translation but of only 5 omissions and 14 substitutions in the ME translation. Apparently, the OE translator had more frequent recourse to both deviations than his ME posterior. Furthermore, in both translations substitutions were performed more often than omissions, although, admittedly, in the OE these were done in roughly equal proportions.
Both deviations in the OE translation were performed chiefly for cognitive reasons. On the other side, the omissions in the ME translation were mostly due to cognitive, while substitutions were most due to stylistic causes.
he data presented indicate that the OE translator had definitely greater difficulties in rendering some biblical concepts, ideas and thoughts than the ME one either because it was difficult or impossible to find equivalents in the language or because he was concerned about eventual mis-reception if the text were translated literally.
Opposite to that, the ME translator found direct or near equivalents in the language quite easily, and rarely omitted the source segments. his proves that the ME culture and society reached the level on which most biblical terms were almost completely clear in the mind and the words for them were available in the language. What was unknown, unconceivable and inexperienced, hence unexpressed in the OE period, became clearly understood and conveyed by means of old or newly-created vocabulary in the ME period. As a result, previously existent translator's fear about possible misunderstandings of the text if literally translated gradually disappeared in the period which had passed in between.
herefore, although both translations belong to the so-called formal equivalency, the research has shown that the ME one was nearer to the ideal, completely faithful translation, at least when omissions and substitutions are considered.
Bibliography
Bradley, H. 1985. Stratmann's Middle-English Dictionary. London: Oxford University Press.
Brinton, L.J., and L.K. Arnovick. 2006. The English Language: A Linguistic History. Oxford University Press Canada.
Divkovic, M. 1900. Latinsko-hrvatski rječnik. Zagreb: Naprijed.
Gortan, V., O. Gorski, and P. Pauš. 1954. Latinska gramatika. Zagreb: Školska knjiga.
Grünberg, M. 1967. The West-Saxon Gospels - a Study of the Gospel of St. Matthew with Text of the Four Gospels. Amsterdam: Poortpers N. V.
Hall, J.R.C. 1894. A Concise Anglo-Saxon Dictionary Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Howe, N. Historicist Approaches in Reading Old English Texts, ed. O'Keeffe, Katherine O'Brien, University of Notre Dame, Indiana, 1997.
http://facultyacu.edu./~goebeld/vulgata/newtest/john/vjo1thtm. (accessed 25. 7. 2006).
http://www.sbibleboom.ru/wyc/loh1-htm. (accessed 28. 8. 2006).
Kaštelan, J., and D. Bonaventura, eds. 1969. Biblija - Stari I Novi zavjet. Zagreb: Stvarnost.
Klein, E. 1966. A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the English Language. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing Company.
Liuzza, R.M. 2002. OE Literature - Critical Essays. Introduction, Yale University.
Nida, E.A., and Ch. R. Taber. 2003. The Theory and Practice of Translation. Leiden: Brill.
Quirk, R., and C.L. Wrenn. 1977. An Old English Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Langacker, R.W. 2008. Cognitive Grammar - a Basic Introduction, NY: Oxford University Press.