Hodiernus lectio principalis

Today's first reading offers us a good example of the value reclaimed by the new translation of the Mass (see my posts here and here for more about this).

The Lord's arrival before Isaiah is heralded by the seraphim in these words: "Holy, holy, holy, the Lord God of hosts, all the Earth is full of his glory." (Is 6:3.) A little later, we join them in proclaiming the same hymn in the sanctus: Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus, Dóminus Deus Sábaoth. ("Sabaoth" is a transliteration of the Hebrew for "hosts"—in the sense of "multitudes"—or armies. The vulgate translates it as "exercituum.")

Yet what Isaiah heard isn't what the sanctus purports to say in the current translation. We instead hear: "Holy, holy, holy Lord, God of power and might." That is all true—He is all those things—but it isn't what the prayer says, and even if we set aside the substantive change in its meaning (cf. Sancrosanctum Concilium, no. 50; Comme le Prevoit, no. 6; Paul VI, Changes in Mass for a Greater Apostolate, nos. 7 and 11), the 1973 translation obscures and attenuates its scriptural origin. How many people made that connection today, even when the source text is right there in the reading?

We face a similar problem shortly thereafter with the ecce agnus dei, where we echo the Centurion from Mt 8:8, merely substituting ourselves for his servant: Domine, non sum dignus ut intres sub tectum meum, sed tantum dic verbo, et sanabitur anima mea. The 1973 translation renders the first clause as "I am not worthy to receive you," which works—so long as it is universally understood (as I suspect that it is not) that "receive" is to be understood idiomatically, as in "to receive guests"—but likewise obscures the scriptural origin of the prayer, a defect remedied in the new translation by correctly translating the passage as "I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof."

As I have said, the new translation is not without its warts, but it is far from lacking in virtues.

Added: it's pointed out to me that Revelation 4:8 also contains the proclamation, in a slightly different form, and might also serve as the scriptural root for the sanctus. Its appearance in both books, I think, bolsters the concept of the sanctus as the unending hymn of praise in heaven; to some extent, it may simply be that Isaiah and Revelation are two windows through which we glimpse the same divine truth. If so, it may be beside the point to ask which is the source of the sanctus, insofar as the answer may then be "both/and" rather than "either/or."

Still, to the extent the question isn't academic, I can't help but think Isaiah's text is a closer fit. It's the word at the end of the prayer which seems to give it away: Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus, Dominus Deus sabaoth.

"Sabaoth" stands out in this latin prayer because, as was said above, it isn't a latin word, but rather a transliteration of a Hebrew word. So where does it come from? Not from Isaiah 6 as the vulgate has it: St. Jerome rendered that passage sanctus, sanctus, sanctus Dominus, Deus exercituum (exercituum=hosts, multitudes, or armies). Nor do we find sabaoth (or exercituum, for that matter) in Revelation 4, where we read: ????? ????? ????? ?????? ????? ? ???????????, ? ?? ??? ? ?? ??? ? ?????????, or as the vulgate has it, Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus, Dominus Deus omnipotens, qui erat, et qui est, et qui venturus est ("Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty, who was and who is and who is to come").

In the septuagint text of Isaiah 6, however, we do find "sabaoth," rendered in Greek: ????? ????? ????? ?????? ?????? (agios agios agios, kurios sabaoth). If I had to guess, then, in composing the sanctus before the vulgate was written, the Church composed the prayer in latin but chose to follow the septuagint in transliterating rather than translating the word "sabaoth."

Post facto:
The new translation raises hackles in Milwaukee (8/5/2010)