Are you allowed to change the translation read in liturgy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Thomasbradley312
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Thomasbradley312

Guest
Last night at mass a woman brought up she was uncomfortable with Thursdays reading because it speaks of intercourse and doesn’t want kids to hear it ( Abraham, Hagar story) . She said we should use another translation that says something like “went into” instead of “had intercourse”. This bothered me though I didn’t think we were allowed to use anything for readings than what is in the lectionary.
Part of me thinks she is thinking kind of juvenile in her thinking anyways. I see nothing wrong with saying intercourse…
 
Last edited:
Most modern translations do, in fact, follow the KJV and write “he went in.” Only a handful (see Bible Hub link, below) have chosen to be more explicit, using expressions such as “slept with,” “had sexual relations with,” or “had intercourse with.” The USCCB has its reasons, I suppose, for choosing one of the more explicit translations as the appropriate one for readings at Mass. As far as I’m aware, no pastor, much less a lector, has the option to redact the Biblical text that is being read at Mass. Your friend would need to address her complaint to the USCCB.

https://biblehub.com/genesis/16-4.htm
 
Seems to me that depending on the age of the kids either they won’t understand what any of those words mean or they do and will find any of those words as “funny”…considering some of the topics covered in the bible, “intercourse” is probably the least disturbing reading.
 
The lectors should read whatever translation is being used.

I guess there’s a variance of opinions but there’s nothing wrong with the birds & the bees. A small child won’t have a clue either way, and for an adolescent it shouldn’t matter.
 
Thomasbradley312 said:
Last night at mass a woman brought up she was uncomfortable with Thursdays reading because it speaks of intercourse and doesn’t want kids to hear it ( Abraham, Hagar story) . She said we should use another translation that says something like “went into” instead of “had intercourse”. This bothered me though I didn’t think we were allowed to use anything for readings than what is in the lectionary.
Part of me thinks she is thinking kind of juvenile in her thinking anyways. I see nothing wrong with saying intercourse…
Click to expand...
Genesis 16 (GNT - allowed in England for masses with children)
2 and so she said to Abram, “The Lord has kept me from having children. Why don’t you sleep with my slave? Perhaps she can have a child for me.” Abram agreed with what Sarai said.
Click to expand...
Genesis 16 (1970 NAB)
2 Sarai said to Abram: “The Lord has kept me from bearing children. Have intercourse, then, with my maid; perhaps I will have sons through her.” Abram heeded Sarai’s request.
Click to expand...
Genesis 16 (NABRE)
2 Sarai said to Abram: “The Lord has kept me from bearing children. Have intercourse with my maid; perhaps I will have sons through her.” Abram obeyed Sarai.
Click to expand...
Genesis 16 (NRSVCE)
2 and Sarai said to Abram, “You see that the Lord has prevented me from bearing children; go in to my slave-girl; it may be that I shall obtain children by her.” And Abram listened to the voice of Sarai.
Click to expand...
 
As someone who speaks two languages, in my opinion, the NRSVCE (last) version is probably the closest to the actual text. It’s also the least “descriptive”.
 
Is there a difference between the NRSVCE and the NRSV w Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical books? I mean is the translation of Genesis the same?I own the latter. Bought it because it also includes books recognized by Orthodox and cost the same and thought I’d get more for my money 😂 I assume it is the same except the NRSV has a Protestant version, a Catholic edition, and a common Bible with expanded deuterocanonical books which include those accepted by Orthodox. And 1 and 2 Esdras ( traditionally called 3 and 4 in the Vulgate) and Prayer of Manasseh which are in the Clementine Vulgate appendix. It also includes 3 and 4 Maccabees and Psalm 151 which is unique to Eastern Orthodox Bibles.
 
Last edited:
Then she ought not to read that day, because what she suggests is not permitted.

Daily Mass is wonderful, but, it is not obligated. She can keep her kids at home.
 
Thomasbradley312 said:
She said we should use another translation
Click to expand...
The readings at Mass must be from a translation of the Bible approved for use in your country. For example, here in England & Wales an authorised translation is the Jerusalem Bible. Yet, in the USA that translation is not approved for liturgical use.
 
jrgmercado said:
As someone who speaks two languages, in my opinion, the NRSVCE (last) version is probably the closest to the actual text.
Click to expand...
Yes, the Hebrew verb באו (bo) just means enter, come in, go in, or arrive. It occurs more than 2,000 times in the OT, almost always in the literal sense, such as the children of Israel entering the land of Canaan. Once or twice, however, it is used in the same euphemistic sense as it is here. For instance, in the Nephilim episode, earlier in Genesis, we read that “the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them” (Gen 6:4).
https://biblehub.com/genesis/6-4.htm
 
Last edited:
So according to USCCB’s website, it seems there is an option for a shorter reading that completely excludes the lines in question:


Now personally, I’m not a fan of using the shortened readings, but it does seem like that would be a decent compromise that is actually allowed, rather than committing liturgical abuse.

Are there even going to be children at this Mass, since it’s a daily Mass? Maybe so if it’s attached to a school, but otherwise I would think not.
 
She reads on Tues and Thurs and brings her two daughters.
Yah I’m not a fan of shortening readings either. I mean it is a legit option but I feel like you aren’t getting the fullness of what is being said.
Sometimes things merit it but when they do it just for reasons that have no cause I dont agree with it.
 
This is why I have never volunteered to be a reader – because I know that not terribly often, but every once in a while I would have to read something that I would know to be an incorrect translation, but according to da Rulz I would not be allowed to correct it.

D
 
It’s not really wrong.
It implies he had sexual intercourse with Hagar, which he did.
I don’t see anything wrong with saying intercourse, I was shocked when she said she found it offensive, like what is this the PC police of the Church?
 
Last edited:
I don’t think you’ve really been reading this thread. You’re never required to read something other than what’s approved and only what’s approved. If you’re in charge of correcting the Church, pardon my ignorance.
 
I wasn’t thinking specifically of this passage; I was thinking of some others in which I knew the “approved” translation to be incorrect. It wasn’t a matter of doctrine or anything like that, but I am a retired linguist and translator, and it would bother me to have to read something that I know is wrong.

D
 
Cor_ad_Cor said:
But again, are you in charge of correcting the Church?
Click to expand...
Since I’m not a reader, what makes you think that I’m trying to correct the Church? Anyway, there is a difference between trying to “correct the Church” and knowing that the Hebrew word means one thing, while the given English translation means something entirely different.

D
 
TomH1 said:
40.png
Thomasbradley312:
She said we should use another translation
Click to expand...
The readings at Mass must be from a translation of the Bible approved for use in your country. For example, here in England & Wales an authorised translation is the Jerusalem Bible. Yet, in the USA that translation is not approved for liturgical use.
Click to expand...
I see where a number are approved: Liturgy Office | Approved Versions of Scripture

Versions approved for use in the liturgy​

The Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales has approved the following versions of Scripture for use in the Liturgy.

Bible Versions​

  • Revised Standard Version
  • Jerusalem Bible
  • New Jerusalem Bible *
  • New Revised Standard Version *
  • Good News — may be used for Masses with Children
* These versions may not be used to produce a Lectionary without the express permission of the Conference. The current Lectionary makes use of the Jerusalem Bible and the Grail Psalter (1963).
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top