Bible Translation in Lectionary

  • Thread starter Thread starter bkovacs
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

bkovacs

Guest
I see that the Catholic Church in England and Whales uses the New Catholic Bible (Jerusalem/Grail Psalms) for both their Lectionary/Liturgical Books and its the same Bible translation (non-inclusive) that UK Catholics can buy in the bookstore. But in the US the Lectionary/Liturgical books is not the same translation (NAB) as you get when you go and buy the NAB in a bookstore. You get the RNAB, which is the NAB with inclusive language and not the same as what is read on Sundays at Mass. Since a new translation is coming out for the Liturgy, will a better translation be used like the RSV-CE. So Catholics in this country can get a Bible in the bookstore that is the same translation they get at Mass. Is it so hard for the USCCB to change this. Nobody really cares for the NAB anyway. Why does the USCCB force this bad translation down our throats!!?.
 
It should be noted that the lessons contained in the liturgical books of ANY Church in ANY language have almost always been liturgical rather than going 100% according to the Bible–and this includes the first edition of the Pian Missal!
 
Furthermore, the translation used in the Lectionary needs to have the necessary recognitio from the Holy See. To add to this, the translation now has to conform to Liturgicam Authenticam, which is the Holy See’s document overseeing translations for liturgical use.

The Holy See nixed some of the RNAB because of the issue of inclusive language. Changing a word here and there to appease the feminists wound up also changing the meaning of the text.

Just to give you an idea, this is what Liturgicam Authenticam says regarding the isue of inclusive language:
  1. In many languages there exist nouns and pronouns denoting both genders, masculine and feminine, together in a single term. The insistence that such a usage should be changed is not necessarily to be regarded as the effect or the manifestation of an authentic development of the language as such. Even if it may be necessary by means of catechesis to ensure that such words continue to be understood in the “inclusive” sense just described, it may not be possible to employ different words in the translations themselves without detriment to the precise intended meaning of the text, the correlation of its various words or expressions, or its aesthetic qualities. When the original text, for example, employs a single term in expressing the interplay between the individual and the universality and unity of the human family or community (such as the Hebrew word 'adam, the Greek anthropos, or the Latin homo), this property of the language of the original text should be maintained in the translation. Just as has occurred at other times in history, the Church herself must freely decide upon the system of language that will serve her doctrinal mission most effectively, and should not be subject to externally imposed linguistic norms that are detrimental to that mission.
Click to expand...
  1. In particular: to be avoided is the systematic resort to imprudent solutions such as a mechanical substitution of words, the transition from the singular to the plural, the splitting of a unitary collective term into masculine and feminine parts, or the introduction of impersonal or abstract words, all of which may impede the communication of the true and integral sense of a word or an expression in the original text. Such measures introduce theological and anthropological problems into the translation. Some particular norms are the following:
Click to expand...
a) In referring to almighty God or the individual persons of the Most Holy Trinity, the truth of tradition as well as the established gender usage of each respective language are to be maintained.
Click to expand...
b) Particular care is to be taken to ensure that the fixed expression “Son of Man” be rendered faithfully and exactly. The great Christological and typological significance of this expression requires that there should also be employed throughout the translation a rule of language that will ensure that the fixed expression remain comprehensible in the context of the whole translation.
Click to expand...
c) The term “fathers”, found in many biblical passages and liturgical texts of ecclesiastical composition, is to be rendered by the corresponding masculine word into vernacular languages insofar as it may be seen to refer to the Patriarchs or the kings of the chosen people in the Old Testament, or to the Fathers of the Church.
Click to expand...
d) Insofar as possible in a given vernacular language, the use of the feminine pronoun, rather than the neuter, is to be maintained in referring to the Church.
Click to expand...
e) Words which express consanguinity or other important types of relationship, such as “brother”, “sister”, etc., which are clearly masculine or feminine by virtue of the context, are to be maintained as such in the translation.
Click to expand...
f) The grammatical gender of angels, demons, and pagan gods or goddesses, according to the original texts, is to be maintained in the vernacular language insofar as possible.
Click to expand...
g) In all these matters it will be necessary to remain attentive to the principles set forth above, in nn. 27 and 29.
Click to expand...
Here is an article by Fr. Richard John Neuhaus. He was once a Lutheran minister but converted to Catholicism and was subsequently ordained a priest. His observations are on-target regarding the Lectionary we currently have in use.
One has to wonder what those in charge of Catholic translations thought they were doing since the NAB project was launched. An answer commonly given is that they wanted to produce the most literally “accurate” translation of the Hebrew and Greek texts. It is usually said that Catholics are not biblical literalists, but that appears not to hold in this instance. Even literalism does not explain the many eccentricities introduced in the NAB. Probably the best known of all psalms is Psalm 23, “The Lord is my shepherd”. In the KJV and the RSV, the psalm concludes with, “I will dwell in the house of the Lord forever”. Readers of the Douay-Rheims express the confidence that they will “dwell in the house of the Lord for length of days”. That is very open-ended and may be very much like “forever”.
Click to expand...
Even the more recent and trendy New Revised Standard Version invites me to believe that “I will dwell in the house of the Lord my whole life long”. My whole life long will, please God, be life eternal. Then comes the NAB: “I will dwell in the house of the Lord for years to come”. For years to come? It inevitably prompts the question of how many. Ten? Twenty? Fifty? Whatever the answer, it would seem to be far short of forever. Note that there is nothing in the Hebrew that requires or even suggests such a change. But what’s the point of doing a new translation unless it is different from earlier translations?
Click to expand...
The problems begin with the very first verse of the Bible. In the English tradition, solidly grounded in the Hebrew as well as in Jerome’s Latin translation, Genesis 1 begins with the majestic words, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”. Here is what the NAB offers us: “In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless wasteland, and darkness covered the abyss, while a mighty wind swept over the waters”. Compare that with the English tradition, followed almost exactly by Douay-Rheims: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters”. Apart from the NAB’s deaf ear to poetry and theological suggestiveness, the very first words of the very first verse of the Bible raise a question of no little importance. Note the difference between “In the beginning God created …” and “In the beginning, when God created…”
Click to expand...
Here’s a link to the article. You should find it rather enlightening:

adoremus.org/0306BibleTranslations.html

I am a reader at my parish. It is very hard to proclaim some of the epistles because the sentences are very long (sometimes run-on) and the compositions are strange. Sometimes, I’ll have to read my RSV-CE to get the correct manner in which to proclaim the reading (so I’ll know when to pause and stop). It is frustrating. At least the Spanish readings aren’t too bad. We use the Mexican lectionary for the readings.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top