Jerusalem Bible

[mccorm45]

As a resident of the English speaking world , I can tell you this statement is incorrect. I hear the D-R every week at the Latin Mass I attend, where the readings are proclaimed in both Latin and English.
In the case of the NRSV, those few places are precisely one: Canada, where the NRSV has been used in defiance of Rome for years. Only now have the Canadian bishops finally agreed to changes worked out with Rome.

It obviously matters to Rome. As has been pointed out, the Vatican required changes to the NAB lectionary before authorizing its use. I think much of this revolved around the use of inclusive language, especially in the NAB revised Pslams from 1991 which are not used in Mass.

1. Thanks for the clarification in regards to the Latin Mass. I hadn’t taken that one into consideration, since I figured we were focusing on the Novos Ordo. But thanks!
2. Interesting link about the NRSV, it is truly hot off the presses! It will be interesting to see the changes that they made for the lectionary…I can imagine that they will be similar to the NAB alterations. Either way, the translation used is based on the original languages, and not on the Vulgate, which is what the discussion seems to be centered around.

 

[lak611]

1. Thanks for the clarification in regards to the Latin Mass. I hadn’t taken that one into consideration, since I figured we were focusing on the Novos Ordo. But thanks!

I have been to several indult TLM’s at two different parishes. At the one parish, the epistle and gospel in English were read by the priest from the RNAB. At the other parish, the priest read the epistle and gospel from the D-R. This, of course, was from the ambo before the sermon in both cases. The Latin epistle and gospel were read from the altar (epistle side and gospel side).

 

[porthos11]

Why should we trust any of those translations when none of them are allowed to be used in the mass?

Also, the Church is not a publishing house. It’s not like the vatican made the NAB, boxed it up and shipped it out.

The DR is not approved for Mass either.

Anyway, the RSV is used in the Catechism and all English editions of the CDF. It’s used by his Popeness himself in his books’ English editions.

The alterations to the RSV-2CE came from the CDW itself and is the only in-print Bible, apart from the JB, that matches the lectionary exactly.

I’d rather trust his Popeness and his Congregations. And so I’d trust the RSV.

 

[porthos11]

Where is the NAB, RSV, and NRSV used in Mass? Don’t say the United States, because the text you hear in mass is not the text used in printed copies of the NAB at your local bookstore. And there was a specific injunction against the NRSV, due to inclusive language.

The RSV-CE second edition is used without alteration in the Antilles.

 

[Manfred]

Interesting link about the NRSV, it is truly hot off the presses! It will be interesting to see the changes that they made for the lectionary…I can imagine that they will be similar to the NAB alterations.

Yes, the changes probably meet the criteria of “necessary, but not sufficient”, as is said by mathematicians.

“Similar to the NAB”? Good gawd, y’all!

 

[Cranch]

The DR is not approved for Mass either.

As has been pointed out, the D-R is read in the traditional Latin Mass.

 

[lak611]

As has been pointed out, the D-R is read in the traditional Latin Mass.

That depends. I have been to a TLM where the priest read the epistle and gospel from the RNAB.

 

[Pani_Rose]

Mother Angelica got special permission to reprint the original New Jerusalem… 5. Jerusalem Bible (1966). A translation based on the French edition of the Dominicans of the Ecole Biblique in Jerusalem, who translated it from the original languages. This Bible is the one used by Mother Angelica on the air. The full version has copious footnotes but is hard to find, as it has not been recently republished. A Reader’s Edition, without the full footnoting, is available through EWTN’s Religious Catalogue ewtnreligiouscatalogue.com/JERUSALEM+BIBLE+WITH+WORD+OF+GOD+BIBLE+COVER/cid=15/page_no=1/edp_no=3153/shop.axd/ProductDetails

 

[lak611]

Mother Angelica got special permission to reprint the original New Jerusalem… 5. Jerusalem Bible (1966). A translation based on the French edition of the Dominicans of the Ecole Biblique in Jerusalem, who translated it from the original languages. This Bible is the one used by Mother Angelica on the air. The full version has copious footnotes but is hard to find, as it has not been recently republished. A Reader’s Edition, without the full footnoting, is available through EWTN’s Religious Catalogue ewtnreligiouscatalogue.com/JERUSALEM+BIBLE+WITH+WORD+OF+GOD+BIBLE+COVER/cid=15/page_no=1/edp_no=3153/shop.axd/ProductDetails

Actually, the 1966 Bible is the Jerusalem Bible, not the New Jerusalem Bible.

 

[demerzel85]

The Douay-Rheims was updated and edited in the 19th century by Bishop Challoner. The New Testament was changed with the Confraternity version in the US, and lets not for get Msgr. Knox’s version which was used at Mass in the UK.

The Douay Rheims was translated from the Latin Vulgate in the late 16th Century and completed in the early 17th Century. Bishop Challoner’s revision was in the mid 18th Century.

 

[demerzel85]

Let me conclude by saying that as Catholic’s, we have nothing to fear from accurate translations of the Bible. While sometimes the notes that accompany them leave a lot to be desired, the translations like the NAB, RSV, NJB, JB, and even the NRSV can be trusted by the faithful.

Catholics have everything to fear from the inclusive language gender neutralling of the NAB, NJB and NRSV. Translating the psalms for example to refer to just human instead of man, obscure the prophecy of the Son of man.

 

[demerzel85]

Anyway, the RSV is used in the Catechism and all English editions of the CDF. It’s used by his Popeness himself in his books’ English editions.

The alterations to the RSV-2CE came from the CDW itself and is the only in-print Bible, apart from the JB, that matches the lectionary exactly.

I’d rather trust his Popeness and his Congregations. And so I’d trust the RSV.

The RSV-CE second edition is used without alteration in the Antilles.

Note that the RSV used in the CCC is the 1973 RSV not the RSV-1CE or RSV-2CE. CE or not, Protestants hold the Copyright, and thus far have suppressed websites containing the full RSV text. On the otherhand, the DRV is free of this man-made constraint.

The DR is not approved for Mass either.

But each time we pray the Hail Mary we use the DRV translation not the JB, NAB “highly favoured”.

 

[Cranch]

That depends. I have been to a TLM where the priest read the epistle and gospel from the RNAB.

I think you will find this practice extremely rare, as no 1962 (or older) missal contains readings from the NAB. Also, I believe many churches distribute copies of Una Voce’s reprints of the propers from the St. Andrew Missal which, AFAIK, uses the D-R.

 

[mccorm45]

Catholics have everything to fear from the inclusive language gender neutralling of the NAB, NJB and NRSV. Translating the psalms for example to refer to just human instead of man, obscure the prophecy of the Son of man.

I think there can be a proper accomodation made in regards to inclusive language. Right now, unfortunately, the two camps are so far apart that people either fall down strongly on one side or the other. I agree that the Psalms are probably the most tricky place to have inclusice language, particularly when looking at Psalm 1:1. That should certainly be translated in the singular. I think the NAB '91 Psalms are quite terrible in this regards, as well as the overall translation. The NRSV, is a very readable and accurate translation, but they certainly went over the top in regards to inclusive language. This can certainly be seen in regards to the Son of Man translations in Daniel.

However, we have to be honest and recognize the limitations of the English language as well. That is why I don’t worry too much when I see the generic word “man” translated as “people” or if at places in the Pauline Epistles where “brother” is clearly meant to be for both men and women and is translated as such. That is simply a problem in the language. Of all the translations that use inclusive language, clearly the best the is New Jerusalem Bible. It is so much better than either the NAB or NRSV.

 

[demerzel85]

However, we have to be honest and recognize the limitations of the English language as well. That is why I don’t worry too much when I see the generic word “man” translated as “people” or if at places in the Pauline Epistles where “brother” is clearly meant to be for both men and women and is translated as such. That is simply a problem in the language. Of all the translations that use inclusive language, clearly the best the is New Jerusalem Bible. It is so much better than either the NAB or NRSV.

There is a problem with ‘man’ becoming ‘people’ in the NT as well. It removes the connection to the OT.

Further more the use of ‘brother’ in the NT… it was not the intention of any of the sacred writers to exclude women. Insisting on using ‘brother and sister’ is a statement that they actually did exclude women.

 

[lak611]

I think you will find this practice extremely rare, as no 1962 (or older) missal contains readings from the NAB. Also, I believe many churches distribute copies of Una Voce’s reprints of the propers from the St. Andrew Missal which, AFAIK, uses the D-R.

What the priest read did not match the reprints (I did not have my own 1962 missal at the time), so I checked my Bibles and found that he used the RNAB. He apparently just had one with him and read from it. I guess it would be up to the priest, since there is no English in the altar Missal, so he just chose a Bible he had with him. Although I am surprised he didn’t have a D-R.

 

[Manfred]

The DR is not approved for Mass either.

Anyway, the RSV is used in the Catechism and all English editions of the CDF. It’s used by his Popeness himself in his books’ English editions.

The alterations to the RSV-2CE came from the CDW itself and is the only in-print Bible, apart from the JB, that matches the lectionary exactly.

I’d rather trust his Popeness and his Congregations. And so I’d trust the RSV.

Until 1941, when the Confraternity NT appeared, the Epistle and Gospel readings proclaimed to the congregation in English were taken from the Douay-Rheims.

Further, until Divino Afflante Spiritu (1943), vernacular Scripture translations used for proclamation to the congregation in the TLM were, per my understanding, required to be from the Vulgate.

So, in a TLM offered today, it would be permissible to use the D-R and/or the Confraternity NT for the readings in English. (Those read by the priest at the altar, of course, would still be in Latin.)

 

[lak611]

Until 1941, when the Confraternity NT appeared, the Epistle and Gospel readings proclaimed to the congregation in English were taken from the Douay-Rheims.

Further, until Divino Afflante Spiritu (1943), vernacular Scripture translations used for proclamation to the congregation in the TLM were, per my understanding, required to be from the Vulgate.

So, in a TLM offered today, it would be permissible to use the D-R and/or the Confraternity NT for the readings in English. (Those read by the priest at the altar, of course, would still be in Latin.)

Is the RNAB acceptable for use in a TLM, or was that a mistake by the priest?

 

[Manfred]

…no 1962 (or older) missal contains readings from the NAB.

Before we shout DEO GRATIAS here, remember that readings from the OT books could have been from the completed volumes of the Confraternity bible. These same, with slight editorial changes, would eventually be incorporated into the 1970 NAB. But at least we had no inclusive language to deal with!

 

[Manfred]

Is the RNAB acceptable for use in a TLM, or was that a mistake by the priest?

Good question, because, if I remember correctly, the motu proprio makes provision for the readings to the congregation in the vernacular, as was always the custom, but I think that the translations may now be from the original languages. This, of course, is not good, because, not only will there be variance between readings in a 1962 missal and what the priest may be using, but it opens the door for the NAB/RNAB.