Re-Revised Lectionary

  • Thread starter Thread starter Manfred
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes, but those “R.C. scholars” were so liberal they thought that all that was needed to constitute a “Catholic edition” was to include the deutero-canonical books between the OT and NT. :rolleyes:
No, you’ve got that wrong.
My NRSV XL Catholic Edition contains all the books in the correct order. As do all the Catholic editions. Of course an NRSV with Apocrypha is available for certain Protestant groups and scholars.

You might want to take issue with the Vatican as they used the NRSV along with the RSV Second protestant edition (not the RSVCE) in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
 
You might want to take issue with the Vatican as they used the NRSV along with the RSV Second protestant edition (not the RSVCE) in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
No problem.

Looks like Benedict XVI himself is pointing out errors in some modern vernacular translations. Here he faults the “accepted” rendering of two key words in Hebrews 11:1, as found in a bible approved by the German Catholic bishops, as well as in the RSV/NRSV. Now, which version renders those two key words correctly in English? Omigosh, it’s the Douay-Rheims! Well, whaddya know?

We must return once more to the New Testament. In the eleventh chapter of the Letter to the Hebrews (v. 1) we find a kind of definition of faith which closely links this virtue with hope. Ever since the Reformation there has been a dispute among exegetes over the central word of this phrase, but today a way towards a common interpretation seems to be opening up once more. For the time being I shall leave this central word untranslated. The sentence therefore reads as follows: “Faith is the hypostasis of things hoped for; the proof of things not seen”. For the Fathers and for the theologians of the Middle Ages, it was clear that the Greek word hypostasis was to be rendered in Latin with the term substantia. The Latin translation of the text produced at the time of the early Church therefore reads: Est autem fides sperandarum substantia rerum, argumentum non apparentium—faith is the “substance” of things hoped for; the proof of things not seen. Saint Thomas Aquinas,4 using the terminology of the philosophical tradition to which he belonged, explains it as follows: faith is a habitus, that is, a stable disposition of the spirit, through which eternal life takes root in us and reason is led to consent to what it does not see. The concept of “substance” is therefore modified in the sense that through faith, in a tentative way, or as we might say “in embryo”—and thus according to the “substance”—there are already present in us the things that are hoped for: the whole, true life. And precisely because the thing itself is already present, this presence of what is to come also creates certainty: this “thing” which must come is not yet visible in the external world (it does not “appear”), but because of the fact that, as an initial and dynamic reality, we carry it within us, a certain perception of it has even now come into existence. To Luther, who was not particularly fond of the Letter to the Hebrews, the concept of “substance”, in the context of his view of faith, meant nothing. For this reason he understood the term hypostasis/substance not in the objective sense (of a reality present within us), but in the subjective sense, as an expression of an interior attitude, and so, naturally, he also had to understand the term argumentum as a disposition of the subject. In the twentieth century this interpretation became prevalent—at least in Germany—in Catholic exegesis too, so that the ecumenical translation into German of the New Testament, approved by the Bishops, reads as follows: Glaube aber ist: Feststehen in dem, was man erhofft, Überzeugtsein von dem, was man nicht sieht (faith is: standing firm in what one hopes, being convinced of what one does not see). This in itself is not incorrect, but it is not the meaning of the text, because the Greek term used (elenchos) does not have the subjective sense of “conviction” but the objective sense of “proof”. Rightly, therefore, recent Protestant exegesis has arrived at a different interpretation: “Yet there can be no question but that this classical Protestant understanding is untenable.”5 Faith is not merely a personal reaching out towards things to come that are still totally absent: it gives us something. It gives us even now something of the reality we are waiting for, and this present reality constitutes for us a “proof” of the things that are still unseen. Faith draws the future into the present, so that it is no longer simply a “not yet”. The fact that this future exists changes the present; the present is touched by the future reality, and thus the things of the future spill over into those of the present and those of the present into those of the future.
 
What are you a linguist? Language is constantly evolving. The English seen in the RSV is already 50 years old. The bizarre decision to use Thees and Thous was a product of the era.

The RSV is not written in contemporary English. Maybe its starchy syntax sounds more ‘authoritative’ to some but that argument supports Elizabethan English.

The RSV is not the translation for the the 21st-century. I’m not saying that it’s not the best starting point for a newer translation, e.g. the NRSV or even the ESV.
The problem is that there are things that truly get lost in the translation. The Mass is something that we do out of the ordinary and the language needs to reflect that.

Furthermore, the RNAB has some glaring bloopers in it that are not found in the CE-RSV. For example, in the RNAB, when Jesus talks about lving waters and the Spirit, in John’s Gospel, the last sentence is “there was, of course, no Spirit, yet, as Jesus had not been glorified.” Does this mean that the eternal Third person of the Trinity didn’t yet exist? Explain that one to me. The CE-RSV is much clearer in that it reads “the Spirit had not yet been manifested, as Jesus had not yet been glorified.” It is much more doctrinally correct.

Furthermore, if the Vatican were not so concerned about these "modern’ translations, why did Pope John Paul II issue the document called Liturgicam Authenticam that mandates that all translations for liturgical use follow set standards (this also includes Sacred Music). Unfortunately, the USCCB dropped the ball on the issue of Sacred Music and, it may well do the same for the Lectionary, as well.

The fact of the matter is that the USCCB owns the rights to the NAB and the RNAB and is not about to let go of its cash cow.

When I get home this evening, I’m going to look over my Papal Mass booklets to see which translation the Holy See is using. Me thinks that they are using the CE-RSV, as they are not bound to use the NAB nor the RNAB.
 
The problem is that there are things that truly get lost in the translation. The Mass is something that we do out of the ordinary and the language needs to reflect that.

Furthermore, the RNAB has some glaring bloopers in it that are not found in the CE-RSV. For example, in the RNAB, when Jesus talks about lving waters and the Spirit, in John’s Gospel, the last sentence is “there was, of course, no Spirit, yet, as Jesus had not been glorified.” Does this mean that the eternal Third person of the Trinity didn’t yet exist? Explain that one to me. The CE-RSV is much clearer in that it reads “the Spirit had not yet been manifested, as Jesus had not yet been glorified.” It is much more doctrinally correct.

Furthermore, if the Vatican were not so concerned about these "modern’ translations, why did Pope John Paul II issue the document called Liturgicam Authenticam that mandates that all translations for liturgical use follow set standards (this also includes Sacred Music). Unfortunately, the USCCB dropped the ball on the issue of Sacred Music and, it may well do the same for the Lectionary, as well.

The fact of the matter is that the USCCB owns the rights to the NAB and the RNAB and is not about to let go of its cash cow.

When I get home this evening, I’m going to look over my Papal Mass booklets to see which translation the Holy See is using. Me thinks that they are using the CE-RSV, as they are not bound to use the NAB nor the RNAB.
The USCCB didn’t “drop the ball”; it grabbed it and ran home with it.

Liturgiam Authenticam suggested that there be a single version of the bible used for each vernacular language in order to foster consistency in the Liturgy, the CCC, private reading, etc. The USCCB really believes it’s complying with the “spirit” of LA by outlawing the RSV-CE and JB in the Liturgy. I’m sure if it had its way, even the CCC would be re-translated using their beloved RNAB as its Scriptural text.

But you’re spot on with this: the RNAB is their “cash cow” and they’re “bullish” on it.

As for Papal Masses: those that I’ve seen on EWTN generally have English readings from the 1966 JB, not the RSV-CE. To me, at least, there’s something wrong with THIS picture as well.
 
The USCCB didn’t “drop the ball”; it grabbed it and ran home with it.

Liturgiam Authenticam suggested that there be a single version of the bible used for each vernacular language in order to foster consistency in the Liturgy, the CCC, private reading, etc. The USCCB really believes it’s complying with the “spirit” of LA by outlawing the RSV-CE and JB in the Liturgy. I’m sure if it had its way, even the CCC would be re-translated using their beloved RNAB as its Scriptural text.

But you’re spot on with this: the RNAB is their “cash cow” and they’re “bullish” on it.

As for Papal Masses: those that I’ve seen on EWTN generally have English readings from the 1966 JB, not the RSV-CE. To me, at least, there’s something wrong with THIS picture as well.
Do you know the current progress by ICEL? Are they working on a single translation to be used in the Lectionary? Has their progress been stalled due to the USCCB or the Canadian Bishops’ Conference?
 
Do you know the current progress by ICEL? Are they working on a single translation to be used in the Lectionary? Has their progress been stalled due to the USCCB or the Canadian Bishops’ Conference?
Laura, I don’t think ICEL has much to do with the Lectionary; their concern was/is primarily the Missal/LOTH texts. The US Lectionary is usually the work of some sub-committee within the USCCB; similarly for the Canadian Lectionary. And we all know what a fantastic job both of these Conferences have done in these areas! :rolleyes:
 
Laura, I don’t think ICEL has much to do with the Lectionary; their concern was/is primarily the Missal/LOTH texts. The US Lectionary is usually the work of some sub-committee within the USCCB; similarly for the Canadian Lectionary. And we all know what a fantastic job both of these Conferences have done in these areas! :rolleyes:
I really am not hopeful about progress being made in a new Lectionary any time soon. 😦
 
When I get home this evening, I’m going to look over my Papal Mass booklets to see which translation the Holy See is using. Me thinks that they are using the CE-RSV, as they are not bound to use the NAB nor the RNAB.
They are using the JB, with references to Yahweh replaced with “the LORD”.
 
Why is the ongoing work of retranslating the NAB Old Testament so secret?

does anyone have any idea when it will be complete and what kind of changes the NAB translators are making and feel need to be made?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top