Re-Revised Lectionary

  • Thread starter Thread starter Manfred
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Manfred

Guest
  • from the December, 2007 Adoremus Bulletin:
New Segment of Re-Revised Lectionary
The second segment of a revision of the Lectionary in use since 2002 was presented for the bishops’ approval at this meeting. This part contains readings for the Sundays of Lent and the Passion Account.

As with the Advent readings that the bishops approved last November, the justification given for revising the Lectionary now is to provide translations that are “more suitable for proclamation, and more understandable”.

The conference had approved the Lectionary currently in use on condition that it be reviewed after five years. In 1992, a revised Lectionary using base texts from the Revised New American Bible (RNAB) Psalms (1991) and the New Testament (1986), was approved by the US Conference and sent to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for recognitio. However, before it could be approved by the Holy See, this Lectionary required correction by a panel of US bishops and Vatican experts because of the deficiencies in the base texts — chiefly “inclusive language”. Some bishops complained about “Vatican interference” at the time.

In response to continuing translation problems, in 2001 the Holy See issued Liturgiam authenticam, the fifth post-conciliar Instruction on implementation of the Council’s liturgical reform, providing norms for liturgical translation.

Recently, the Old Testament of the New American Bible has also been revised. And other English-speaking countries are also grappling with the problem of producing an updated Lectionary.

In the new US version, the RNAB base translations have at least on occasion been supplemented by other contemporary English translations. (In at least one instance, a passage was said to have been amended reflecting the wording in the New Revised Standard Version.)

The bishops approved this second segment by 95%. (Sixteen bishops voted against it, and five abstained.)

Oh, brother. :rolleyes:
 
Just out of curiosity, why not just use the RSV (CE of course)? I don’t know anybody who has a problem with it…
 
“Vatican interference” in the Catholic liturgy? Outrageous!
 
Oooh, oooh, I know, I know!!

NOT INVENTED HERE. 😃
You mean because the original RSV was made for and by Protestants rather than Catholics? Makes sense I suppose. But shouldn’t translations be judged on their own merits? I’d say that many conservative Protestants are theologically and doctrinally closer to official Catholic teaching than are some liberal Catholics.

OneTrueFred said:
“Vatican interference” in the Catholic liturgy? Outrageous!

I found this line pretty bizarre too. :confused:
 
You mean because the original RSV was made for and by Protestants rather than Catholics? Makes sense I suppose. But shouldn’t translations be judged on their own merits? I’d say that many conservative Protestants are theologically and doctrinally closer to official Catholic teaching than are some liberal Catholics.
Not just that, but it wasn’t made by the USCCB itself.

Outside of the US, the RSV is liturgically used in other English-speaking nations.
 
Outside of the US, the RSV is liturgically used in other English-speaking nations.
Not that I’m aware of. Most of the ‘Commonwealth’ countries have been using the Jerusalem Bible for decades. Who uses the RSV? I know some Eastern-rite Catholics used to use it.

FYI, the Catholic Church in England and Wales is preparing a new Lectionary entirely based on the NRSV without inclusive language. In addition, a Bible is also being produced. I don’t know when this goes live…
 
FYI, the Catholic Church in England and Wales is preparing a new Lectionary entirely based on the NRSV without inclusive language. In addition, a Bible is also being produced. I don’t know when this goes live…
Why would they use the NRSV after removing inclusive language? Wouldn’t it be easier to just use the RSV?
 
Why would they use the NRSV after removing inclusive language? Wouldn’t it be easier to just use the RSV?
I think they’d argue that the NRSV is a better translation. I wrote in a different post ‘However, in this ‘information age’ never before has there been such rapid increases in biblical knowledge, archaelogy, analysis of ancient manuscripts, statistical research on individual books, etc. that even translations made 10 to 20 years ago do not take in the breadth of recent advances.’

The syntax of the RSV is 50 years old and they probably feel, considering the Jerusalem Bible was used in the English liturgies for 40 years, that they might end up using a 100-year old translation. Afterall, the RSV was written in 1950’s English and that won’t always be contemporary.

Christopher Pope who wrote a very good guide to Bible translations rated the NRSV much higher than the RSV despite his opposition to ‘inclusive translation.’ i.e. considering diverse factors for Comparing Translations such as:
Issue #1: Historical Background
Issue #2: Textual Basis
Issue #3: Translation Philosophy
Issue #4: Theological Orientation
Issue #5: English Style

The NRSV is an extremely accurate translation. Most scholars would agree with this. Personally I’ve found many renderings that accurately render verses in a ‘Catholic sense’ that I don’t find in other translations.
 
I will get excited when I see some readable poetic psalms in the NAB that convey the richness of meaning in the older translations. I can live with the OT, and recognized that where the NAB fails in grace it makes up for in accuracy, but I just can’t live with the psalms in any version they have come up with so far.
 
There is absolutely no such thing as “1950’s English”.

Kids - they say the darndest things.
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 RSV was a revision. As such, it tried to retain a lot of the King James version phrasing.
“Thees and thous” are Elizabethan, so removing them has nothing to do with alledgedly mid-20th century usage.

Slang, and some vocabulary, has changed since the 1950s - but how does that affect a bible translation?

Would the TNIV be substantially different had it been done in 1957? I really doubt it.
 
When compared verse-by-verse both the NRSV and the ESV are more elegant translations than the RSV.

The English Bishops are simply not going with the RSV, a bible project which began in 1937, for their 21st-century Lectionary and bible.

I’m guessing some people are so unhappy with the ‘inclusiveness’ of the NRSV they think the translation must be poor. It’s not: its the contemporary scholarly standard and a trustworthy translation.
 
I’m not going to defend the RSV - but I hardly think the protestant NRSV is the answer.

Happily, with the return of the 1962 missal in the latin mass, the Douay-Rheims translation has quietly made its way back into luturgical use. Thank God. And may the NAB, RNAB, and RRNAB, all end up in the shredder where they belong.
 
The NRSV isn’t really a Protestant translation whereas the RSV was. The NRSV was an ecumenical effort with R.C. scholars involved all along (See Dei Verbum 22.) That’s why no changes were needed for the Catholic Edition other than the ordering of the books.

I really can’t see how the Douay-Rheims would be helpful in attracting/retaining the next generation of young Catholics. Sure, I love the old-style language myself; then again I’ve got a Master’s degree and have studied Shakespeare in an academic setting. I’m glad you enjoy it in your Tridentine Mass.
 
I really can’t see how the Douay-Rheims would be helpful in attracting/retaining the next generation of young Catholics. Sure, I love the old-style language myself; then again I’ve got a Master’s degree and have studied Shakespeare in an academic setting.
The “next generation” is not composed of slack-jawed idiots, contrary to what most people seem to think. Condescension and the watering down of the faith is what puts us off, not elegant English.
 
Not that I’m aware of. Most of the ‘Commonwealth’ countries have been using the Jerusalem Bible for decades. Who uses the RSV? I know some Eastern-rite Catholics used to use it.
The Antilles uses a Lectionary based on the RSV Second Catholic Edition. The British edition of the Divine Office uses the RSV as its primary translation for the canticles and readings.
 
The NRSV was an ecumenical effort with R.C. scholars involved all along (See Dei Verbum 22.) That’s why no changes were needed for the Catholic Edition other than the ordering of the books.
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:

Another poster suggested a shredder for some versions; I hope he included among them the NRSV (and RNAB).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top