Redemption for the NRSV

[dalcent]

I have read the NRSV New Testament through 8 times and contend that it is a high quality translation whose only drawback is excessive gender inclusiveness. Otherwise IMHO it is a better translation than the RSV. Had the NRSV, the 1989 revision of the RSV, not taken the gender-inclusive route the NRSV would be a fine update of the RSV and indeed what it was meant to be.

I am encouraged that the NRSV is going to be edited for liturgical purposes (and a subsequent edition of the Bible) and will have to conform to Liturgiam authenticam and thus should not be gender-inclusive at all.

This is what I heard:-

From the February 2006 Liturgy Newsletter published by the Liturgy Office of the Bishops Conference of England and Wales.

International Commission for the preparation of an English Language Lectionary
The Holy See has granted the request of the Bishops’ Conferences of England and Wales, Ireland, Scotland and Australia and agreed to the establishment of an International Commission (ICPEL) to prepare a fresh translation of the Lectionary for Mass. The Holy See has agreed that the NRSV translation should be used as the basis of the new edition. The NRSV translation will need a certain amount of adaptation so that it conforms to the expectations of the Church as presented in Liturgiam authenticam.

Bishop members will shortly be appointed to ICPEL by the sponsoring Conferences. Their first task will be to appoint an Executive Director and confirm how the work is to be carried out. The work of the Commission will be two fold, both to prepare a revised translation for the approval of Bishops’ Conferences, and to make proposals also concerning the layout of the new edition.

It is expected that at least the Sunday Lectionary will be produced in time to be published alongside the new English translation of the Missal.

Following the publication of the Lectionary an edition of the Bible using this same translation will be prepared for use in private reading of the Scriptures and for catechetical use.

I’m waiting…

Dal

 

[mmortal03]

Here are some links that rightfully go along with this:

adoremus.org/0706NRSV.html
adoremus.org/0307NewsViews.html

Two main issues that I see here. One, Canada and the United States did not want to participate in the ICPEL. Canada could probably reconsider though once it is completed, since they are already using and updating the NRSV themselves for their lectionaries. The US is stubbornly sticking with the ARNAB.

Two, this is a lectionary. Hopefully, they work to complete the entire Bible, such that they aren’t left in the same situation as the ARNAB has left the United States (no corresponding full personal text available).

Regarding the second link, man, isn’t Father Neuhaus of Canada right on in principle on his words regarding the RSV-SCE? But if only he knew objectively what we do about how little was really changed in it to “conform” to LA, and how much more potential it could have had. Well, I guess we could still argue that it would be better than the NAB, right?

 

[jfallaw]

I have never read the NRSV- I will have to check it out

 

[porthos11]

While that would be fine, that would just add another another anomalous situation of no Bible matching the lectionary.

If they fix the NRSV for lectionary form, they should back-port the changes into a Bible edition. I would gladly buy one.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

I have never read the NRSV- I will have to check it out

Jfallaw:

I bought one because I used to have he plain old RSV and had liked it quite a bit. It may be an accurate translation, but the inclusinve language just drives me nuts. Because of that, I really don’t use it very much, in spite of some very good study aids - I actually use an RVS-CE (a version split into daily readings), an NIV, and the versions available on the Internet.

I really hope they remove all the inclusive language. If they don’t, it really won’t be worth the effort.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[peregrinus_sg]

According to the We Believe website, reporting from Brisbane’s Liturgy News, ICPEL’s attempt to revise the New Revised Standard Version according to the norms of Liturgiam Authenticam has hit a dead-end for the moment.

(March, 2007) ICPEL has struck a snag in using the NRSV translation as a basis of its work. It seems that the copyright owners are unwilling to give permission for the adaptations required by the translation charter Liturgiam Authenticam. It is hoped that it will be possible to follow on from the Canadian Lectionary which uses the NRSV. If this cannot be arranged, it may be that the project will have to revert to the New Jerusalem translation (a revision of the present Lectionary translation).

If ICPEL couldn’t get the copyright owners to give them free rein to make the necessary changes, but the Canadian bishops could, then I wouldn’t put too much hope on the Canadian project either!

 

[mmortal03]

If ICPEL couldn’t get the copyright owners to give them free rein to make the necessary changes, but the Canadian bishops could, then I wouldn’t put too much hope on the Canadian project either!

Yeah, no kidding, and this case shouldn’t be taken as criticism of the Catholic Church in Canada. (There are others, but not this. If anything, this makes the decisions that they made about their lectionary only seem God-given, if it happens that there is some such loophole. )

It just makes no sense that if they are not allowed to use the NRSV, that they would somehow be allowed to use the Canadian Lectionary, though.

NRSV → ICPEL Not allowed
NRSV → Canadian Lectionary → ICPEL allowed? Uh, I don’t think so.

Regarding having them do a revision of the New Jerusalem translation, what the article said about it being a revision of the present Lectionary translation, though, is incorrect. They all use a lectionary based on the Old Jerusalem Bible, and so revising that would have nothing directly to do with the NJB. Now, if they wanted to use the NJB, I would argue that it would be better for them to first apply the revisions inside the the French 3rd Edition of the Jerusalem Bible onto an English one, by way of the original languages, and then modify THAT for the lectionary, as required. You can’t generally argue logic with these people, though, and they seem to be dealing with liberal Protestants who own the NRSV copyright who just want to be jerks.

 

[mmortal03]

I also noticed that they renamed the Bishops’ Committee on the Lectionary to the Committee on Divine Worship. Uh, not to be confused with the Congregation for Divine Worship…

 

[Digitonomy]

I also noticed that they renamed the Bishops’ Committee on the Lectionary to the Committee on Divine Worship.

Interesting. I wonder if they expanded their mandate beyond just the lectionary to other projects?

 

[Brendan]

While that would be fine, that would just add another another anomalous situation of no Bible matching the lectionary.

If they fix the NRSV for lectionary form, they should back-port the changes into a Bible edition. I would gladly buy one.

Or we could just all us the Lectionary created from the RSC-CE2E. That one was approved with zero changes.

 

[mmortal03]

Interesting. I wonder if they expanded their mandate beyond just the lectionary to other projects?

BCL renamed, mandate refined

As part of the USCCB reorganization plan, the Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy is renamed the Committee on Divine Worship. Its refined mandate includes these responsibilities: Liturgical practice within the United States, translation and adaptation of liturgical texts, sacred music, charismatic renewal, and national shrines.

 

[peregrinus_sg]

Now, if they wanted to use the NJB, I would argue that it would be better for them to first apply the revisions inside the the French 3rd Edition of the Jerusalem Bible onto an English one, by way of the original languages, and then modify THAT for the lectionary, as required.

If we’re to wait for the next English edition of the Jerusalem Bible, I’m afraid that might take… like how many… another 10 to 12 years before the Lectionary appears? Reasons being:

• I’ve not heard of any plans to produce a 3rd English edition of the *Jerusalem Bible *from the French 3rd edition.
• On the other hand, I know that the Ecole Biblique is currently in the works of producing another new translation (with even more notes) of the Bible under its *The Bible in its Traditions *project. An English edition of the Bible coming from that project is also planned, but the project will take a whopping 15 years to complete (starting from 2003)! That’s at least another 10 years more! So it’s unlikely that a publisher would want to invest in the soon to be outdated La Bible de Jerusalem

So what’s left?

1. • Use the NJB – minor changes would be needed. Shouldn’t be problematic for the publisher, and besides the General editor of the NJB is the executive director of ICPEL.
   • Use the RSV (2CE) – but it’s unlikely the bishops conferences would approve it without substantial modifications to take into account horizontal “inclusive language”. By which NCCC might not grant the copyright either.
   • Use the ESV with RSV for deuterocanonical books – An eccletic combination from the 2 versions. Would Crossway permit ICPEL to make any modifications needed? And are we Catholics condemned to keep using Protestant translations?
   • Come up with a new translation, perhaps using the RSV as the starting point text. NCCC did grant Crossway authority to amend RSV text to produce the ESV. Perhaps ICPEL can do that also and call it the CSV (Catholic Standard Version).
   Though I like the last idea and can produce a wonderful end product, it would take time and negotiations with NCCC. I’m afraid that the choice to use the NJB is the most feasible… unless Rome approves the Canadian project?
   
   Come, Holy Spirit, enlighten your Church, and grant us the blessings of a beautiful English translation of the Holy Scriptures (and Lectionary) you inspired in our lifetime!

 

[mmortal03]

• I’ve not heard of any plans to produce a 3rd English edition of the *Jerusalem Bible *from the French 3rd edition.
• On the other hand, I know that the Ecole Biblique is currently in the works of producing another new translation (with even more notes) of the Bible under its *The Bible in its Traditions *project. An English edition of the Bible coming from that project is also planned, but the project will take a whopping 15 years to complete (starting from 2003)! That’s at least another 10 years more! So it’s unlikely that a publisher would want to invest in the soon to be outdated La Bible de Jerusalem

So what’s left?

1. • Use the NJB – minor changes would be needed. Shouldn’t be problematic for the publisher, and besides the General editor of the NJB is the executive director of ICPEL.
   • Use the RSV (2CE) – but it’s unlikely the bishops conferences would approve it without substantial modifications to take into account horizontal “inclusive language”. By which NCCC might not grant the copyright either.
   • Use the ESV with RSV for deuterocanonical books – An eccletic combination from the 2 versions. Would Crossway permit ICPEL to make any modifications needed? And are we Catholics condemned to keep using Protestant translations?
   • Come up with a new translation, perhaps using the RSV as the starting point text. NCCC did grant Crossway authority to amend RSV text to produce the ESV. Perhaps ICPEL can do that also and call it the CSV (Catholic Standard Version).

1. 
   The NJB does not have as much inclusive language to fix as the NRSV does, from what I have been told. I haven’t gone through it and tried counting it myself.
   
   I think you are mistaken about horizontal “inclusive language” being in the RSV-CE or RSV-2CE. Did you mean the NAB?
   
   As far as using the ESV, I just don’t know how worthwhile that really is. We have had discussions on that before here, and I don’t think we concluded that it was worth the trouble.
   
   And finally, coming up with a new translation…well, in American English speaker’s minds, that is the NAB. The revision of the OT should be completed soon.
   
   I think they need something done quick, but it also needs to be done right. So far, they haven’t ever been able to accomplish something that didn’t digress. How can they try to keep making something better, if they continue to release worse and worse intermediate steps?

 

[porthos11]

Or we could just all us the Lectionary created from the RSC-CE2E. That one was approved with zero changes.

Can’t object to that.

 

[lak611]

*]Use the RSV (2CE) – but it’s unlikely the bishops conferences would approve it without substantial modifications to take into account horizontal “inclusive language”. By which NCCC might not grant the copyright either.

I have not seen any inclusive language in the RSV-2CE.

 

[rpp]

I really dislike the usage of “inclusive” language. In fact, I dislike it so much that I will not even date a woman who likes it.

And you know what? That attitude does not really eliminate any women from being “the one” who are already not up to standard… Why not? Because I have already excluded pro-choicers, contraceptors, and Democrats, and others who like these groups, are not in full communion with Holy Mother Church.

I like the RSV and the Douay-Rhiems. The KJV is not bad either, but, of course, you have to be careful not to get the “abridged” version.

I find the NAB-CE annoying and the NRSV seemingly blasphemous in places.

There was a reason that the Holy Spirit did not inspire the authors to write in inclusive language. What the reason is I do not know, but I am pretty sure God is powerful enough to have done that if that is what He needed done. But He did not, so I prefer a translation without the gender-based editorial comments inserted directly as if that is what God said. Never forget that that that junk is text that is being inserted by uninspired translators.

 

[peregrinus_sg]

I think you are mistaken about horizontal “inclusive language” being in the RSV-CE or RSV-2CE. Did you mean the NAB?

I have not seen any inclusive language in the RSV-2CE

Oh dear, I meant to say that the RSV-CE and RSV-2CE is probably considered insufficiently “horizontally inclusive” by most of ICPEL’s sponsoring bishops’ conferences as to even merit their consideration and approval, unless there were changes to the text for some “inclusivity”, such as:

“he who eats my flesh” to “whoever eats my flesh” etc.

And no, I don’t think the revised NAB will be accepted by the majority of bishops’ conferences outside the US. That translation never gained acceptance outside the US, nor even within many circles in the US, it seemed.

 

[lak611]

Oh dear, I meant to say that the RSV-CE and RSV-2CE is probably considered insufficiently “horizontally inclusive” by most of ICPEL’s sponsoring bishops’ conferences as to even merit their consideration and approval, unless there were changes to the text for some “inclusivity”, such as:

“he who eats my flesh” to “whoever eats my flesh” etc.

Ok. That makes sense to me now. Personally, I favour the removal of all inclusive language from the NRSV and NAB. I like the RSV-CE because it does not have the inclusive language.

 

[AngelRose81]

I own several different translations and the RSV-CE is my favorite. As a Methodist, we used the NRSV because it was the “official” translation approved by the General Conference (or so I was told). I have a NRSV-Catholic Edition that has the Canadian Lectionary, Catholic prayers in it, and lots of maps and sections that have different verses that correspond with different things listed. I absolutely love the format of the way that that Bible is put togeter! I wish there was an RSV-CE with that same format. I like the NRSV-CE in some instances but I can’t stand the inclusive language. So I’ll prefer to use my Oxford Annotated RSV with the Deutrocanocial/Apocryphal Books at the end. I know some of the verses are a little different than the RSV-CE, but I just love the look and feel of that bible.

 

[lak611]

So I’ll prefer to use my Oxford Annotated RSV with the Deutrocanocial/Apocryphal Books at the end. I know some of the verses are a little different than the RSV-CE, but I just love the look and feel of that bible.

I have the same Bible. It’s great! I also like it because it has the books recognized by the Orthodox Church but not the Catholic Church.