Single English-Language Lectionary and Study Bible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Filii_Dei
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

Filii_Dei

Guest
I have been looking at the status of scripture in the Church, and it is really remarkable how many versions of the Bible are out there that have been approved for liturgical use as well as official instruction all across the world.

The United States uses the NAB, Canada uses the NRSV-CE, varying English-speaking countries use the JB and NJB, and even the Vatican quotes the RSV-CE in the English translation of the Catechism. That is not to mention various others such as the Douay-Rheims, Confraternity Bible, Christian Community Bible, Good News Bible, New English Bible, and Knox Bible available on the market. 🤷

While I am happy for the enthusiasm to proclaim the Word of God, I am somewhat saddened by these developments. This is unnecessarily divisive. The proliferation of so many versions undermines the universality of the Church and its scriptures. Doctrinal and translation errors could possibly go unchecked in the various editions, and there is an inability for people to identify with biblical verses when what they hear in mass is phrased differently from that which they read privately. Some versions also did not have the benefit of the Dead Sea Scrolls in their scholarship, and some are just a translation of a translation rather than from more ancient manuscripts. Add to that the fact that some are owned by non-Catholic organisations (RSV-CE and NRSV-CE, I’m looking at you), and there is potential for trouble. :eek:

In my humble opinion, I believe that there should be unity in the English language translations we use. An America should be able to visit Canada, Pakistan, India, or Jamaica and read the same version in any Catholic bookstore or listen to the same verse in any Catholic mass or LOTH. 👍

This was also the exhortation of the Vatican a decade ago in Liturgiam Authenticam:
  1. On a unified version of the liturgical texts
Click to expand...
  1. It is recommended that there be a single translation of the liturgical books for each vernacular language, brought about by means of coordination among the Bishops of those regions where the same language is spoken.
Click to expand...
Therefore, I would like to ask this: are there any known efforts to create a common English-language translation of the Bible for use as both lectionary and official instruction?

I am aware of the NAB Revised Edition and the Bible in its Traditions, but both are simply revisions of the NAB and NJB respectively, and neither have a mandate from English-language bishops.
 
I’m not sure, but the Douay Rheims is the best translation in English I believe. I personally use that one.
 
Filii_Dei said:
I have been looking at the status of scripture in the Church, and it is really remarkable how many versions of the Bible are out there that have been approved for liturgical use as well as official instruction all across the world.

The United States uses the NAB, Canada uses the NRSV-CE, varying English-speaking countries use the JB and NJB, and even the Vatican quotes the RSV-CE in the English translation of the Catechism. That is not to mention various others such as the Douay-Rheims, Confraternity Bible, Christian Community Bible, Good News Bible, New English Bible, and Knox Bible available on the market. 🤷

While I am happy for the enthusiasm to proclaim the Word of God, I am somewhat saddened by these developments. This is unnecessarily divisive. The proliferation of so many versions undermines the universality of the Church and its scriptures. Doctrinal and translation errors could possibly go unchecked in the various editions, and there is an inability for people to identify with biblical verses when what they hear in mass is phrased differently from that which they read privately. Some versions also did not have the benefit of the Dead Sea Scrolls in their scholarship, and some are just a translation of a translation rather than from more ancient manuscripts. Add to that the fact that some are owned by non-Catholic organisations (RSV-CE and NRSV-CE, I’m looking at you), and there is potential for trouble. :eek:

In my humble opinion, I believe that there should be unity in the English language translations we use. An America should be able to visit Canada, Pakistan, India, or Jamaica and read the same version in any Catholic bookstore or listen to the same verse in any Catholic mass or LOTH. 👍

This was also the exhortation of the Vatican a decade ago in Liturgiam Authenticam:

Therefore, I would like to ask this: are there any known efforts to create a common English-language translation of the Bible for use as both lectionary and official instruction?

I am aware of the NAB Revised Edition and the Bible in its Traditions, but both are simply revisions of the NAB and NJB respectively, and neither have a mandate from English-language bishops.
Click to expand...
I certainly don’t know of any and I think the chances of this happening are pretty remote. Also, just as an observation, the Catholic Lectionary does not match the NAB any longer either.

The USCCB is currently at war with the Catholic Biblical Association, who were the translators of the NAB, which you can read about here:

ncronline.org/news/justice/us-bishops-biblical-association-dispute-over-royalties

So, just a small part of the problem would be who the bishops would get to do their translation for them if they were to undertake a new common English Catholic Bible.

Thus, it seems like their only choice would be to go with an existing translation for a common Bible, and each has their own problems. The NAB is out because of the above, and the NRSV has been rejected by the Vatican for liturgical use in the US; the Australian Bishops rejected the RSV-CE for a revised version of the ESV (a Protestant Evangelical translation); others are not translations from the original languages.
 
Two of the above mentioned Bible versions (NAB, NRSV) use inclusive language in their translation, so they have to be ‘tweaked’ to be put into lectionary form. The D-R uses too much archaic language for public proclamation (to the average person sitting in the pews). The Jerusalem Bible has been used for years in the UK, but they are looking to replace it. The best bet in my humble opinion is the RSV-2CE which already has an approved lectionary for use in the Mass, is currently being used and is approved by the Antilles Episcopal Conference, and is being considered for use in the Mass in Africa. The RSV-2CE is uses dignified language and most of the archaic language has been removed, it would be understandable to the average person in the pews. The RSV-2CE lectionary translation is the same as the RSV-2CE Bible translation and both are published by Ignatius Press.
 
In a report about the Catholic Academy of Liturgy, one of the attendees, Fr. Anthony Ruff, OSB, reports that one of the topics of discussion was:
  • Common English-language lectionary (for those not in the U.S.) continues to bounce from one translation to another, after many candidates have fallen. Now they’re looking at the ESV, the English Standard Version, which comes from Protestant evangelicals.
I’m guessing that means the US will still use the NAB version for the lectionary, at least for the near future.
 
The ESV would still have to go through a Vatican approval process, in which it probably would have to be ‘tweaked’ (“Hail, full of grace”, etc) for use in the liturgy, if it was approved at all.
 
Dave_Noonan said:
I certainly don’t know of any and I think the chances of this happening are pretty remote. Also, just as an observation, the Catholic Lectionary does not match the NAB any longer either.

The USCCB is currently at war with the Catholic Biblical Association, who were the translators of the NAB, which you can read about here:

ncronline.org/news/justice/us-bishops-biblical-association-dispute-over-royalties

So, just a small part of the problem would be who the bishops would get to do their translation for them if they were to undertake a new common English Catholic Bible.

Thus, it seems like their only choice would be to go with an existing translation for a common Bible, and each has their own problems. The NAB is out because of the above, and the NRSV has been rejected by the Vatican for liturgical use in the US; the Australian Bishops rejected the RSV-CE for a revised version of the ESV (a Protestant Evangelical translation); others are not translations from the original languages.
Click to expand...
// is there a reason why the australian bishops rejected the rsv-ce?
 
CalCatholic said:
The RSV-2CE is uses dignified language and most of the archaic language has been removed, it would be understandable to the average person in the pews. The RSV-2CE lectionary translation is the same as the RSV-2CE Bible translation and both are published by Ignatius Press.
Click to expand...
I think the original edition of the RSV-CE would be perfectly understandable to the “average person in the pews” as well. Just because you don’t use “thou” in everyday conversation, it doesn’t mean you don’t know what the word means.
 
Jehuty_X said:
// is there a reason why the australian bishops rejected the rsv-ce?
Click to expand...
My understanding is that they wanted more gender-inclusive language than what was provided by the RSV-CE. At first they pursued the NRSV (the version used in the Canadian lectionary) but then ran into significant copyright issues as described here:

cg.catholic.org.au/news/newsletterarticle_display.cfm?loadref=70&id=1113

Having hit a roadblock with the NRSV, they went after the ESV, which also employs more gender-neutral language than the RSV-CE, but probably less so than the NRSV. See examples here:

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fbible-translation.110mb.com%2Flist%2Ffiles%2Fgender-inclusive-esv.doc&ei=JVsfT7iVEoaE2wWAhuTAAg&usg=AFQjCNFmcjm6kfRxo6A2CnVsatnzL3bY4g&sig2=8lzWZB3cBCNYq9t3Sp0ciA
 
Dave_Noonan said:
My understanding is that they wanted more gender-inclusive language than what was provided by the RSV-CE. At first they pursued the NRSV (the version used in the Canadian lectionary) but then ran into significant copyright issues as described here:

cg.catholic.org.au/news/newsletterarticle_display.cfm?loadref=70&id=1113

Having hit a roadblock with the NRSV, they went after the ESV, which also employs more gender-neutral language than the RSV-CE, but probably less so than the NRSV. See examples here:

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fbible-translation.110mb.com%2Flist%2Ffiles%2Fgender-inclusive-esv.doc&ei=JVsfT7iVEoaE2wWAhuTAAg&usg=AFQjCNFmcjm6kfRxo6A2CnVsatnzL3bY4g&sig2=8lzWZB3cBCNYq9t3Sp0ciA
Click to expand...
Well, the rights to the NRSV are owned by the same organisation as the RSV, so even if they wanted to implement the RSV-CE, they would still be facing the same copyright issues, whatever they may be.🤷
 
Dave_Noonan said:
My understanding is that they wanted more gender-inclusive language than what was provided by the RSV-CE. At first they pursued the NRSV (the version used in the Canadian lectionary) but then ran into significant copyright issues as described here:

cg.catholic.org.au/news/newsletterarticle_display.cfm?loadref=70&id=1113

Having hit a roadblock with the NRSV, they went after the ESV, which also employs more gender-neutral language than the RSV-CE, but probably less so than the NRSV. See examples here:

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fbible-translation.110mb.com%2Flist%2Ffiles%2Fgender-inclusive-esv.doc&ei=JVsfT7iVEoaE2wWAhuTAAg&usg=AFQjCNFmcjm6kfRxo6A2CnVsatnzL3bY4g&sig2=8lzWZB3cBCNYq9t3Sp0ciA
Click to expand...
// thank you.
 
Filii_Dei said:
Well, the rights to the NRSV are owned by the same organisation as the RSV, so even if they wanted to implement the RSV-CE, they would still be facing the same copyright issues, whatever they may be.🤷
Click to expand...
I’m thinking that “copyright issues” is probably a euphemism for $$.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top