Why not use the RSV-CE for Mass instead of the NAB?

[porthos11]

Does the RSV-CE come in a leather bound addition?

Absolutely. Oxford University Press issues beautiful leather-bound editions of a newly-typeset RSV-CE. I got the Genuine (not bonded) leather edition.

The Ignatius Second Catholic Edition also comes in a beautiful bonded-leather cover as well.

 

[benedictgal]

I am reminded of what Fr. Richard John Neuhaus wrote in his article for Adoremus called Bible Babble. He is actually a good source for this kind of discussion because he brings a unique dimension to the issue. He was a Lutheran minister who converted to Catholicism and was subsequently ordained a priest.

Here are some of his statements regarding the current lectionary:

One has to wonder what those in charge of Catholic translations thought they were doing since the NAB project was launched. An answer commonly given is that they wanted to produce the most literally “accurate” translation of the Hebrew and Greek texts. It is usually said that Catholics are not biblical literalists, but that appears not to hold in this instance. Even literalism does not explain the many eccentricities introduced in the NAB. Probably the best known of all psalms is Psalm 23, “The Lord is my shepherd”. In the KJV and the RSV, the psalm concludes with, “I will dwell in the house of the Lord forever”. Readers of the Douay-Rheims express the confidence that they will “dwell in the house of the Lord for length of days”. That is very open-ended and may be very much like “forever”.

Even the more recent and trendy New Revised Standard Version invites me to believe that “I will dwell in the house of the Lord my whole life long”. My whole life long will, please God, be life eternal. Then comes the NAB: “I will dwell in the house of the Lord for years to come”. For years to come? It inevitably prompts the question of how many. Ten? Twenty? Fifty? Whatever the answer, it would seem to be far short of forever. Note that there is nothing in the Hebrew that requires or even suggests such a change. But what’s the point of doing a new translation unless it is different from earlier translations?

The problems begin with the very first verse of the Bible. In the English tradition, solidly grounded in the Hebrew as well as in Jerome’s Latin translation, Genesis 1 begins with the majestic words, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”. Here is what the NAB offers us: “In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless wasteland, and darkness covered the abyss, while a mighty wind swept over the waters”. Compare that with the English tradition, followed almost exactly by Douay-Rheims: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters”. Apart from the NAB’s deaf ear to poetry and theological suggestiveness, the very first words of the very first verse of the Bible raise a question of no little importance. Note the difference between “In the beginning God created …” and “In the beginning, when God created…”

Of course, the Gospel reading that perplexes me the most is the one taken from the USCCB approved lectionary for the Pentecost Vigil where the final line states:

…there was of course, no Spirit yet, since he had not ascended to the Father…

The way that the lectionary reads, it makes it appear that the Holy Spirit wasn’t around until after Jesus’ ascension. This certainly would appear to go against the eternal aspect of the Third Person of the Trinity.

The Douay-Rheims translation reads something like this:

39 Now this he said of the Spirit which they should receive, who believed in him: for as yet the Spirit was not given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.

Clearly, the translation is bad. Fr. Neuhaus further notes that:

The result is a loss keenly appreciated by those who grew up with what literary critic Alan Jacobs describes as “a shared language, of particular words and phrases that resonated in the common ear – words and phrases whose meanings could be tested, considered, deployed, and redeployed in an infinitely varied set of contexts”. Think of those generations of English-speaking peoples “separating the wheat from the chaff”, “lying down in green pastures”, sometimes being “weighed in the balance and found wanting” but at other times “fighting the good fight” and “putting on the whole armor of Christ” – the whole vast array of discourse (much of it richly poetic) demonstrating that it is very difficult to share thoughts when we do not share words. Because Christians are counseled to “be of one mind”, we should be more attentive to the particular words that shape and form our minds. To have once again a widely shared English Bible would be a significant step toward that one mind in Christ.

It is a great pity that our churches and our culture have largely lost a common biblical vocabulary. The blame rests with academic Bible scholars and with the hustlers of the very big business of multiplying and marketing ever-more-novel versions of the biblical text. But the decay of a culture- and soul-forming tradition is also the fault of the bishops, and it is their very particular fault that the Catholic people are saddled with among the clunkiest of translations, the New American Bible. Yes, I know that there is not much to be done about it, or at least that those who could do something seem not to be interested. And yes, I know that it is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness. But sometimes it is necessary to curse the darkness as well, just to prevent our getting used to it.

At least the Spanish lectionary (the one we use in the United States comes from Mexico) isn’t terrible.

 

[Spiller]

Many people have complained that the NAB is not a good Bible because of the commentary in it. Also, the RSV-CE is known to be a better Bible. Why don’t we use the RSV-CE instead of the NAB for Mass?

Why?

Because guests on EWTN seem to think so?

 

[Spiller]

I prefer the Knox Version.

 

[Phemie]

Kajehas hit the nail on the head. Our parish used the RSV lectionary until the day that the USCCB withdrew permission to use it. I am sure that lectionary is in a closet waiting for the day that permission will be granted for it to be used again. I would gladly make a yearly contribution to the bishops to make up for the money they would loose when parishes stopped buying NAB lectionaries if that is what it would take for them to permit the use of the RSV lectionary again.

But if you’re in Israel, under what Bishop’s conference do you belong? Why is the US dictating what you use in your parish?

 

[garysibio]

Does the RSV-CE come in a leather bound addition?

I believe so. Check Amazon.Com.

Gary

 

[garysibio]

Why?

Because guests on EWTN seem to think so?

No, because when you look at the translation, compare it to the original languages and compare it to other translations, it falls short. You don’t have to rely on the opinions of others although some of the articles which have been published will give you a good place to start looking. You also do not need to speak Greek or Hebrew. I don’t. There are plenty of sites on the Web that are helpful. I recommend the Blue Letter Bible which is very helpful in looking at the original languages.

Gary

 

[Brendan]

Why?

Because guests on EWTN seem to think so?

No,

Because the Holy See required modifications to the NAB before it could be used in the Lectionary.

The RSV-CE was approved without changes.

 

[Marysann]

Phemie, I was referring to my parish at home in Virginia. We do use the American lectionary where I attend Mass here in Israel, and we are not under the authority of the American bishops. Right now we are working on the hymnal issue here. Next we will tackle the business of the lectionary!

 

[Phemie]

They are all still approved, they are just not used in the USA. In the English-speaking world outside of the USA (which uses the NAB) and Canada (where trickery was used to get the NRSV in use), the Jerusalem Bible (1966 version) is used in the lectionary. Sadly, the RSV-CE, the best of the three translations, isn’t used anywhere as far as I know.

Gary

To be fair, the Lectionary for Canada had already been published when permission for use of the NRSV in the US was rescinded. Why would they think that if it was allowed in the US it wouldn’t be allowed in Canada? But it did take the CCCB 15 years to comply with Rome’s request that they find a new translation within 5 years.

We are now getting a new one, starting in November of this year, based on the NRSV but with the changes requested by Rome (CCCB makes it look as though the changes are minor but those in the know say the changes are substantial. Some inclusive language will remain, some bad English will be used (their as a singular collective) and the added explanatory text will be removed (i.e. “The Jews” will replace “the Jewish authorities”).

 

[jbebeau]

From my readings and researched I had found out a bit about the NRSV contraversey. After Canada started to use the Lectionary based upon the NRSV (albeit modified), the United States, in addition to allowing a Lectionary based upon RNAB, planned to produce a Lectionary based upon the NRSV. That is when the CDF got involved and said that the NRSV in its current form was not permitted for liturgical use. Canada had to secure permission to continue to use the Lectionary based upon the NRSV. From what I understand there were financial factors involved. The CCCB had invested considerable financial resourced into the new Lectionary. To start from scratch would have bankrupted the publishing arm of the CCCB. Thus the Lectionaries for Sundays and Weekdays were permitted to used on an interim basis until revisions could be made. However the Lectionary for Ritual Masses and the Book of the Gospel were not permitted to be published. Canada has thus been without the additional Lectionaries for some time, and it has been a challenge. It is fairly common to see a Book of the Gospel based upon the RNAB used in parishes. The NAB, as well as the JB is still permitted for liturgical use in Canada, so many don’t see it as a problem. Negotiations between the CDWDS and the CCCB established a list of principles for adjusting the NRSV so that it would be acceptable for liturgical use. Then the real work began. Only this past year the Sunday Lectionary was approved by Rome. It should be in parishes for the 1st Sunday of Advent. Based on discussions with the Director the Liturgy Office for the CCCB, they are now working on the Lectionary for Ritual Masses, since we don’t have one. Then will follow the Weekday Lectionary and the Book of the Gospels.

As an interesting parallel story, if anyone recalls the Bishops of England and Wales announced a project to produce a Lectionary based on the NRSV, apparently other counties such as Australia joined them. The received the approval of Rome to proceed, but ran into difficulties when the holder of the copyright of the NRSV would not allow them to proceed. The result being they will now be joining Canada in its efforts. I guess they figured why duplicate the work.

It looks like the NRSV is going to be around for a bit.

 

[porthos11]

They are all still approved, they are just not used in the USA. In the English-speaking world outside of the USA (which uses the NAB) and Canada (where trickery was used to get the NRSV in use), the Jerusalem Bible (1966 version) is used in the lectionary. Sadly, the RSV-CE, the best of the three translations, isn’t used anywhere as far as I know.

Gary

Only one Bishops’ Conference has approved the RSV-CE, and that is the Antilles. They have approved for use the Second Catholic Edition Lectionary prepared by Ignatius Press.

It’s the only Bishops’ Conference who has approved a Lectionary that corresponds exactly to a published Bible with no modifications.

Them guys are lucky.

 

[porthos11]

From my readings and researched I had found out a bit about the NRSV contraversey. After Canada started to use the Lectionary based upon the NRSV (albeit modified), the United States, in addition to allowing a Lectionary based upon RNAB, planned to produce a Lectionary based upon the NRSV. That is when the CDF got involved and said that the NRSV in its current form was not permitted for liturgical use. Canada had to secure permission to continue to use the Lectionary based upon the NRSV. From what I understand there were financial factors involved. The CCCB had invested considerable financial resourced into the new Lectionary. To start from scratch would have bankrupted the publishing arm of the CCCB. Thus the Lectionaries for Sundays and Weekdays were permitted to used on an interim basis until revisions could be made. However the Lectionary for Ritual Masses and the Book of the Gospel were not permitted to be published. Canada has thus been without the additional Lectionaries for some time, and it has been a challenge. It is fairly common to see a Book of the Gospel based upon the RNAB used in parishes. The NAB, as well as the JB is still permitted for liturgical use in Canada, so many don’t see it as a problem. Negotiations between the CDWDS and the CCCB established a list of principles for adjusting the NRSV so that it would be acceptable for liturgical use. Then the real work began. Only this past year the Sunday Lectionary was approved by Rome. It should be in parishes for the 1st Sunday of Advent. Based on discussions with the Director the Liturgy Office for the CCCB, they are now working on the Lectionary for Ritual Masses, since we don’t have one. Then will follow the Weekday Lectionary and the Book of the Gospels.

As an interesting parallel story, if anyone recalls the Bishops of England and Wales announced a project to produce a Lectionary based on the NRSV, apparently other counties such as Australia joined them. The received the approval of Rome to proceed, but ran into difficulties when the holder of the copyright of the NRSV would not allow them to proceed. The result being they will now be joining Canada in its efforts. I guess they figured why duplicate the work.

It looks like the NRSV is going to be around for a bit.

I would like it very much if they backport the resulting Lectionary into a Bible; I would gladly buy that amended NRSV.

 

[garysibio]

To be fair, the Lectionary for Canada had already been published when permission for use of the NRSV in the US was rescinded. Why would they think that if it was allowed in the US it wouldn’t be allowed in Canada? But it did take the CCCB 15 years to comply with Rome’s request that they find a new translation within 5 years.

We are now getting a new one, starting in November of this year, based on the NRSV but with the changes requested by Rome (CCCB makes it look as though the changes are minor but those in the know say the changes are substantial. Some inclusive language will remain, some bad English will be used (their as a singular collective) and the added explanatory text will be removed (i.e. “The Jews” will replace “the Jewish authorities”).

What I was referring to was how it was done in Canada. It had nothing to do with the United States. The Canadian bishops had NRSV lectionaries printed up before getting Vatican OK. When the Vatican said no, they said, but we’ve already had them printed up. Unfortunately the Vatican did not say “too bad.”

Gary

 

[ziapueblo]

Absolutely. Oxford University Press issues beautiful leather-bound editions of a newly-typeset RSV-CE. I got the Genuine (not bonded) leather edition.

The Ignatius Second Catholic Edition also comes in a beautiful bonded-leather cover as well.

I assume that the Oxford University Press and the Ignatius Edition are the same? How different is the Ignatius Second Catholic Edition compared to the first? thanks,

 

[Cranch]

I assume that the Oxford University Press and the Ignatius Edition are the same? How different is the Ignatius Second Catholic Edition compared to the first? thanks,

Unfortunately, your assumption is incorrect. You will find an outline of the differences between Ignatius and Oxford (as well as between Ignatius RSV-CE and 2CE) here. And more than you probably want to know about the topic in this 42-page thread.

 

[garysibio]

Only one Bishops’ Conference has approved the RSV-CE, and that is the Antilles. They have approved for use the Second Catholic Edition Lectionary prepared by Ignatius Press.

It’s the only Bishops’ Conference who has approved a Lectionary that corresponds exactly to a published Bible with no modifications.

Them guys are lucky.

What’s the cost-of-living down there?

Gary

 

[garysibio]

I would like it very much if they backport the resulting Lectionary into a Bible; I would gladly buy that amended NRSV.

Aside from the inclusive language, does the NRSV have any other problems? I’ve never used it. I bought a copy when it first came out and ended up selling it on Amazon.Com. Are the deuterocanonical books included where they should be in the Catholic edition or are they all collected together in an appendix?

Gary

 

[Phemie]

Aside from the inclusive language, does the NRSV have any other problems? I’ve never used it. I bought a copy when it first came out and ended up selling it on Amazon.Com. Are the deuterocanonical books included where they should be in the Catholic edition or are they all collected together in an appendix?

Gary

The books are where they are supposed to be in the Catholic Edition

 

[Cranch]

Aside from the inclusive language, does the NRSV have any other problems?

Here are two observations regarding the NRSV noted by Michael Marlowe at bible-researcher.com:J.J.M. Roberts, a member of the NRSV translation committee, allows that the “inclusivity” of the NRSV makes it well-suited “for liturgical public reading,” but he points out that this advantage has come at a real price. After discussing the loss of particularity, emphasis, concreteness, and vividness in two passages of the Old Testament (Psalms 1 and 41), he gives the following comment on “brothers and sisters” as a translation for adelphoi in the New Testament:

It is likely that Paul was using the Greek term “brothers” in an inclusive sense … Nonetheless, Paul did not highlight a concern for inclusivity by using the compound expression “brothers and sisters.” To articulate this concern in translation by expressing what Paul left unexpressed is to impose a twentieth century, western cultural agenda on a first century text. Such anachronistic glosses make sociological or cultural appraisal of the world of the original text more difficult and cast doubts on the reliability of such a translation for serious historical work.
​

As hinted at by the above statement, the perception of a need for inclusive language is symptomatic of a larger liberal bias. This is made even more explicit here:Robert Jewett, professor of New Testament at Garrett-Northwestern Theological Seminary is himself a liberal, and a supporter of the feminist cause, but he insists upon the obligation of liberal scholars to behave honestly in translating the Bible. Regarding the NRSV he says: “We’re facing, with the NRSV, liberal dishonesty in spades. The modern liberated perspective which imposes itself on the text is about as dishonest as you can be. All the way through the NRSV, implying that Paul has all these liberated concepts and so forth like the current politically correct person in an Ivy League school: I mean that’s just ridiculous. Here you have the imposition of liberal prejudice on the biblical text with the ridiculous assumption that our modern liberal views were Paul’s.” Against the specious arguments offered by apologists for these politically correct alterations, Jewett declares that a gender-neutral translation that claims to be accurate is “almost as bad as Stalin’s revisions of world history in which every 10 years he’d change all the history textbooks.” These remarks were published in WORLD magazine, vol. 16, no. 6 (Feb. 13, 1998).