New Translation of the Lectionary incoming

[Southern Comfort]

Is the ESV the same as - or dfferent from - the NRSV Catholic Edition which is what I thought we were supposed to be using? If it is not the same how is it different? And if so, why is it different?

They are completely different.

Scholars tell us that NRSV (1989) is the best translation in widespread common use across the Churches at the moment. The translation committee was an ecumenical committee, including Roman Catholics. It is a non-literal translation which also contains inclusive language throughout. The Canadians have been using it in their Lectionary for years. There is a Catholic edition of it (a few minor emendations), and an Anglicized (principally spelling) Catholic edition.

ESV is generally reckoned to be an inferior translation. It's essentially a revision of the old 1971 RSV text (which still had thee's and thou's). Produced by evangelical protestant biblical scholars in the US, it is a literal translation and does not contain inclusive language, which is why it is having to be edited for E&W with that in mind. There is a Catholic edition of it, with few if any obvious differences.

Ireland have announced their intention not to use ESV, thus ending the 50+ years tradition of having the same translation in use throughout the British Isles.

Hope that's enough detail.

[blackthorn fairy]

Thanks - now I know. However, I don't understand - if NRSV (Catholic, English edition) is considered the 'best' at the moment (and I have a very smart hardback edition which I use) why is the Lectionary using ESV and not NRSV?

[Southern Comfort]

Thanks - now I know. However, I don't understand - if NRSV (Catholic, English edition) is considered the 'best' at the moment (and I have a very smart hardback edition which I use) why is the Lectionary using ESV and not NRSV?

Initially the Congregation for Divine Worship rejected NRSV (although the Canadians were already using it, and had been for a number of years.They still are). CDW claimed that the reason was the way NRSV handled archetypes of Christ in the Old Testament — it's a question of language and theology. There is in fact only a small number of problematic instances, and all of these except for a tiny handful occur in the psalms, which wouldn't even be used because the Grail is used for the psalms. Of the remaining five non-psalm cases, three happen to be identical with what is in ESV (they still are, unless the editors have twigged and tweaked), and the owners of NRSV offered to modify the other two to meet the objections.

But none of this made any difference because CDW's argument was just a diversion. The real reason was that some of those working in CDW at the time were not in favour of inclusive language, but of course they dared not admit that. (Those people have mostly either left or died, so it is no longer the issue it was.)

Anyway, in the wake of all this, the English bishops looked around for something else that might be agreeable to CDW. After much to-ing and fro-ing, they finally settled on ESV, using the excuse that it is a literal translation, as opposed to NRSV, which is a more literate translation.

However, Pope Francis through his Apostolic Letter Magnum Principium has clarified that bishops' conferences can decide for themselves what liturgical translations they use (this was always the case following Vatican II, but CDW wrested back control), and CDW's role has been modified to rubber-stamp the bishops' choices, so there is absolutely no reason why the bishops couldn't revert to NRSV. They still could, even now. But they plough doggedly on with an inferior ESV, having to do a lot of tweaking to it along the way. The result will be a new lectionary that no one really wants. Such is the world of church politics.

[VML]

I am sufficiently comfortable as a female member of the human race not to be bothered about 'inclusive' language, except that it make for some very clumsy edits in psalms and hymns. I find replacing every use of the words 'he, him, his' with 'God, who, whose' is a pain aesthetically and vocally.

[justMary]

I am sufficiently comfortable as a female member of the human race not to be bothered about 'inclusive' language, except that it make for some very clumsy edits in psalms and hymns. I find replacing every use of the words 'he, him, his' with 'God, who, whose' is a pain aesthetically and vocally.

It's good that you are thus comfortable.

But I am not at all comfortable. Especially given the extra-laden nature of gender at the current time, I do NOT on any level believe that the word man / me / his / him etc includes to me.

[Southern Comfort]

I am sufficiently comfortable as a female member of the human race not to be bothered about 'inclusive' language, except that it make for some very clumsy edits in psalms and hymns. I find replacing every use of the words 'he, him, his' with 'God, who, whose' is a pain aesthetically and vocally.

It's important to distinguish between the two types of inclusive language, the "horizontal" and the "verttical".

The horizontal is concerned with us human beings. Using "man" when you mean men and women is offensive to many. Interestingly, a change in our language took place as a result of 18th-century Scholasticism. Up until then, it had been perfectly fine to say "If anyone loves me, they will keep my word, and my Father will love them, and we shall come to them...." The Scholars said "No, no! 'Anyone' is singular, and so you must say 'If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, etc.'" So reverting back to the earlier usage should not be a problem. Using a plural rather than a singular form is usually a neat way of doing it. This is what the NRSV translation of scripture routinely does.

Vertical inclusivity, on the other hand, deals with God. We traditionally refer to God as "he", and God the Father is an obviously masculine attribute. Jesus was certainly a male human. (Some refer to the Holy Spirit as "she", but let's not get drawn into that.) We use masculine words such as "Lord". It's much more difficult, as well as much stranger, to "de-gender" God.

For many, moderate inclusivity, the use of horizontal inclusive language referring to us, is OK. Vertical inclusivity, referring to God, is different, and is a step too far for many.

[VML]

Exactly SC, it is the degendering of God that I find irritating.
Maundy Thursday psalm : O precious in the eyes of the Lord is the death of his faithful,... Strike out 'his' , write 'the' . You can argue that the meaning is the same. What's the point?
The Lord fills the earth with his love. Are you going to make it clumsier by cobbling 'his'?

[MiddlesbroughMusic]

https://www.cbcew.org.uk/new-lectionary ... lIhX8i34Lc
Lets hope musicians get sight of it early enough to adjust/re-write responsorial psalms.

I note that, on the Lectionary Timetable from April 2023, the composers guide was to be available from May 2023, with the psalm texts available for composers from next month. Has anyone seen the composers guide, or knows where it can be found?

[alan29]

https://www.cbcew.org.uk/new-lectionary ... lIhX8i34Lc
Lets hope musicians get sight of it early enough to adjust/re-write responsorial psalms.

I note that, on the Lectionary Timetable from April 2023, the composers guide was to be available from May 2023, with the psalm texts available for composers from next month. Has anyone seen the composers guide, or knows where it can be found?

Which composers? And how? And at what cost?

[Nick Baty]

I note that, on the Lectionary Timetable from April 2023, the composers guide was to be available from May 2023, with the psalm texts available for composers from next month. Has anyone seen the composers guide, or knows where it can be found?

That was probably when the planned date for the new Lectionary was Advent 2023. Now we know it is to be Advent 2024. However, I am reliably informed by One Who Knows that it's on the way!

[Nick Baty]

Which composers? And how? And at what cost?

The text and guide to the 2010 ICEL translation was a freebie. Hopefully that set a precedent.

[MiddlesbroughMusic]

That was probably when the planned date for the new Lectionary was Advent 2023. Now we know it is to be Advent 2024. However, I am reliably informed by One Who Knows that it's on the way!

Nope; this was the schedule, produced in April this year, ending in Advent 2024. We will have to see what appears and when!

[Nick Baty]

All a long way from initial hopes that it would be available in 2022.
Being an old git, I pray it's further delayed: I already struggle with language of the 2010 translation of the Missal. And the Abbey Psalms are excruciating in places.

[alan29]

Re-arranging the deckchairs .......

[Nick Baty]

Still no news of the responses or the composers' guide. Latest whisper is the won't hear anything anytime soon