A reader writes:
Prof. Dr. Jimmy:
If you’ve addressed this before, then my profuse apologies.
Question, Short Form: Is the NAB the only Bible from which readings at Mass may be used?
Answer, Short Form: Technically, no, but you’re not going to have much of a chance of getting another used, at least in the U.S.
Question, Longer Form: As we all (that is, we being, well, we) recognize, the NAB is, to put it nicely, just somewhat lacking when it comes to translational accuracy; or, as Butthead once said, "This sucks more than anything that has ever sucked before." Given either premise, is substitution allowed? Specifically for the Torah, I have in mind Everett Fox’s ‘The Schocken Bible, Vol. I.’ While I am aware that it, too, has some problems, at least it seems to attempt to adhere to the poetic nature and intent of the early Hebrew writers.
Answer, Longer Form: Technically, the lectionary promoted by the USCCB is not simply based on the NAB. Parts of it are based on the NAB, but parts are based on an edited form of the Revised NAB, so what we have is a kind of patchwork lectioary composed from different sources. As has been pointed out, you cannot buy a Bible that has in it what the lectionary has in it. This is because of the unique redactional history of the current lectionary.
That being said, I would agree that the lectionary leaves much to be desired in the translational accuracy department and in the literary style department. Though the phrase is cute, I wouldn’t go so far as to agree with the literary character you mention who described it as "sucking more than anything has sucked before." I would apply that term to the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New World "Translation," which is truly skin-peelingly bad.
Years ago there were permissions given for lectionaries based on other Scripture translations–the Jerusalem Bible and the Revised Standard Version (not the NRSV), as I recall correctly–and it was suggested that when the current lectionary came out that these permissions would get yanked, but as far as I know, they haven’t been, and so these lectionaries would technically still be permitted. There’s also a Lectionary for Masses with Children based on the Contemporary English Version.
The Shocken Bible’s version of the Torah, however, was never one of those approved versions.
The odds of getting an approved lectionary that isn’t the standard one used in a typical parish setting in the U.S. are very, very low. The current Lectionary for Mass published by the USCCB is the only one being promoted and the only approved one likely to be used.
If you’re interested in seeing how other English-speaking countries do things in this regard
the literary character you mention
That’s a very generous description of said character.
Heh heh, heh, Jimmy said “yanked”. Heh heh, heh, heh.
Follow-up question:
Must you use a lectionary at Mass, or can you just read the required verses from a JB or RSV bible if you want to use those translations?
The United State Conference of Catholic Bishops states:
“After May 19, 2002, the revised Lectionary, based on the New American Bible will be the only Lectionary that may be read at Mass, except for the current Lectionary for Masses with Children which will remain in use.”
However, if you want to read another bible on your own there’s absolutely nothing to prevent you from it. I keep several versions around for cross-reference and indepth study. Catholics are getting to be more knowledgeable about scripture, though there’s a lot still to be desired, and if you ever need to face off with a savvy evangelical about your faith you’ll need to know your bible.
You’ll want to choose a version that contains the Catholic deuterocanonical books, since many versions that are otherwise good don’t have them. I know plenty of Catholics at my parish that read the NIV, which probably comes from being literally surrounded by Bible Churches.
I personally don’t have a problem with the NAB and for years I’ve considered it to be a fine example of translation (from my years at a Presbyterian USA seminary where most bible profs ranked it in the top 5). The NRSV, in my opinion, takes too many gender inclusive liberties. I don’t care much for the JB, which in it’s first version was from original languages to French to English. Also the practice of pronouncing the Holy Name, which is the common JB practice, has fallen out of favor because of respect for the traditional Jewish practice of substituting Adonai for it. The RSV is another good choice and is one of my favorites. I still keep a KJV around, which sits right beside my computer (an old 386). Honestly, I read the KJV as a child, and it’s hard for me to depart from it, but there’s plenty to choose from.
For study the RSV is probably the closest to the origional but for use in the liturgy a freer translation, like the NAB, is more intelligible and useful. France does not use the NJB for the liturgy, it uses a much looser translation which explains rather then translates literally.
As a further aside, it is facinating to compare the Vulgate to the KJV. I was surprised to find that the KJV does follow the Vulgate more often then not.
Are the eastern rites and anglican-use required to use the same lectionary?
Patrick says: “I was surprised to find that the KJV does follow the Vulgate more often then not.”
Actually the Vulgate was used to fill in the gaps in translating the KJV from the “textus receptus,” which is a combination of Codex Bezai and other sources.
I think it appropriate that, per the link Jimmy posted, the Jerusalem Bible is the Bible used for the lectionary in England. J.R.R. Tolkien, of course, lived the bulk of his life there…and he was also a contributor to the Jerusalem Bible.
Here in Canada, we still use a gender-neutered and otherwise politically correctified NRSV against he expressed commands of Rome. I think we used to use the RSV-CE once upon a time (not sure), but then somebody decided to change it for no good reason, well actually, to advance their liberal political agenda.
I think the bishops promised to fix it, but it’s understandable why they haven’t yet, given all the other important things they’ve been doing:
http://ctlibrary.com/7687
(That’s also available in French translation: http://www.columbiariver.org/main_pages/Watershed/watershed.html)
Maybe it’s one of the reasons we’re so confused about the roles of male and female in marriage?
I think all the English-speaking bishops of the world should get together, get permission for a Catholic version of the New King James Version and use that everywhere. Either that or just go back to using the RSV-CE.
Part of the reason we lost so many Catholics over the past 40 years was because of the idiotic dumbing down of the faith. Nobody likes being condescended to. People really are capable of appreciating good literature.
Having lectored today’s Mass, I must ask: Who thought “reconnoiter” was a good word choice? It stands out like a sort thumb.
Dan, could you possibly post up the reference for the USCCB doc you quoted? I’d like to read the whole thing. Thanks!
Found it myself–sorry to post twice. It’s here:
http://www.usccb.org/nab/faq.htm
No prob Jeremy. It’s a little lengthy, so here’s the URL:
http://www.usccb.org/nab/faq.htm
The problem is that the FAQ doesn’t cite an authoritative document.
So I called the liturgy office at the USCCB yesterday and they very helpfully pointed out that the FAQ is quoting the letter of authorization printed *inside* the Lectionary, and of course this letter *is* an authoritative document.
JRR Tolkien’s contribution to the Jerusalem Bible was the Book of Jonah, not Job as one often hears. He didn’t have time to do more.