From Fr Wojciech Szypula SVD, Department of Theology, St Augustine College,
Sr Judith Coyle IHM, Senior Lecturer & Coordinator: Pastoral Theology
Recently there have been articles in The Southern Cross preparing us for the coming revision to the scripture readings at Mass, including Chris Busschau’s history of biblical translations that led up to the Revised Standard Version (RSV) that will now be used.
His history, however, stopped short of the more recent revision of the RSV, now entitled the NEW Revised Standard Version (NRSV).
This is a loss on two counts. First, the NRSV is a revised and updated translation of the Hebrew text of the Old Testament made in light of the significant recent discoveries of Masada and the Dead Sea Scrolls as well as numerous other ancient manuscripts.
These ancient texts brought us much closer to the original text written by the inspired authors than was possible in the 1940s when the RSV was produced. Significant changes have also been made to the New Testament Greek text due to almost a century of intense textual studies.
As early as 1974, the RSV’s own translating committee saw the need of revision and update. The NRSV was a response to that need. It is therefore surprising and perhaps even irresponsible to forgo a translation from the most reliable original text to date and opt instead for a textually and stylistically inferior version of the Word of God.
A second consideration in the NRSV, as a member of the committee notes, was because “many of the churches have become sensitive to the danger of linguistic sexism arising from the inherent bias of the English language towards the masculine gender, a bias that in the case of the Bible has often restricted or obscured the meaning of the original text”.
The decision to go with the RSV, rather than the NRSV, can only further the suspicion that behind the entire exercise of the new missal (including the rejection of the 1998 ICEL translation) was the attempt to ensure that inclusive language is kept far away from the Catholic Church, and that women are never directly addressed by the word of God.
The NRSV has yet to be approved by the Magisterium of the Church, which is required before it can be used. It’s use was permitted in Canada for a while. In the UK they elected to go with the NRSV when the new translation of the missal was implemented but this has not been approved yet. So they have retained the Jerusalem Bible.
It is just silly to hold a view that the Magisterium has some agenda against women, as though there is some sinister plot, which has negatively influenced the decision not to authorize the NRSV.
The reason that the NRSV has not been approved by the Magisterium is because its use of inclusive language creates both doctrinal and theological problems.
It should be remembered that the RSV is considered to be one of the best English translations produced to date. The RSV is accepted by protestants and the RSV Catholic Edition by Catholics. The RSV has therefore created a point on which both Catholics and Protestants can agree and this is in itself a good thing.
An extremely valid point is being made by Fr Wojciech Szypula SVD, Department of Theology, St Augustine College, and Sr Judith Coyle IHM, Senior Lecturer & Coordinator: Pastoral Theology
If the Eucharistic celebration and therefore the liturgy surrounding it is the very core of our Catholic religion then our spiritual leaders should present us with the ultimate in understanding ‘Christ’ and the holistic implication of the very word ‘Christ’ – meaning, of course, that this ~~ [snip] danger of linguistic sexism arising from the inherent bias of the English language towards the masculine gender, a bias that in the case of the Bible has often restricted or obscured the meaning of the original text” ~~ equates to a limited or biased knowledge of what He came for, stood for, died for….
@ Mark – Who is… [snip] “they have retained the Jerusalem Bible”?
The weakness of your argument is in mentioning “Magisterium” Why? because did you know the the origin of ‘liturgy’ = work of the laity….
Someone or something changed the ground rules methinks.
Great response, Mark
Poor Rosemary, you are hysterical at times, you never get to the pith, always gnawing.
Pope Pius XII (A Great Pope) gives the authoritive definition of what the Liturgy is:
“The Sacred Liturgy is the public worship which our Redeemer, the Head of the Church, offers to the heavenly Father and which the community of Christ’s faithful pays to its Founder, and through Him to the Eternal Father; briefly, it is the whole public worship of the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, Head and members.”
We are associated with Christ as followers. This is what this definition means.
We are not associated in the liturgy by your personal opinion or others, in the worship of our Eternal Father.
Rosemary, the NRSV is not the ultimate in understanding, no mater what the two who wrote this letter may think. Our bishops did us a huge favor choosing the RSV CE. Say thank you and stop being misled by the nonsense contained in this letter.
Here is Cardinal Napier’s letter as published in this weeks edition of The Southern Cross, but not under Letter of the Week, so it may not appear on the web for comment.
Concerning the RSV versus NRSV letter by Fr Szypula and Sr Coyle (March 21), a visit to websites on this topic will lead one to question those who are questioning the decision of the Holy See to opt for the 1971 edition of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible rather than the earlier 1952 edition or the New Revised Standard Version. An interesting observation by one of the researchers is that at least one of the translators working on the New Revised Standard Version expressed surprise at finding “inclusive language” in the NRSV text where it had not been there when the text last passed through the hands of the translators. Is that translator implying that the text was “doctored” or “emasculated” post factum? Two serious talking points on one of the websites focused on: (i) the NRSV text of Isaiah which states that “the young woman is with child”, as if something has already happened; as compared with the RSV text which talks about something still to happen: “the virgin will conceive and bear a son.” (ii) the NRSV text of John 7:39 which states: “For as yet there was no Spirit, because Jesus was not yet glorified.” By contrast the RSV reads: “For as yet the Spirit had not yet been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.” The latter has grave consequences for the doctrine of the Holy Trinity! So, while the NRSV maybe more accurate, is it better liturgy and for theology? If you are interested google “RSV versus NRSV”. At least a dozen sites will come up — all most informative!
Cardinal Wilfrid Napier OFM,
Archbishop of Durban
It will appear on the website, and has been schedulled for publication next Tuesday, specifically because it responds to the letter by Fr Szypula and Sr Coyle. Please don’t decide for us which Southern Cross content may be reproduced, or when it should appear.
Editor, I don’t believe I was deciding anything for you and you may be being a little over sensitive.
Experience shows that those letters to the editor, not classified as “Letter of the Week”, while they may appear in the print edition, as a rule generally do not appear on these web pages for comments. Not that there is anything wrong with that!
The whole purpose of my being a digital subscriber is that I get access to The Southern Cross on Wednesday, not the weekend. I don’t believe that my digital subscription was subject to a secrecy of content clause. So I was merely quoting content, to which I had legitimate paid access.
Coupled with my factual experiences in this regard over more than a year, which confirms that it is indeed highly unlikely that the letter would normally be published on the web, as it is not a “Letter of the Week”, I don’t believe my actions were unreasonable, neither did they undermine the newspaper.
In any case. My intention was not intended to attack the newspaper but to get the Cardinal’s letter out there. I think the two writers, of the this letter above, are completely out of line and, regardless of the qualifications, speaking absolute nonsense.
There is no doubt whatsoever that our bishops in South Africa should be commended for choosing the RSV!! It is undoubtedly one of the best translations of the Bible available today. Its value as a great translation is further enhanced given the fact that Protestants also feel this way, which helps create common ground between us and them! This is always good!
You didn’t quote the letter, but copied and pasted it. It was not your call to make, even as a subscriber. I understand your eagerness to get Cardinal Napier’s response out, and you are correct that we don’t usually run two letters from the same issue on the website, though there have been exceptions, such as we had planned for this week. All you had to do is ask.
I find the tone of the responses of Mark and Malcolm unacceptable. One of the problems of responses on the net is that people believe they have a right to say whatever they feel in manner in which they would never respond face-to-face. Please respect our scholars and accord to them the same dignity as that which you are so quick to give the Church hierarchy.
Also its high time that our Church realises the alienation that many women experience with the use of exclusive language.
@Ann Baker
Thank you for the pious manner in which you expressed your right, to express what you want, in a manner of your choosing.
Please forgive me, in doing the same, although I now realize that my rights are inferior to yours, truly there has not been the slightest inclination that, dear Rosemary was a scholar of any type or sort. She never seems to get anything right.
The correction was on Liturgy, perhaps you Ann Baker can add some salient insight on the matter.
Went on Google to get Rosemary profile, no scholarly higher education, there but that means little .However, Rosemary I am surprised at your self description hopefully it is not you.
@Ann, I assure you that the way I responded above is the way I would have responded face to face as well.
I am sorry you find the tone of my responses unacceptable. I think you will however generally find that the problem with communication in this format is that it runs the risk of being judged based on the readers views on the subject. Yours views are evident from your closing line.
Consider, for example, your advice to Malcolm and I to respect our scholars. I assume you refer to the two from St Augustines who wrote the letter to the editor and not to Rosemary who made a comment above. Have you, Ann, perhaps considered that the tone of these two scholars is considered equally unacceptable by Malcolm and I. Further, have you considered that these scholars show absolutely no respect whatsoever for our bishops, whom they accuse,quite bluntly and unjustifiably of rejecting the NRSV purely on the basis of gender discrimination.
I think Ann that if you are fair you will find that it is specifically our opposing view that you do not like and not really our tone.
Editor, I disagree but clearly so do you. Anyway, I think this issue has been blown out of proportion by you. Our continued debate will serve no further useful purpose. So I think we should agree to leave it at that.
By the way, editor, I did quote the Cardinal’s letter – the whole letter!!
Malcolm, we have spoken in the past and every time you came across as a thoroughly nice man. I can’t reconcile that impression with the tone you adopt in writing. Your response to Anne Baker sounds much like bullying. Are you sure you want to present yourself like that to the world?
Mark Nel, do you really talk to people like that, face to face? And they accept it without feeling insulted or responding in kind? And you are proud of it?
Thank you Günther, I would say the same about you, you are a sincere person and have an underlying respect for you, and those, believe it or not, people whom there is constant disagreement.
The issue is not tone here, on replying to Mark and Rosemary, to Mark, my reply “Great response” nothing wrong with tone there. However, in sentiment I stand with Mark.
To Rosemary the tone is not good at all, possibly UN-Catholic, If Rosemary and her friends dishes it out, then they can take it as well. Its not the saintly thing to do, and I am no saint.
Even though I am no saint, it does not mean that I am immune as to feelings, as to the constant distortions that our Hierarchy and Church suffer. It is in those debates, no quarter is given or asked.
Günther your response to Mark is demeaning, it has been deeming in the past, to me, and to others who disagree with you, some who do not write in. You know who I am referring to and I do miss his writings.
This is the part where you should be given a lecture, well there is none, perhaps we all need to take stock of ourselves, even though my sense is that this, is an excuse to launch a personal attack (assassination) on Mark and my character, note is taken, and in good faith will ignore that sense..
You give leeway on this platform, which I am grateful for, however you need to consider if you behave in a just manner and I will consider how to improve my tone.
Although we disagree on issues, it does not necessarily mean that there is ill feelings about the person per say, to judge Mark, myself or you on a personal perceived tone and draw conclusions from it, you yourself must admit, is ridiculous.
Malcolm, I learned a long time ago to simply ignore the editors personal attacks. In any case I have taken another look at my comments above and I don’t think there is anything wrong with the tone.