« Juxtaposition of oddness | Main | Oh, and speaking of the USCCB »
September 11, 2005
Permission Requested
Clayton Emmer has a blogpost on the news that the Podcaster at Verbum Domini, who provides a daily podcast of the lectionary readings, has been told by the USCCB, whichholds the copyrights on the New American Bible translation (used in the lectionary), to cease and desist.
This, of course, is why so many Catholic books do not use the NAB in citing Scripture. I write for one publisher - The Living Faith quarterly devotional - that utilizes the NAB. Both OSV and Loyola prefer the use of either the RSV or the NRSV - no permissions or fees required for use.
On one level, there is a reasonable rationale for this. This is the "official" version of the Bible for the Church in the US, and it is in the bishops' best interest to have control over the use of this translation.
It is also perhaps in their best interest - of another kind - to have control so there is not a proliferation of liturgical materials that are printed and sold with no um...benefit to the USCCB.
Some of our readers in Catholic publishing might have more to say about this. I'm not quite sure what recourse or type of license this podcaster could seek from the USCCB to use the translation for this purpose, which of course, is totally non-profit. All I know is that Catholic publishers, as a rule, don't use official U.S. Catholic translation of Scripture because of the hassle and expense of getting permissions. (an interesting unintended consequence. But given the quality of the translation...perhaps a good unintended consequence?) It would be more understandable (if not totally) if, say the USCCB Office of Communications had their own podcasts of the daily readings which they were distributing free of charge as a means of evangelization.
Which, of course, they're not.
Later:
There is no secret about permissions policies to use various Bible translations (which, in answer to a commentor, are all copyrighted, of course.) The issues is that the NAB permissions policy is much narrower than most others.
You can read it here. Any use of any segment of the translation, no matter how brief, must be approved.
Here's the permissions policy for the NRSV, by contrast. You can use up to 500 verses without permission, providing that the Scripture content does not comprise an entire book or more than 50% of the entire work in which it is quoted. The NIV guidelines are similar.
So you see the sticking point that makes it much more of a hassle is having to get USCCB permission for even quoting one stickin' verse. Sure, it's pro forma, but in the context of a business with a million details to tend to, one less is...one less.
Update:
Commentor Rick points out the ultimate irony below: Even the English translation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (published by the USCCB) uses the RSV and NRSV, not the NAB, for Scriptural citations. That's pretty funny, although I'm wondering if the reason is that a "new" NAB translation has been in the works for ages, with word every six months that it's coming soon, really soon...so it was thought best not to saddle the CCC with Scripture quotes from a soon to be obsolete translation..
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/3166170
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Permission Requested:
» The Great Commission, © 1991, 1986, 1970 Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, Washington, D.C., usque ad consummationem saeculi from in illo tempore
Why the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops presents a target rich environment: a podcaster can't use the New American Bible translation of the Daily Readings.In other news, Experts say Catholics still don't read Bible regularly. [Read More]
Tracked on Sep 11, 2005 5:04:45 PM
» American Catholic Bishops: Stop Reading from the Bible from Agnosticism/Atheism
This is a very interesting case: a Catholic who created a podcast of the the daily scripture readings from the Catholic Lectionary has gotten a quick "cease and desist" letter for violating copyright. That's right, reading the Bible to others... [Read More]
Tracked on Sep 17, 2005 8:19:18 AM
Comments
So someone tries to build up God's people, and this is the thanks he gets.
Posted by: Jason at Sep 11, 2005 4:06:08 PM
So someone tries to build up God's people without greasing the right palms, and this is the thanks he gets.
Posted by: Mike L at Sep 11, 2005 4:13:07 PM
I'm not surprised.
The USCCB is releasing the new Compendium of the Catechism this year. The *paperback* version, supposedly only around 200 or so pages, is priced at something like $16.00.
That's absurd! The printing cost should easily be under $1.00. Seems to me if educating the people was the primary motive of the USCCB, they'd offer it for no more than a little above cost at the most.
It's no wonder people leave the Church.
Posted by: Tim at Sep 11, 2005 4:27:05 PM
Yes, ditto for the music in the missalettes--all copyrighted. It's why the words change all the time. Big, big, $$$$$$$, all permitted, heck, promoted by the USCCB.
I think trying to copyright the Bible is ridiculous, even if it is only one translation of it. Grasping bureaucrats.
I think we'd ought to all scratch up a different (AND BETTER) copy of the Bible and insist on singing copyright-free songs. Xerox machines RULE.
Posted by: michigancatholic at Sep 11, 2005 4:45:15 PM
BTW, you do know, I trust, that the problems the Vatican had with the NAB have not been resolved. There are other better translations out there, and they're free.
Posted by: michigancatholic at Sep 11, 2005 4:46:54 PM
Bad thought. Suppose the USCCB learned from the CCC that Catholic laypeople have brains enough to cut and paste paragraphs into documents and blogs. Maybe they don't want this on the net? This ought to be fun to watch. Hope they have a lot of lawyers with nothing to do....heh.
Posted by: michigancatholic at Sep 11, 2005 4:49:04 PM
Just as well. I cannot think of one dynamic orthodox Catholic author who prefers ar recommends the NAB. The RSV is far superior, which may be the reason why Ignatius Press felt compelled to reprint it.
Doe sthe USCCB ever support good, orthodox teaching ministries if the Vatican is not holding its feet to the fire?
Posted by: Joe at Sep 11, 2005 5:34:52 PM
Evangelization might spoil things for a lot a people on the payroll who have set up a cushioned ride and landing on the organizational death spiral.
Or as I was once taken aside and told, the real parish policy is against evangelization because more people might overburden the staff.
Posted by: Terrence Berres at Sep 11, 2005 5:51:52 PM
I had a website (and I may yet bring it back to life...) based on the Liturgical Calendar. I had a link to the NAB from the USCCB site. I was asked to have the link to the NAB open in a new window, not in a frame as I had it. I wrote them in advance to check what their policy was and got a quick reply: no frames, webmaster.
Posted by: tony c at Sep 11, 2005 5:53:16 PM
Pray that we can have an faithful, clear, elegant translation of Sacred Scripture in English that will be a blessing to us for many generations. Think of the impact the King James Bible has had. We can do this -- it would be an awesome legacy.
Posted by: Septimus at Sep 11, 2005 5:54:30 PM
It would be hard for someone hostile to the USCCB to make a characterization of it that is as damaging as many of its own actions.
One might almost suggest that it's intentional. But, we know better. It's a typical bureaucracy.
Posted by: B Knotts at Sep 11, 2005 6:56:29 PM
"On one level, there is a reasonable rationale for this."
Bull****! That one level is control and it is the basest of impulses to think that you can control access to Scripture.
The bishops would rather think themselves to be in control than they would think themselves to be servants of God's people.
Posted by: Jim at Sep 11, 2005 7:38:40 PM
Pray that we can have an faithful, clear, elegant translation of Sacred Scripture in English that will be a blessing to us for many generations.
It's called the Douay-Rheims. ;)
Posted by: dcs at Sep 11, 2005 7:40:54 PM
A podcast of the daily readings from the Jerusalem Bible, Knox Bible, RSV, or Challoner would be worth the download. The NAB is an embarassment. The USCCB has done the podcaster a big favor.
Posted by: Keith R at Sep 11, 2005 7:42:50 PM
Just one more reason to dislike the vernacular liturgy. Last time I looked St. Jerome was not charging for his version of Scripture.
Posted by: David Kubiak at Sep 11, 2005 7:49:23 PM
Our diocesian newspaper just published a by the DRE, PhD that quotes the DNC as saying "the single most critical factor in an effective parish catedhetical program is the leadership of a professionally trained, competent and qualified parish catechetical leader" (NDC p224). It does not seem to be critical that the the leadership be spiritual, just professionally trained. This sounds more and more like "leave the rescue work to the professionals who are paid to do that job." That would leave Christ, Peter, and Paul out since they never attended a Rabinical College.
The article also says that "The NDC is a must have everyone in catechesis or Catholic education -- pastors, teachers, principals, directors and coordinators of religious education, youth ministers, catechists, and all adults in the field." And you can get it in English for only $20.00. Spanish translation will be out soon.
Oh yes, we should also attend deanery and diocesan events on a regular basis so we can get to know each other.
Posted by: Mike L at Sep 11, 2005 7:51:21 PM
Actually, Paul and Christ were professionals. Hence the rabbi and doctor of the law bit.
And spiritualness is worthless if you don't know what you're doing.
Posted by: Paul Druce at Sep 11, 2005 8:12:53 PM
Nothing against the Douay-Rheims, but it does not strike me as either clear or elegant. And--call me whatever names you like, but--translating from the original languages seems like a good idea. (The Douay-Rheims was from Latin, as I recall.)
Posted by: Septimus at Sep 11, 2005 8:24:02 PM
Paul Druce
I have never heard of Christ getting a Ph D
from any professional group. I admit that Paul might have.
Since spiritualness is worthless, maybe we should hire all the FEMA workers who have been professionally trained?
Just pick up your $20 book and go save the Catholic Church. No wonder the Church is having its problems.
Posted by: Mike L at Sep 11, 2005 9:05:54 PM
I thought individual translations of Scripture were copyrighted in order to protect their integrity from unauthorized editing and redistribution. Although some unauthorized editing might do the NAB some good. The example always at the top of my mind is Deut 6:7, "Drill them into your children." An unfortunate/humorous image compared to the RSV's and KJV's "teach them diligently".
Posted by: Bill White at Sep 11, 2005 9:32:03 PM
The NAB really is an embarrassment. Today's Gospel reading in Matthew 18 says "seventy-seven times" rather than the familiar "seventy times seven times". Likewise the vast contrast of ten thousand talents to a measly hundred denarii is characterized in the NAB as a large amount vs. a lesser amount. It really amounts to robbing the people of the words of Christ.
Posted by: Robert Simmons at Sep 11, 2005 10:16:30 PM
I think the main reason so many Catholic books don't use the NAB is that it's generally regarded as one of the shoddiest translations of scripture on the market. Who would even want a copyright of it?
Posted by: Simon at Sep 11, 2005 10:29:00 PM
The Douay-Rheims is available online:
http://www.drbo.org/
I believe that it is public domain. Even with the archaisms the English is more attractive. The base functionality of the new translations borders on irreverence. I love the D-R but I honestly don't think that we are about to see a D-R revival any time soon. Most people would react to it just as they would to the Vulgate--confusion and fear followed by a belief that they're on Candid Camera.
Posted by: reluctant penitent at Sep 11, 2005 10:36:29 PM
Is it really true that the RSV and NRSV are not under copyright? That seems implausible.
Posted by: James Kabala at Sep 11, 2005 10:38:04 PM
An example (3 Kings 2)
1 And the days of David drew nigh that he should die, and he charged his son Solomon, saying: 2 I am going the way of all flesh: take thou courage, and shew thyself a man. 3 And keep the charge of the Lord thy God, to walk in his ways, and observe his ceremonies, and his precepts, and judgments, and testimonies, as it is written in the law of Moses: that thou mayest understand all thou dost, and whithersoever thou shalt turn thyself: 4 That the Lord may confirm his words, which he hath spoken of me, saying: If thy children shall take heed to their ways, and shall walk before me in truth, with all their heart, and with all their soul, there shall not be taken away from thee a man on the throne of Israel.
Posted by: reluctant penitent at Sep 11, 2005 10:40:40 PM
Dang... I hate to be cynical about the USCCB but this story and hearing the dopey '77 times' at Mass today, plus reading a newly published book detailing the ongoing 'disagreement' between the founding and early years of a certain Catholic network and the USCCB leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth.
The 'no frames' thing is almost comical. Talk about a waste of time.
Posted by: Colleen at Sep 11, 2005 10:40:59 PM
James,
The RSV copyright states that it is "Free for non-commercial, academic, and personal distribution."
The RSV-CE (Catholic Edition) "extensions" (e.g., the rest of the Bible) do not seem to be similarly available.
I use the Douay-Rheims for any redistributive-type use.
Posted by: B Knotts at Sep 11, 2005 11:10:56 PM
From the USCCB link for the program "Bookmark":
"Catholic Bookmarks gives Catholic sensibility of books and their authors."
Should the organization that approved that sentence be holding copywrite on Scripture?
"Host Frank Morock, interviews authors from various genres and provides the Catholic Book Publishers' Association weekly top ten bestsellers."
Whaddaya wanna bet Raymond Arroyo, whose bio of Mother Angelica was #30 for ALL nonfiction a few days ago, won't get an invitation?
Posted by: JAT at Sep 11, 2005 11:15:26 PM
JAT:
Frank is very, very fair-minded and open minded. The authors he's had on the show come from all directions and angles, including, recently, Fr. Fessio. So you might want to cool it on those speculations, at the very least in respect to me, a frequent guest on the show.
Posted by: amy at Sep 11, 2005 11:18:22 PM
amy,
Douay-Rheims and KJV, at least, are public domain, as far as I know.
Posted by: B Knotts at Sep 11, 2005 11:20:07 PM
On one level, there is a reasonable rationale for this. This is the "official" version of the Bible for the Church in the US, and it is in the bishops' best interest to have control over the use of this translation.
I don't see this. What reasonable rationale is there? Why is it in the bishops' best interest to thus control this translation? I hope the answer is not "profits", because I would respectfully disagree that this is truly in their "best" interests.
Posted by: Cornelius at Sep 11, 2005 11:21:15 PM
I found a page that has links to copyright status summaries for a bunch of translations here.
Posted by: B Knotts at Sep 11, 2005 11:25:58 PM
For the same reason that any event or institution in a diocese that would like to call itself Catholic must get the approval of the bishop to do so. One could say, for example, that requiring permission for every citation from the NAB prevents anti-Catholic polemicists from using the "Catholic" version of the Bible to attempt to score points against Catholicism, protects the sense of the translation that the bishops want to be in there, and so on. Note, for example, on the permissions page, how precise the requirements are about line division in the psalms, and so on.
It is the difference, I suppose, between a Catholic and Protestant view of things. One can quibble with the specifics, and fill up pages with the ironies in varied levels of concern with people/institutions that operate under the Catholic monikker, but I don't think it's particularly arguable that this isn't a traditional way for the Catholic hierarchy to deal with printed material.
Posted by: amy at Sep 11, 2005 11:29:18 PM
Amy,
I certainly meant no disrespect to you. Since you say Frank is fair, I'm looking forward to hearing of Raymond Arroyo's invitation to discuss "Mother Angelica" on USCCB radio. I just checked and it is #54 in books of all types and #3 in "Religion and Spirituality" at Amazon.
Posted by: JAT at Sep 11, 2005 11:44:46 PM
JAT:
And when will EWTN have...any number of good solid folks that have been banned from its airwaves on? The list of interviewees I see at the USCCB Bookmarks site is far more interesting and representative of what's going on in Catholicism (and, mind you, it includes Thomas Woods, Tim Drake, Joseph Pearce. Fr. Fessio, Steve Ray...) than EWTN's show of the same name, incidentally.
In contrast, EWTN's "Bookmark" with Doug Keck is like some deadly dull echo chamber featuring Christendom college profs and writers of pietistic pamphlets.
Posted by: Brian T. at Sep 11, 2005 11:54:32 PM
>Pray that we can have an faithful, clear, elegant translation of Sacred Scripture in English that will be a blessing to us for many generations.
What about Ronald Knox's?
(My copy is copyrighted 1944, 1948, and 1950 by Sheed & Ward.)
Posted by: Anne-Marie at Sep 12, 2005 12:38:16 AM
Brian T: You obviously don't watch the show. I've seen Joseph Pearce on it, as well as many distinguished professors, many from secular institutions, some of them nonCatholics (such as Claude Foster who was impressive) and perhaps the others you mentioned. Poetry, painting, biography as well as theology.
For example, the upcoming lineup:
Sept 18 Christopher West
Theology of the Body for Beginners
Sept 25 Walter Hooper
C.S. Lewis: a Biography
October
Oct 2 Tim Gray
The Luminous Mysteries
Oct 9 Rabbi David G. Dalin
The Myth of Hitler's Pope
As for Keck, he stays out of the way and lets the author talk.
Posted by: Chris at Sep 12, 2005 2:57:22 AM
Amy:
It may be true that this is the 'traditional' way for the Catholic hierarchy to deal with printed matter, but is it a good way? If I understand you correctly, you are saying in effect that free and open debate is something the bishops have good reason to want to stifle. But how can the bishops or anyone else expect to advance the cause of the faith if they seek to maintain control at all times over the printed sources of that faith? Such a policy must necessarily cause any reasonable person outside the Church to suspect the motives of those who insist on maintaining such control. Moreover, in virtually every other way, the Church today has abandoned its 'traditional' efforts to restrict access to ideas (e.g., the Index and so on); why should it continue in this one area alone? And even in this one area, there is surely little effort to guarantee that portions of the NAB appear only in hierarchy-approved, authentically orthdodox contexts. I've always assumed (but I'm willing to be corrected) that if you're not Jack Chick, and you're willing to send a check, you can get permission to use the NAB. This is 'tradition'?
Posted by: Frank at Sep 12, 2005 4:07:09 AM
Frank
You've misunderstood me grievously. I don't think it's a good thing, I'm just trying to put it in context, saying that this is not a terribly unusual position, given the traditional stance RC bishops take towards the use of the "Catholic" name and use of official Catholic materials.
It's silly and I've dealt with it firsthand, unlike you, Frank, but all I'm saying is that it's not any radical departure from what Catholics bishops have done since the invention of the printing press, to the extent that they could control things.
Posted by: amy at Sep 12, 2005 7:10:16 AM
Btw, folks, here is a handy guide to what is in the public domain and what may not be.
http://www.unc.edu/~unclng/public-d.htm
Posted by: Liam at Sep 12, 2005 7:54:17 AM
I think it is the case that the RSV is under copyright by the National Council of Churches, and they don't let anyone publish it any more, in order to force people to read the feminist-language NRSV. I figure that must be why Ignatius had to pick up the old British Catholic version of the RSV to publish the Ignatius Bible, which is the only version of the old RSV in print. It contains a bunch of changes designed for Catholics in the 1950s (unnecessary, in my view) and does not include the 1971 revision of the NT.
This past Sunday was an excellent illustration of why the NAB is abominable. The translation of Rom 14:7 is not even English. I reviewed the new NT translation before it was published at the NCCB offices (I was working as an assistant editor at Servant Books at the time) and I pointed out to one of the editors there that this particular verse was grossly ungrammatical. Obviously, they ignored me. In the absence of a publisher who can bring out a Catholic edition of the 1971 RSV, could someone please do a Catholic edition of NIV?
Posted by: Henry Dieterich at Sep 12, 2005 7:56:24 AM
Henry,
The National Council of Churches continues to license the RSV gladly, to a number of publishers. RSV Bibles are published by Ignatius, Oxford, Scepter and Stampley.
Also, interesting trivia note: Even the English edition of the CCC uses the RSV and NRSV for Scripture quotes, rather than the NAB.
Posted by: Rick at Sep 12, 2005 8:21:22 AM
Thanks, Rick, I'm glad to hear it. But they haven't come to a bookstore near me, except for the Ignatius edition. That is the one I use. I like the arrangement of the books and the excellent binding on the paperback edition, although I don't care for the old "Catholic adaptations" or the notes which are mostly either useless or silly, and I would prefer to have the 1971 NT. [I believe that all of these characteristics date from the original publication, and are not Ignatius's fault.] Before I got that I used the "Common Bible" edition, which had no notes and the latest (pre-NRSV) RSV text, but the pages were starting to fall out. I have never got an Oxford Annotated because I don't trust the annotators and I'm cheap. I know lots of people, Protestant and Catholic, who like the NIV. Even though I don't think the language has the grace or power of the RSV, I would welcome a Catholic edition.
Posted by: Henry Dieterich at Sep 12, 2005 8:35:09 AM
Last year Oxford University press released an anniversary copy of the RSV. It's flexbound, gilt-edged and is not annotated. I think I paid about $10 or so for it. Was well worth the price.
I have to admit I even prefer the NRSV over the NAB.
Posted by: Christine at Sep 12, 2005 9:34:45 AM
I'm the guy that produces the Verbum Domini Podcast. I'm using the Douay-Rheims this week, and have received an email from the copyright folks at the National Council of Churches that they would consider the Podcast fair use of either the RSV or NRSV. I'm still considering what to use, and not holding my breath for a response from the Permissions Office of the USCCB. Based on the discussion here, I may say "no thanks" even if they offer license at this point.
Posted by: Brian at Sep 12, 2005 9:40:52 AM
Hmmm. Perhaps another reason why Catholics, in general, are not big readers of "all things Catholic?"
Also, note this article from Catholic News Service on 9/8:
"Experts say Catholics still don't read Bible regularly"
VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- While it may be a best-seller, the Bible still is not regularly read, nor has it become an integral part of many Catholics' lives, said a panel of biblical experts. "Unfortunately, it must be said, there is still little Bible in the lives of the faithful," said Italian Bishop Vincenzo Paglia, president of the Catholic Bible Federation. Recent research conducted in Italy, Spain and France found that many Catholics consider the sacred Scriptures as something "reserved for the clergy" rather than as an accessible resource for them to draw upon for truth and inspiration in their own lives, he said. Bishop Paglia, together with a number of biblical experts, spoke at a Vatican press conference Sept. 8 to present an upcoming international congress commemorating the 40th anniversary of "Dei Verbum," the Second Vatican Council document on Scripture and divine revelation. The five-day conference Sept. 14-18 was to gather more than 400 biblical experts from all over the world. Its aims included pinpointing the current challenges and problems in making people aware of the importance of the Bible."
Further food for thought on whether we're people of the book or not.
Posted by: Brigid at Sep 12, 2005 9:48:36 AM
Thanks, Amy. I was using an extract from the NAB for my tagline (The tree is old but "still full of sap PS 92:14") instead of linking to the USCCB, I will link to the NASB. while I doubt that the USCCB number of hits will drop significantly, the USCCB will not have an "occasion of complaint" against me.
Posted by: Herb Ely at Sep 12, 2005 9:49:10 AM
The USCCB may not offer a podcast of the day's readings, but it does offer them at http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/index.htm.
Also, their permission policy for non-liturgical publications or computer programs permits the use of up to 4000 words. However, they do require the user to ask for permission. That doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
Posted by: John L. at Sep 12, 2005 9:50:26 AM
Since spiritualness is worthless, maybe we should hire all the FEMA workers who have been professionally trained?
As I said, spiritualness is worthless if you don't know what you're doing. I'm not saying that they shouldn't have spiritualness, simply that it is worthless in a catechist who doesn't know what they're doing and liable to do more harm than good.
Just pick up your $20 book and go save the Catholic Church. No wonder the Church is having its problems.
Already have a copy of it. Required book, I'm a catechetics major at Steubenville :P
Posted by: Paul Druce at Sep 12, 2005 9:55:57 AM
Although I know this would never happen but why can't Catholic's come up with it's own version of the NIV study bible? I still use mine most of the time, the notes are great, the graphs and maps are helpful and it's very user friendly. I got a NAB bilble when I joined the Church and wonder if they hired someone with an anti Catholic bias to write the footnotes! I use it only if I need to read Sirach for example. If only Zondervan would realize that there is a small fortune to be made by producing a great Catholic study bible.
Posted by: susan at Sep 12, 2005 9:57:46 AM
John L, I think what our podcaster is saying that he doesn't think the permission is forthcoming. Then what?
Posted by: meg at Sep 12, 2005 10:13:29 AM
I meant an anti-Bible bias. The notes are along the line of 'this is fable or myth'. Most of my Catholic relatives believe the Bible is a nice collection of stories and legends but doesn't have any relevence to their lives. But that is what they've been taught to believe over the years so no wonder Catholic's aren't avid Bible readers.
Posted by: susan at Sep 12, 2005 10:18:15 AM
The NAB itself is not a great translation, and I think it's unsuitable to be a "standard-bearer" translation.
I haven't read the Knox translation, I'd like to. Maybe it could be the standard-bearer, i.e., used in liturgy, but it isn't now. That was my point, I'd like to see a single, standard Catholic translation, used officially everywhere.
But even were the Church to decide to do this, understand what a huge project this would be. After the translation itself was finalized and adopted (oh, a snap!), comes the task of producing a new lectionary, a new Liturgy of the Hours, a revised Missal (God help us!), revised rites for all sacraments, probably a revised Catechism too.
Considering that, without this, the Liturgy of the Hours needs revision, if only to update the propers for the saints, and perhaps -- were the holy father to want to go in this direction -- to incorporate more Latin into the vernacular breviary (as a practical step back toward what Vatican II intended); and the rituals for several sacraments could use some further work, and of course, the Missal is trapped in some "wood between the worlds" somewhere.
Posted by: Septimus at Sep 12, 2005 10:36:38 AM
Speaking from my Protestant past and in fairness to the Catholic Church, one of the advantages Luther had at the Reformation was the advent of the printing press. The Catholic Church passed through many centuries before universal education became available and people were exposed to the stories of the Bible during the Mass readings and the stained glass, statuary and other art work that was found in the churches.
That cultural mindset was carried over with the immigrants who came to the U.S. but will slowly fade as today's Catholics, who are for the most part *not* illiterate, are witnessing the formation of Bible studies at their parishes and get away from the mindset that still sees the Bible as the clergy's privilege.
And lest it be forgotten, many of the mainstream Protestant churches still vigorously encourage their congregations to read with Bible, but with a decidedly ideological slant. The ECUSA is a prime example.
Posted by: Christine at Sep 12, 2005 10:36:56 AM
Oh, and all this is beside the question of also producing a good "study Bible." The CSB isn't bad, but you have to make an editorial judgment about how historical-critical to be. From a scholarly point of view, historical-critical has value, but (in my opinion) it only takes one so far.
Personally, my solution would be to have the notes written by someone taking a literary approach--i.e., reading the text as a unity -- and, therefore, reject the NAB (and NJB)'s practice of "reordering" the verses (!) (and, personally, I'd like to take out the chapter and verse headings altogether!).
But then, do include some concise historical-critical notes, along the lines of what the Catholic Study Bible, and New Jerusalem Bible, have, as well as the sort of dogmatic notes the Navarre Bible has. (The problem with the Navarre is that it has little but dogmatic notes; i.e., not much textual or literary analysis, noting how the text draws on other Scripture, tapping into Scriptural imagery.)
The result would be truly extensive notes; maybe a Bible easily twice the size of the current CSB, costing maybe $100 or so.
But pulling it off would be a gargantuan task.
Posted by: Septimus at Sep 12, 2005 10:48:50 AM
"Considering that, without this, the Liturgy of the Hours needs revision, if only to update the propers for the saints,..."
Forgive my digression, but I've recently acquired a copy of Benedictine Daily Prayer published by the Liturgical Press.
I don't think I'll be going back to the LOH. I'm finding that BDP has a much more reverent and beautiful style. Maybe it's the monastic influence. I never could stand the "Psalm Prayers" of the LOH. Even though they aren't technically a part of the LOH someone at ICEL decided to insert them, and they are choppy and trip off the tongue.
For what it's worth! :)
Posted by: Christine at Sep 12, 2005 10:52:01 AM
"Although I know this would never happen but why can't Catholic's come up with it's own version of the NIV study bible?"
Susan,
Scott Hahn et al are working on one, and have been publishing it book by book: The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible, published by Ignatius Press. The translation they use is RSV, by the way.
I love the NIV Study Bible, too.
Posted by: Karen LH at Sep 12, 2005 10:57:15 AM
Christine,
We always skip the Psalm prayers.
Posted by: Karen LH at Sep 12, 2005 10:59:31 AM
The Navarre Bible is also a study Bible, though it tends to be more devotional than exegetical. The English translation uses RSV also.
Funny how no one uses the NAB. Can't think why not...
Posted by: Karen LH at Sep 12, 2005 11:01:34 AM
I have to admit I do use the NAB from my daily missal. I usually read the readings of the Liturgical calendar on my lunch hour and the Catholic Book Publishing St. Joseph Missal is small and compact and easy to carry to work. But I've been exposed to the RSV so much most of my life that I can sort of "tune out" the places where the NAB gets sloppy.
Karen, yes, I never read the Psalm prayers in the LOH either.
Posted by: Christine at Sep 12, 2005 11:11:40 AM
One of the staff members at the Chapel I attend recommended the RSV.
Is there an audio Catholic Bible available? All manner of Protestant Translations are available as MP3's. I'd like to load the Catholic Bible on my iPod.
Posted by: Debbe at Sep 12, 2005 12:10:32 PM
And--call me whatever names you like, but--translating from the original languages seems like a good idea. (The Douay-Rheims was from Latin, as I recall.)
Yes, the Douay-Rheims was translated directly from the Vulgate.
Translating from the original languages does seem like a good idea, but that assumes that the texts we have in the original languages are relatively uncorrupted. There's no reason to assume that this is the case. On the other hand, the Vulgate is free from doctrinal or moral error. So it seems a safe choice to use it as a basis for any vernacular translation.
Posted by: dcs at Sep 12, 2005 12:53:05 PM
dcs - i think it makes more sense to go from the original languages; we have really excellent resources, although there are some places where we can't arrive at a definitive reading, that's true. It makes sense to me to use the Vulgate, as a corrective, rather than a primary source. It's been awhile since I read it, but didn't Pope Pius XII (of happy memory) say something along those lines?
Posted by: Septimus at Sep 12, 2005 1:18:26 PM
amy,
Another reason publishers might prefer the RSV for Scripture cites is for the sake of ecumenism and interdenominational scholarship.
The RSV is a revision of the King James Version. The Catholic edition of the RSV (the "RSV-CE") translates several dozen phrases differenty than the RSV, but apart from these variances the RSV is a text that both Catholics and Protestants can accept as authoritative.
The NAB, commissioned by the US Bishops, might be perceived by non Catholics as more partisan.
Also, to my knowledge the NAB is not the standard Lectionary text for the entire English-speaking world. Until 2002, Mass readings even in the US could be from the NAB, RSV-CE, or Jerusalem Bible.
Posted by: Rick at Sep 12, 2005 1:43:40 PM
1. I'm delighted to learn that the Psalm prayers are not mandated, because a) lots of them suck, and b) sometimes the ones for Sunday I are hopelessly bogus for the feast/solemnity that sent you to Sunday I for the Psalms.
2. Does this mean the closing prayers can be 'modified' as well?
Posted by: Ed the Roman at Sep 12, 2005 2:29:47 PM
"Does this mean the closing prayers can be 'modified' as well?"
Ed, considering that laypeople are encouraged --but not mandated -- to pray the daily office, I don't think it'll getcha excommunicated if you do!
Posted by: Christine at Sep 12, 2005 2:50:27 PM
the psalm prayers are not derived from the normative, Latin Liturgia Horarum, but the collects are. But as Christine says, the laity are free to pray the liturgy of the hours any way they like.
Posted by: Septimus at Sep 12, 2005 2:55:23 PM
In the 4 volume LOH each volume has a list of closing prayers that may be substituted on non-feast days at vespers.
I always pray the optional memorials when I can. But even the propers seem watered down from the old breviary.
Posted by: tony c at Sep 12, 2005 3:34:50 PM
"Douay-Rheims and KJV, at least, are public domain, as far as I know."
The KJV is still under Crown Copyright (since it was commissioned by the king). I'm not sure what status that UK copyright has in the US, however, and in any event I've never heard of the Queen's lawyers coming down on people the way the USCCB's lawyers apparently do.
"And--call me whatever names you like, but--translating from the original languages seems like a good idea."
Yeah, but ironically the Douay-Rheims version translated from the Vulgate is a lot more faithful to the original Greek and Hebrew than is the NAB, whose translators often thought they should explain rather than translate. Thus, for example, this past Sunday's gospel reading referred to "a huge amount" and "a much smaller amount" (Matt 18:24, 28), where the Douay-Rheims correctly says "ten thousand talents" and "an hundred pence." ("Pence" is the traditional English translation of "denarii," which is why, before introduction of decimal currency in the UK, "d" was the standard abbreviation for "pence.")
Posted by: Seamus at Sep 12, 2005 4:19:39 PM
"But as Christine says, the laity are free to pray the liturgy of the hours any way they like."
Strictly speaking, I believe this is true only when praying alone. When praying in a group, I believe that you have to use either Latin or the officially approved translation, or else you aren't praying the prayer of the Church (and don't, for example, earn whatever indulgences might attach to such prayer).
Posted by: Seamus at Sep 12, 2005 4:21:34 PM
Seamus,
Right you are about the Crown Copyright. In the US, the KJV is in the public domain, but not in the UK.
Interesting aside there about the pence/denarii thingy. Never knew that.
Posted by: B Knotts at Sep 12, 2005 4:28:56 PM
i think it makes more sense to go from the original languages
But what if the translator of the Vulgate had access to older, less corrupted MSS. in the original languages than those that exist today? What if the closest we can get to the original languages is the Vulgate?
Posted by: dcs at Sep 12, 2005 5:45:21 PM
Returning to the original story about suppression of the podcast: Remember how we used to scoff at Protestant accusations that the Church kept the Bible chained to the pulpit? If the USCCB doesn't grant permission for the podcast, I'd say those accusations could legitimately be updated and reissued.
Posted by: Seamus at Sep 12, 2005 6:35:30 PM
That is, of course, unless the denial of permission was because the USCCB realized what a lousy translation they were responsible for, and were trying to suppress the NAB in order to favor other, more accurate translations.
(Back when my wife was in college taking a class in New Testament Greek, she used to check her translations against the KJV, RSV, JB, NAB, and Douay-Rheims. She ended up concluding that the NAB of no use whatever, that it had at best a tangential relation to the original Greek, and that it was pretty much of a stretch to characterize it as a translation at all.)
Posted by: Seamus at Sep 12, 2005 6:41:36 PM
The British version of the Liturgy of the Hours is available from www.amazon.co.uk . It is published as "The Divine Office."
There are several differences between the British version and the American which make it worth considering:
1. The lectionary is based on the RSV, Knox, and Jerusalem Bibles.
2. The binding is of superior quality.
3. As in the US version, the psalms are from the grail psalter. Unlike the US version, the antiphons in the Britich version match the psalms - they echo the corresponding lines within the psalm, because they are taken from the same translation. The antiphons in the US version do not match.
4. The complete set of books consists of 3 volumes, rather than 4.
5. The poems at the end draw from Edward Spenser, John Donne, George Herbert, Thomas Campion, and T.S. Eliot, among others.
They are pricy, costing over 30 pounds each, but this is a set of books that should feed a lifetime of prayer. Strongly recommended for anyone using the books for private or family prayer.
Posted by: Keith R at Sep 12, 2005 8:48:19 PM
Over 25 years ago, I did a seminar paper in graduate school on the historical context of the Rheims New Testament. It is true that at the time, many readings in the Vulgate were better representations of the probable original text than were those of the received Greek text. Translators from the Greek, beginning with Erasmus, had rejected what earlier readings they had because they were so different from the received text. Textual scholars still use the Vulgate as a witness to early texts, although it is not perfect. The discussion at Trent on the subject of an authoritative text was actually quite extensive. There was wide disagreement on the topic of vernacular translation; bishops from some countries favored untrammelled translation, while others wanted to forbid it entirely. In the end, they agreed that it could be permitted if authorized by ecclesiastical authority. The Rheims NT was the first vernacular translation published under the rules of Trent. Discussions of the authoritative role of the Vulgate reminded me of nothing so much as the approach of Evangelical Protestants to the King James Version. I will post the paper online one of these days. (I have to scan it, which is a pain in the neck.)
Posted by: Henry Dieterich at Sep 13, 2005 7:44:11 AM
"Strictly speaking, I believe this is true only when praying alone. When praying in a group, I believe that you have to use either Latin or the officially approved translation"
That's true, but as far as the Psalm Prayers go, I believe they are optional. They were composed by the ICEL and are not a part of the Latin original. I've heard that should there be a re-write of the LOH they will be eliminated in future versions.
All the better.
Posted by: Christine at Sep 13, 2005 9:04:21 AM
The poems at the end draw from Edward Spenser, John Donne, George Herbert, Thomas Campion, and T.S. Eliot, among others.
Any Catholics in that list?
Posted by: dcs at Sep 13, 2005 9:50:58 AM
Any use of any segment of the translation, no matter how brief, must be approved.
Of course fair use would still apply. For example, if one were to publish a monograph showing that the NAB is a shoddy translation, and quoting directly from the text in order to do so, no permission need be sought or received.
Posted by: dcs at Sep 13, 2005 10:00:26 AM
Here's the text of an email I sent to the Permissions Office of the USCCB/CCD this afternoon. Much of the discussion on this Weblog was in my mind and heart as I considered the matter. Thanks to all for your part in helping me discern what to do.
Folks:
I've spent much time in prayer over the past few days and had something of an epiphany this morning. To be brief, I no longer wish
to use the NAB text for the Podcast in any event. I felt it best to let you know immediately, so that you won't spend any more of your time and resources in consideration of the matter.
I'll make sure that listeners know that this was my choice.
I trust that this resolves the issue to your satisfaction, and again apologize for any infringement that might have occurred.
Although I suspect that this offer won't be of interest to you, I would still be very happy for you to link to my Website or to the Podcast as a resource for others. For the time-being at least, I'll be using the Douay-Rheims.
http://verbumdomini.com
http://feeds.feedburner.com/VerbumDomini
Thank you once again for all of your efforts, and please let me know if I can ever be of assistance to you in any way.
Brian Noe
Posted by: Brian at Sep 13, 2005 1:38:39 PM
Just my two bits worth:
Up here in Canada, the national Bishops Conference opted to go with the NRSV (with the Deuterocanonical books) as its preferred choice for Masses conducted in English, although because of the NRSV's "feminist" slant they had quite an epic battle with the Vatican before they finally got approval to use it.
Very interesting note to this is that on the copyright page of the Sunday missals we use up here is, in bold print, "Not for use with masses in the United States of America."
Even though it was printed in the US of A; and even though, as Brian Noe mentioned above, podding the RSV or NRSV would be considered "fair use."
What's with that?
For what it's worth, I didn't even realize someone was doing this at all until I saw it mentioned in another blog. Now I've subscribed to it. So I'd just say thanks to the guy for his service, no matter what translation he's using.
It's a great way to start my day.
Posted by: BlastFurnace at Sep 14, 2005 9:08:52 AM
So what ever happened to the CCD translation? That's the one I grew up with. I think it was supposed to be a revision of the Douay-Rheims. It did not sound awkward like the current NAB. Though less antique than the DR it still had a nice noncontemporary flow to it. More like the RSV. I guess it must have gone into publishing limbo when the NAB came out.
Posted by: Mary Hodge at Sep 16, 2005 5:11:21 PM
It is a pity that the USCCB has chosen to thwart the efforts of Mr. Noe in giving the lectionary readings to the faithful. Perhaps the only good thing about their refusal of permission is that Mr. Noe as a result is using a competent translation of the Bible instead of the NAB.
While our bishops are the successors of the Apostles, and therefore deserve our respect and attention as such, this action of the USCCB does not appear to deserve anything but shame and ridicule. Our Lord has given us about prophets: By the fruits of their actions you shall know them. By that standard, it would seem that these people worship, not the God in the manger, but Aesop's dog in the manger.
St. John Chrysostom once said, "The road to Hell is paved with the skulls of erring priests, and it is lit by the skulls of erring bishops." I believe that we should therefore pray for the USCCB, lest they become lights that guide that road.
Posted by: Bernard Brandt at Sep 18, 2005 7:28:43 AM
Note - the WEB (http://www.ebible.org) translation is a copyright free revision of the ASV (the American Standard Version; a revision of the KJV). This is freely usable, etc. The project has started to include (but hasn't finished) the deuterocanonical books (aka the apocrypha), using the KJV version [oddly, many people don't realize the KJV included these books].
I've got a website setup at http://VerbumDomini.MrKlingon.org which lets you call up the WEB/Douay/Vulgate texts. (Extra feature: Whitakers Words is linked to the Vulgate texts for latin-y goodness) Using a nifty GreaseMonkey Script by my friend Bob Rogers, you can look up daily lectionary readings from Father Kevin Michael Laughery on my site. This is still in process because 1) I don't have any of the WEB Apocrypha and 2) I need to do some work to get all the book titles in synch (Isaiah or Isaias?, etc.) Stay tuned.
Joel (aka MrKlingon)
Posted by: Joel at Sep 18, 2005 10:08:15 PM
"So what ever happened to the CCD translation? I think it was supposed to be a revision of the Douay-Rheims. It did not sound awkward like the current NAB. I guess it must have gone into publishing limbo when the NAB came out."
The Confraternity of Christian Doctrine (CCD) Old Testament translation is the foundation of the 1970 NAB OT. The entire 1970 NAB is essentially the CCD version with a different NT (recall that the CCD NT was based on the Vulgate and its OT on the original languages). Do some comparison. The vast majority of the OT verses are identical. The copyright holder is one and the same for both the CCD and NAB.
Posted by: Paralipomenon at Dec 26, 2005 10:53:59 AM
