This is a process that is commonly, but inaccurately, referred to as having ‘a new lectionary.'

In this debate, there will be shouts from many sides in this form: ‘I am for Jerusalem Bible!" I am for English Standard Version!" "I am for formal equivalence!" or "I am for inclusive language!"

It is all reminiscent of Corinth in the mid-first century CE and disputes about the baptism of Paul and that of Apollos.

But is there a more basic question to answer?

The debate about ‘which version' - for all its validity - distracts everyone (bishops included) from recognising many other real problems that reading the scriptures in a lectionary poses.

With all the focus on ‘which translation,' we are missing the bigger issue.

Do we need more than one translation?

Picking a version

First, the very idea that it is a matter of ‘deciding on a version' is itself a decision that is not intrinsically either liturgical or biblical: it is simply a reflex from the world of printing during the Renaissance when both Catholics and Protestants printed out lections in full.

The essence of a lectionary is not a large book of snippets, but a list of biblical texts arranged according to a plan.

Bible translations can come and go, but a lectionary can be used with any of them.

The lectionary is both the list and its rationale; it is only by derivation a book of printed readings.

This might seem obvious, but it is noticeable in debates about picking translations that many who have strong feelings about versions have little appreciation of the lectionary's architecture.

Starting point

So what should be our starting point?

A lectionary is a means of bringing ancient texts that have been valued in liturgical gatherings before us in such a manner that they are an element in our liturgy.

This ordering is based on our liturgical needs today: hence the plan of any lectionary is built upon the structures of the liturgy - most especially the liturgical year and the other needs being celebrated (e.g. a wedding), not upon any supposed ‘plan of the bible.'

As such, the lectionary's use of biblical texts is a ‘normative canon' rather than, what is found on a bible's contents' page, a ‘prescriptive canon.'

Again, this seems so obvious as not to require being stated, but its immediate corollary is often not noticed: a lectionary is not a ‘guided reading of the bible' nor is it a ‘bible study plan' nor is it a catechetical programme.

Though a lectionary can supply these within a community's life that is, a lectionary is actually about having recollections (Justin Martyr's apomnemoneumata) for celebrations, answering our liturgical needs, rather than focussing on the texts as texts or as part of a larger anthology: ‘The Bible'.

This liturgical use has meant that in every situation in Christian liturgy there has been a need to engage in translation into Greek, Syriac, Latin, and any number of ancient and modern languages.

Again, this might appear obvious, but note its corollary: one can imagine a liturgical text composed in Latin (e.g. the Missale Romanum) which is then celebrated in either Latin or translation, likewise a liturgy may be composed in English and then celebrated in that language (e.g. Common Worship), but one cannot use a lectionary without translation being involved.

So the matter of a version is not accidental to our use of the scriptures in worship, but must be looked upon as a basic issue for resolution before and when we celebrate.

But is this really a difficulty? After all, we need bibles in Christian life more generally, and lectionaries for centuries have just used, for the most part, whatever is the most common version in that church's culture.

Can we not just up-date the version used?

If that is the case, then the only issue seems to be between a ‘formal equivalence' and a ‘dynamic equivalence' translation strategy.

In Catholic circles, there is a marked tendency among conservatives to view the Latin liturgy as verbally inerrant (e.g. the transcriptional errors embedded in Eucharistic Prayer 1 were translated verbatim) and to imagine the sanctioned Latin version of the Scriptures as having a quasi-inerrant status.

Equally, since the churches have long used formal equivalence versions, many who prefer older forms for aesthetic reasons tend to defend such translations on the assumption that religion should preserve, as part of its inner rationale, the archaic so that their ‘today' will be like the golden past of their imagination.

By contrast, the defenders of dynamic equivalence appeal to such notions as the existential needs of the community, the need for comprehension, while being conscious of the cultural-specificity of texts both in terms of their origins and contemporary uses. Aesthetically, this group see the archaic not as a golden age but as reeking of stale air and cobwebs and declare their affection for the bright lights not only of today but tomorrow.

A moment's reflection should reveal that this choice - whatever might be claimed in a document such as Liturgiam authenticam - is illusory.

Any text, biblical or otherwise, that is going to be valued (as distinct from casually reading a novel translated from another language) must be translated in both ways.

If one uses any formal equivalence translation then one must - at least silently to oneself - further translate it into one's own language and diction: and even those fluent in reading the originals find themselves doing this as they seek to understand the text.

Indeed, it is this very fact of each user making a dynamic equivalence translation of her/his own, however inaccurate, that is the more serious justification for the other strategy.

It is only by apparently departing from the original forms that one does not end up with an endless sequence of private / idiosyncratic translations.

Likewise, anyone valuing a text which has been read in a dynamic translation finds themselves producing a formal translation of words and phrases when once they need to comment on the detail on the meaning.

No individual or group who values a text produced in another cultural setting can ever be satisfied with just one translation or approach to translation: they will need both approaches and yet others besides.

As to the aesthetic reasons given for particular translation styles, we shall have to return to this.

Translating the scriptures for liturgy

If no single translation should ever prove sufficient in the matter of ‘choosing a bible,' are there any specific issues that need to be addressed when we come to consider the use of the scriptures in the liturgy?

Three issues must be uppermost.

First, and foremost, the texts must be capable of oral reproduction in an aural environment.

While this should be obvious there is a problem in many communities where the public reading is almost ignored through the presence of individual texts and the assumption that this reading is, in reality, just announcing the text on which the preaching will be based.

However, listening together and reflecting together is one of the basic liturgical activities: share memories are recalled, shared beliefs are reaffirmed, and the common listening to a common treasury of texts becomes a statement of identity.

We appreciate shared listening when we engage with common stories.

It is all too easy to slip out of this liturgical vision of sharing memories into a ‘biblical studies mode' and imagine that ‘bible reading' at the liturgy is an end in itself to which are tagged on other activities.

But if we are sharing memories in common listening, then the form of the translation must be one that has been developed both for oral presentation (this demands that it reflect the structures of speech rather than writing for reading) and one that is intended to be absorbed aurally (this demands that it be possible to follow an often complex text - as in listening to Paul - or a detailed story without the assistance of a printed text before one).

By contrast, despite decades of research on the environment of ancient orality that, on the whole, ancient writings were written to be heard or - as in the case of the gospels - as a support to memory, most translations are produced with reading in mind.

Moreover, that reading is done alone, almost certainly in silence, and very probably at a desk.

While, again, scripture scholars often note that ancient writers did not work at a desk, nor in a library, there is a constant tug on any biblical translator be that an individual or a committee to produce a text that has the classroom in mind.

This means that whichever bible one takes up and no matter which translation ‘philosophy' has been employed, the result is a book for reading.

This is as it should be, but the setting of the liturgy is not that the study.

The second demand relates to the fact that these texts are heard in a variety of celebrations.

The same biblical passage can be read in many different pastoral settings.

And, the community may be homogenous one, or highly diverse. It may include children and adults, some deeply committed to liturgy, the occasional celebrants, and those who are virtually un-churched.

The notion that one version fits all is illusory.

This need to produce specific versions for specific contexts has long been recognised in one case: lectionaries for use in celebrations with children. However, we need not only a child-friendly lectionary but to extend that principle across the range of celebrations.

Thirdly, while modern lectionaries can justly pride themselves on their architecture by which they bring well thought out selections into use over a three-year cycle, it is also the case that lections are heard as gobbets: the community that hears this lection today, may not remember what they heard last week, while very often the regularity of being present will not match the regularity of the lectionary plan.

As such, each lection, or the lections of a particular celebration, has to stand on its own, being both comprehensible and, potentially, of value to that specific assembly.

This means not only do we need different versions for different situations but the style in which a miracle story is narrated needs to be different from that of collection of sayings, that of part of a letter has to be different from a piece of oracular speech, a piece of poetry has to be different in tone and style from a piece of historical narrative.

So even if one is regularly celebrating with a fairly homogeneous group one might need to translate one passage formally, another dynamically, and another in some other way appropriate to that piece of text.

Alas, most Bible translations adopt a fairly uniform style across the whole anthology or, as in the case of some dynamic equivalent versions, over whole books or categories of books.

But at the liturgy, we do not read a whole book, but just a snippet - and it is the style of that snippet that counts.

Two other considerations need to be recalled.

The liturgy takes place Coram Deo (in the presence of God) and as such must express the welcome and inclusion that is part of the kerugma of the Christ event.

Anything that alienates someone such that they experience a sense of exclusion from the liturgy has no place there or we are arrogating to ourselves a right of judgement that belongs to God alone. It is this basic principle of Christ—ian liturgy that must govern the use of inclusive language.

This is not simply a matter of adding ‘and sisters' when the Greek text has but adelphoi - as the NRSV has done - but of making sure that there are no texts used which are so rooted in a patriarchal culture that many women today sense exclusion.

The rationale that one must bear witness to ‘the original' is not a countervailing argument here for while the text originated in a culture and should be studied in the context of that culture (this is a matter of historical interpretation), theologically we believe that God is as available to every moment as he is to a particular moment in the past: we, therefore, do not canonise any moment in creation's history as the ‘golden age'.

The liturgy is in the divine presence now, and nothing read in this now must serve to subvert the divine will that all should be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth.

The question of inclusive language is not merely a matter of gender-inclusive language, but of removing any language which would exclude anyone. So homophobic language, racist language, or language that pillories the handicapped, or sanctions any form of enslavement (as more of our texts do than we often to admit) simply has no place if the liturgy is a celebration of the kerugma today.

The second issue is that the Liturgy of the Word is not simply a matter of speech, but includes song - again from the liturgy's inherent nature that it mingles with the liturgy in the heavenly court. Therefore, any text that is going to be set to music may have to be specially translated with the needs of its musical use as a key criterion. Again, this should be obvious; alas, recent experience of taking poorly translated texts and slavishly seeking to put them to music should be a warning to us.

How many versions do we need

While this will be read as a 'counsel of perfection' we need translations that are sensitive to:

• actual liturgical use
• the celebration
• the make-up of celebrating assembly,
• the nature of the text being read as a snippet,
• the dangers excluding member of God's People,
• being used in singing.

In effect we need to think of all translations as a quarry - it sounds better as a ‘thesaurus' - from which might help us in the production of particular lections for actual occasions.

However, in practice, it means that we should be aiming at producing three specific printed lectionaries that can be in regular use.

First, we need lections that are suitable to be used in small situations where a highly formal translation does not facilitate reflection.

Listening in a small, perhaps informal arranged, group is very different from listening in a large gathering where liturgy may be serving other functions for the group quite apart from its own intrinsic nature as an assembly of the baptised praising God.

Second, we need specific lectionaries not only from children's liturgy, but those ‘rites of passage' where we may have in our gathering many for whom hearing the scriptures is an alien event.

And, thirdly, we need a more rhetorically aware translation that is suitable for larger and more formal worship.

In short, just as any public speaker knows that one must adapt one's style to the setting, so the idea of a single translation is one taken without attention to the situations in which it will be heard.

We have forgotten our liturgical basics, we have missed an opportunity.

• Thomas O'Loughlin is a priest of the Catholic Diocese of Arundel and Brighton, emeritus professor of historical theology at the University of Nottingham (UK) and director of the Centre of Applied Theology, UK. His latest award-winning book is Eating Together, Becoming One: Taking Up Pope Francis's Call to Theologians (Liturgical Press, 2019).

The Tablet reports the bishops' conferences are considering using the Revised New Jerusalem Bible (RNJB) published last year in the new lectionary.

The RNJB Foreword says: "attention has been given to rendering the language and imagery of the original languages accurately rather than by dynamic equivalence."

Inclusive language

According to The Tablet, however, the bishops' decision - made without meaningful consultation with scholars, clergy or faithful - to choose a literal translation that lacks inclusive language has sparked fury.

Overnight, Professor Thomas O'Loughlin told CathNews that inclusive language is a must.

"Anything that alienates someone such that they experience a sense of exclusion from the liturgy has no place there or we are arrogating to ourselves a right of judgement that belongs to God alone".

"This is not simply a matter of adding ‘and sisters' when the Greek text has but adelphoi - as the NRSV has done - but of making sure that there are no texts used which are so rooted in a patriarchal culture that many women today sense exclusion", he wrote.

Multiple translations

O'Loughlin takes further the selection of a suitable translation, asking if just one translation is necessary or indeed optimal.

When considering a lectionary O'Loughlin says focussing on a literal translation is a distraction.

He says the purpose behind a lectionary is for proclamation and suggests that fundamental to any choice of text is how comprehensible it is when read aloud.

He also suggests we need different translations for different settings, for example for use with children's liturgies.

O'Loughlin is Professor Emeritus of Historical Theology
The University of Nottingham and currently serves as a director of both Studia Traditionis Theologiae and Brepols Library of Christian Sources.

His full piece will feature in Friday's edition of CathNews.

Controversy contines

The Tablet says the lectionary project's history, began in 2006, when Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor intimated that it was time to begin the process of producing a new one.

The New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) was the first alternative considered but finally in 2016 the bishops of England and Wales decided the new lectionary would use the more literal translation of the English Standard Version Catholic Edition (ESV-CE).

Much controversy followed.

The Tablet says one issue that has incensed the bishops' critics is that the ESV "seen as Calvinist in its translation philosophy" was produced in the US by conservative evangelical scholars.

Another issue critics are concerned about is that the ESV - ‘essentially literal' translation "seeks as far as possible to capture the precise wording of the original text and the personal style of each biblical writer."

The Revised Standard Version (RSV) and its replacement, the NRSV, also aim for word-for-word accuracy, though the NRSV is a little looser than the ESV.

The Jerusalem Bible, on the other hand, favours "functional equivalence": in other words, it is a translation that seeks to express the meaning of the ancient texts in modern terminology.

What makes a "functional translation" unfit for use in the liturgy is that it nullifies the theologies inherent in the ancient texts, the Tablet says.

It explains that functional or dynamic translation is "theo­logically lazy and catechetically irresponsible."

It demands nothing of pastors and parishioners by way of grappling with God's holy words, says The Tablet.

It destroys the biblical injunction of all the prophets to visit the past to understand the pain of the present and thereby to be empowered to create a new future.

The Tablet also points out that 21st century English has a far bigger vocabulary than was available in the standard dictionary of ancient Hebrew.

Where ancient Hebrew contains around 8,000 words, present day English has a far greater word choice available.

Finally, much has been made of the ­decision of the ESV translators not to use ­gender-neutral language.

Most modern translations use the inclusive "brothers and sisters"; the ESV - true to its "word-for-word" principle - translates it directly as "brothers", but in a footnote explains: "Or brothers and sisters.

In New Testament usage, depending on the context, the plural Greek word adelphoi (translated "brothers") may refer either to brothers or to brothers and ­sisters."

We will always have arguments about translations and meanings, The Tablet concludes.

Source

• The Tablet
• Image: Rorate Caeli

The bishops noted that they had carefully considered the matter, noted the learned opinion supporting their decision, and then made their choice.

In a sense this is not a news story at all: this is the version that has been the favourite for many years for the proposed 'new' lectionary.

Many other bishops' conferences have seen it as being an ideal replacement for the Jerusalem Bible (dating from the 1960s) and The Grail translation of the Psalms (of similar vintage) that have been in widespread use since the renewed lectionary made its appearance in 1970 and which has been virtually the only translation in use since the three-volume edition of 1981.

So why a new translation now?

While neither biblical scholarship nor language remain the same - and much has changed since the 1960s - this is not the primary reason mentioned either by the Scottish Catholic bishops, nor the others who are pushing for the adoption of the new lectionary.

The reasons for their choice, according to Bishop Hugh Gilbert, are that they 'expect a Lectionary to embody, for example, accuracy, dignity, facility of proclamation, and accessibility.' These are laudable but surely no more than one would expect.

Moreover, it does not explain why, since the actual lections will remain the same, there is a clamour among episcopal conferences for a different translation.

This decision, when taken by other episcopal conferences, has drawn criticism.

Critics point out that the ESV-CE uses non-inclusive language (which will undoubtedly create problems of reception at parish level) and that it is a formal equivalence translation (it might sound 'biblical' but lacks ease of comprehension).

Its upholders point out, however, that it is in keeping with the principles of Liturgiam authenticam issued by Pope Benedict XVI; and it is clear that its most enthusiastic supporters are those who share the 'restorationist' vision of a very fixed and formal liturgy that characterised the thinking of the retired pope.

So, this change of translation owes more to Vatican liturgical politics under Benedict XVI than to felt pastoral need or any deep awareness of better underlying Hebrew / Greek editions (of which there are several but which are not reflected in ESV-CE).

A more fundamental assumption

What does not get any attention is the fundamental assumption that is at work now, as it was in 1981 (and to a lesser extent in 1970 when the lectionary was printed in both Jerusalem Bible and Revised Standard Version editions): that there should be a single translation used throughout the lectionary.

So embedded is this assumption that most people concerned with the lectionary look aghast when this is questioned and genuinely ask: but what is the alternative?

There is an alternative - one already adopted in the 1973 English-language edition of the Liturgy of the Hours - which is to use a range of translations depending on what portion of scripture is being translated and how it is being used.

Indeed, the very fact that in the current lectionary there is a distinct translation of the Psalter (and there is going to be a distinct version of the psalms in the proposed lectionary), shows that the 'one size fits all' approach to translations is faulty.

Why should there be a range of translations and translation dynamics in a lectionary? One can pick out four key reasons:

One size does not fit all

First, while many people think of the bible as if it were a highly consistent book - much like a modern single-authored volume - this is very wide of the mark.

At the simplest level, the bible is an anthology - many authors, several languages, texts from over a long span of time (just think of the difference between Shakespeare's English and our own), and a wide variety of cultures.

Consequently, it is better to think of our collections of books for reading in the liturgy as a hotchpotch - this way we do not build up false ideas that 'the bible' is some sort of instruction manual.

If it is a hotchpotch, the way we translate should reflect this. Poetry (e.g. the Song of Songs) should have a different style of translation from the narrative (e.g. 1 Samuel). Law (e.g. Deuteronomy) should be rendered in a different way from wisdom literature (e.g. Sirach).

Even when we are translating a single biblical book, we should use different dynamics.

For example, Luke's gospel should have a storytelling style for parables, another for the Passion narrative, and another for the sayings of Jesus.

Different kinds of discourse react differently in translations.

Years ago, many school children learned this when they had to translate Caesar's De bello Gallico and bits of Ovid: what worked for one, did not work for the other.

Alas, those who think of one size fits all in translations have forgotten this.

A matter of style

Second, what is needed is not a stand-alone translation for study purposes but one for use in lections - short pieces - in a liturgy with real people.

Therefore, a passage that will be used with a large assembly on a Sunday may have to have a simpler style than one for use on weekdays where there may be more opportunity to explain what is being heard.

The same gospel passage may be used for a baptism, on a Sunday, or in a votive Mass: its emphasis may need to shift for these situations.

Moreover, in its use on a Sunday it, and its related first reading from the Old Testament, may need to be co-ordinated to one another - because the link between them may be based in the ancient Jewish translation of the scriptures in Greek (known as the Septuagint) and which was the de facto version of those followers of Jesus among which the writings (which we now call 'the new testament') made their appearance.

So, sometimes, a completely fresh translation - from the Septuagint - may be needed for a specific liturgical situation.

This is a far more demanding job than opting for an off-the-peg translation or thinking it is simply a matter of language style.

Obscuring the task

Third, again because the lectionary is a book for the liturgy, we have to think of the variety of liturgical situations.

Sometimes a eucharist may take place with a large body of participants, sometimes it will be a small gathering around the Lord's Table.

A translation that works well with a great concourse - and which then will need to be used with a public address system - may sound ponderous within an intimate group where the readings are proclaimed in what is the normal voice of people in an average-sized room.

Likewise, it is one thing for a gospel to be sung on a great feast, another to be read for quiet rumination as a gathering seeks to absorb with a reflective calm the food offered at the Table of the Word.

Each situation requires a specific kind of translation and so we should have a range of versions offered with advice on which to use in each setting.

This is a demanding task - but that is what the proclamation of the Word calls forth from us - and offering just one 'this will fit' translation not only does not help, but it obscures the task and the challenge.

Moreover, we now have the technology - not around in 1981 - to do this economically and easily.

A single audience?

Fourth, everyone knows that the greatest challenge in any act of communication is that you may have a single audience, but they are the very opposite of 'one sack, one sample': people come in all shapes and sizes!

If one is teaching a class, one can try to get people of the same age and roughly the same ability - yet some will understand what they hear far more than others (hence exams!) - so one must often go at the speed of the slowest.

Now compare the assembly on a Sunday in the average parish: some will be members of the scripture study group, while others would be shocked to hear that the four gospels do not all agree with one another.

Some will be children, while other will be worried about what to cook for lunch, and others will be thinking about getting onto the golf course, others will listen with that intensity that only comes through a lifetime of faith and worship - it is a very mixed group indeed.

In some places, everyone will have English as their first-language, while elsewhere English will be, at best, the common working language, a lingua franca.

A translation for such a mixed group has to fear more turning off those who do not understand it more than it fears the person who objects that it sounds 'dumbed down' (they can go home and look up the text!).

There have been in the past special translations of the lectionary for children's celebrations and for school celebrations - but they are often only accessible to a small group of specialists.

Moreover, when a catechist suggests the use of one of these to a presbyter, it is not unknown that he simply rejects the suggestion on the basis that 'he has the official book.'

So, these specialist translations need to have the dignity of being 'official.'

In a similar vein, I have seen a bible translation specially designed for those for whom English is a second language, and have even heard of a biblical scholar who intends to translate the New Testament in to 'airline English' - the very simple, but precise form of English that is used in aviation.

Let's not forget, any sentence with many subclauses may make a great text to read in the quiet of the study, but when heard in a gathering can become little more than a specimen of that infamous language: Double Dutch.

But we need an accurate translation!

Many will say but do we not need an accurate translation that reflects as closely as possible the Hebrew and the Greek?

Yes - every student of the scriptures needs an up-to-date formal equivalent translation such as the Revised Standard Version or the New Revised Standard Version.

Even if you have command of the original languages, you still need this on your desk. But this is a need of the study, when you enter the chapel - or even more a large parish church - you are engaging in worship, not study. And worship has very special needs, and no one translation can fulfil them.

In the strange run towards a new, single translation - inspired by a document that few now respect - the bishops' conference of the English-speaking world are missing a great opportunity!

• Thomas O'Loughlin is a priest of the Catholic Diocese of Arundel and Brighton and emeritus professor of historical theology at the University of Nottingham (UK).
• His latest book is Eating Together, Becoming One Taking Up Pope Francis's Call to Theologians (Liturgical Press, 2019).
• First published in La Croix International, republished with permission of the author.