History, Current Status, and Expected Timeline
On July 25th, the Irish Catholic Bishops’ Conference published a press release with updates on the production of a new lectionary based on the Revised New Jerusalem Bible (RNJB). Many thanks to the readers who alerted me to this news.
The press release offers a quick overview of the project, the status of the editorial work, and the expected timeframe for completion.
By way of background, representatives from the bishops’ conferences of Ireland, Australia, and New Zealand met in Adelaide, Australia in 2023 and decided to move forward with a collaborative effort to produce a new lectionary based on the RNJB. This followed an initial consultation, in which the Irish bishops requested feedback and comments on whether to use the RNJB for the lectionary. The bishops received more than 220 responses (from both organizations and individuals). A large majority of responses felt that the RNJB struck a good balance in its use of inclusive language, and more broadly, the responses generally favored adopting the RNJB for a new lectionary. The response of the Irish Biblical Association (an association of biblical scholars) is publicly available here.
In October of 2024, Martin Foster was named Director (and general editor) for the Joint Lectionary Project. Mr. Foster had previously served as the Director for the Liturgy Office of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales (CBCEW) for 30 years (from 1994 to 2024) and oversaw the preparation of the ESV-CE lectionary for England and Wales according to this press release.
As of last week, the set of RNJB lectionary readings for Sundays and solemnities was complete, and the joint commission with representatives from the three bishops’ conferences met to review the text. Over the coming year, the commission will be working on the readings for weekday Masses and celebrations of saints (2 printed volumes total). If all goes well, these volumes are due to be completed by May 2026. The final volume of readings for the celebrations of the Sacraments and funerals is due to be completed by the end of 2026.
How is a Lectionary Compiled?
This news led me to wonder about the mechanics of producing a lectionary. Why does it take so long, and how many changes are made to the biblical translation for the lectionary? The most recent press release provides some useful information on how the process works, and I also benefitted from additional correspondence with a person who is knowledgeable about the current process. Here’s a basic walkthrough of the steps:
- The general editor selects the text for each lectionary reading from the RNJB based on the Latin directory of readings. This involves some editorial judgment about where to begin and end the reading in a way that makes sense. The Latin directory does not include the full text of the readings but only the chapters and verses.
- In order for the excerpted readings to flow correctly, the RNJB text occasionally needs to be adjusted. Any changes to the biblical text need to be authorized by the copyright holder.
- Introductory words for some readings (like “Brothers and sisters” at the beginning of most readings from the Pauline letters) need to be appended to the readings. These introductory words are called “incipits”, from the Latin word meaning “it begins.”
- Finally, the editor breaks the reading into lines to aid in proclamation.
The general editor produces a first draft of the lectionary texts. Drafts are circulated to all the bishops in the three countries every two weeks, and bishops submit comments to an editorial board. The editorial board, which contains representatives from all three countries, meets monthly to consider the comments from bishops and decide on revisions to the draft. By the time the lectionary volumes are ready for a vote by the bishops’ conferences, each individual bishop would have received many drafts of the readings and had an opportunity for input in the process.
Legal Context: New Directives for Review and Confirmation
The production of new lectionaries throughout the English-speaking world (including the ESV-CE lectionary in England, Wales, and Scotland) is occurring in the context of newly-amended canonical provisions governing translation of liturgical books. In 2017, Pope Francis issued the motu proprio Magnum Principium, which amended Canon 838 to specify a clear division of duties between the Apostolic See and local bishops’ conferences. Sections 2 and 3 of Canon 838 are as follows:
§ 2. It is for the Apostolic See to order the sacred liturgy of the universal Church, publish liturgical books, recognise adaptations approved by the Episcopal Conference according to the norm of law, and exercise vigilance that liturgical regulations are observed faithfully everywhere.
§ 3. It pertains to the Episcopal Conferences to faithfully prepare versions of the liturgical books in vernacular languages, suitably accommodated within defined limits, and to approve and publish the liturgical books for the regions for which they are responsible after the confirmation of the Apostolic See.
Canon 838, sections 2 and 3
These provisions place liturgical translations squarely in the domain of the local bishops conference. As long as the conference is not requesting adaptations to the official liturgical text, the purview of the Apostolic See is to confirm the liturgical translations that are submitted by episcopal conferences. What is the scope of this “confirmation”? The Dicastery for Divine Worship (DDW) gave further guidance on that question in a decree in October 2021 with directives on implementing the directives of Canon 838 and Magnum Principium.
Paragraphs 45-46 and 48 of the decree describe what is involved in confirming scriptural translations for a lectionary:
45. The “confirmatio” consists in the ratification given by the Apostolic See to the translation of biblical and liturgical texts, after having ascertained the legitimacy of the approval procedure followed by the Episcopal Conferences for the various aspects involved. That is the adoption and extension of a given language in the liturgy, the criteria for translation, the integrity of the texts with respect to the typical liturgical books and their correspondence with them, the implementation of the choices already indicated in the liturgical books that are the responsibility of the Episcopal Conferences.
46. With regard to Lectionaries, the confirmatio consists of verifying that the biblical pericopes and their apparatus correspond to the ordering of the typical liturgical books of the Roman Rite.
48. In the case of lacunae in the translation as well as the need for clarification of important texts (cf. above n. 25) and particular liturgical formulas, such as e.g. the prayers of ordination, dedication, consecration, exorcism formulas, the greetings of the priest and the responses of the faithful, acclamations inspired by Sacred Scripture and some particular terms to be understood within the faith of the Church, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments shall dialogue with the Episcopal Conference in order to develop a solution in light of their respective competencies.
Decree of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments giving effect to the dispositions of canon 838 of the Code of Canon Law. Promulgated October 22, 2021
To put it in other words, the DDW’s primary role for vernacular lectionaries in the English-speaking world (where the choice of a vernacular language for translation generally will not require review) is to review the translation criteria and ensure that the selected readings correspond with the Latin typical edition. If the DDW determines that a text needs to be clarified, it must dialog with the bishops’ conference to find a solution.
Yup, leave it to the fallen Irish Church to no longer call it the “Our Father” but to make it inclusive: it’s now the “Our Parent”…. That’s til Banned Parenthood finds that too exclusive…
That is uncalled for. This post is about the RNJB lectionary, and the RNJB translates Matthew 6:9 with “Our Father” just like every other mainstream Bible translation.
Thank you, Marc.
Posts like that are why I simply avoid all Catholic media anymore.
Sadly, even this blog.
I must be missing something. Where are you getting this from?!
Based on this paragraph I have a question:
“The general editor produces a first draft of the lectionary texts. Drafts are circulated to all the bishops in the three countries every two weeks, and bishops submit comments to an editorial board. The editorial board, which contains representatives from all three countries, meets monthly to consider the comments from bishops and decide on revisions to the draft. By the time the lectionary volumes are ready for a vote by the bishops’ conferences, each individual bishop would have received many drafts of the readings and had an opportunity for input in the process.”
Does this mean that there might alterations to the texts based on translation preferences of the commenting bishops?
I don’t have any specifics on the types of changes the bishops generally suggest, so I can only guess. In theory, it sounds to me like a bishop could suggest a change to the translation. But the editorial board would need to agree with the change, and it would need to be approved by the copyright holder.
Yeah, there are two competing things. If translation changes are suggested, both the copyright holder and the editorial board would need to agree, which suggests any changes would be limited. But the amount of personal involvement expected from the bishops is really a lot for basically what is a formatting job.
” By the time the lectionary volumes are ready for a vote by the bishops’ conferences, each individual bishop would have received many drafts of the readings and had an opportunity for input in the process.” If it really is just formatting, this seems overkill.
Having had some experience in this process myself, I doubt any individual changes based entirely on (subjective) “preferences” would pass muster. There would need to be some logic to changes such that they could be treated as a kind of universal policy; I have in mind here something like the CBCEW deciding to change the imperial measurements in the ESV-CE Bible text to metric measurements across the whole lectionary text.
Other changes that bishops can suggest, which would (have to) be accepted by the editorial board (but would, of course, need permission from any copyright holders), are those «Liturgiam authenticam» nos. 24 and 37 mention — namely, changes to conform the lectionary text to the Nova Vulgata manuscript tradition.
To echo a recent comment, I too hope that this lectionary project motivates publishers to produce more (and better) editions of the RNJB itself.
I hope for the same. Even if Doubleday would produce an RNJB with sewn binding here in the States, rather than its current glued edition, that would be terrific. The DLT edition from England features a sewn binding, but the font is small, and the hardcover edition is not especially sturdy. Now, if a publisher like Cambridge were able to produce a premium edition… that would be fantastic!
A sewn, cloth-bound hardcover in a slipcase, matching what Doubleday did with the JB and NJB, would be ideal, but it’s unlikely to happen since Image surely has exclusive rights to it in the US and seems to have zero interest in publishing another edition besides their glued study edition. Since I’m not a fan of the RNJB study notes at all (since they’re just copy-pasted from the CTS NCB), I wouldn’t mind a premium publisher like Cambridge or Oxford tossing the “study” notes in favor of a large-print reader’s edition RNJB with just the textual translation notes. Like BC below, I’m not the biggest fan of the RNJB translation, but that doesn’t mean I want it to fail outright.
Someone in the comments on a previous post mentioned Dr. Mary Healy’s recent talk she gave at St. Paul seminary. At the tail end of the talk she mentioned there was a revision of the NJB being worked on right now. If this is what she was referencing then this isn’t really a revision of the bible translation right?
Correct. Aside from tweaks to the wording for the lectionary, it should be mostly the same as the RNJB text. When she said a revision of the NJB was “coming out,” I assumed she meant that a lectionary was being produced with the RNJB, which has already been out for several years now. She did say that the new revision to the NJB was a “great improvement.”
I want to like the RNJB, especially since I am a big fan of the original Jerusalem Bible. But I just can’t get into it and I don’t think it is a good translation.
Maybe it was just me, but when I heard that the revised lectionary for the US which was just approved was going to be using the Revised Grail Psalter, I thought I could just open my RNJB and get a head start familiarizing myself with it. Come to find out the RNJB contains the version of the Conception Abbey Revised Grail Psalms PRIOR to revision for liturgical approval. The revised, liturgically approved Psalms are published as “The Revised Grail Psalms: A Liturgical Psalter”. Furthermore, the USCCB acquired rights to the copyright and did their own revision, which is also liturgically approved. It is published as The Abbey Psalms and Canticles.
That led me to wonder: what types of revisions were made? I decided to make a comparative document of all three versions for the first 10 Psalms, plus 22 and 23. They are labeled “Abbey Psalms”, “R-Grail Psalter” (which is the liturgical Psalter), and “R-Grail Psalms” (which is the version you get in your RNJB). I highlighted every textual change. I will leave it to others to compare the differences with the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vTbl1KIEszbbQ7oobArZ_h1hG1CnYBAg1SIFLJBSnZjbswRlP-Xx4gK9Yep0PS6Q9HhqLN4O4bIWZNR/pub
Big fan of the R-Grail Psalter’s use of “just” instead of “righteous” in Psalm 1, and some other places. Overall, there are parts I prefer from all three!
For whatever reason the web version creates all sorts of editing errors that aren’t present in the Google doc on my end. If you are interested in comparing the differences in an easier to read format, I would suggest copying and pasting into your own document and changing the page layout to horizontal. You can also fix the font issues present in the shared web version and customize the size, style, and color to your own liking.Hope that helps. God Bless!
“The Latin directory does not include the full text of the readings but only the chapters and verses.”
This is not quite true. The «Ordo lectionum Missae» (1969/1981) does provide the chapter and verse references, but it also indicates how the passage is to begin, including but not limited to the incipit. Often this involves adding names for context, deleting particles such as “for”, “but”, “and”, etc. If there are any grammar/context changes needed because the passage skips over some verses, it will also indicate the text for these. Vernacular lectionaries are to take these changes into account insofar as is possible.
The 3 volume Latin «Lectionarium» (1970-72) as well as the 4 volume «Missale Romanum cum lectionibus» (1977), also give the full lections in Latin and can help as auxiliary tools (though neither line up entirely with the Nova Vulgata).