Thanks for the tip!
Is anyone else bothered by the NRSV psalm texts?
I find them unacceptable, as does my pastor.

What percentage variance is there between the NRSV and RSV (or Grail) psalm texts?

Is pencilling-in another text an option, or is there too much variance to make that feasible?

We should be able to line these things up in a spreadsheet and compare. Surely this has been done somewhere, by somebody.

At any rate, my understanding is that the Grail will become normative, therefore stable, and that we can then go about the job of pointing the thing to every conceivable tone -- and making it all available for download, free, in ready-to-use formats.

Because hey, we don't have enough to do with our spare time.

It would have been lovely for BFW to have employed the NSV psalter, which does not monkey around in gender politics.
My objections to the NRSV lie in this area, not in its wise choice to avoid the transitory and unaesthetic NAB.
The Grail psalter is an improvement, but still far from excellent.
And while it is said to be permanent, I personally wouldn't count on it!

Ford had his reasons for the choir of the translation...not everyone is coming from the same place...I am tiring of people criticizing his choice of translation, since no one else has bothered to commit themselves to doing what he has done with the translation of their own choice.

Noel,
Thanks for this shout-out.

Incantu,
Thanks for the praise.

Daniel,
One of our mutual friends, who is a great admirer of yours, asked me to autograph a copy he bought for you. He will present it to you when he flies to DC for a visit this summer. I hope this won’t be too awkward for you. Perhaps you can find it a good home.

Pes,
I don’t know the variants between the NRSV and RSV.

Francis,
Alas, the Latin is not permanent. Right now the Western Church sings the Vetus Itala, the Vulgata, the Nova Vulgata, and Latin texts that arose from lectio divina and not from any one translation.

Why did I use the NRSV Psalms and Canticles? For two reasons: First, because the lines were long enough to permit intonations, Second, because, when I started the project in 1993, the NRSV had Rome’s approval for liturgical use. I am a conservative Catholic, having made the profession of faith for theologians and taken the oath of fidelity. I wanted to comply with all the laws in effect at that time.

That approval was withdrawn (but not the imprimatur) at the request of the US Bishops who wanted their RNAB approved, and none others, lest the sales of US liturgical books be lost to overseas and crossboarder publishers.

Rome declined to approve the RNAB and insisted that the old NAB psalms be part of the new lectionary. Thus there is no Bible one can purchase that has the all the texts as we hear them at Mass.

Rome recently reapproved the NRSV for liturgical use.

Paul:

I don't believe I use texts that are under 100 years old in any of my comps. Which versions on your list are less that 100 years old? I want to be sure NOT to wander into questionable territory. Which version of the latin is truly DEAD? (unaltered).

If I ever discovered that I use questionable latin, I would easily change it. If anyone cares to do so, please alert me to questionable latin translations!

My copy of the Liber is 1934 (although I usually don't use text from that book). I often refer to the vulgate, (www.latinvulgate.com) and then cpdl to previous composers settings (usually Palestrina, de Prez, etc.)

Point is, I don't waste time setting (serious) music comps to the fleeting (English) translations of the bible. Most of the time I write my own paraphrases and make it clear that a paraphrase is all it is! That gets around putting money in the hands of publishers that spew questionable doctrine (ie., inclusive theology, etc.) or binding myself in some way to their interests. Pointing Psalms for the Mass for my local parish is another matter, however.