J
Judas_Thaddeus
Guest
That little statement is making me nervous here! http://www.smileyvault.com/albums/userpics/10404/nailbiting.gif
What does “not directly contradicting” mean?
- Status
What does “not directly contradicting” mean?
R
RPRPsych
Guest
I think he’s referring to some of the problematic phrasings / footnotes, especially in the NAB, such as:
- “young woman” instead of “virgin” in Isaiah 7:14
- waffling on Mary’s perpetual virginity in Matt. 1: 25
- claiming that the Magnificat (Lk. 1: 46-55) is an early Jewish Christian hymn that Luke retrospectively attributed to Mary
- using “favoured one” instead of “full of grace” in Lk. 1: 28
- stating that 1 Cor. 3:15 does not support purgatory
If you’re looking for negatives, I have some, but there’s nothing in it that would cause you to NOT buy it. By all means, go and buy it; you cannot go wrong.
That said, the RSV-2CE still does not better render some annoying phrases from the RSV-CE that have since been improved in the 1971 RSV. Examples of these are Mary’s statement, “How can this be since I have no husband?” and Pilate’s statement “Here is the man!”. The 1971 RSV renders these as “How shall…” and “Behold the man!” respectively. Some pious Catholics dislike the first phrasing because it could be said that implies doubt on Mary’s part, and the second is just an annoyance. Personally, I have no issues with either statement as rendered in the 1966 RSV-CE, as when read in context, there’s really no difference in the sense between “how shall” and “how can”. Another small issue is that they didn’t retain the Aramaic words in the New Testament, but instead kept the rendering from the RSV-CE. Hence, “Amen, amen I say to you” remains “Truly, truly.” I’m guessing though this is something they may have not been permitted to do by the RSV copyright holders. And while it doesn’t strictly violate Liturgiam Authenticam (LA highly recommends it, but does not mandate it), its failure to do so kind of flies in the face of its being revised according to that document.
There are some small typographical errors as well, for example, the Old Testament cover page states that it was translated from the Greek in 1946 (the Old Testament was translated from the Hebrew in 1952; that cover page mistakenly copies the New Testament cover page).
As for its going side-by-side with the Nova Vulgata, you can’t go wrong with it. The RSV-2CE modified the RSV-CE to be more in line with the NV where translation could equally go one way or another.
P
Phillip_Rolfes
Guest
Translations are what they are, and each one is going to have its positives and negatives. The best argument I’ve ever heard for any translation is that, “The best translation of Scripture is the one you actually read.” 
That being said, obviously there are bad translations out there. The RSV-CE or the RSV-2CE are both excellent translations and come highly recommended by almost every Catholic biblical scholar. I also know a large number of Orthodox Scripture scholars who highly recommend it.
If you are looking for a translation that contains the “thees” and “thous” then you will be utterly disappointed. Although they are in there to a VERY limited extent, they are by no means predominant. Also, as a previous poster mentioned, until recently maps, footnotes, cross-references, etc. were pretty much non-existent. The Ignatius Study Bible has done much to correct this.
All this being said, there is nothing wrong (all things being equal) with the NAB or other Catholic translations of the Bible. Remember, Catholics are not “sola Scriptura” Christians; so even when dealing with a somewhat flawed translations of the Scriptures, so long as we understand the Scriptures in light of the whole of Catholic Tradition, then we can work with almost any translation. I personally like reading the NAB from time to time because of the simplicity and directness of the language.
To the OP, send me a PM. I may have an extra copy of the RSV-2CE that I’d be willing to send your way.
That being said, obviously there are bad translations out there. The RSV-CE or the RSV-2CE are both excellent translations and come highly recommended by almost every Catholic biblical scholar. I also know a large number of Orthodox Scripture scholars who highly recommend it.
If you are looking for a translation that contains the “thees” and “thous” then you will be utterly disappointed. Although they are in there to a VERY limited extent, they are by no means predominant. Also, as a previous poster mentioned, until recently maps, footnotes, cross-references, etc. were pretty much non-existent. The Ignatius Study Bible has done much to correct this.
All this being said, there is nothing wrong (all things being equal) with the NAB or other Catholic translations of the Bible. Remember, Catholics are not “sola Scriptura” Christians; so even when dealing with a somewhat flawed translations of the Scriptures, so long as we understand the Scriptures in light of the whole of Catholic Tradition, then we can work with almost any translation. I personally like reading the NAB from time to time because of the simplicity and directness of the language.
To the OP, send me a PM. I may have an extra copy of the RSV-2CE that I’d be willing to send your way.
R
RPRPsych
Guest
This is very well said. For private reading and devotions, the NAB and New Jerusalem Bible work just fine. The problems arise with stuff like apologetics.
C
corsair
Guest
The problem is in translations. For example; I have 3 copies of the Little Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary. One from 1904, one from 1911 and one from 1962. The Latin is identical but the English translations make me think I may be reading a different text. I prefer the 1904 version.
So its is with different Bibles. My preference is the DR. I love the ancient way of speaking.
I do not care for the Revised Standard version (either issue) and I will not even pick up the NAB (which I find perverted).
It all boils down to “preferences”.
So its is with different Bibles. My preference is the DR. I love the ancient way of speaking.
I do not care for the Revised Standard version (either issue) and I will not even pick up the NAB (which I find perverted).
It all boils down to “preferences”.
J
Judas_Thaddeus
Guest
Well I’m actually wanting to go beyond preferences, likes & dislikes, and hope to find a Bible
that won’t fail me. Take the King James Version, wonderful language, fluent, and so forth, but
we all know that it’s a bad translation, not weak, just plain wrong.
T
tvknight415
Guest
Best reasons I could come up with to not get the RSV-2CE:
- If you feel having a lot of thees/thys/thous is essential in a translation.
- If you think the cover art is just UG-LY!
- If you want a ton of footnotes under a single cover (at least for now… once the complete Ignatius Study Bible is finished, this argument will be invalid).
- If you just can’t stomach that a translation of the Bible had its start in Protestantism.
- If you need a Bible that is printed with large type (though the Lighthouse Catholic Media app does allow you to change the font size, but it’s not a physical book)
- If for some reason you have something against the staff at Ignatius Press (ok, I’m reaching here, but hey, if someone did have a bad ordering experience or wasn’t selected for a job there or something, they could have a chip on the shoulder…)
E
EphelDuath
Guest
The NRSV:CE and NJB dilute the prophecies of Christ by neutering the language that foretells the Messiah (“Blessed is THE ONE” rather than “Blessed is HE” for instance).
The footnotes in the NAB and NRSV:CE pretty much directly tell you that Jesus couldn’t see the future, the Gospel writers were borrowing ideas from some other source (instead of documenting what they saw), and that scripture verses cited in defense of Catholic doctrine don’t really do that. Plus there’s certain renderings that make the “hard teachings” of Jesus not really so, such as translating “proneia” into “immorality” rather than “sexual immorality”, which any Greek dictionary will tell you that’s what it means.
Frankly I think they aren’t fit for the name “Catholic” at all. I really, really wish the Congregation for Divine Worship would just decree that the RSV:2CE or D-R is the official English translation of the Bible in the Catholic Church (maybe also the JB, but I couldn’t tell you much about that one).
E
edward_george
Guest
Without looking at the text, I wouldn’t know for sure, but it is possible that’s not necessarily a “dilution” of a prophecy so much as it is a more grammatically accurate rendering of the original text. If a participle is present, it is more correct to say “Blessed is the one who comes,” as that would have been parsed literally as “Blessed is the coming (one)” with one being understood (“coming” being a participle used substantively there so that it functions as a noun without modifying another one). If the pronoun “he” is actually present, then you’re correct, it would be rendered as “Blessed is he.” Sometimes we throw in the pronoun to make it more readable in English, but the ancient languages (both Hebrew and Greek) would have had this kind of participle use all the time.
-ACEGC
E
EphelDuath
Guest
I’m fairly certain both languages have gendered articles.
E
edward_george
Guest
They both do, this I know. What I mean is that it’s possible in the text in question that there is no pronoun being used at all, because that was a common construction in both Hebrew and Greek.
-ACEGC
-ACEGC
E
EphelDuath
Guest
Well, I am no expert on Hebrew or Greek, but I can do a little research on it myself. To go back to the example of Psalm 1:1
Traditional translations say something like:
“How blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked, Nor stand in the path of sinners, Nor sit in the seat of scoffers!” (this particular version is the NASB)
Modern “inclusive language” versions have:
“Happy are those who do not follow the advice of the wicked, or take the path that sinners tread, or sit in the seat of scoffers” (this particular version is the NRSV)
So which is the accurate translation, and which is “cleaning it up” to fit the audience?
The noun in the Greek (Septuagint) is: ἀνήρ anér
From Strong’s Concordance (link: biblesuite.com/greek/435.htm)
anér: a man
Original Word: ἀνήρ, ἀνδρός, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: anér
Phonetic Spelling: (an’-ayr)
Short Definition: a male human being, a man
Definition: a male human being; a man, husband.
a man, Latinvir. The meanings of this word in the N. T. differ in no respect from classic usage; for it is employed 1. with a reference to sex, and so to distinguish a man from a woman 2. with a reference to age, and to distinguish an adult man from a boy 3. universally, any male person, a man; 4. when persons of either sex are included, but named after the more important
The noun in the Hebrew (Masoretic) is: אּישׁ ha·'ish
From Strong’s Concordance (link: biblesuite.com/hebrew/376.htm)
ish: man
Original Word: אּישׁ
Part of Speech: Noun Masculine
Transliteration: ish
Phonetic Spelling: (eesh)
Short Definition: man
a man as an individual or a male person; often used as an adjunct to a more definite term
Seems pretty conclusive to me.
I consider it a bunch of hooplah when modernists try to sell the NRSV or other such Bibles as being “in accords with modern scholarship” and all that. Modern scholarship thinks it’s impossible to see the future or perform miracles, so these are not the people who should be writing the translation we hear at Holy Mass.
Traditional translations say something like:
“How blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked, Nor stand in the path of sinners, Nor sit in the seat of scoffers!” (this particular version is the NASB)
Modern “inclusive language” versions have:
“Happy are those who do not follow the advice of the wicked, or take the path that sinners tread, or sit in the seat of scoffers” (this particular version is the NRSV)
So which is the accurate translation, and which is “cleaning it up” to fit the audience?
The noun in the Greek (Septuagint) is: ἀνήρ anér
From Strong’s Concordance (link: biblesuite.com/greek/435.htm)
anér: a man
Original Word: ἀνήρ, ἀνδρός, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: anér
Phonetic Spelling: (an’-ayr)
Short Definition: a male human being, a man
Definition: a male human being; a man, husband.
a man, Latinvir. The meanings of this word in the N. T. differ in no respect from classic usage; for it is employed 1. with a reference to sex, and so to distinguish a man from a woman 2. with a reference to age, and to distinguish an adult man from a boy 3. universally, any male person, a man; 4. when persons of either sex are included, but named after the more important
The noun in the Hebrew (Masoretic) is: אּישׁ ha·'ish
From Strong’s Concordance (link: biblesuite.com/hebrew/376.htm)
ish: man
Original Word: אּישׁ
Part of Speech: Noun Masculine
Transliteration: ish
Phonetic Spelling: (eesh)
Short Definition: man
a man as an individual or a male person; often used as an adjunct to a more definite term
Seems pretty conclusive to me.
I consider it a bunch of hooplah when modernists try to sell the NRSV or other such Bibles as being “in accords with modern scholarship” and all that. Modern scholarship thinks it’s impossible to see the future or perform miracles, so these are not the people who should be writing the translation we hear at Holy Mass.
S
Sirach2
Guest
Blessed is the man who hath not walked in the counsel of the ungodly, nor stood in the way of sinners, nor sat in the chair of pestilence. Douay Rheims
Happy the man who follows not the counsel of the wicked, nor walks in the way of sinners, nor sits in the company of the insolent. St. Joseph New Catholic Ed.
Blessed is the one who does not walk in step with the wicked or stand in the way that sinners take or sit in the company of mockers, NIV
Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful. KJV
Wikipedia: Psalm 1 is the first of the Psalms in the Hebrew Bible. Like many of the psalms, it contrasts the “righteous” person (tzadik צדיק) to the “wicked” or “ungodly” (rasha` רשע) or the “sinner” (chatta’ חטא). The righteous person is one who takes care to know the laws of God and so has good judgment and avoids bad company.
This last paragraph is the spiritual essence of the many translations. If we allow the Holy Spirit to speak to our hearts as we read the bible, it will transcend all verbosity. In the final analysis, it is the Church who is the only entity authorized to give us the true meaning of scripture, when in doubt. I would hope that people refrain from getting hung up on literalness, and go instead into the meat and heart of what is being transmitted to us. To do otherwise, may fall under the condemnation rendered to the pharisees.
Happy the man who follows not the counsel of the wicked, nor walks in the way of sinners, nor sits in the company of the insolent. St. Joseph New Catholic Ed.
Blessed is the one who does not walk in step with the wicked or stand in the way that sinners take or sit in the company of mockers, NIV
Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful. KJV
Wikipedia: Psalm 1 is the first of the Psalms in the Hebrew Bible. Like many of the psalms, it contrasts the “righteous” person (tzadik צדיק) to the “wicked” or “ungodly” (rasha` רשע) or the “sinner” (chatta’ חטא). The righteous person is one who takes care to know the laws of God and so has good judgment and avoids bad company.
This last paragraph is the spiritual essence of the many translations. If we allow the Holy Spirit to speak to our hearts as we read the bible, it will transcend all verbosity. In the final analysis, it is the Church who is the only entity authorized to give us the true meaning of scripture, when in doubt. I would hope that people refrain from getting hung up on literalness, and go instead into the meat and heart of what is being transmitted to us. To do otherwise, may fall under the condemnation rendered to the pharisees.
E
EphelDuath
Guest
I wonder what is the Holy Spirit’s opinion on modernist translators specifically trying to dilute the prophecies of Christ by mistranslating the holy scriptures?
… which is really just a rhetorical way for me to say that it really does matter which translation we read. To use an extreme example, the Jehovah’s Witness translation specifically turns the Trinity into separate deities instead of being one God, so if that’s the Bible that’s exposed to the laypeople, it can cause a serious havoc and loss in orthodoxy.
To talk about the “meat and heart” of what’s being transmitted to us, the Church Fathers always saw Psalm 1 as being a prophecy of the righteous Messiah. Modernists (a) don’t believe that prophecies are possible, and (b) are not particularly enchanted by the fact that God incarnated a man, and not female or without sex. So if one’s faith is fragile, which I think is the case for many people who aren’t educated on the matter, reading the NRSV over, say, the RSV:2CE or the D-R can be a problem. It can lead one to believe that the Church errs in teaching that Christ’s coming was foretold by the scriptures – and really, it’s hard to blame them if society all around is telling them about how “scholarly translations” like the NRSV are so much more accurate than the “traditional” versions.
S
Sirach2
Guest
This response is loaded with ambiguity that has little connection to the topic. We are not discussing “modernists,” “prophecies,” “incarnation” nor any such thing that you have prevaricated beyond a reasonable discussion.
IOW, we are not discussing your opinion of what **modernists **believe;
nor what they allegedly believe about prophecies;
nor the gender of the incarnation;
nor the potential problem to disbelieve the Church’s teaching about Christ’s coming.
In checking my own bible and the commentary of Psalm 1 at the USCCB, nothing was ever said to corroborate your statement from the Church Fathers about this psalm’s meaning. But then again, the Magisterium of the Laity is always more accurate.
E
EphelDuath
Guest
How have I done that? I was asked by the thread creator why I consider the RSV:2CE to be a truly Catholic Bible, bot not others like the NRSV:CE. Here’s my given reason in a nutshell: If you already have a firmly educated and orthodox faith, then you’re probably going to read e.g. Psalm 1 correctly within the confines of sacred tradition no matter how accurate the translation is. But not all believers are firmly educated, and so bad (or intentionally twisted) translations of Psalm 1 can mislead people.
Okey dokey. I’ll give you a hand on that one.
“Blessed is the man that has not gone away in the counsel of the ungodly Psalm 1:1. This is to be understood of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord Man.” - St. Augustine, newadvent.org/fathers/1801001.htm
The Holy See shares my opinion in this regard.
When the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) became aware of the
problems with the NRSV, which involved and issues, not
merely matters of style, approval of the text had to be withdrawn.
Source: ewtn.com/library/LITURGY/CONFSCRI.TXT
I hope you are not going to tell me that the Congregation is a “Magisterium of the Laity”?
S
Sirach2
Guest
This pertains to only ONE Father, St. Augustine, and as such, is not the voice of the Magisterium, but the opinion of St. Augustine. Most people who pray the Divine Office will not attribute his particular meaning to it; in fact, I would say none do. The USCCB did not render that meaning at all. Look it up.
I see that this was written by Ms. Hitchcock, the founder of Adoremus, and known to be ultra-conservative. Since it is almost a book to read, I did not go past a couple paragraphs, other than to note that this was 1994, and the issue may have been resolved by now. I certainly don’t believe the Sacramentary being used today can be called problematic or in error.
Folks will consider your recommendation and form their own decisions, Ephel. But to reiterate, your broad painting of modernists’ opinions is a stretch that was unwarranted for this discussion.
E
EphelDuath
Guest
Great that you mention the Divine Office, because in the Liturgy of the Hours, one of the readings from St. Ambrose praises the Psalms because they can reveal Christ in a way that the other scriptures from Old Testament do not. This includes Psalm 1. So contrary to your opinion that “none” will read Psalm 1 in this way, I actually would say that anybody who is praying the Office of Readings, probably will!
Of all the Fathers’ commentary, the only one I know off-hand that actually rejected seeing Christ in Psalm 1 was St. Hilary of Poitiers; he’s allowed to have his opinion, of course, but I point out that in the same exposition on the Psalm, he points out that mostly everybody interprets Psalm 1 as being a prophecy of Christ: newadvent.org/fathers/3303001.htm
Oh OK, so you are the Magisterium of the Laity.
On my part, I will follow the CDF and continue to say that the NRSV is severely problematic in translation. (And, regarding your comment that “this was 1994”, I point out that there hasn’t been any updates to the NRSV since 1994 either, and neither has the Holy See retracted its scathing criticisms of its inclusive language.)
As said above. It’s not “my” recommendation. I’m echoing the Holy See on this matter.
S
Sirach2
Guest
Perhaps this was the Office of Readings, but in the ordinary reading of the psalms, there is no such commentary that gives this meaning whatsoever. If these saints interpreted it with this meaning, well and good. The Holy Spirit speaks in many ways to us as we read the Divine Words, and it is NOT erroneous to understand the meaning differently than Augustine.
Again, do you expect me to read a book to understand your post?
If you like to believe that, be my guest.
And as I said above, folks will consider your post and make their own decision.
- Status