Criticism on the RSV-2CE (Please)

[Judas_Thaddeus]

(I would prefer Catholic answers)

I’m on a search for a new Bible, zeroing in on the RSV-2CE, have yet to be able
to purchase one, so while I am waiting, please give me any possible objections.

I was first looking at the Knox Translation, was kinda bothered by the word-
ing in John 1:1-3, then I looked into the Douay Rheims, was uncomfortable
with its wording of Psalm 22 [23], perhaps I’m being a bit trivial. Anyway, I
learned about the RSV-CE, the RSV-2CE quickly after, and have read a lot
of good reviews on the translation.

Don’t tell me what you love about the RSV-2CE, nor why the KJV is better,
or things like that. I just need a few reasons ( if any ) for why I should NOT
get this translation, especially in light of the Latin ( Nova ) Vulgate , and/or
the original Greek/Hebrew( **/**Aramaic ).

I do not want to spend $ 40.00 on a Bible with any critical flaws if I could instead
buy an even better translation for $ 50.00. I don’t want a good Bible either, I want
a great Bible, neither do I want a popular Bible, but one which a serious Catholic
would most recommend for a picky Catholic revert such as myself.

So to Sum Up: RSV-2CE, why not?

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

How is the 2CE different from the “original”? I, too, am a Bible translation-o-phile.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

One thing I read was that the Second Catholic Edition does away
with the archaic English, not thees or thous or -ests or eths etc.

I haven’t read much further in how it is different from the original, but
I do trust that it would be more better than the previous edition. This
being only an assumption, of course.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

One thing I read was that the Second Catholic Edition does away
with the archaic English, not thees or thous or -ests or eths etc.

I haven’t read much further in how it is different from the original, but
I do trust that it would be more better than the previous edition. This
being only an assumption, of course.

Is the 2CE the Ignatius Bible, then?

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Is the 2CE the Ignatius Bible, then?

Yes

 

[edward_george]

I would say that if you look to certain verses or chapters as a “litmus test” for the validity of a translation, you’re going about it in a way that is a bit narrow, such that you’d exclude perfectly good translations that may have one word or phrase worded how you might not be comfortable with, whether it’s a valid translation or not (the controversy over Isaiah 7, 14 comes to mind, “virgin” vs. “young woman.” I stopped using that or any litmus test verses years ago when I figured out that the actual Hebrew phrase is “young woman,” and that in the ancient world, the concepts of “young woman,” “virgin,” and “maiden” were more or less synonymous. Translating with a theological bias, however, can lead one to depart from the text itself.)

That aside, I can’t tell you why NOT to get the RSV-2CE because I think it’s a very good translation, and this coming from someone who has studied the languages behind the translation. Whenever I don’t have the Hebrew or Greek at hand, I use this RSV because it’s generally fairly accurate, and also quite readable. I’m not sure how helpful an approach to finding a good translation is going to be if you’re searching right off the bat for a reason to be suspicious, but the RSV-2CE is not something to be suspicious of in my experience.

-ACEGC

 

[Isaiah45_9]

(I would prefer Catholic answers)

I’m on a search for a new Bible, zeroing in on the RSV-2CE, have yet to be able
to purchase one, so while I am waiting, please give me any possible objections.

I was first looking at the Knox Translation, was kinda bothered by the word-
ing in John 1:1-3, then I looked into the Douay Rheims, was uncomfortable
with its wording of Psalm 22 [23], perhaps I’m being a bit trivial. Anyway, I
learned about the RSV-CE, the RSV-2CE quickly after, and have read a lot
of good reviews on the translation.

Don’t tell me what you love about the RSV-2CE, nor why the KJV is better,
or things like that. I just need a few reasons ( if any ) for why I should NOT
get this translation, especially in light of the Latin ( Nova ) Vulgate , and/or
the original Greek/Hebrew( **/**Aramaic ).

I do not want to spend $ 40.00 on a Bible with any critical flaws if I could instead
buy an even better translation for $ 50.00. I don’t want a good Bible either, I want
a great Bible, neither do I want a popular Bible, but one which a serious Catholic
would most recommend for a picky Catholic revert such as myself.

So to Sum Up: RSV-2CE, why not?

I am a bibliophile I have way too many translations. I really like the RSV-2CE.

Why Not?

The cross-reference system is typically lacking - all bundled together at the end of each page.
I have not been able to find a thorough detailed document with all the revisions from the RSV-CE, other than the basic things you and others have mentioned.
No good maps.
No extensive concordance.

I do have the paperback edition (less than $20), the bonded leather edition (less than $40 and it has 2 ribbons), and I have the New Testament Study Bible edition (less than $20 and it’s huge - but the notes are great).

An alternative - I have slowly over time - been buying the Navarre Study series individual titles (They use the RSV-CE). They include the Scriptures for the titles they go over the commentary - very convenient for individual books but not sufficient when you want to check the cross-references - that’s why I got the paperback ed. of the RSV-2CE - to carry around and to use as a companion when I am going over the Navarre titles. BTW, the Navarre commentary is truly spectacular.

I also have the compact edition of the RSV-CE bonded leather/zipper (miraculous medal!) edition in my car. There are a lot of resources for the RSV edition (And you can tag along with resources for the [X]SV family).

It’s the edition I use for Apologetics and intermediate to advanced Bible Studies.

For devotional, prayer and Parish activities, I use the NABRE (2011).

God Bless,

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

The cross-reference system is typically lacking - all bundled together at the end of each page.
I have not been able to find a thorough detailed document with all the revisions from the RSV-CE, other than the basic things you and others have mentioned.
No good maps.
No extensive concordance.

Could you expand on those a little, just so I have a clearer idea please.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Could you expand on those a little, just so I have a clearer idea please.

Sure, lol.

Little background: I was born and raised Catholic and like any typical Catholic I left the Faith during College. Long time after I went to Church again but not Catholic. Mostly Pentecostal, Baptist (Reformed), Non-Denom. I fell in love with the Bible, so much that it made me Catholic again, lol - true story!

Ok - expansion:

1. The cross-reference system is typically lacking - all bundled together at the end of each page.

I got really spoiled in how Protestant Bibles use the cross-reference system in 2-column format - they include the cross references in between the 2 columns - or on the right hand of the column aligned with the verse being referenced. It is very convenient, especially for someone like me that likes to write in the Bible and highlight and make symbols (stars, arrows, exclamation points, etc).

1. I have not been able to find a thorough detailed document with all the revisions from the RSV-CE, other than the basic things you and others have mentioned.

I would like to be able to see specifically the changes made and the criteria used for some passages - like to scrolls used - the reference to the rendition of the original languages, and things like that. Not necessarily exhaustive, but at least a note (Kinda like the NKJV).

1. No good maps.

Not a deal breaker for me. But I didn’t know if you like having maps in your Bible. I have several friends that do.

1. No extensive concordance.

Again, spoiled from the Protestant versions. I really enjoy going to the back of the Bible and looking up words, names, places, etc - and being able to have a list of verses I can cross-reference and/or look up regarding a similar subject, person or place.

PS - I really really like the words of Christ in red - but I didn’t mention it because some people here might jump on me, lol.

Peace,

 

[porthos11]

1. No extensive concordance.

Again, spoiled from the Protestant versions. I really enjoy going to the back of the Bible and looking up words, names, places, etc - and being able to have a list of verses I can cross-reference and/or look up regarding a similar subject, person or place.
Peace,
​

Thankfully, this is no longer true. Emmaus Road Publishing has put out The Catholic Bible Concordance to the Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition. It’s exhaustive, just like any decent Protestant concordance out there.

And while it’s not a comparison, an appendix in this publication lists entries that differ in the Second Catholic Edition.

emmausroad.org/%2FThe-Catholic-Bible-Concordance-for-the-Revised-Standard-Version-Catholic-Edition-RSV-CE-FONT-colorff0000bINew-Second-Printingb-IFONT-P10069.aspx​

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Thankfully, this is no longer true. Emmaus Road Publishing has put out The Catholic Bible Concordance to the Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition. It’s exhaustive, just like any decent Protestant concordance out there.

And while it’s not a comparison, an appendix in this publication lists entries that differ in the Second Catholic Edition.

emmausroad.org/%2FThe-Catholic-Bible-Concordance-for-the-Revised-Standard-Version-Catholic-Edition-RSV-CE-FONT-colorff0000bINew-Second-Printingb-IFONT-P10069.aspx

I was referring to having it in the Bible itself.

Plus, I have one of the Logos - Verbum packages. It not only includes concordances but it indexes my entire electronic library! Plus, I have it on my computer, phone and tablet.

Man, I wish I’d get paid for that endorsement… lol

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

People complain about the NAB fooynotes. But the RSV-2CE also has some liberal footnotes. For example, they support the documentary hypothesis in the Pentateuch.

 

[RPRPsych]

Two quick observations here:

First, the RSV-2CE comes in two flavours. First, as a standalone Bible with notes copied from the RSV-CE. The RSV-CE is a child of the Sixties, and while I like it a lot, it does have some “liberal” (ugh, I hate seeing that word misused) footnotes. Second, the Ignatius Study Bible, which has quite orthodox notes. I think the latter is what the OP is interested in.

Second, on the vexatious “documentary hypothesis”:

The Pontifical Biblical Commission has supported a limited version of the “documentary hypothesis” as far back as 1910 (or 1911).

Pope John Paul II himself referred to the two ancient sources in Genesis 1-2.

And Moses certainly did not write the Pentateuch “from scratch”; he must have compiled it from older sources - stories about the Patriarchs, accounts of Joseph’s achievements in Egypt, and so on.

Moreover, some later redaction almost certainly did take place, though this was by means of glosses and clarifications. Finally, Ezra the scribe compiled the “entire Law” (which was around for centuries before, but which had a knack of disappearing when the Israelite kings turned pagan, as happened to Manasseh) after the Exile.

The documentary hypothesis errs in stating that the laws were made up later, or that the attribution to Moses is a pious fiction. But believing that the entire Pentateuch was written by Moses (how, exactly, did he write Deuteronomy 34?) is taking literalism a bit too far.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

Yes

OK.

An absolutely fantastic translation. Very highly recommended.

 

[Chatter163]

(I would prefer Catholic answers)

I’m on a search for a new Bible, zeroing in on the RSV-2CE, have yet to be able
to purchase one, so while I am waiting, please give me any possible objections.

I was first looking at the Knox Translation, was kinda bothered by the word-
ing in John 1:1-3, then I looked into the Douay Rheims, was uncomfortable
with its wording of Psalm 22 [23], perhaps I’m being a bit trivial. Anyway, I
learned about the RSV-CE, the RSV-2CE quickly after, and have read a lot
of good reviews on the translation.

Don’t tell me what you love about the RSV-2CE, nor why the KJV is better,
or things like that. I just need a few reasons ( if any ) for why I should NOT
get this translation, especially in light of the Latin ( Nova ) Vulgate , and/or
the original Greek/Hebrew( **/**Aramaic ).

I do not want to spend $ 40.00 on a Bible with any critical flaws if I could instead
buy an even better translation for $ 50.00. I don’t want a good Bible either, I want
a great Bible, neither do I want a popular Bible, but one which a serious Catholic
would most recommend for a picky Catholic revert such as myself.

So to Sum Up: RSV-2CE, why not?

I can assure you that the Knox translation, which I myself recently purchased, is worthy of “a serious Catholic” such as yourself.

 

[RPRPsych]

I can assure you that the Knox translation, which I myself recently purchased, is worthy of “a serious Catholic” such as yourself.

Fully agreed.

The Confraternity Bible is another good choice, though it’s hard to find.

 

[bilop]

(I would prefer Catholic answers)

I’m on a search for a new Bible, zeroing in on the RSV-2CE, have yet to be able
to purchase one, so while I am waiting, please give me any possible objections.

I was first looking at the Knox Translation, was kinda bothered by the word-
ing in John 1:1-3, then I looked into the Douay Rheims, was uncomfortable
with its wording of Psalm 22 [23], perhaps I’m being a bit trivial. Anyway, I
learned about the RSV-CE, the RSV-2CE quickly after, and have read a lot
of good reviews on the translation.

What’s wrong with the 22nd Psalm in the D-R?

It’s a literal translation of the Vulgate.

God Bless

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

What’s wrong with the 22nd Psalm in the D-R?

It’s a literal translation of the Vulgate.

God Bless

Well that goes back to my previous statement:

…perhaps I’m being a bit trivial.

Though the word inebriate(th), which is “to make drunk,” makes me wince a
little (I understand it’s not literal), “how goodly it is” as well is somewhat odd.

I also identified myself as a revert, so all may still be a bit alien to me.

I may get the DR anyway, holding it’s translation of Genesis 3:15
in great esteem for using the feminine pronouns.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Nothing…?
No one has any negative to say about the RSV-2CE?

If nothing, MARVELOUS! but just in case I’ll keep pushing the matter:
Does anybody have a reason
for why I should NOT get that
Ignatius Bible?
I realize no translation is perfect in light of the original writings, but I should like
to get myself the best Catholic translation. Everyone may have a different opini-
on on what the best may be, but for now I just need textual – criticism, IF ANY,
on the RSV-2CE.

 

[EphelDuath]

Nothing…?
No one has any negative to say about the RSV-2CE?

Well, theologically speaking, it’s up there only with the Douay-Rheims and Confraternity Bible in terms of actually not directly contradicting Catholic doctrine for no discernible reason. So I give it a thumbs up. (Disclaimer: Haven’t really read the original Jerusalem Bible, so maybe that’s OK too.)

That being said. I think the Holy Scriptures should indeed sound very poetic, and this isn’t something to be set aside lightly (heck, it’s why the Anglicans and Episcopalians have asked for the Book of Common Prayer to be adapted for Catholic use instead of just converting to the Roman rite; because its English is thoroughly beautiful). And really, the RSV:2CE often sounds stilted – not even close to as bad as the NAB, mind you, but I often feel like I’m reading a Christian textbook rather than the Holy Bible.

For that reason, I suppose you could say I’m a Douay-Rheims Onlyist. Don’t let anybody tell you, by the way, that it’s too hard to read because of its archaic language; because I’ve often found that getting around the ridiculousness and ambiguities of the NAB to be more distracting and difficult than any of the “thees” and “thous” in the D-R.