Editions of the RSV-CE

[Salvatore123]

mccorm45 is spot-on!

In fact, in the Introduction to the RSV-CE, it states, “This edition of the RSV of the bible has been prepared for the use of Catholics by a committee of the Catholic Biblical Association of Great Britain. It was published with ecclesiastical approval and by agreement with the Standard Bible Committee and the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America.”

In short-speak: it was a protestant bible that was “converted” into a catholic one

P.S. - I again reiterate that I am NOT knocking Ignatius Press. But, I do want to point out (again) the difference between a book “conforming” to something as opposed to “revising according” to something.

Ignatius’s title page states pretty plainly, "This edition was revised according to Liturgiam Authenticam, 2002".

I respectfully submit that Ignatius consulted the encyclical, but did not necessarily conform to it.

Another odd thing: my “text only” RSV-CE 2d. ed. does NOT have an Imprimatur or Nihil Obstat. The newly released NT Study Bible does have them, but they are worded in a way I have never seen. I am an attorney by trade and even I cannot make heads or tales as to whether the actual TEXT found in that study bible has an Imprimatur or Nihil Obstat.

I am NOT saying it does not, nor am I saying it is heretical in any way. I simply found it odd that it put, at the top of the page, “Published with Ecclesiastical Approval”. Well, I know from Canon Law that ALL uses of the word “Catholic” by catholics must be given permission by an ordinary.

Perhaps someone can shine some light on the text . . .

 

[Bookcat]

“This edition was revised according to Liturgiam Authenticam, 2002”

Remember this is in regards to use in the Liturgy.

 

[Salvatore123]

Bookcat,

The problem is that the RSV is NOT approved for use in America - only the NAB is.

America ONCE was allowed to use the Jerusalem Bible and RSV - but not any more.

 

[CalCatholic]

Bookcat,

The problem is that the RSV is NOT approved for use in America - only the NAB is.

America ONCE was allowed to use the Jerusalem Bible and RSV - but not any more.

This does not mean that the RSV-2CE is not approved for use in the Catholic Mass, Ignatius submitted the translation to the Vatican for approval to be used in the English speaking Mass, the Vatican submitted requested changes and the result is the RSV-2CE which Ignatius publishes today. The RSV-2CE is currently approved by the Antilles Episcopal Conference and is being used in their Mass. It is not a question of whether the RSV-2CE is approved to be used in the English speaking Mass (which it is), it is a question of whether the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops chooses to use it or not, of which we know the answer to that.

 

[Bookcat]

Bookcat,

The problem is that the RSV is NOT approved for use in America - only the NAB is.

America ONCE was allowed to use the Jerusalem Bible and RSV - but not any more.

That was not my point…I did not want people thinking that the Bible they use had to conform to this document…

As to liturgy…there is always the future Long live the RSV!

 

[Bible_Reader]

Another odd thing: my “text only” RSV-CE 2d. ed. does NOT have an Imprimatur or Nihil Obstat. The newly released NT Study Bible does have them, but they are worded in a way I have never seen. I am an attorney by trade and even I cannot make heads or tales as to whether the actual TEXT found in that study bible has an Imprimatur or Nihil Obstat.

The notes and introduction of the Ignatius Study Bible series have imprimatur (and they have received imprimatur as each booklet in the series has been published). But the translation text is another matter.

Only a national conference or the Vatican can now give an imprimatur on a biblical translation (see Canon Law 825.1), and the USCCB (then the National Conference of Catholic Bishops) declined to so. Ignatius Press claims that it received a reply that the changes were of an editorial nature, and did not require new imprimatur. However, it appears that the USCCB did not actually review the proposed changes (as opposed to a description of the proposed changes). Indeed, the fact that Ignatius is unable to produce a list of changes seems to be powerful evidence that even Ignatius is not in full control of the changes it made.

As mccorm45 correctly observes:

The changes are considerably more than simply the elimination of archaic language and some tweaking here or there.

Now, I am not seriously worried that RSV-2CE is somehow teaching heretical doctrine. But Ignatius’ claims of receiving ecclesiastical approval seem somewhat exaggerated.

 

[David2010]

Informative thread. I am always keeping an eye open for information about Bibles.

I noticed some comments about the Oxford University Press Bible being a reading Bible rather than a study Bible.

So what version is recommended for somebody who wants a Bible as accurate to the original Hebrew as possible?

 

[Salvatore123]

David,

My vote, so far, is this one: amazon.com/Vulgate-Bible-Pentateuch-Douay-Rheims-Translation/dp/0674055349/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1302375590&sr=1-1

I have Volume 1, and Volume 2 is about to be released.

 

[Bible_Reader]

David,

My vote, so far, is this one: amazon.com/Vulgate-Bible-Pentateuch-Douay-Rheims-Translation/dp/0674055349/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1302375590&sr=1-1

I have Volume 1, and Volume 2 is about to be released.

Salvatore, how do you come to the conclusion that the Douay-Challoner – and a synthetic hypothetical reconstruction of the Vulgate corresponding to the Douay – is “a Bible as accurate to the original Hebrew as possible”?

In the past you have advocated the view that Jerome may have had access to manuscripts that were better than those that we now have – a view that I regard with considerable skepticism. Further, since Biblical Hebrew (as opposed to Mishnaic Hebrew) was already a long dead language at the time of Jerome, and there is no evidence that Jerome studied cognate languages (such as Ugaritic), there is ample reason to doubt that Jerome’s understanding of Biblical Hebrew was superior to our own.

But suppose for the sake of argument that we accepted that Jerome’s translation was somehow “a Bible as accurate to the original Hebrew as possible.” Since Jerome’s translation is long lost (and was also long lost to the Douai translators and to Challoner), how would that make this edition “a Bible as accurate to the original Hebrew as possible”?

 

[Salvatore123]

Bible Reader,

Because, as the “author” of the referenced work states in his explanation of what he has done, he essentially removed Challoner’s revisions, stuck to the original Duoay Rheims (which we DO have copies of), and then used extent Latin texts such as the one used in producing the Alcuin bible, to produce what Father Martin was very likely looking at when he produced the Duoay Rheims.

He asked for a version that is available to use NOW.

I have already stated (and have repeatedly done so) what I think would be the most accurate bible available:

Produce a text based on:

A. Codex Sinaiticus (which contains the oldest complete NT Greek text known to exist)
B. Codex Vaticanus
C. Dead Sea Scrolls

And “employ” the best biblical scholars money can buy, and, if possible, weeding out anyone with an agenda OTHER THAN simply producing a bible that is as accurate as possible based on the oldest texts known to man.

So far, such a bible does not exist.

P.S. - although being closer in time to an event does not necessarily ensure a more accurate description or rendering of an event, the closer one is to an event, the less likely “revision” creeps in, as what inevitably occurs over time. After all, that is why we lost the Latin Vulgate produced by Jerome by the time Father Martin produced the Duoay Rheims.

 

[Bible_Reader]

The “author” of the referenced work states in his explanation of what he has done, he essentially removed Challoner’s revisions

This is not correct. Swift Edgar retained Challoner’s revisions in the English portion of the diglot (and removed the translation notes of the both the Douay and Challoner). If one makes the reasonable assumption that David was looking for an English translation, I don’t see how this would meet his needs.

stuck to the original Duoay Rheims (which we DO have copies of)

If you believe the 1610-1611 Douay is closest to the original Hebrew, then I would have assumed you would recommend that David buy a copy of the 1610-1611 Douay (which is in print). However, I don’t understand why you would think that the 1610-1611 Douay was closest to the original Hebrew.

Of course, the Rheims Bible was translated from the New Testament, and thus does not reflect “the original Hebrew.”

and then used extent Latin texts such as the one used in producing the Alcuin bible

In fact, as Swift Edgar makes clear, he is completely dependent on Weber’s 5th edition of the Vulgate and Quentin’s edition for his work on “extant Latin texts.” I do not understand why you think that Edgar’s Vulgate is closer to Jerome than Weber or Quentin, since Weber and Quentin actually set out to try to reconstruct Jerome.

to produce what Father Martin was very likely looking at when he produced the Duoay Rheims

While there is little doubt that Martin was the primary translator of the Rheims, Edgar’s speculation that Martin was also the primary translator of the Douay is a minority view. Edgar gives a somewhat tortured argument that suggests that publication of the Douay was delayed 28 years after Martin’s death. Besides its inherent implausibility, one problem that Edgar’s theory faces is that the preface to the 1610-1611 Douay itself states otherwise.

As I am sure you are aware, the standard scholarly edition of the Hebrew Bible, the fourth edition of the BHS, does include an extensive apparatus indicating when other ancient manuscripts (including the various Septuagints, the various Targums, the various Vulgates, and the various Dead Sea Scroll manuscripts) disagree. I am unaware of any major contemporary scholarly translation of the Bible that does not make ample use of this apparatus . Even the major Jewish English translation, the Jewish Publication Society’s 1985 Tanakh makes extensive reference to Septuagint and DSS variants.

An even better apparatus is contained in the new BHQ edition (which has appeared in part already and is projected to be complete in 2015.)

 

[Salvatore123]

Bible Reader,

You said:

1. I was incorrect in saying, “The ‘author’ of the referenced work states in his explanation of what he has done, he essentially removed Challoner’s revisions.”

Obviously, what we are discussing is relative and a matter of degree. I said what I did based on the following statement by the ‘author’ of the volume I cited: “This policy [referring to how he made changes to the Challoner editions] has resulted in significant alterations to Challoner’s edition, which superabounds in colons, and commas, lacks quotations marks, and begins each verse on a new line, sometimes making the text difficult to understand.”

I consider this a removal of Challoner’s revisions - you do not. I don’t think either of us are right or wrong. We simply have a different view of what may be deemed a “removal”.

1. You insinuate that St. Jerome did not have a good working knowledge of Hebrew. In the encyclical Spiritus Paraclitus, we find Benedict XV saying of Jerome:

"From Antioch be betook to the desert of Chalcis, in Syria, to perfect himself in his knowledge of the Bible, and at the same time to curb “youthful desires” by means of hard study. Here he engaged a convert Jew to teach him Hebrew and Chaldaic. “What a toil it was! How difficult I found it! How often I was on the point of giving it up in despair, and yet in my eagerness to learn took it up again! Myself can bear witness of this, and so, too, can those who had lived with me at the time. Yet I thank God for the fruit I won from that bitter seed.”

In addition, we know that Jerome deviated from his Damasus commission to consult the Septuagint on the OT translations, and used what was to become the basis for the Jewish Masoretic text - much to the consternation of his friends, and especially St. Augustine.

1. Finally, I realize you disagree with my theory that the closer one is to an event (in this case, Jerome being closer in time to the writing of the sacred texts than us today), although not necessarily conclusive, DOES have probative value.

Logically, if one were to adhere to your position, then why are the Dead Sea Scrolls so important but Jerome’s translations are not? What, other than age, gives the Dead Sea Scrolls such value? Well, I think the same applies to Jerome - what, other than age (and thus, closeness in time) makes Jerome’s work so valuable?

I hope you would acknowledge that Jerome had a better chance at viewing manuscripts as close to the originals, than we do today, for the simple reason than we are almost 2000years removed from those originals whereas Jerome was removed from them a far less period of time.

In sum, if Swift Edgar’s aim is to produce a Latin and English bible that is as close to the Vulgate viewed by Father Martin et al. when they produced the Duoay Rheims (and I think his approach is a good one), and Jerome’s Vulgate (particularly, the OT) was primarily based on the Hebrew texts (other than when he consulted the Septuagint for the deuterocanonicals), then why wouldn’t purchasing an English/Latin bible based on ancient Hebrew texts fulfill David’s want?

Remember - I prefaced my recommendation based on what we have NOW - not something that is in the works and might be ready for publication four years from now.

 

[Bible_Reader]

TWhy are the Dead Sea Scrolls so important but Jerome’s translations are not?

Because we don’t have Jerome’s translation.

 

[Bible_Reader]

(1) Challoner’s revisions to the Douay-Rhems were extensive and not limited to punctuation. See section 2 of this essay for example.

(2) I did not insinuate that Jerome’s Hebrew was bad – for his time, it was amazing. I rather asserted that Jerome’s understanding of Hebrew is inferior to ours. We now have more text written in classical Hebrew from inscriptions than exists in the Hebrew Bible – something that Jerome did not have. We have an understanding of cognate languages such as Ugaritic, that Jerome did not have.

However, this is all a moot point because we do not have Jerome’s translation.

(3) Jerome’s translation would be very interesting if we had it. However, we do not have Jerome’s translation. And we’ve discovered manuscripts that Jerome likely did not have – such as the material in the Cairo Genizah or the Dead Sea Scrolls.

(4) I am happy to say the you can buy BHS – and its impressive apparatus – right now.

 

[Salvatore123]

Bible Reader, you said: “However, this is all a moot point because we do not have Jerome’s translation.”

I said this exact thing several months ago in another thread I started about the NABRE and I was surprised to see so many people who did not realize that the Latin Vulgate, as promulgated by St. Jerome, was NOT the Latin translation that Father Martin, et al., looked at when they produced the Douay Rheims. They were even more surprised to hear/learn that the LV had been “lost” centuries before the DR, because of nothing more than copying errors by those working in scriptoria.

As for accuracy of any translation of the bible, I think we are going to come close to the original manuscripts only when we find multiples copies, from different sources and times, but all near where those manuscripts were originally written and very near in time to the event.

I think everyone would agree that the writers of every book in the bible probably did NOT write out more than one copy of that manuscript.

My fervent prayer and hope is that the Catholic Church - very soon - undertakes a project to produce “the mother of all translations”, now that we have such a variety of ancient sources, scholarship, and a genuine desire for that amongst Catholics. Just reading different posts since I joined CAF, I feel I am not alone when I say that protestants are putting out translations right and left (now, admittedly, not all good), whereas Catholics get the NABRE, and that comes 41 years after the original NAB - neither of which were received with great fanfare that one would usually accompany a great, new translation.

I do hope this occurs soon . . .

 

[Jerry-Jet]

What I’d like to see is an English translation of the Nova Vulgata produced by theologicaly conservative English speaking Latin language lovers working directly for the Holy See.

Then I’d like to see future Catholic translations of the bible have to justify any variances from that version.

I have no problem with biblical scholarship and I have no problem with English translations of the bible that do not match the Vulgate.

What I do have a problem with is translation choices in Catholic bibles that are not made with any deference at all to what the Catholic Church has taught over the centuries–and how the Catholic Church has used the bible in the liturgy over the centuries.

 

[Salvatore123]

Jerry,

I agree.

I think it is a tragedy that we are now more than 30 years post Nova Vulgata (1979 original; not quite 30 for the 1986 revision), and not one approved english translation exists.

I realize that english, I believe, is the third most spoken language on the planet, but I think that english has become the “language currency” of the world, much like the dollar has been (but not for long ).

 

[Bible_Reader]

My fervent prayer and hope is that the Catholic Church - very soon - undertakes a project to produce “the mother of all translations”, now that we have such a variety of ancient sources, scholarship, and a genuine desire for that amongst Catholics. Just reading different posts since I joined CAF, I feel I am not alone when I say that protestants are putting out translations right and left (now, admittedly, not all good), whereas Catholics get the NABRE, and that comes 41 years after the original NAB - neither of which were received with great fanfare that one would usually accompany a great, new translation.

This is a fascinating point, and I’d like to play with it a bit, if you permit.

First, I’d like to invite you to to explore the Catholic project, The Bible in Its Traditions, in particular this sample passage. This project is of course, a replacement for Bible de Jérusalem. There is already a complete “sample volume” in French online or available for purchase; although the English version is lagging behind. This may be the closest to the “mother of all translations” you wish for – although in truth, you’ll have to wait a while for the English version.

And there are a variety of really interesting English Bible translation projects with Catholic involvement (in a model like the NRSV) – a few that deserve mention are

• [New English Translation of the Septuagint (http://www.amazon.com/New-English-Translation-Septuagint/dp/0195289757) – which I think you would love. It is also available online. Of course, this sort of volume is for study only – it can never get imprimatur (because it is not translated from the Hebrew) but it does have Catholic involvement and is, in my opinion, the most interesting Bible translation published in the last decade
• The Common English Bible – a new translation being published with Catholic involvement. After having read the CEB NT, I’m not that excited about this project, but it definitely seems like it will be a strong contender to receive imprimatur.
• The Dunbarton Oaks Vulgate – you already know about this.

I have heard that several publishers have been dissuaded from trying to produce Catholic editions because the USCCB has been very resistant to giving imprimatur. For example, as you may know, the Living Bible was published in a Catholic edition with imprimatur. Tyndale Publishers also produced a Catholic version of the first edition of the New Living Translation (and this was even eventually published) but Tyndale claims it received the run-around from the USCCB and never got imprimatur (or even a clear rejection). They didn’t even try to produce a version with apocrypha for the NLT2.

And to bring this story fully around, we know that Ignatius (which goes out of its way to publish as many of its books as possible with imprimatur) also attempted to get imprimatur for the RSV-2CE – only to end up getting a mixed-message answer from the USCCB.

I haven’t even heard of an attempt to try to get imprimatur on the RSV 2nd edition (the 1971 New Testament) or the ESV with Apocrypha – although I cannot see why these editions are any less worthy than the NABRE. My point is that if we have few new English Catholic Bible translations, the problem may be due to frustrations over the way that the USCCB handles imprimatur. (It is also a financial conflict of interest for the USCCB, which earns substantial royalty income from NAB sales.)

 

[Bible_Reader]

What I’d like to see is an English translation of the Nova Vulgata produced by theologicaly conservative English speaking Latin language lovers working directly for the Holy See.

Then I’d like to see future Catholic translations of the bible have to justify any variances from that version.

You may be interested in this essay, which argues against your proposal. I’ll simply reprint its conclusion here:

No Church document beside Liturgiam Authenticam makes the Nova Vulgata an authority that translators of biblical texts for the liturgy are required to follow. Liturgiam Authenticam appears to have neglected Divino Afflante Spiritu and Dei Verbum, both of which deal authoritatively with the Vulgate, and to have misread Scripturarum Thesaurus. Translators surely will consult the Nova Vulgata as a competent translation, but not as a book requiring particular renderings

  As a final thought, it is important to recognize that *Liturgiam Authenticam* no. 37 repeats the teaching of *Divino Afflante Spiritu*, *Inter Oecumenici*, and *Dei Verbum* that translations of sacred Scripture be made directly from the original texts, Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek.

 

[mccorm45]

Perhaps would it be prudent to return this thread to it’s intended topic, which was the RSV?

I must say that even with the reservations I have for the RSV-2CE, those being the lack of transparency in the revision process and the limited number of editions published, I still think it is superior to the other RSV’s. The changes, for the most part, were improvements. Although the change from cup to chalice, while perhaps liturgically driven, was unnecessary.