Editions of the RSV-CE

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tyuiop411
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
mccorm45 said:
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.
Click to expand...
I agree 👍
 
mccorm45 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Although, you would presumably not feel that the addition of typographical errors in the RSV-2CE was an improvement. Similarly, you would presumably not feel that the poor physical quality of Ignatius’ printed Bibles was an advantage.

More to the point, the more interesting question is how you would compare the RSV-2CE to the NRSV, which was also a revision to the RSV, and has the following advantages:


  1. *] Incorporation of more up-to-date scholarship
    *]Incorporation of changes made in 1971 RSV NT
    *]Publication by many publishers, in a wide variety of formats
    *]Publication and tight integration with major software programs (Logos, Accordance, Olive Tree, BibleWorks)
    *]Broad variety of support materials (interlinears, concordances, commentaries, study Bibles, etc.) from broad variety of publishers
    *]Usage in major Catholic publications (such as the English CCC)
    *]Useful in ecumenical dialogue
    *]Widely used in scholarly publications and for secular teaching
    *]Basis of lectionary in Canada
    *]Basis of proposed ICPEL lectionary in English speaking territories outside the US
    *]An unquestioned imprimatur

    In the evolution of major Bible translations, the RSV-2CE seems like an odd little footnote. In fact, the only advantage I can see that to the RSV-2CE is the ongoing Ingatius Catholic Study Bible project.
 
Bible Reader,

I would tend to agree with you on most of your points. In many ways, even with the revision, the RSV-2CE remains a 50 year old translation. The NRSV, which I think does a lot right, will likely out live the RSV-2CE. The question, however, was originally centered just on the RSV’s. With that as the focus, I still contend that the RSV-2CE is the best option.

(I have found that the NRSV reads better than the RSV, and like you mentioned, does use more recent textual discoveries. It also has the advantage of being the basis for many scholarly commentaries. My one problem with the NRSV is the occasional issue with inclusive language. For the most part I think they did a fine job, but there are some head scratchers that hinder the reader. Of course, the fact that they supply many textual notes makes the allows the translation in a sense very open and honest.)
 
mccorm45 said:
Bible Reader,

I would tend to agree with you on most of your points. In many ways, even with the revision, the RSV-2CE remains a 50 year old translation. The NRSV, which I think does a lot right, will likely out live the RSV-2CE. The question, however, was originally centered just on the RSV’s. With that as the focus, I still contend that the RSV-2CE is the best option.

(I have found that the NRSV reads better than the RSV, and like you mentioned, does use more recent textual discoveries. It also has the advantage of being the basis for many scholarly commentaries. My one problem with the NRSV is the occasional issue with inclusive language. For the most part I think they did a fine job, but there are some head scratchers that hinder the reader. Of course, the fact that they supply many textual notes makes the allows the translation in a sense very open and honest.)
Click to expand...
I disagree. The unisex NRSV is not approved by the Church and though it reads well (I have 2, one I bought at a used book store in London and another anotated Oxford Study Bible, I also have an NRSV concordance.) The age of the translation is not, to my mind, the issue. The RSV is a formal equivalence and the NRSV is more dynamic and gender neutral.
 
JRRTFAN said:
I disagree. The unisex NRSV is not approved by the Church and though it reads well (I have 2, one I bought at a used book store in London and another anotated Oxford Study Bible, I also have an NRSV concordance.) The age of the translation is not, to my mind, the issue. The RSV is a formal equivalence and the NRSV is more dynamic and gender neutral.
Click to expand...
The NRSV is approved for reading and study in the USA, and it has been adapted for the Lectionary in Canada with approval from Rome. It is also being adapted for the UK and Wales Lectionary.

I tend to utilize the RSV slightly more, because it is a
a bit more formal than the NRSV. That said, the RSV is primarily published these days by Ignatius Press, with the occasional edition from Oxford. The fact that Ignatius does very little in promoting their RSV, while the NRSV has HarperCollins backing it, suggests to me that the NRSV will have greater longevity than the RSV-2CE.
 
JRRTFAN said:
I disagree. The unisex NRSV is not approved by the Church
Click to expand...
In fact, the NRSV (which I would not describe as “unisex”) has not one, but two imprimaturs, one from the (US) National Conference of Catholic Bishops (dated September 12, 1991) and one from the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (dated October 15, 1991). It is also used for the Canadian (English) Lectionary (with approval from the Vatican).
 
I’ll stick with my RSV-2CE! My first copy that I purchased in 2004 when it was first published is still going strong. I bought a second copy just a few days ago to use at work. I have several editions of the NRSV, and I have tried to use it on a daily basis, but the inclusive language is used so heavily that it is distracting. At times the choices the NRSV makes sound so unnatural. The NJB, the NABRE and the REB do a much better job using inclusive language and are not so heavy handed as the NRSV. It is too bad, because the NRSV could have been a much better translation, but who knows, maybe there will be a future NRSV revised edition in which it will reflect the changes made to it for use in the Catholic Mass!
 
CalCatholic said:
maybe there will be a future NRSV revised edition in which it will reflect the changes made to it for use in the Catholic Mass!
Click to expand...
Were there any changes made to it for the Canadian version? I’m not sure that there were.
 
CalCatholic said:
I’ll stick with my RSV-2CE! My first copy that I purchased in 2004 when it was first published is still going strong. I bought a second copy just a few days ago to use at work. I have several editions of the NRSV, and I have tried to use it on a daily basis, but the inclusive language is used so heavily that it is distracting. At times the choices the NRSV makes sound so unnatural. The NJB, the NABRE and the REB do a much better job using inclusive language and are not so heavy handed as the NRSV. It is too bad, because the NRSV could have been a much better translation, but who knows, maybe there will be a future NRSV revised edition in which it will reflect the changes made to it for use in the Catholic Mass!
Click to expand...
The year I purchased the RSV-2CE and when it was published was 2006 (not 2004).
 
Bible_Reader said:
Were there any changes made to it for the Canadian version? I’m not sure that there were.
Click to expand...
I heard that it was, just like the NAB had to be tweaked of some of its inclusive language, and some tradition language such as, 'Hail, full of Grace, etc was added. Maybe some of our Canadian friends can fill us in on any of the changes made to the NRSV Lectionary.
 
mccorm45 said:
The NRSV is approved for reading and study in the USA, and it has been adapted for the Lectionary in Canada with approval from Rome. It is also being adapted for the UK and Wales Lectionary.

I tend to utilize the RSV slightly more, because it is a
a bit more formal than the NRSV. That said, the RSV is primarily published these days by Ignatius Press, with the occasional edition from Oxford. The fact that Ignatius does very little in promoting their RSV, while the NRSV has HarperCollins backing it, suggests to me that the NRSV will have greater longevity than the RSV-2CE.
Click to expand...
Axtually they did a test run of the NRSV lectionary in Canada and the Vatican pulled the plug on it, but the Canadian Bishops begged for an extension until all the printed lectionaries were used up.

adoremus.org/396-ScripConfus.html
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top