M
Manfred
Guest
Something else comes to mind, though, re the RSV/RSV-CE; to wit, the wording of Romans 5:5, 8:11, 9:5. I’ll reproduce eacj here from the Protestant RSV.Jerry-Jet,
Well, I will agree the NIV (aka the “Non-Inspired Version”) is nowhere as good as the NASB, but the KJV and even the NKJV aren’t all that “bad”.
Consider: when the Catholic Biblical Association of Great Britain came up with the idea in 1954 of “Catholicizing” the RSV, it was probably because there were no other modern Protestant versions at the time on which to draw. But when others did come along, none got any of the same editing that the RSV received, even though they each had their good and bad points, and still we got the “NIV NT Catholic Edition” (I mean, really!) and the infamous NRSV-CE; there is nothing Catholic about these latter two! And you know the modern Catholic bibles that also appeared needed as much, if not more, editing than the RSV received.
Romans 5:5 “… and hope does not disappoint us, because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit which has been given to us.”
8:11 “If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through his Spirit which dwells in you.”
9:5 “… to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ. God who is over all be blessed for ever. Amen.”
Notice how the first two verses refer to the Holy Spirit with a neuter pronoun “which”, and the third verse inserts a period between “Christ” and “God”. In the latter case, it could be seen - and usually is - as an attempt to avoid stating explicitly that Christ is God.
The RSV was unique in these places. The D-R, RSV-CE, NASB, NIV, NKJB all used “who” when referring to the Holy Spirit; after all, He is the third Person in the Trinity. And for a “Person” or “persons”, “who”, not “which”, is more appropriate.
In the D-R, RSV-CE, NASB, NIV, NKJV, there is no period between “Christ” and “God”. Again, the RSV was unique.
Unique, but wrong, in all three places. The RSV-CE had to “fix” this; the other versions did not need to be fixed here, at least. It’s amazing the editors of the CE deemed the RSV worthy of “Catholicizing”! Would that these editors had worked with Fr. Alexander Jones and his team on the 1966 JB instead! Maybe we’d’ve gotten an edition of the JB that wasn’t so careless in so many places.