Ignatius Bible-Readers Version

[AngelRose81]

Does anyone have this particular version of the Ignatius RSV-CE? I just wondered what you thought of it. Obviously the text is the same but some of the footnotes, other notes, etc are in the back of the Bible instead of on the page and also the titles for each section (i.e. Sermon on the Mount, Parable of …, The Crucifixion) aren’t there. I like my reader’s version but I just wish it atleast had the titles of the sections on it. I guess its because it helps you read straight through or something ? Do any of you have it, if so what’s your opinion on it?

Here’s a link to the one I have
ignatius.com/ViewProduct.aspx?SID=1&Product_ID=3011&SKU=IBR:BKL-P&Category_ID=6

 

[Manfred]

Does anyone have this particular version of the Ignatius RSV-CE? I just wondered what you thought of it. Obviously the text is the same but some of the footnotes, other notes, etc are in the back of the Bible instead of on the page and also the titles for each section (i.e. Sermon on the Mount, Parable of …, The Crucifixion) aren’t there. I like my reader’s version but I just wish it atleast had the titles of the sections on it. I guess its because it helps you read straight through or something ? Do any of you have it, if so what’s your opinion on it?

Here’s a link to the one I have
ignatius.com/ViewProduct.aspx?SID=1&Product_ID=3011&SKU=IBR:BKL-P&Category_ID=6

I believe it’s just another packaging of the blue-cover Ignatius Bible. Ignatius, per my understanding, does not control the copyright for the RSV-CE, so they cannot alter it or add to it in any way.

 

[porthos11]

I believe it’s just another packaging of the blue-cover Ignatius Bible. Ignatius, per my understanding, does not control the copyright for the RSV-CE, so they cannot alter it or add to it in any way.

Manfred, judging from the box cover, I believe it is the Ignatius licensed packaging of the newly-released Oxford RSV Catholic Bible Reader’s Version. I purchased one, but the original Oxford edition. It should contain the same text mentioned in your RSV thread.

The features are consistent with the Oxford editions.

 

[porthos11]

Does anyone have this particular version of the Ignatius RSV-CE? I just wondered what you thought of it. Obviously the text is the same but some of the footnotes, other notes, etc are in the back of the Bible instead of on the page and also the titles for each section (i.e. Sermon on the Mount, Parable of …, The Crucifixion) aren’t there. I like my reader’s version but I just wish it atleast had the titles of the sections on it. I guess its because it helps you read straight through or something ? Do any of you have it, if so what’s your opinion on it?

Here’s a link to the one I have
ignatius.com/ViewProduct.aspx?SID=1&Product_ID=3011&SKU=IBR:BKL-P&Category_ID=6

See my post above. If you have only horizontal lines setting off sections, you have the Ignatius packaging of the Oxford RSV-CE. It’s a fine Bible, much better print than the original RSV-CE which has a tad hard to read and beautiful on the outside. It’s the 1966 RSV-CE text, but with some very slight adjustments.

If section headings are important to you, you may want the Ignatius RSV Second CE as well. It has more revisions and conforms to at least the minimum requirements of Liturgiam Authenticam.

 

[richardwy]

Though you didn’t ask about the 1859 Haydock:

catholictreasures.com/cartdescrip/11341.html

It’s the one I own and use, and cannot recommend highly enough.

 

[AngelRose81]

See my post above. If you have only horizontal lines setting off sections, you have the Ignatius packaging of the Oxford RSV-CE. It’s a fine Bible, much better print than the original RSV-CE which has a tad hard to read and beautiful on the outside. It’s the 1966 RSV-CE text, but with some very slight adjustments.

If section headings are important to you, you may want the Ignatius RSV Second CE as well. It has more revisions and conforms to at least the minimum requirements of Liturgiam Authenticam.

Yep, that’s what it has. I’ve got the Ignatius RSV-2ndCE too, LOVE IT!!! I just got the other one to take with me some places b/c I don’t want to mess up my Ignatius one (I’ve got the leather one). Thanks for the info!!!

 

[mmortal03]

Manfred, judging from the box cover, I believe it is the Ignatius licensed packaging of the newly-released Oxford RSV Catholic Bible Reader’s Version. I purchased one, but the original Oxford edition. It should contain the same text mentioned in your RSV thread.

The features are consistent with the Oxford editions.

Oh, wow! What have they gone and done now? If you have been following along here in the various RSV-CE threads over the past two years, you would be shaking your head uncontrollably after reading that. All the publishers of the RSV-CE have pretty much come full circle now in making it impossible for someone to know what the bible they are purchasing contains, without doing major research here, or consulting a select few readers of these threads here on the forums. And these publishers aren’t much smarter than the dumbfounded customers they will have created, because THEY don’t even know what’s up, even if you called them and asked.

 

[mmortal03]

If section headings are important to you, you may want the Ignatius RSV Second CE as well. It has more revisions and conforms to at least the minimum requirements of Liturgiam Authenticam.

Please don’t fall for Ignatius’s misinformation that they conform to LA, porthos. I know they really really want that badly, but they don’t have it. I know you said “minimum requirements”, however, until we have the Ratio Translationis for the English Language, I don’t even think we can start to make that declaration. Anything else is just subjective and unofficial.

 

[porthos11]

Please don’t fall for Ignatius’s misinformation that they conform to LA, porthos. I know they really really want that badly, but they don’t have it. I know you said “minimum requirements”, however, until we have the Ratio Translationis for the English Language, I don’t even think we can start to make that declaration. Anything else is just subjective and unofficial.

mmortal, I like you and all the hard work you did. But I really have no reason to disbelieve Ignatius and it will be quite some time before I even suspect that Ignatius is resorting to misinformation; its reputation is still stellar and I do believe them when they say that the changes came from the CDW to bring it to conform with LA.

For me, that’s quite enough coming from the author of LA itself, and a reading of LA does appear to make the RSV-2CE compliant on a minimum, although probably not optimal scale, while considering only LA and not a not-as-yet released Ratio.

So since the CDW has put at least its behind-the-scenes stamp of approval on vis-a-vis LA-compliance, I’m satisfied.

 

[Shoshana]

I have this one and it is beautiful!!!

http://www.ewtnreligiouscatalogue.com/images/catalog/detail/9369.jpg

 

[mmortal03]

mmortal, I like you and all the hard work you did. But I really have no reason to disbelieve Ignatius and it will be quite some time before I even suspect that Ignatius is resorting to misinformation; its reputation is still stellar and I do believe them when they say that the changes came from the CDW to bring it to conform with LA.

For me, that’s quite enough coming from the author of LA itself, and a reading of LA does appear to make the RSV-2CE compliant on a minimum, although probably not optimal scale, while considering only LA and not a not-as-yet released Ratio.

So since the CDW has put at least its behind-the-scenes stamp of approval on vis-a-vis LA-compliance, I’m satisfied.

As far as the specifics are concerned, I might have seen it before and forgotten about it, but where did you read that the Second Catholic Edition received approval and/or received changes from the Congregation of Divine Worship? My intuition tells me that whatever they got from the CDW, it wasn’t as earth shattering as it might sound. To put what I mean in context, say I got to meet the President of the United States. If I talked to him for a little bit about something, got to shake his hand, and received a pat on the back from him for my good work on whatever that may be, I could say that what I did “has the POTUS’s approval”. However, that is far from saying that he went line by line through my actions and personally edited it.

In the same way, I really doubt the thoroughness and depth of application of LA really occurred here regarding the CDW.

In the more general case, you have a fair argument, and make no mistake, this is not something personal. I just am a stickler for accuracy, for one reason because good biblical scholarship requires it, and when someone releases a bible translation, they are (and should be) held to the highest standard. And, as such, I don’t have a problem with Ignatius Press as a whole. I think they do Catholics a great service. However, I think that their page selling the Second Catholic Edition is at the least not written accurately enough, and at the worst deceptive. Either side of the spectrum, it is putting out misinformation. Don’t get misinformation confused with conscious lying, which we can have no way of knowing if that is the case.

The page states that, “[it] is in conformity with the Church’s translation guidelines found in the Vatican document, Liturgiam Authenticam”, my emphasis on the word “conformity”, which is wrong, and is taking advantage of a buzz word to push a product. (A product description should always accurately describe a product.) If you want to make the argument that parts of it are in conformity, you can be my guest, but I think that is deceptive.

The actual text itself says “revised according to Liturgiam Authenticam”, which is able to be argued, but I still think it is pushing it for the amount that we discovered that they changed, and specifically in the context of what actually was changed.

 

[Manfred]

Please don’t fall for Ignatius’s misinformation that they conform to LA, porthos. I know they really really want that badly, but they don’t have it. I know you said “minimum requirements”, however, until we have the Ratio Translationis for the English Language, I don’t even think we can start to make that declaration. Anything else is just subjective and unofficial.

I can’t resist: I’m pretty sure we’ll see the Ratio Translationis any day now, around the time the Motu Proprio for the Traditional Latin Mass is issued. (Won’t we?)

 

[porthos11]

As far as the specifics are concerned, I might have seen it before and forgotten about it, but where did you read that the Second Catholic Edition received approval and/or received changes from the Congregation of Divine Worship? My intuition tells me that whatever they got from the CDW, it wasn’t as earth shattering as it might sound.

According to e-mail correspondence, the actual changes were suggested by the CDW and they simply put them in. So it would seem the changes originated not with Ignatius, but with the CDW. I could misunderstand it, but it seemed that way to me.

To put what I mean in context, say I got to meet the President of the United States. If I talked to him for a little bit about something, got to shake his hand, and received a pat on the back from him for my good work on whatever that may be, I could say that what I did “has the POTUS’s approval”. However, that is far from saying that he went line by line through my actions and personally edited it.

I think this was more like the CDW looked at the Ignatius Lectionary, requested changes, and the changes were back-edited into the Bible.

In the same way, I really doubt the thoroughness and depth of application of LA really occurred here regarding the CDW.

No matter. As Paula Johnson of Ignatius said, "we did not question the changes, since the CDW had proposed them…It was the legislator who did the interpretation on how to apply the norms. LA is a CDW document, so their interpretation and changes get the highest assent from Ignatius, and consequently, from me. I do not believe Ignatius would lie through their teeth about this matter.

In the more general case, you have a fair argument, and make no mistake, this is not something personal. I just am a stickler for accuracy, for one reason because good biblical scholarship requires it, and when someone releases a bible translation, they are (and should be) held to the highest standard.

Oh, I agree fully. But here, the standard was established by Ignatius to be the CDW, and I do not have sufficient intelligence or knowledge to question their recommendations.

And, as such, I don’t have a problem with Ignatius Press as a whole. I think they do Catholics a great service. However, I think that their page selling the Second Catholic Edition is at the least not written accurately enough, and at the worst deceptive. Either side of the spectrum, it is putting out misinformation. Don’t get misinformation confused with conscious lying, which we can have no way of knowing if that is the case.

Again, since the 2CE is apparently to the CDW’s satisfaction, I have no significant reason to object to the claims. If the CDW, the author of LA did indeed propose the changes which the CDW said brings the RSV into conformity, and all Ignatius did was incorporate them as is, then I have no beef with their claims.

The page states that, “[it] is in conformity with the Church’s translation guidelines found in the Vatican document, Liturgiam Authenticam”, my emphasis on the word “conformity”, which is wrong, and is taking advantage of a buzz word to push a product. (A product description should always accurately describe a product.) If you want to make the argument that parts of it are in conformity, you can be my guest, but I think that is deceptive.

I see no place in the 2CE where there is non-conformity to requirements. There does appear to be some non-conformity to recommendations (even strong ones). I donno why they didn’t do some recommendations, but I speculate that if one went too far, it might come to the point that the text may then cease to be the RSV. But that’s just a guess.

 

[AngelRose81]

I have this one and it is beautiful!!!

http://www.ewtnreligiouscatalogue.com/images/catalog/detail/9369.jpg

I have that one too. I really like it. The only thing is, I like to highlight favorite scripture and this one is just so beautiful I don’t know if I want to highlight it yet.

I guess the highlighting is from the years as a protestant b/c everyone did it! I still like to do it though. Helps me find certain passages.

Another thing with this one is that if I carry it to where there are a lot of protestants, I get funny looks b/c of the cover but I found a thread on here that told how to explain it, that its Jesus in the center and then Matthew, Mark, Luke and John around the edges. I do love that bible though!

 

[Shoshana]

I have that one too. I really like it. The only thing is, I like to highlight favorite scripture and this one is just so beautiful I don’t know if I want to highlight it yet.

I guess the highlighting is from the years as a protestant b/c everyone did it! I still like to do it though. Helps me find certain passages.

Another thing with this one is that if I carry it to where there are a lot of protestants, I get funny looks b/c of the cover but I found a thread on here that told how to explain it, that its Jesus in the center and then Matthew, Mark, Luke and John around the edges. I do love that bible though!

I have always highlighted my bibles…and I was raised Catholic through and through!!!

 

[porthos11]

I have always highlighted my bibles…and I was raised Catholic through and through!!!

Since I obtained my newer leather-bounds, I have been highlighting my paperback Ignatius, the older “blue” one. Now that’s one’s getting pretty dirty quick.

I’m not putting any mark on my 2CE and Oxford copies.

 

[Shoshana]

Since I obtained my newer leather-bounds, I have been highlighting my paperback Ignatius, the older “blue” one. Now that’s one’s getting pretty dirty quick.

I’m not putting any mark on my 2CE and Oxford copies.

Chances are I will not with this one…but i also said that for my leather-bound zippered NAB and guess what after 21 years!!!

 

[mmortal03]

I think this was more like the CDW looked at the Ignatius Lectionary, requested changes, and the changes were back-edited into the Bible.

For what purpose would the CDW be the initiators of changes to the RSV:CE, when the official application of the changes would be so relatively minor? Strictly pertaining to where the SCE Lectionary is being used (in, if I remember correctly, the English speaking areas of the Caribbean?), this seems a bit odd. Now, maybe the CDW wanted a trial run for critical analysis, but I don’t think they are that receptive of outside opinion.

From what I understand, isn’t it the local areas that deal in which translation is approved for them? How I remember it being told, Ignatius made the changes, showed it to the CDW, presented a copy to the Pope, who both liked it, and certain areas of the world decided to use it. What you said probably happened, though. Before Ignatius made the changes, the CDW suggested them. I’d like to know more about this.

No matter. As Paula Johnson of Ignatius said, "we did not question the changes, since the CDW had proposed them…It was the legislator who did the interpretation on how to apply the norms. LA is a CDW document, so their interpretation and changes get the highest assent from Ignatius, and consequently, from me. I do not believe Ignatius would lie through their teeth about this matter.

I don’t think Ignatius is lying about this, I just have never heard about it. What is more important, though, is what the purpose the CDW had for this process. How big of a deal was it, how large was the committee, etc. Protocols and procedure are very important here. Just because someone at the CDW suggested changes doesn’t tell us how much importance they gave the interaction. To them, the intent could have just been to produce a very light revision, with very little substance. What seems very likely is that they did all of this having little authorization or allowance to make very substantial changes. Just because someone at the CDW produced the changes does not mean that we cannot question them. There are varying degrees to how things can be done. It isn’t just like the CDW requests some changes, and now the Second Catholic Edition has been perfected for all time.

Oh, I agree fully. But here, the standard was established by Ignatius to be the CDW, and I do not have sufficient intelligence or knowledge to question their recommendations.

Yes you do. The changes are known, and we can analyze them. We can’t know for sure what their motives were, which is a problem, but we can definitely question the changes they made. There isn’t some secret purpose here that was put into play that we can’t understand or decipher. It isn’t rocket science. The changes were minimal.

Again, since the 2CE is apparently to the CDW’s satisfaction, I have no significant reason to object to the claims. If the CDW, the author of LA did indeed propose the changes which the CDW said brings the RSV into conformity, and all Ignatius did was incorporate them as is, then I have no beef with their claims.

You are speaking in black and white terms here, which I have hinted at above. Just because the CDW suggested changes does NOT mean that the SCE conforms to their ultimate satisfactions. Further, just because the CDW does something does NOT mean that you cannot question it.

I see no place in the 2CE where there is non-conformity to requirements.

Didn’t you say that it isn’t for you to decide what conforms or doesn’t? That would mean that you couldn’t tell if there are places that do conform or don’t. It sounds like you are instead just defaulting to authority and defending something without evidence. Now, if you think that you ARE able to analyze LA for yourself and you have gone through it section by section let me know. This isn’t a personal attack, but a serious question. I distinctly remember there being places of very arguable non-conformance. It has been a while since I went through LA, so I can’t give you line by line specifics at the moment.

There does appear to be some non-conformity to recommendations (even strong ones).

Wait, which is it again?

I donno why they didn’t do some recommendations, but I speculate that if one went too far, it might come to the point that the text may then cease to be the RSV. But that’s just a guess.

That is a guess of mine as well.

As far as the changes that they DID make that I DO have a problem with, what is at issue is the style or target audience more than of accuracy. I guess I must not be in their target audience.

The biggest problem is that they had the opportunity to make changes and they didn’t. And like you said, it could be that there were issues regarding the name and what could be changed.

 

[porthos11]

For what purpose would the CDW be the initiators of changes to the RSV:CE, when the official application of the changes would be so relatively minor? Strictly pertaining to where the SCE Lectionary is being used (in, if I remember correctly, the English speaking areas of the Caribbean?), this seems a bit odd. Now, maybe the CDW wanted a trial run for critical analysis, but I don’t think they are that receptive of outside opinion.

I can’t speak for the CDW; I only know what Ignatius told me. I guess Ignatius wanted to release an RSV lectionary according to LA made a draft, and submitted it directly to the CDW, who then gave the recommended changes.

From what I understand, isn’t it the local areas that deal in which translation is approved for them? How I remember it being told, Ignatius made the changes, showed it to the CDW, presented a copy to the Pope, who both liked it, and certain areas of the world decided to use it. What you said probably happened, though. Before Ignatius made the changes, the CDW suggested them. I’d like to know more about this.

Again, I can’t speak for the CDW, but I only know what Ignatius told me. Perhaps Ignatius developed a lectionary on their own initiative, or maybe on the request of the Antilles Conference, who knows?

I don’t think Ignatius is lying about this, I just have never heard about it. What is more important, though, is what the purpose the CDW had for this process. How big of a deal was it, how large was the committee, etc. Protocols and procedure are very important here. Just because someone at the CDW suggested changes doesn’t tell us how much importance they gave the interaction.

Ignatius didn’t mention any particular One at the CDW, but cited the Congregation as a whole. Committees, or what-not, I have no idea.

To them, the intent could have just been to produce a very light revision, with very little substance. What seems very likely is that they did all of this having little authorization or allowance to make very substantial changes. Just because someone at the CDW produced the changes does not mean that we cannot question them. There are varying degrees to how things can be done. It isn’t just like the CDW requests some changes, and now the Second Catholic Edition has been perfected for all time.

No matter for me. Ignatius claims the backing of the CDW as whole, and I have no reason to disbelieve them.

Yes you do. The changes are known, and we can analyze them. We can’t know for sure what their motives were, which is a problem, but we can definitely question the changes they made. There isn’t some secret purpose here that was put into play that we can’t understand or decipher. It isn’t rocket science. The changes were minimal.

Yes, and I think Ignatius didn’t want it any other way either. Changes had to be only minimal so that the text could still be called the RSV-CE. If they went too far, it may then risk being turned into another work entirely.

 

[porthos11]

You are speaking in black and white terms here, which I have hinted at above. Just because the CDW suggested changes does NOT mean that the SCE conforms to their ultimate satisfactions. Further, just because the CDW does something does NOT mean that you cannot question it.

True, we may question it. It’s just that personally, I’m not inclined to, at least for now.

As for ultimate satisfactions, maybe not. But bare minimum compliance at least, perhaps so.

Didn’t you say that it isn’t for you to decide what conforms or doesn’t? That would mean that you couldn’t tell if there are places that do conform or don’t.

Yep. I do not consider myself qualified. I defer to the judgment of the Congregation.

It sounds like you are instead just defaulting to authority and defending something without evidence.

Yes, I do. The CDW is a major authority with matters concerning LA. They are LA’s authors, and they are LA’s final interpreter other than the Pope. I’m not as qualified as the CDW, or even Ignatius editors when it comes to the interpretation of LA. So I defer to their judgment and accept their word at face value.

Wait, which is it again?

The SCE doesn’t retain in all places the Hebrew and Aramaic transliterations where they appear. This was addressed by LA as being preferred, and in some cases, even required. Where it’s required may be determined by context, and the CDW may be the most qualified to determine that context. For example “Truly, truly” instead of “Amen, amen” or “you fool!” instead of “Raqa”. However in other important areas, “Amen” and “Hallejuah” are retained. My guess is that “preferred” gives some leeway here.

As far as the changes that they DID make that I DO have a problem with, what is at issue is the style or target audience more than of accuracy. I guess I must not be in their target audience.

Well, you never did mention what renderings you had a problem with.

The biggest problem is that they had the opportunity to make changes and they didn’t. And like you said, it could be that there were issues regarding the name and what could be changed.

On this, I merely speculate. Perhaps because they were dealing with an existing, copyrighted text that they could only do so much. A much more LA-compliant version might not be possible except only with an entirely new translation, or if the existing RSV text were so modified that it would need to be called something else (what? Catholic Standard Version? Liturgical Standard Version?).

But that’s only a guess.