Ignatius Bible-Readers Version

[Manfred]

Omigawd, there are about three threads running, all on the RSV-xCE, and, frankly, I’m not keeping track of who’s posting what on which post or why.

Seriously, I still argue that the RSV-2CE is a work-in-progress, despite its “link” to the CDW. Many of the significant changes, e.g., “Amen, amen”, still aren’t there. It makes only a very small number of needed changes, but leaves out too many others, so I don’t intend to buy it.

Then there are those “compact” editions; were I to buy one now, who knows WHICH RSV NT (1959 or 1971) I’d get, considering Oxford got caught with its hand in the cookie jar by CAF Forum posters?!

Now it seems there is an Ignatius “Reader’s Edition”, not to be confused with the Oxford “Reader’s Ed.”

Oh, and there are those Scepter Press editions, probably published by Oxford alright, but maybe using Scepter’s master copy of the 1965-66 RSV-CE.

I won’t gointo that awful NRSV and its use in the Canadian Lectionary, a choice that ranks right down there with the choice of the RNAB for the US Lectionary.

If only the NJB didn’t have even that relatively mild level of inclusive language…

If only the NJB didn’t try to be so innovative and “out there” with its renderings and kept more to the “traditional”…

If only some English-speaking country could “legitimize” it by basing a Lectionary on it…

Then, perhaps, I wouldn’t need to get so tweaked up over all these RSV-xCE’s! :banghead:

 

[porthos11]

Now it seems there is an Ignatius “Reader’s Edition”, not to be confused with the Oxford “Reader’s Ed.”

I think they can be confused; it appears to be the same one, simply rebranded with the Ignatius label.

 

[mmortal03]

I think they can be confused; it appears to be the same one, simply rebranded with the Ignatius label.

Yep. I was going to correct Manfred, but I gave him the benefit of the doubt that his post was playing into the confusion to be sarcastic.

 

[Manfred]

Yep. I was going to correct Manfred, but I gave him the benefit of the doubt that his post was playing into the confusion to be sarcastic.

Actually, mmortal, I was expressing not sarcasm so much as frustration over all this, because it seems we have so many “publishers” who merely take what another has typeset and printed and then rebrand it with their own name, sometimes without even being aware of the exact nature of the contents. Exhibit A: the Ignatius “Compact Ed.” which is a rebrand of the Oxford that you and others uncovered late last year with its 1971 NT overwritten with the 1965 CE changes.

I also meant what I said about the NJB. And why not? The US bishops think the RNAB is great, and their Canadian counterparts are equally ecstatic over the NRSV, but no one, not even he British hierarchy, cared to advance the NJB. (At least it’s got a better page layout than any of the RSVs!)

 

[lak611]

Then there are those “compact” editions; were I to buy one now, who knows WHICH RSV NT (1959 or 1971) I’d get, considering Oxford got caught with its hand in the cookie jar by CAF Forum posters?!

I have not seen any of the “compact” editions, so I have no idea which NT they use. Is the “Reader’s Version” a compact edition, or a regular size Bible?

 

[porthos11]

I have not seen any of the “compact” editions, so I have no idea which NT they use. Is the “Reader’s Version” a compact edition, or a regular size Bible?

It’s a regular-sized Bible, about the same dimensions as the old blue Ignatius Bible.

 

[Manfred]

It’s a regular-sized Bible, about the same dimensions as the old blue Ignatius Bible.

Well, then, WHY would anyone want an Ignatius Reader’s Edition? Is the page layout and type more eye-friendly? The blue hard-cover Ignatius is a strain on my eyes in the OT narrative portions (think Leviticus, or any of the non-Wisdom books printed as straight prose).

When we last checked the “RSV-CE Needs Corrections” thread:

(1) the “Compact Edition” used the 1971 NT overwritten with the 1965 CE changes; and

(2) the “Reader’s Edition” reverted to the 1959 NT overwritten with the 1965 CE changes.

If there is a Scepter Press edition that is NOT co-branded with Oxford, which of the above describes its NT?

And, to make it clear, I’m looking for an RSV-CE that’s got better page layout and slightly larger font size than the Ignatius blue-cover editions. Does such a one exist?

 

[mmortal03]

Well, then, WHY would anyone want an Ignatius Reader’s Edition? Is the page layout and type more eye-friendly? The blue hard-cover Ignatius is a strain on my eyes in the OT narrative portions (think Leviticus, or any of the non-Wisdom books printed as straight prose).

When we last checked the “RSV-CE Needs Corrections” thread:

(1) the “Compact Edition” used the 1971 NT overwritten with the 1965 CE changes; and

(2) the “Reader’s Edition” reverted to the 1959 NT overwritten with the 1965 CE changes.

If there is a Scepter Press edition that is NOT co-branded with Oxford, which of the above describes its NT?

And, to make it clear, I’m looking for an RSV-CE that’s got better page layout and slightly larger font size than the Ignatius blue-cover editions. Does such a one exist?

Since we have a pretty good idea that it is a re-branded Oxford Press Reader’s Version, (I don’t there has been any work done on another brand new typesetting or anything) I think the reason to own one is just because of the re-typeset format, page layout, etc. I haven’t seen the inside of one myself, remember I returned mine after we realized that the 1971 revisions were pretty much retracted, but we have heard that it is the same as the compact, except just larger. The problem with it is the slight variations compared to the real RSV-CE that they still missed. I don’t think there were too many of those, though. Read back through the RSV-CE and see if I made any concise posts regarding this.

I think the full-size Scepter Press editions have always been just rebound versions of the Blue Ignatius ones. They came out before all of the Oxford Press mess occurred.

The compact Scepter Press editions have always been the same as the Ignatius and Oxford Press compacts, specifically being the 1971 RSV with RSV-CE changes applied.

Unless I have missed something, there haven’t been any changes to what has always had the name Scepter on it, but it remember, it depends on the format, not the branding to determine what you are getting.

 

[Manfred]

Since we have a pretty good idea that it is a re-branded Oxford Press Reader’s Version, (I don’t there has been any work done on another brand new typesetting or anything) I think the reason to own one is just because of the re-typeset format, page layout, etc. I haven’t seen the inside of one myself, remember I returned mine after we realized that the 1971 revisions were pretty much retracted, but we have heard that it is the same as the compact, except just larger. The problem with it is the slight variations compared to the real RSV-CE that they still missed. I don’t think there were too many of those, though. Read back through the RSV-CE and see if I made any concise posts regarding this.

I think the full-size Scepter Press editions have always been just rebound versions of the Blue Ignatius ones. They came out before all of the Oxford Press mess occurred.

The compact Scepter Press editions have always been the same as the Ignatius and Oxford Press compacts, specifically being the 1971 RSV with RSV-CE changes applied.

Unless I have missed something, there haven’t been any changes to what has always had the name Scepter on it, but it remember, it depends on the format, not the branding to determine what you are getting.

I rather clearly do recall your writing around the time of all the flap surrounding the Oxford “Reader’s Edition” that it was NOT a perfect reversion to the true 1965 RSV-CE NT.

Unfortunately, for me, there is really no edition of the RSV-CE that has better eye-appeal than what the blue hard-cover Ignatius has, UNLESS I want to consider the RSV-2CE, which I don’t.

 

[mmortal03]

I rather clearly do recall your writing around the time of all the flap surrounding the Oxford “Reader’s Edition” that it was NOT a perfect reversion to the true 1965 RSV-CE NT.

Unfortunately, for me, there is really no edition of the RSV-CE that has better eye-appeal than what the blue hard-cover Ignatius has, UNLESS I want to consider the RSV-2CE, which I don’t.

But have you seen the Oxford Press Reader’s Version? Check out some of the reviews of it at the following link. They seem to describe what you are looking for, even if it isn’t what I am looking for.

amazon.com/Revised-Standard-Version-Catholic-Bible/dp/0195288653

 

[porthos11]

Well, then, WHY would anyone want an Ignatius Reader’s Edition? Is the page layout and type more eye-friendly? The blue hard-cover Ignatius is a strain on my eyes in the OT narrative portions (think Leviticus, or any of the non-Wisdom books printed as straight prose).

It’s identical to that of the Oxford Reader’s Version. So one basically has the pick. Buy the Oxford, or buy the new Ignatius. It’s the same stuff, different brand.
And, to make it clear, I’m looking for an RSV-CE that’s got better page layout and slightly larger font size than the Ignatius blue-cover editions. Does such a one exist?

The new Oxfords have better print, easier on the eyes, but the font size is somewhat slightly smaller then the original RSV-CE. This should include the Ignatius Reader’s Version, which is basically an Oxford.

 

[Manfred]

But have you seen the Oxford Press Reader’s Version? Check out some of the reviews of it at the following link. They seem to describe what you are looking for, even if it isn’t what I am looking for.

amazon.com/Revised-Standard-Version-Catholic-Bible/dp/0195288653

Thanks, mmortal; I’ve got the reviews open in another browser tab and i’ll read through them carefully.