Ignatius Bible (RSV-CE) 2nd edition

[porthos11]

You obviously missed this link from that utterly stupendous thread “RSV-CE Needs Corrections”; many of us poured our hearts and souls into that over quite some time.

umsis.miami.edu/~medmunds/RSVCEdiff.htm

And there’s also this one, since one of the editions mentioned is from Oxford, which is NOT the same as that which Ignatius publishes as the original (1965-66) RSV-CE:

umsis.miami.edu/~medmunds/ScepterChangesC.htm

Yeah, see these tables made painstakingly by mmortal03.

Interesting to note are the changes listed in the 2nd Catholic edition, and where they depart from the RSV and RSV-CE. Those changes are now closer to the Nova Vulgata.

 

[bobolink]

Yeah, see these tables made painstakingly by mmortal03.

Interesting to note are the changes listed in the 2nd Catholic edition, and where they depart from the RSV and RSV-CE. Those changes are now closer to the Nova Vulgata.

I find those tables and the plethora of versions of the RSV pretty much totally confusing. Am I safe in saying (I think I am) that the Ignatius RSV-CE2nd is the best RSV version there is out there?

 

[SFH]

In both cases, there are problems with these instructions. For example, the required reliance on the Nova Vulgata, to settle any disputed readings of the Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek texts: the NV in many places is a translation of the Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek, deliberately departing from the Latin Scriptural tradition. So the requirement to refer to the NV is nonsensical. One should refer to the Pope Clement VIII Latin Vulgate, not the NV.

Perhaps, but in the majority of cases where the Nova Vulgata departs from the Vulgata, the change is for the better. St. Jerome made many mistakes in translating the Vulgata, and the Nova Vulgata fixes most of them. I also disagree with the comment that the Nova Vulgata departs from the Latin Scriptural tradition. I would say that in most places where there are major differences between the Nova Vulgata and the Vulgata, St. Jerome departed from the Latin Scriptural tradition, and the Nova Vulgata takes up the “Old Latin” text as the base text.

 

[Linda_Marie]

Perhaps, but in the majority of cases where the Nova Vulgata departs from the Vulgata, the change is for the better. St. Jerome made many mistakes in translating the Vulgata, and the Nova Vulgata fixes most of them. I also disagree with the comment that the Nova Vulgata departs from the Latin Scriptural tradition. I would say that in most places where there are major differences between the Nova Vulgata and the Vulgata, St. Jerome departed from the Latin Scriptural tradition, and the Nova Vulgata takes up the “Old Latin” text as the base text.

Since Saint Jerome was considered a premier scholar of his time, which was why he was chosen to do the translating, and the fact that he was closer in time to the usages of many of the words, how do we know that these are errors in the Vulgate?