Ignatius Bible (RSV-CE) 2nd edition

[ricmat]

Yep, you have the Oxford RSV-CE Catholic Edition Compact. It is the same as the Oxford RSV-CE Reader’s Edition that comes out in December, except in compact size, and is how we found out about the differences with it in the first place. I did not know that Ignatius was re-branding them, but I did know that Scepter was.

My only complaint with this version is that the footnotes are all at the end of the OT and the NT. But I suppose they did that so they could have different notes for the Catholic edition versus the Protestant edition and not have to change every page.

The font is small, but the printing is crisp. The paper seems to be good quality and the leather zipper cover is awesome. I’m glad to hear that the contents are “highly regarded” by the posters here. And it was only $18 on Amazon.com.

 

[Manfred]

I wish everyone here would just stop trying to turn the sows ear RSV(whatever edition) into a silk purse. It IS a Liberal translation done by people who very liberal and many of whom did not believe the Bible is God’s Word. As an EvangelicalChristian I did use the RSV only because at the time there was little else as far as a modern translation goes. As soon as the New King James Version came out me and about 99 percent of other Evangelical Christians I knew went to that and dropped the RSV like a hot potato. Noe as someone who is contemplating becoming a Catholic the only rael option for me is the Douay-Rheims and the 1966 Jerusalem Bible, of which I own both. Until Thomas Nelson comes out with an NKJV with the Deutero-Canonical books IE apocrypha the DR and the 1966 Jerusalem are what I will be using. BTW Nelson has stated that they have no plans to have an NKJV edition with the Deotero-Canonical books.

Unfortunately, any evangelical Protestant who even THINKS about including the deutero-canonical books in a bible translation such as the NKJV or the New American Standard (NAS) would be ostracized from his congregation. Notice I didn’t even mention the NIV here; it’s a lousy translation compared to either of these two, despite its being the best-selling bible today. I would welcome a translation of the deutero-canonicals from either the NKJV or NAS, but definitely NOT the NIV; it’s too contemporary. But, as I said earlier, none of this is likely at all.

 

[Zooey]

Does anyone have this one? I’m thinking of getting it and would like to know if anyone has it and/or would recommend it.

That’s the one I have. The leather edition is just over the $25 for free shipping, so I put the extra money into the Bible, instead of into shipping.

 

[mmortal03]

Does anyone else have the Compact Ignatius Bible? I would like to be able to find out the origin of the 1971-based RSV-CE, and need to find out if the majority of the Ignatius Compacts are ALSO the same as the Scepter Compact and the Oxford Compact.

The format of the boxes for the packaging of all of them looks the same, the only difference is the printing on the box. Therefore, some company is doing the re-branding and slightly different binding and colors for all of these. My assumption has been that it is Oxford Press, but I’d like to find out for sure.

 

[kotek]

I do own the RSV, it is published by Oxford University press and does include the Deutero-Canonical books in a separate section between the OT and the NT. It is the last revision of the RSV done in1971. The RSV is not a completely “literal” translation IE word for word, but it is not like the NIV, a “dynamic equivalence” translation either. if you want the closest “literal” translation possible in modern English that is literate and readable then the New American Standard Bible is what you want, unfortunately there isn’t an edition that includes the Deutero-Canons. The DR is literal and good if one can relate to an older form of English, but alas we are discussing modern English translations. the NAB and the NIV are awful, the NRSV and NEW Jerusalem are “politically” correct IE “gender inclusive”, the really good translations, New American Standard and the NKJV are done by conservative Protestants who regard the Deutero-Canons as non-Canonical. So what are we to do? one answer is what I do, use the DR, 1966 Jerusalem Bible along with the NKJV or New American Standard Bible ( my choice over the NKJV).

 

[mmortal03]

kotek: I am interested to know why you like the 1966 Jerusalem Bible more than the RSV.

Remember that the NKJV is not based on modern scholarship. They just took the KJV and tried to modernize the English in a non-traditional way.

I’d like to hear more Catholic opinions on the New American Standard Bible and the English Standard Version on this board.

 

[scapularkid8]

That’s the one I have. The leather edition is just over the $25 for free shipping, so I put the extra money into the Bible, instead of into shipping.

Is the leather a soft floppy cover, or a hard cover? I couldn’t figure that out so I just posted a link to the one that said “Hardcover”.

 

[kotek]

kotek: I am interested to know why you like the 1966 Jerusalem Bible more than the RSV.

Remember that the NKJV is not based on modern scholarship. They just took the KJV and tried to modernize the English in a non-traditional way.

I’d like to hear more Catholic opinions on the New American Standard Bible and the English Standard Version on this board.

One can easily do a search on the Net for critiques of the RSV, also from my own use of it, that leaves a less than orthodox impression of the RSV for me, and no it isn’t just because of Isaiah 7:14, there are lots of others where OT prophecies about the Messiah are translated to blunt their NT fufillment. I guess overall the RSV just left me with a bad impression as to its integrity. As I said I do use the 1966 JB, it has excellent cross references and good notes on the text, but I also compare it carefully with my New American Standard and DR

 

[Jerry-Jet]

mmortal03: I can’t remember from before the crash–does the RSV-CE 2d eition from Ignatius have any renderings OTHER than Isaiah 7:14 that are more “Catholic” than the RSV Reader’s Edition form 1971?

If it were up to you as supreme translator and arbitor what changes would you make to the RSV Reader’s Edition to make it even better?

Is there any chance that anyone would be granted the permission to make additional changes to the 1971 editiion?

Is there any chance that if Ignatius ever does a 3d edition that they would INCORPORATE the changes of the 1971 Reader’s Edition EXCEPT fo maybe Isaiah 7:14?

 

[mmortal03]

One can easily do a search on the Net for critiques of the RSV, also from my own use of it, that leaves a less than orthodox impression of the RSV for me, and no it isn’t just because of Isaiah 7:14, there are lots of others where OT prophecies about the Messiah are translated to blunt their NT fufillment. I guess overall the RSV just left me with a bad impression as to its integrity.

What I have found on the web is Protestant scholarship pointing out problems that aren’t even problems. Sometimes there will be good points, but for the wrong reasons. I guess we at Catholic Answers need to step it up and do it ourselves.

 

[mmortal03]

mmortal03: I can’t remember from before the crash–does the RSV-CE 2d eition from Ignatius have any renderings OTHER than Isaiah 7:14 that are more “Catholic” than the RSV Reader’s Edition form 1971?

Yes, but a lot of them are trivial. For example throughout the OT they have “mercy” instead of “steadfast love” and “donkey” instead of “as*”, and in the NT they have “chalice” instead of “cup” in certain places. All are worse or just silly to me.

One slightly more important addition, but nothing I would go out and buy it because of is the following portion was added back into the text in the Second Catholic Edition:
Sirach 24.20b, “and my remembrance lasts throughout all generations.”
this verse is only in the Ignatius Second Edition and the Douay-Rheims and is not even footnoted in the other editions.

Keep in mind that we still may not have uncovered ALL of the differences yet, but we have a good bit of them (which isn’t saying much).

If it were up to you as supreme translator and arbitor what changes would you make to the RSV Reader’s Edition to make it even better?

Manfred came up with some good changes. I would make some changes based on the Douay Rheims (see TAN Books’ “Which Bible…” booklet).

Is there any chance that anyone would be granted the permission to make additional changes to the 1971 editiion?

My hope is that Oxford University Press would do it, because Ignatius did not impress me. A proper application of Liturgiam Authenticam needs to occur, once the Ratio Translationis for the English Language gets disseminated. I would actually remove a bit of the revisions that Ignatius made.

Is there any chance that if Ignatius ever does a 3d edition that they would INCORPORATE the changes of the 1971 Reader’s Edition EXCEPT for maybe Isaiah 7:14?

The 1971 changes are legally not even supposed to be in the RSV-CE, but someone, somehow, THANKFULLY, did it anyway. When Manfred and I individually contacted Oxford Press and others, they deny that it is even possible – that it can’t be, because they aren’t allowed to do it.

Yeah, if Ignatius did it, they would have it say “virgin”, no contest.

They also really need to change “mercy” back to “steadfast love” and “donkey” back to “as*” and “chalice” back to “cup”. I don’t even think there was such a thing called a chalice back then, and adding in a biblical anachronism in a translation is just uncalled for.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

I love chalices but I have to agree with you on that one!

It just seems to me because of copyright issues that the easiest thing to do would be to make the Douay Rheims better. Since it is in the public domain a translator could change it anyway he wanted to and no doubt many will do that.

Many of those efforts will not be so good but that doesn’t mean all will be bad.

How much free reign would Ignatius have to make changes in the RSV?

What would be more difficult–making changes in the RSV to make it a good Catholic translation of the Bible or making changes in the NRSV to make it a good Catholic translation of the Bible?

 

[Manfred]

I love chalices but I have to agree with you on that one!

It just seems to me because of copyright issues that the easiest thing to do would be to make the Douay Rheims better. Since it is in the public domain a translator could change it anyway he wanted to and no doubt many will do that.

Many of those efforts will not be so good but that doesn’t mean all will be bad.

How much free reign would Ignatius have to make changes in the RSV?

What would be more difficult–making changes in the RSV to make it a good Catholic translation of the Bible or making changes in the NRSV to make it a good Catholic translation of the Bible?

The former; the NRSV is too far gone. I have no optimism about the group already working on it. If your hopes are high, look at the NAB as edited for the Lectionary. “Neither hot nor cold.”

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Is the leather a soft floppy cover, or a hard cover? I couldn’t figure that out so I just posted a link to the one that said “Hardcover”.

It’s a soft leather cover but I wouldn’t call it “floppy.” The binding cracked on mine somewhere in Genesis. Otherwise, it’s in good shape. I love it. It’s got off-white paper, very good quality, smooth and heavy enough to use a highlighter if you so wish.

 

[mmortal03]

It just seems to me because of copyright issues that the easiest thing to do would be to make the Douay Rheims better. Since it is in the public domain a translator could change it anyway he wanted to and no doubt many will do that.

Anyone, including Ron Conte, who are doing something like that have my support.

How much free reign would Ignatius have to make changes in the RSV?

I think it is a judgment call from the RSV owners.

What would be more difficult–making changes in the RSV to make it a good Catholic translation of the Bible or making changes in the NRSV to make it a good Catholic translation of the Bible?

The former; the NRSV is too far gone. I have no optimism about the group already working on it. If your hopes are high, look at the NAB as edited for the Lectionary. “Neither hot nor cold.”

I have more optimism than Manfred on this one, and I am going to give them a chance and see what happens with that NRSV revision.

As far as which one would be more difficult, well, I would say the NRSV, but hopefully this NRSV revision committee isn’t casting a blind eye to the RSV, because that would just be stupid for them to try to remove inclusive language from a revision of the RSV without looking at how it originally was beforehand.

This committee better be looking at both the NRSV AND the 1971-based RSV-CE.

 

[Manfred]

…hopefully this NRSV revision committee isn’t casting a blind eye to the RSV, because that would just be stupid for them to try to remove inclusive language from a revision of the RSV without looking at how it originally was beforehand.

This committee better be looking at both the NRSV AND the 1971-based RSV-CE.

mmortal,

Those who revised the NAB NT tried to hybridize it by throwing in “Amen, amen” and “behold” (to achieve that D-R “look-and-feel”), but still managed to get in that blasted gender-inclusive language (to be “pastorally effective”) which Rome had to pass through a filter before it was deemed liturgically suitable. Therefore, I still feel the revisers of the NRSV may try to restore a few traditional renderings here and there, but will leave in as much blasted gender-inclusive language as they can, hoping to get even more through Rome’s filter than their NAB counterparts.

The NRSV was given only “provisional” (temporary) approval for use in the Canadian lectionary; it never did, and couldn’t pass, muster before Rome as is. A thorough revision of the 1966 RSV-CE, the one generally accepted as “the” RSV-CE, along the lines of what we all suggested in the “Corrections” thread, is what would be a worthy venture. Ignatius Press started in that direction - all it need do is admit its RSV-2CE is an interim work and proceed full speed ahead in its revision.

Also, an updating of the English of the D-R Challoner, along the lines of what the editors of the NKJV accomplished, should be given some major consideration as a version suitable for the lectionary. Unreasonable? Ever attend a Mass for children and listen to the pap from the Lectionary for Masses with Children? It MAY be from the original languages, but it sure doesn’t read or sound like Scripture! An updated D-R Challoner - done by someone who knows what he’s doing, like Ron Conte - would at least read and sound like Scripture.

 

[Zooey]

Is the leather a soft floppy cover, or a hard cover? I couldn’t figure that out so I just posted a link to the one that said “Hardcover”.

Ah, I see what you mean. It’s a flexiblae, but not “floppy” cover.
If you want a hardcover, the cloth will be your best choice, then. I looked at both, & decided to get the leather & the free shipping…
But my Douay is the extraordinary Baronius moroccan leather over boards, & that binding will no doubt last longer than I will!! If I could have that kind of a cover on every book I own, I would be a happy woman… Bankrupt, aye, but happy.

 

[porthos11]

This committee better be looking at both the NRSV AND the 1971-based RSV-CE.

mmortal, does the Oxford RSV-CE have section headings and re-done typesetting?

Can I trouble you for a comparative scan of the sample pages from your various RSV’s on your RSV comparison page?

Also, are the RSV-CE’s sold by Scepter Publishing the same as the Oxford RSV-CE?

 

[mmortal03]

mmortal, does the Oxford RSV-CE have section headings and re-done typesetting?

Only the Ignatius Second Edition has the re-done typesetting, because that revision was done only by Ignatius, and was relative to the Ignatius First Edition. The Ignatius First Edition had section names, but not above the start of each section; they were instead only at the top of the page. The compact RSV-CE by Oxford does not even have the section names at all. My assumption is that the Oxford Press RSV-CE Reader’s Edition will mirror the layout of the Compact Edition page for page, based on them being listed as having the same amount of pages, but I could be wrong. I do not know if the Reader’s Edition will have the section names (it could be that they were removed from the Compact Edition to save space, or it could be that only the Ignatius Bibles have them; there is no way to tell which is correct until December.)

So, what is inside the covers of any of the various RSV-CE Compact Editions? Well, they seem to have came out in 2005 and were produced by Oxford Press, and then (re-)branded and sold by Oxford Press, Scepter Press, and Ignatius Press, with slightly different bindings to choose from. These are the ones that are based on the 1971 RSV.

There are no full size Catholic version based on the 1971 RSV that has been released by anyone to my knowledge. The first one will actually be the Oxford Press Reader’s Edition in December.

FYI, I do not own any of these Compact Editions. I worked with another member of the board to do all of the comparisons.

Can I trouble you for a comparative scan of the sample pages from your various RSV’s on your RSV comparison page?

I had an image that jpy sent me, but I don’t know whether I still have it or not. If I don’t, we will have to ask him for a new scan. I will look and see if I have it.

Also, are the RSV-CE’s sold by Scepter Publishing the same as the Oxford RSV-CE?

Right, the compacts are the same. However, the full size RSV-CE by Scepter is not based on the 1971 RSV; it is instead the same as the Ignatius First Edition (the original 1965 RSV-CE).

 

[mmortal03]

Sorry, some of the above is not clear, and I have surpassed the editing limit. Here it is clearer:

mmortal, does the Oxford RSV-CE have section headings and re-done typesetting?

Only the Ignatius Second Edition has the re-done typesetting, because that revision was done only by Ignatius, and was relative to the Ignatius First Edition.

The Ignatius First Edition had section headings, but not above the start of each section; they were instead only at the top of the page. The compact RSV-CE by Oxford does not even have these section names at all. I do not know if the Reader’s Edition will have the section names (it could be that they were removed from the Compact Edition to save space, or it could be that only the Ignatius Bibles have them; there is no way to tell which is correct until December.)

My assumption is that the Oxford Press RSV-CE Reader’s Edition will mirror the layout of the Compact Edition page for page, based on them being listed as having the same amount of pages, but I could be wrong.

FYI, the font used in the Oxford Press Compact looks very similar to the Ignatius First Edition, however, it looks as if the contents per page have been rearranged so that each book begins at the top of a page (at least, I know that Luke is like that, comparing pictures of them side by side).

So, what is inside the covers of any of the various RSV-CE Compact Editions? Well, they seem to have came out in 2005 and were produced by Oxford Press, and then (re-)branded and sold by Oxford Press, Scepter Press, and Ignatius Press, with slightly different bindings to choose from. These are the ones that are based on the 1971 RSV.

There are no full size Catholic version based on the 1971 RSV that has been released by anyone to my knowledge. The first one will actually be the Oxford Press Reader’s Edition in December.

FYI, I do not own any of these Compact Editions. I worked with another member of the board to do all of the comparisons.

Can I trouble you for a comparative scan of the sample pages from your various RSV’s on your RSV comparison page?

I hav a scan that jpy sent me of the compact edition. I will post it when I get the chance.

Also, are the RSV-CE’s sold by Scepter Publishing the same as the Oxford RSV-CE?

Right, the compacts are the same. However, the full size RSV-CE by Scepter is not based on the 1971 RSV; it is instead the same as the Ignatius First Edition (the original 1965 RSV-CE).