M
mdrummer5
Guest
I have the Ignatius Study Bible and recommend it to anyone who’s interested. I’d imagine even some of our more knowledgeable members could learn something from the notes and essays in this version… it’s awesome! 
- Status
S
Salvatore123
Guest
I realize I may catch grief for posting this, so I will say at the outset that I own The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: New Testament - RSV - 2nd CE and like it.
But . . .
I am somewhat troubled by its current “status” . . . it seems to be in a “liturgical limbo” as for as being authoritative from the point of view of the Catholic Church.
Unlike the original Ignatius RSV 1st CE, the 2nd CE does NOT have the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat that accompany almost every catholic bible I have ever seen and own. Its only definitive statement is: “Published with ecclesiastical approval.”
Now some may think the above a minor issue that should not detract from the book’s value. That is merely a judgment on the part of each of us.
I just wish some explanation was given up front about why the 2nd CE does not have the usual approvals that accompany almost all catholic texts - especially bibles.
Again - just to clarify and reiterate - I am NOT suggesting anything nefarious is ongoing. I simply would like an explanation of what was changed from the 1st CE from the publishers - not private individuals who made their own comparisons to warrant a 2nd CE, and why the 2nd CE did not receive the appropriate Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur.
That’s all . . .
But . . .
I am somewhat troubled by its current “status” . . . it seems to be in a “liturgical limbo” as for as being authoritative from the point of view of the Catholic Church.
Unlike the original Ignatius RSV 1st CE, the 2nd CE does NOT have the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat that accompany almost every catholic bible I have ever seen and own. Its only definitive statement is: “Published with ecclesiastical approval.”
Now some may think the above a minor issue that should not detract from the book’s value. That is merely a judgment on the part of each of us.
I just wish some explanation was given up front about why the 2nd CE does not have the usual approvals that accompany almost all catholic texts - especially bibles.
Again - just to clarify and reiterate - I am NOT suggesting anything nefarious is ongoing. I simply would like an explanation of what was changed from the 1st CE from the publishers - not private individuals who made their own comparisons to warrant a 2nd CE, and why the 2nd CE did not receive the appropriate Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur.
That’s all . . .
P
Phyllo
Guest
.
This might not be the thread for this but I did check out 1 Cor. 15:51
—but we shall not all be changed— I think that what is meant here is that we shall not all die(change).
the following from the NT from Ronald Knox: Here is a secret I will make known to you: we shall all rise again , but not all of us will undergo the change I speak of.
From the JB: I will tell you something that has been secret:that we are not all going to die, but we shall all be changed.
I do thank you for your response. I will look this up on the net.
Hi Thanks,
This might not be the thread for this but I did check out 1 Cor. 15:51
—but we shall not all be changed— I think that what is meant here is that we shall not all die(change).
the following from the NT from Ronald Knox: Here is a secret I will make known to you: we shall all rise again , but not all of us will undergo the change I speak of.
From the JB: I will tell you something that has been secret:that we are not all going to die, but we shall all be changed.
I do thank you for your response. I will look this up on the net.
B
Bible_Reader
Guest
You mean “scriptural suspension”!
More seriously, you are right – but notes and additional materials in the study edition do have imprimatur.
Also, imprimatur/nihil obstat does not mean authoritative – it merely means that it is permitted to publish and the censor did not find any material contrary to faith or morals.
May I ask – have you found anything contrary to faith or morals in your reading of the 2CE? I found a number of misspellings and awkwardly phrased sentences, but that does not seem to rise to the level of being contrary to faith or morals.
L
Luigi_Daniele
Guest
It’s an awesome Bible. I like it much more than the one that you have now.
S
Salvatore123
Guest
Bible Reader,
No, I have not found anything contrary to faith or morals.
But that brings up a question, doesn’t it? If nothing in it is contrary to faith and morals, why doesn’t the translation have the Nihil obstat and Imprimatur?
No, I have not found anything contrary to faith or morals.
But that brings up a question, doesn’t it? If nothing in it is contrary to faith and morals, why doesn’t the translation have the Nihil obstat and Imprimatur?
L
_L
Guest
But the very next verse says:
[52] In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall rise again incorruptible: and we shall be changed.
and if to be changed means to die as you put forward, then this verse would be saying that after the resurrection of the dead everyone dies again, that explanation does not seem to make sense IMO. I think this passage has historically been referenced as one that refers to the teaching that we receive glorified and incorruptible bodies at the resurrection and this is what is meant by being “changed.”
Paul is saying that in the generation that is still on earth at the time of the second coming, that that generation will simply not experience a physical death because Christ returned while they were still living, but despite the fact that they did not die a physical death that generation will received glorified bodies along with those who are raised from the dead.
As far as I know only the DR says that “we will not all be changed” but as I mentioned before the original Greek says the opposite, so it seems to me that it is a mere translational error, that is only present in the vulgate and the DR which comes from the vulgate, but this error is not in the Ignatius Bible or any other Bible, not even the Greek NT.
:twocents:
B
Bible_Reader
Guest
Well, they claimed they asked for it – I would imagine that it has to do with politics.
There was certainly a drop-off in the amount of Scriptural imprimatur given after Canon law changed and required approval by a Bishops’ Conference rather than the local Bishop.
I have to also say – there is also a potential for conflict of interest here in the dual roles of the Conference in giving approval to Bibles published in the US and at the same time having its own publication.
But you are right – I only have seen second-hand accounts to this story – and Ignatius has not been very forthcoming about the whole story.
R
RedSoxFan
Guest
Makes me wonder if they could go to an english speaking country like Belize and get the nihil obstat and impramatur approved there…
S
Salvatore123
Guest
As an attorney, I readily acknowledge the rights-issues and the time and expenses that could be lost if a translation-team did not protect its work.
Yet, the very idea of copyrighting the word of God has always struck me in an odd way . . .
Yes, I realize they are claiming they are copyrighting the translation.
But how would this differ from someone translating the US Declaration of Independance into Spanish and claiming a copyright to that translation. Does anyone REALLY think such a copyright claim would be upheld? I seriously doubt it.
Yet, the very idea of copyrighting the word of God has always struck me in an odd way . . .
Yes, I realize they are claiming they are copyrighting the translation.
But how would this differ from someone translating the US Declaration of Independance into Spanish and claiming a copyright to that translation. Does anyone REALLY think such a copyright claim would be upheld? I seriously doubt it.
A
asd72
Guest
I have the Ignatius study bible on kindle. Highly recommend! I going to get the old testament study bible as it comes out, I believe genesis is out now.
P
Phyllo
Guest
From The Haydock Commentary
Ver. 51. We shall all indeed rise again, but we shall not all be changed.[3] This is the reading of the Latin Vulgate, and of some Greek manuscripts, and the sense is, that all both good and bad shall rise, but only the elect to the happy change of a glorified body. The reading in most Greek copies at present is, we shall not all sleep, (i.e. die) but we shall be all changed: so also read St. Chrysostom: and St. Jerome found it in many manuscripts from which divers, especially of the Greek interpreters, thought that such as should be found living at the day of judgment should not die, but the bodies of the elect (of whom St. Paul here speaks) should be changed to a happy state of immortality. This opinion, if it deserve not to be censured, is at least against the common persuasion of the faithful, who look upon it certain that all shall die before they come to judgment. Some expound the Greek only to signify, that all shall not sleep, i.e. shall not remain for any time in the grave, as others who die are accustomed to do. (Witham)
B
Bible_Reader
Guest
Of course it would. Have you read Title 17? Read the definition of “derivative work” in section 101 and then read section 103. Couldn’t be clearer.
C
CalCatholic
Guest
Boy I am glad that I am not a lawyer (and have to worry about these things), because the RSV-2CE is a light revision of the RSV-CE (which does have a Imprimatur) and the changes that I have noticed (and are listed in the back of the RSV-CE Concordance by Emmaus Road Publishing) have made the translation better! Ignatius was able to get a Catholic Lectionary (based upon the RSV_2CE) approved by the Vatican (and used by the Antilles Episcopal Conference), so no I am not concerned about this translation in the least! Did you know that Pope Benedict’s book ‘Jesus of Nazareth’ also does not have an Imprimatur? and I have no problem reading it.As an attorney, I readily acknowledge the rights-issues and the time and expenses that could be lost if a translation-team did not protect its work.
Yet, the very idea of copyrighting the word of God has always struck me in an odd way . . .
Yes, I realize they are claiming they are copyrighting the translation.
But how would this differ from someone translating the US Declaration of Independance into Spanish and claiming a copyright to that translation. Does anyone REALLY think such a copyright claim would be upheld? I seriously doubt it.
S
Salvatore123
Guest
Bible Reader,
I don’t want to debate copyright law, as this is not the thread for it. I am responding only because of what you said above AND because I think the argument is relevant for bible translations.
Again, Bible Reader - PLEASE let’s not get into a copyright debate. I was just trying to point out how odd I find it that translating God’s word is protected - especially when we cannot all agree on what those exact words are!!
I don’t want to debate copyright law, as this is not the thread for it. I am responding only because of what you said above AND because I think the argument is relevant for bible translations.
- Copyrights apply, in general, to expressions of original ideas. Although the Declaration of Independence was, indeed, one of the most famous of original ideas in the history of mankind, the contents of it has since fallen under the “fair use” doctrine as well as what is known as the “public domain”.
- A literal, word for word translation of a document such as the Declaration of Independence would NOT be subject to being copyrighted per se. Now, the FORMATTING of the translation or the PRESENTATION of the translation may be protected - but not the translation in and of itself. I know one of the best trademark/copyright attorneys in the country and he confirmed this for me.
- My ONLY point in bringing up a translation of the bible is that it is claimed by people of faith to be the word of God. I was simply trying to get the point across that it strikes me as not only a bit odd, but also somewhat “uneasy” for someone to say that his “version” of what God said cannot be reprinted without his permission.
Again, Bible Reader - PLEASE let’s not get into a copyright debate. I was just trying to point out how odd I find it that translating God’s word is protected - especially when we cannot all agree on what those exact words are!!
B
Bible_Reader
Guest
OK. Nimmer on Copyright disagrees with you.
But for the record, it is the translation (which is an original expression) that is the protected , not the underlying text – so a new translation of Augustine’s* Confessions* is protected – and even, for example, a new critical version of the text (e.g., O’Donnell’s Latin edition.).
Let me point out how far this goes. Not only is a translation of the Bible protected by copyright, but even the standard scholarly Greek New Testament, NA27, is protected by a copyright (held by the German Bible Society – which fiercely defends that copyright.) You are certainly welcome to make your own, independent, Greek New Testament by engaging in critical examination of the source materials, but if you want to reproduce NA27, prepare to face the possibility of charges of copyright infringement.
(By the way, the Declaration of Independence falls under a different category, since it falls under section 105 of Title 17 – government works – which are not eligible for copyright. Also it predates the Constitution, which of course contains the Copyright Clause; and it wouldn’t really make sense to register the Copyright in Stationer’s Hall under the Statute of Queen Anne.)
S
Salvatore123
Guest
Actually, the Declaration of Independence WAS copyrighted one time, and it was done for the reasons I cited as an EXAMPLE I used to make a point - NOT to argue law . . . 
B
Bible_Reader
Guest
It is true – attempted to copyright itBoston Globe – and in doing so it violated the criminal sections of section 506(c).Actually, the Declaration of Independence WAS copyrighted one time, and it was done for the reasons I cited as an EXAMPLE I used to make a point - NOT to argue law . . .
L
larsenl1
Guest
I purchased the Ignatious Study Bible New Testament Hardback and I really like it. The notes on the bottom half of the page help me get into the moment of the message.
S
Salvatore123
Guest
Bible Reader (and I hope, last post on the copyright issue),
The copyright WAS granted - not to the Boston Globe - but to an individual almost 140 years ago.
The 1872 Moss Declaration of Independence was copyrighted by a writer named M.G. Duignan. He has the distinction of being the only individual to be granted “ownership” to America’s most sacred document. Although not explained, most copyright attorneys assume he was granted the copyright because it was the first photo-engraved reproduction of the Declaration. The copyright is on file at the U.S. Copyright Office in Washington, D.C.
THAT is what I meant by copyrighting a PRESENTATION of something vs. copyrighting a word-for-word translation of something.
Peace?
The copyright WAS granted - not to the Boston Globe - but to an individual almost 140 years ago.
The 1872 Moss Declaration of Independence was copyrighted by a writer named M.G. Duignan. He has the distinction of being the only individual to be granted “ownership” to America’s most sacred document. Although not explained, most copyright attorneys assume he was granted the copyright because it was the first photo-engraved reproduction of the Declaration. The copyright is on file at the U.S. Copyright Office in Washington, D.C.
THAT is what I meant by copyrighting a PRESENTATION of something vs. copyrighting a word-for-word translation of something.
Peace?
- Status