R
Rose_Commander
Guest
I have a copy of each Bible, the Oxford Study Bible RSV, the 1970 NAB and the Revised NAB. Which Bible has better commentary? (Preferably one with less questionable commentary.)
- Status
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear Rose Commander,
Have you heard of the Revised Standard Version: Catholic Edition (RSV:CE)? Apparently it has been acclaimed for many years as the clearest, most accurate and, indeeed, the most elegant translation in modern English. All the other major translations have been censured for immoderate paraphrasing or using unorthodox “inclusive language” - the very same language rejected by the Vatican in the new Catechism. The second edition contains copious footnotes and cross-references.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Have you heard of the Revised Standard Version: Catholic Edition (RSV:CE)? Apparently it has been acclaimed for many years as the clearest, most accurate and, indeeed, the most elegant translation in modern English. All the other major translations have been censured for immoderate paraphrasing or using unorthodox “inclusive language” - the very same language rejected by the Vatican in the new Catechism. The second edition contains copious footnotes and cross-references.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
R
Rose_Commander
Guest
I actually have heard of it but I prefer the older English. Also when I checked those bibles out, they only contained footnotes. I need a Bible with commentary, not just footnotes.
O
Omyo12
Guest
the Oxford Study Bible RSV is an ecumenical study Bible so has many Protestant (name removed by moderator)uts. I haven’t looked at it so I’m not sure what to think of it. I’d be weary though…
If you like older english, I’d strongly suggest Haydock’s Bible Commentary. You can see it for free online.
haydock1859.tripod.com/
There’s also the New Jerome Biblical Commentary but I don’t know much about it.
The Catholic Study Bible is nice for a one volume commentary but some conservatives reject it.
I don’t suggest you get the NAB now because the Old Testament was revised and will be published sometime next year.
As a side note in regard to inclusive language. Don’t be too hasty to dismiss it completely. Unfortunately when someone says “inclusive language” they automatically associate it with the more extreme examples of the NRSV. Some even go as far as to call it “extreme feminism” which is utterly ridiculous. There was even a person here on CA who said he prefers the ESV because it doesn’t have inclusive language. Little does he know, the ESV indeed does have minor inclusive language
However it keeps “man” in more poetic or recognizable passages such as
The rejection of any form of inclusive language is mostly based on bias from what they’ve heard someplace else. Many times they have no knowledge of the linguistics of Hebrew/Greek which is an annoying shame.
The Vatican rejected the NAB NT’s inclusive language only because some of it was thought inappropriate.
Interestingly, in 2007 the Vatican approved the Canadian lectionary (with VERY minor editing) which uses the NRSV. Most people however, only know of the 1994 incident when the Vatican rejected it and cite that…
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear Omyo12,
Surely if anyone is guilty of “bias” then it is the advocates of inclusive language (both the vertical and horizontal variety) who, owing to their radical agenda, have injected a femenist perspective into the sacred text, totally distorting and disregarding the liguistics of the original languages.
Inclusive language, or non-gender specific language, which is said by some to be necessary on “pastoral” grounds, has only become a contentious issue within our Church because of the influence and power of radical femenist idealogy, which, of course, has impacted society generally.
Catholics should be under no illusion that this is a heretical tendency within the Church and as such should be resisted by the faithful with unrelenting and uncompromising tenacity.
I would heartily commend the following insightful link for your, and others, perusal:
catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9904fea3.asp.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Surely if anyone is guilty of “bias” then it is the advocates of inclusive language (both the vertical and horizontal variety) who, owing to their radical agenda, have injected a femenist perspective into the sacred text, totally distorting and disregarding the liguistics of the original languages.
Inclusive language, or non-gender specific language, which is said by some to be necessary on “pastoral” grounds, has only become a contentious issue within our Church because of the influence and power of radical femenist idealogy, which, of course, has impacted society generally.
Catholics should be under no illusion that this is a heretical tendency within the Church and as such should be resisted by the faithful with unrelenting and uncompromising tenacity.
I would heartily commend the following insightful link for your, and others, perusal:
catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9904fea3.asp.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
O
Omyo12
Guest
I’m not talking about the extreme ones who neutralize the gender of God or even the less extreme examples of the NRSV.
I’m just talking about:
(Douay-Rheims) 1 Peter 3:4 “But the hidden man of the heart in the incorruptibility of a quiet and a meek spirit, which is rich in the sight of God”
(RSV-CE) 1 Peter 3:4 “but let it be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable jewel of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious.”
The article you present was good and it raised the argument very clearly: how is the word “man” perceived in modern English. This is at the heart of the inclusive debate.
However, there are the fringed that take the argument wayyyy too far and claim examples like the RSV-CE’s 1 Peter 3:4 are going too far…
(the NKJV, and even the NASB also read “person”)
In the 1700’s the word “man” was indeed understood to mean a person of the human race. Dictionaries still list it as such. However, the general word “man” as in “there was a man who…” is today understood to mean a male. There are certain contexts where “man” is still inclusive such as “man-eater” “man-made” “mankind.” The word “man” is also understood as inclusive in modern english in this form: “This is one small step for man”
(I know Mr. Armstrong meant to say “a man,” but you get the point)
D
diksuchi
Guest
You might want to look at the Ignatius Study Bible (unfortunately they’ve produced only the NT so far) - it uses RSV CE with an extensive commentary.
amazon.com/Ignatius-Catholic-Study-Bible-Testament/dp/1586172506/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254481904&sr=8-10
also, the Navarre bible series is quite good!
catholicshopper.com/products/Navarre_Bible.html
amazon.com/Ignatius-Catholic-Study-Bible-Testament/dp/1586172506/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254481904&sr=8-10
also, the Navarre bible series is quite good!
catholicshopper.com/products/Navarre_Bible.html
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear Omyo 12,
May thanks for your response.
What I would say by way of reply is that inclusive language, or if you prefer the more irenic sounding gender neutral language, is really entirely unnecessary since standard English is already inclusive when it uses “he” or “man” for instance in the generic sense.
Clearly the issue in the debate is not about any generic use of language, but rather about ignorance of language per se. Thus owing to this lack of knowledge people are taking offence where no offence was intended.
Now as their will always be people who cannot comprehend elements of their own native tongue, I do not see why one should modify our language to molify such people. Surely the remedy here is not to simplify our language to some ridiculous lowest common denominator, but rather to educate people and encourage them to bone up on their English.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
May thanks for your response.
What I would say by way of reply is that inclusive language, or if you prefer the more irenic sounding gender neutral language, is really entirely unnecessary since standard English is already inclusive when it uses “he” or “man” for instance in the generic sense.
Clearly the issue in the debate is not about any generic use of language, but rather about ignorance of language per se. Thus owing to this lack of knowledge people are taking offence where no offence was intended.
Now as their will always be people who cannot comprehend elements of their own native tongue, I do not see why one should modify our language to molify such people. Surely the remedy here is not to simplify our language to some ridiculous lowest common denominator, but rather to educate people and encourage them to bone up on their English.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
R
Rose_Commander
Guest
Thank you all for your responds. Though the discussion went a little bit off, i learned a lot. I will hold on to all my bibles so that I may compare them. I do not have the money to buy the Haydock Bible but I will look into it. Oh by the way, I do not care much about the inclusive language as long it is not radicalized like some Feminists want. As long they do it properly and note the language change (like in the NRSV), I am alright. Oh, if only my NRSV had a commentary (and a conservative commentary at that)!!! Well, thank you again.
Ja ne
Ja ne
- Status