T
The_Truthinator
Guest
I’m wondering if this Bible is a good choice. I’m looking for a new one, and a good and faithful translation at that.
What are some pros and cons?
What are some pros and cons?
Pros and Cons of the Revised Standard Version-Second Catholic Edition Bible
- Status
E
EphelDuath
Guest
There was an excellent review on Amazon.com for the RSV:2CE. Let me fetch it.
amazon.com/review/R33WENDHVLHHM0/
Overall, I would say: the differences aren’t that big, unless you’re extremely obsessive about getting perfection. In which case, the original is slightly better, if more difficult to read.
amazon.com/review/R33WENDHVLHHM0/
Overall, I would say: the differences aren’t that big, unless you’re extremely obsessive about getting perfection. In which case, the original is slightly better, if more difficult to read.
R
Ron_Conte
Guest
I think that the reviews of bible verisons at
bible-researcher.com/romcath.html
are useful. The RSV is not as literal as many have claimed
it to be. Also, the OT is not translated in the light of
the NT. Most of the translators were Protestant.
bible-researcher.com/romcath.html
are useful. The RSV is not as literal as many have claimed
it to be. Also, the OT is not translated in the light of
the NT. Most of the translators were Protestant.
J
JEANNIEMAC
Guest
What about the Jerusalem Bible which has been translated from the Aramaic, etc. I read a few excerpts and they were even more inspring than any I’ve read.
T
The_Truthinator
Guest
I ended up getting the NRSV-CE and love it. Thanks, though!
M
Manfred
Guest
JeannieMac,
I’m going to take you literally and assume you mean the 1966 JB, and not the 1985 New Jerusalem Bible.
I own both, and I honestly prefer the NJB to the JB, despite the limited use of gender-inclusive language in the former. Reason: the JB is way too “free” in many of its renderings, and is not as consistent in its use of “key theological terms” in the parallel passages of the Gospels.
Some other things I found hard to take:
- use of “happy” instead of “blessed”: this occurs in the Beatitudes but is especially jarring in “Simon, son of John, you are a happy man!”
- “sex is always a danger” in 1 Cor. 7:2;
- “March the seventh” in the book of Tobit;
- “Sunday” in 1 Cor. 16;
- “from A to Z” in Job 31.
However, if you have the full-size (not the “reader’s”) edition, with all the book intros, notes, cross-references, etc., that may make it worth keeping around.
The NJB doesn’t have the quirks I’ve listed above - it’s got a few of its own, to be sure - but if I had to choose, it would definitely be the NJB over the JB. Why no national bishops’ conference will approve the NJB for Lectionary use is beyond me, considering that the inferior and inclusive-language-laden RNAB and NRSV got the nod in some countries.
M
Manfred
Guest
I am still quite a bit miffed that Ignatius claims the RSV-2CE conforms to Liturgiam Authenticam. It does, but in only a minimum of instances, and where it would have really made some difference, just skipped over it. For this reason, I like to refer to it as a “work in progress”, and prefer the 1965-66 RSV-CE to it.
J
Jerry-Jet
Guest
Does Liturgiam Authenticam say it is OK for the RSV to doctrinally translate different than the Vulgate?
M
Manfred
Guest
To be honest, Jerry-Jet, I’m becoming annoyed somewhat with Liturgiam Authenticam. Please let me explain:
LA insists that Scripture translations used in the Liturgy be from the original language texts, yet, knowing full well that there is no single “standard” Greek NT or Hebrew OT “tradition”, it desires certain terms to be translated as they were translated for the Nova Vulgata. The one term that quickly comes to mind is “chalice” instead of “cup”. The problem is that the term “chalice” probably originated much later than NT times. (If I recall correctly, the Greek word is “poterion”, and means simply “cup”.) As far as expressions such as “Amen, amen, I say to you…”, I do think it is good that they be rendered in this manner, as opposed to “Truly, truly, I say to you…”
But even more to the point: if we do translate terms that are suitable for use in the Liturgy, they may be less appropriate for catechetical or apologetic purposes, or for private reading. So we wouldn’t be able to come up with that single vernacular version in, say, English that all users would find useful.
Aside - has anyone come across a copy of the “Ratio translationis” for LA yet? Was it ever issued?
If I had any kind of ecclesiastical authority: I would desire that Scripture translations for use in the Roman Rite be from the Nova Vulgata. (Another problem: what do we do for the Eastern Rites?) For catechetical or apologetic purposes, I would issue - and enforce - a rather strict set of guidelines for translating from the original language texts. I’ve about had it with innovative renderings that have little or no manuscript support in some modern Catholic translations!
I’m sure many readers are now thanking God that I don’t have any such authority.
Despite its origins in the Protestant arena, the RSV-CE can still knock the socks off of the NAB/RNAB ANY DAY!!!
M
Manfred
Guest
The following quote is from an article “Translation Theory” written in 1985 by Dr. T. David Gordon, a Professor of Religion and Greek at Grove City College in Grove City, PA; he had previously taught at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. It really amazes me, given he is probably well-known in evangelical Protestant circles. I just love it!
The NIV should not be used from the pulpit, in my judgment, because it is a sectarian translation. It is a self-confessedly “evangelical” translation, which excluded non-evangelicals from the translation process. It is therefore ecclesiastically unacceptable (it excludes from the outset people who don’t call themselves “evangelical,” just as the Kingdom Translation excludes people who don’t call themselves Jehovah’s Witnesses). In fact, even for study purposes, one will have to be cautious about the evangelical bias reflected in this translation, whereby the weaknesses, as well as the strengths, of evangelicalism have not been offset by a more “inclusive” committee.
Specifically, the NIV shows many signs of being individualistic, experientialist, and revivalistic (I am speaking about the NIV New Testament; I haven’t evaluated the NIV Old Testament thoroughly yet). At the same time, the NIV ought to be in the minister’s study because it is a good illustration of the demands of a dynamic equivalence translation, and it is also very successful at many points. The RSV, reflecting the breadth of the church, a high style of English, and a reasonably accurate representation of the original text, is perhaps the preferred text for pulpit use.
The NIV should not be used from the pulpit, in my judgment, because it is a sectarian translation. It is a self-confessedly “evangelical” translation, which excluded non-evangelicals from the translation process. It is therefore ecclesiastically unacceptable (it excludes from the outset people who don’t call themselves “evangelical,” just as the Kingdom Translation excludes people who don’t call themselves Jehovah’s Witnesses). In fact, even for study purposes, one will have to be cautious about the evangelical bias reflected in this translation, whereby the weaknesses, as well as the strengths, of evangelicalism have not been offset by a more “inclusive” committee.
Specifically, the NIV shows many signs of being individualistic, experientialist, and revivalistic (I am speaking about the NIV New Testament; I haven’t evaluated the NIV Old Testament thoroughly yet). At the same time, the NIV ought to be in the minister’s study because it is a good illustration of the demands of a dynamic equivalence translation, and it is also very successful at many points. The RSV, reflecting the breadth of the church, a high style of English, and a reasonably accurate representation of the original text, is perhaps the preferred text for pulpit use.
J
JEANNIEMAC
Guest
What do you think of the “Peshitta Aramaic-English Interlinear New Testament” by Glenn David Bauscher?
M
Manfred
Guest
Thank you for asking, JeannieMac, but I have no knowledge of this particular work. In fact, I’d be curious myself: is this a “source text” for Churches of the Eastern Rite or for any of the Orthodox?
It’s 2008 here.
A blessed and Happy New Year to all!!!
J
JEANNIEMAC
Guest
I came across this information while googling for the Jerusalem Bible: “Glenn David Bauscher is a pastor with a proficiency in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. The book is in the language used by Jesus with a word for word translation next to each Aramaic word.”
Google his name and you will find more information. I have read some sample pages, and they are extremely interesting.
Google his name and you will find more information. I have read some sample pages, and they are extremely interesting.
A
AnswersAbove
Guest
I suggest you read the Torah for the most accurate and definitive word; it has not been changed like the “Bible” through 2,500+ years and will connect you to the Source.
AA
AA
M
Manfred
Guest
Just which book are you referring to here? Certainly not the Jerusalem Bible; there’s no way it can possible be considered “word-for-word” with any of the source languages.
Perhaps your information pertains to the Syriac Peshitta?
L
lak611
Guest
Would a translation of the Old Testament from the Septuagint be possible?
J
JEANNIEMAC
Guest
The excerpts I read were from the Peshitta "Aramaic-English Interlineal New Testament. See my first posting.
M
Manfred
Guest
Not according to Liturgiam Authenticam, since the original language of the OT was largely Hebrew, with some Aramaic in a handful of places. The Deutero-canonicals, of course, are another story, and, as with the Hebrew and even the Vulgate, there are many rescensions of the LXX.
No matter how strong one makes the case that the Hebrew underlying the LXX pre-dates the Massoretic text, the fact remains that the LXX is a translation itself.
- Status