RSV-CE/Ignatius Bible Problem

  • Thread starter Thread starter garysibio
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

garysibio

Guest
This may seem like a minor issue to some but it really bugs me. In the RSV-CE and the Ignations Bible’s rendering of Daniel chapter 3, it includes the text from the Septuagint as it should. However, when it finishes with that portion, it reverts back to the verse numbering that is found in Protestant Bibles as if the previous verses didn’t exist.

Why does it not continue with the proper numbering as the New Jerusalem Bible does or, even better, give both verse numbers to make it easier to compare notes with Protestants.

I’m guessing it has something to do with the RSV copyright but it still bugs me.
 
Catholic bibles in general will do that to indicate when there are verses found in one early manuscript of scripture rather than another.

The verses considered canonical are there, but the numbering is for comparison with other bible texts.
 
gary,

I know that the RSV is, at its base, a Protestant translation.

From what I have studied, I think certain Catholics liked this particular translation because it is fairly literal and “conservative”, and decided to embark on a “Catholicization” of this translation after seeing what was occurring when many english translations began going too far “astray” from the DR. The ultimate breach occurred with the release of the NAB in 1970.

In another thread I started dealing solely with the Confraternity Bible, I explained that it was as “traditional” and Catholic as a translation could get, using modern english. For reasons still not fully explained, the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, in league with the USCCB, decided to begin scrapping the Confraternity bible in favor of the NAB (which has been the bane of many a Catholic - both religious and layman). The good work that had been accomplished with the Confraternity bible was finally and completely severed with this week’s release of the NABRE.

Since 1969, at least some part of the Confraternity translation still existed in the NAB. That was eroded in revisions in 1970, 1986, 1991, and finally, 2011.

I find it ironic and sad that the RSV and the NRSV (no great loss to me on this one) are prohibited from any type of liturgical use in the US (the RSV and Jerusalem Bibles once had approval - that was revoked several years ago), yet they are cited for reference by JPII in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

So we Americans have an NABRE that is now supposed to be the only “sanctioned” bible translation available for liturgical use in the US, we have a lectionary that will NOT incorporate the NABRE’s translation because of many “problems” with changes the NABRE (and the NAB before it) made, and we have the official Latin bible of the Catholic Church (Nova Vulgata) that has been in place since 1979/1986 but has no approved english translation.

Go figure . . . 😦
 
I don’t think I made myself clear. I’m just asking about the odd verse numbering in Dan 3.
 
Salvatore123 said:
gary,

I know that the RSV is, at its base, a Protestant translation.

From what I have studied, I think certain Catholics liked this particular translation because it is fairly literal and “conservative”, and decided to embark on a “Catholicization” of this translation after seeing what was occurring when many english translations began going too far “astray” from the DR. The ultimate breach occurred with the release of the NAB in 1970.

In another thread I started dealing solely with the Confraternity Bible, I explained that it was as “traditional” and Catholic as a translation could get, using modern english. For reasons still not fully explained, the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, in league with the USCCB, decided to begin scrapping the Confraternity bible in favor of the NAB (which has been the bane of many a Catholic - both religious and layman). The good work that had been accomplished with the Confraternity bible was finally and completely severed with this week’s release of the NABRE.

Since 1969, at least some part of the Confraternity translation still existed in the NAB. That was eroded in revisions in 1970, 1986, 1991, and finally, 2011.

I find it ironic and sad that the RSV and the NRSV (no great loss to me on this one) are prohibited from any type of liturgical use in the US (the RSV and Jerusalem Bibles once had approval - that was revoked several years ago), yet they are cited for reference by JPII in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

So we Americans have an NABRE that is now supposed to be the only “sanctioned” bible translation available for liturgical use in the US, we have a lectionary that will NOT incorporate the NABRE’s translation because of many “problems” with changes the NABRE (and the NAB before it) made, and we have the official Latin bible of the Catholic Church (Nova Vulgata) that has been in place since 1979/1986 but has no approved english translation.

Go figure . . . 😦
Click to expand...
To be completely unserious but serious, I remind one and all that “Mein Kampf” made Hitler a very rich man. And the NAB puts money into Church coffers, because it also is “required” for use in the liturgy, even though the language is dreadfully flat.
 
Gary,

You DID make yourself clear.

And I think my answer was in response (and more) to what you asked.

When Catholics “got hold” of the RSV (a protestant translation), they made certain changes in it to reflect Catholic teaching/interpretation/translation. But in doing so, they did not change ALL of the protestant “influences” throughout the RSV. That is why, I respectully suggested, the verse/chapter numbering differed from the protestant rendering. The Catholic editors of the CE of the RSV didn’t change everything in the RSV to “get it in line” with Catholic teaching. They only changed some things. Others, they left alone - and thus my reasoning of why the protestant numbering was not changed.

That is all I meant.
 
Salvatore123 said:
Gary,

You DID make yourself clear.

And I think my answer was in response (and more) to what you asked.

When Catholics “got hold” of the RSV (a protestant translation), they made certain changes in it to reflect Catholic teaching/interpretation/translation. But in doing so, they did not change ALL of the protestant “influences” throughout the RSV. That is why, I respectully suggested, the verse/chapter numbering differed from the protestant rendering. The Catholic editors of the CE of the RSV didn’t change everything in the RSV to “get it in line” with Catholic teaching. They only changed some things. Others, they left alone - and thus my reasoning of why the protestant numbering was not changed.

That is all I meant.
Click to expand...
Salvatore123,

Thanks for your response.

I did get your point but what I am trying to understand is why the RSV-CE authors made this particular decision. It just seems silly to me to put the text there and not number the verses to reflect their presence.

I have heard that the people who own the rights to the original RSV kept tight control over everything about it even down to the font used to print it. I suspect this is why the verses are numbered as they are and I wanted to see if anyone knew for certain.
 
At the end of the OT there is an appendix of notes regarding the texts of the various books. The notes include a complete explanation of the numbering of the Theodotion text of chapter 3. This is found in the Thomas Nelson and Sons printing of the RSV-CE from 1966.

Reb Levi
 
Gary, believe it or not, there is not a standardized verse numbering for Biblical verses. Different Biblical translations use slightly different verse numbering. This is especially true in the Septuagint, where there is wide variance in verse numbering.

Drafdog is completely correct. The RSV-CE verse numbering for the Greek Daniel verses is carefully explained in the explanatory notes to the RSV-CE.
 
As I am trying to put together cross-references for a class in which different students are using different translations, I can affirm that this is a real challenge - even in the Pentateuch, the verse (and chapter) numbers don’t always match. It’s amusing, considering that the whole point of the numbering system was to make it easier to talk/compare/find things!
 
garysibio said:
This may seem like a minor issue to some but it really bugs me. In the RSV-CE and the Ignations Bible’s rendering of Daniel chapter 3, it includes the text from the Septuagint as it should. However, when it finishes with that portion, it reverts back to the verse numbering that is found in Protestant Bibles as if the previous verses didn’t exist.

Why does it not continue with the proper numbering as the New Jerusalem Bible does or, even better, give both verse numbers to make it easier to compare notes with Protestants.

I’m guessing it has something to do with the RSV copyright but it still bugs me.
Click to expand...
I have learned that there is no such thing as the ‘best’ Bible. My rule is easy: The best Bible is the one you will read. 👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top