RSV-CE Needs Correction - Confraternity Psalms (Split Thread)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Manfred
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Manfred

Guest
What think ye, brethren?

My Reasons:
  • There is not likely to be either a new revision of the Douay-Rheims-Challoner version of the Bible or a translation into English of the Nova Vulgata.
  • The RSV-CE is, by almost all indications, the preferred text used by Catholic apologists and contemporary Catholic scriptural scholars.
  • The Standard Bible Committee issued a second edition of the RSV New Testament in 1971 with many renderings superior to those of the Catholic edition (which was based on the 1959 edition of the RSV NT).
  • Many of the corrections suggested below already exist in the
    footnotes or Explanatory Notes of the RSV-CE, and could have been incorporated into the text of the RSV-CE by the original editors.
    Code: 
     Texts of the RSV-CE and Some Suggested Corrections
Genesis 12:3 text “and by you all the families of the earth shall bless themselves”; footnote “in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed” to agree with Acts 3:25 and Galatians 3:8

Genesis 18:18 text “and all the nations of the earth shall bless
themselves by him”; footnote “in him all the nations of the earth shall be blessed” to agree with Acts 3:25 and Galatians 3:8

Genesis 22:18 text “and by your descendants shall all the nations of the earth bless themselves”; better “be blessed”

Genesis 26:4 text “and by your descendants all the nations of the earth shall bless themselves”; better “be blessed”

Genesis 28:14 text “and by you and your descendants shall all the families of the earth bless themselves”; footnote “be blessed”

Genesis 9:20 text “Noah was the first tiller of the soil. He planted a vineyard” better “Noah began to till the soil and planted a vineyard”

Exodus 3:14 text “I AM WHO I AM”; better “I AM WHO AM”

Tobit 13:18 text “Hallelujah”; better “Alleluia”

Psalm 45:6-9

text “[6] Your divine throne endures for ever and ever.
Your royal scepter is a scepter of equity;
[7] you love righteousness and hate wickedness.
Therefore God, your God, has anointed you
with the oil of gladness above your fellows;
[8] your robes are all fragrant with myrrh and aloes and cassia.
From ivory palaces stringed instruments make you glad;
[9] daughters of kings are among your ladies of honor;
at your right hand stands the queen in gold of Ophir.”

better “[6] Thy throne, O God, endures for ever and ever.
Thy royal scepter is a scepter of equity;
[7] thou lovest righteousness and hatest wickedness.
Therefore God, thy God, has anointed thee
with the oil of gladness above thy fellows;
[8] thy robes are all fragrant with myrrh and aloes and cassia.
From ivory palaces stringed instruments make thee glad;
[9] daughters of kings are among thy ladies of honor;
at thy right hand stands the queen in gold of Ophir.”

Psalm 104:35; 105:45; 106:1,48; 112:1; 113:1,9; 115:18; 116:19; 117:2; 135:1,21; 146:1,10; 147:20; 148:1,14; 149:1,9; 150:1,6 text “Praise the LORD!”; better “Alleluia!”

Proverbs 5:19 text “affection” better “breasts”

Isaiah 7:14 text “young woman”; footnote “virgin”

Throughout all four Gospels text “Truly, I say to you” or “Truly,
truly, I say to you”; better “Amen, I say to you” or Amen, amen I say to you"

Note: texts of all parallel NT passages have not been included herein.

Matthew 16:18 text “powers of death”; footnote “gates of Hades”; better “gates of hell”

Matthew 16:26 text “life”; better “soul”

Matthew 19:5 text “one”; footnote “one flesh”

Matthew 19:6 text “one”; footnote “one flesh”

Matthew 16:9 text “unchastity”; better “fornication”

Matthew 20:15 text “Or do you begrudge my generosity?” footnote “Or is your eye evil because I am good?”

Luke 1:34 text “How can this be, since I have no husband?”; better “How shall this be, since I do not know man?”

John 2:4 text “what have you to do with me?”; better “what to you and to me?”

John 19:5 text “Here is the man!”; better “Behold, the man!”

1 Corinthians 6:9 text “the immoral”; Explanatory Notes “fornicators”

1 Corinthians 6:9 text “homosexuals”; Explanatory Notes “effeminate nor sodomites”

1 Corinthians 6:16 text “one”; footnote “one flesh”

1 Corinthians 7:9 text “cannot”; better “do not”

1 Corinthians 9:5 text “wife”; footnote “woman, sister”

Hebrews 2:10 text “pioneer”; better “author”

Hebrews 12:2 text “pioneer”; better “author”

Revelation 3:15 text “I will spew you out of my mouth.”; better “I am about to vomit you out of my mouth.”

Revelation 19:1,3,4,6 text “Hallelujah”; better “Alleluia”
 
I agree wholeheartedly. Not to mention the substitution of “steadfast love” for “mercy,” “descendant” for “seed,” etc. The list could go on and on.

Liturgiam Authenticam provides a nice summary of how a bible translation should be done (e.g., “Alleluia” rather than “Praise the LORD” and “Amen, amen” rather than “Truly, truly”) and it doesn’t take much of the RSV-CE to realize that the RSV-CE just doesn’t cut it.

Strangely, I’ve raised these issues on a number of occasions and no one at Ignatius Press, including Fr. Fessio, has shown any interest in bringing the RSV-CE closer to the dictates of Liturgiam Authenticam or the Nova Vulgata. Perhaps, they are constrained by copyright laws. At any rate, they initially expressed interest in making some of the changes, but then went radio silent.

I’ve been doing my own translation of the Nova Vulgata, with references to the Hebrew and Greek text to make various passages a bit more specific, but I doubt I’ll be done anytime soon, and I’ll probably just do a small publication of 100 copies or so to some of my friends and family members who have asked for a copy.

I think the Douay Rheims Old Testament and the Confraternity New Testament is you best bet. (I have a 1948 translation Douay/Confraternity with a new translation of the Psalms taken from Pope Pius XII’s Latin Psalter. The language is traditional thee/thou and used “Blessed is the man” rather than “Happy is the man” in Psalm 1. I think that’s the closest you can come to the Nova Vulgata for now.)

God bless
 
I had noticed that several volumes of the Ignatius Study Bible was using something called the RSV Second Catholic Edition. A spokesman (sorry, spokesperson 😉 ) for Ignatius claimed the Second CE had changes to conform to Liturgiam Authenticam. Naturally, I went to verify this and found it to not be true, as none of the guidelines proposed there, let alone any of those I would have suggested, had been incorporated.

I’ve never seen a copy of the Confraternity Psalms you mention; sounds as if they would be just about right, as opposed to the later Confraternity Version (1955, “Happy is the man…”), or the RSV-CE.

I still don’t get the enormous resistance to an “official” English translation of the Nova Vulgata. I just wonder who is behind the perceived opposition. And I won’t accept Pius XII’s writing in Divino Afflante Spiritu as an answer!
 
Is it true that Jerome made three different translations of the Psalms?
 
Jerry-Jet said:
Is it true that Jerome made three different translations of the Psalms?
Click to expand...
  • from the Wikipedia article on Latin Psalters:
(The) Psalterium Romanum (or) the Roman Psalter of 384 was Jerome’s first revision of the psalter. It was made from the Versio Vetus Latina, and corrected to bring it more in line with the Septuagint. This version was by and large replaced by Jerome’s later versions … It is still used today in the Vatican basilica and in St. Mark’s Cathedral in Venice.

The Versio Gallicana or Psalterium Gallicanum was Jerome’s second revision, which he made from the Greek of the Hexapla ca. 386-391. This became the psalter of the Vulgate bible, and the basis for Gregorian chant. It became the standard psalter used in the liturgy throughout the West from the time of Charlemagne until it was replaced in the 2nd edition of the breviary by the Versio Nova Vulgata in 2000. It is still used today by indult in some monasteries and churches and by traditionalist Catholics.

The Versio juxta Hebraicum was the last made by Jerome. It is often informally called the “Hebrew Psalter” despite being written in Latin. Rather than just revise the Gallicana, he translated these psalms anew from the Hebrew ca. 398-405. This psalter is found in a few very old manuscripts of the Vulgate. It was found in Spanish manuscripts of the Vulgate long after the Gallicanum supplanted it elsewhere. It is not clear that it was ever used in the liturgy.
 
Which Psalter of St. Jerome was most like the one used in the Confraternity Bible that was endorsed by Pius XII?
 
Jerry-Jet said:
Which Psalter of St. Jerome was most like the one used in the Confraternity Bible that was endorsed by Pius XII?
Click to expand...
My guess is one of the top two that Manfred mentioned in the previous post to yours. I put 75 percent on the second of the two, and 25 percent on the first.

I’d google it and research into it to increase the accuracy of my bets, but I am too tired to at the moment. The only reason I am not more sure off the top of my head is because I recall there being a difference in how the Psalter has been treated by Jerome and through the history of the Church, compared to the rest of the Bible, and I don’t remember the details.

Edit: Ah, I see you were reading the Confraternity Bible page on Wikipedia, already. (I’ll remain just as veiled in how I know that. 🙂 )

Edit 2: Apparently, the Psalms used in the various editions of the Confraternity Bible hybrids (and 1970 NAB?) was not translated from the traditional Gallican Psalter of St Jerome’s Vulgate, but from the new Psalter, translated from the “Hebrew” and promulgated by Pope Pius XII. This is the last of those listed by Manfred above, called the Hebrew Psalter (it was a translation anew of the Hebrew into Latin by Jerome) and is what the Roman breviary uses as well. Talk about placing a bad bet!

Edit 3: Please check my sources and assumptions on edit 2 (Google and Wikipedia, and my brain) 🙂
 
mmortal03 said:
Edit 2: Apparently, the Psalms used in the various editions of the Confraternity Bible hybrids (and 1970 NAB?) was not translated from the traditional Gallican Psalter of St Jerome’s Vulgate, but from the new Psalter, translated from the “Hebrew” and promulgated by Pope Pius XII. This is the last of those listed by Manfred above, called the Hebrew Psalter (it was a translation anew of the Hebrew into Latin by Jerome) and is what the Roman breviary uses as well. Talk about placing a bad bet!
Click to expand...
Some Confraternity editions of the Catholic bible, published from the mid 1950s and well into the 1960s, contain the Confraternity NT of 1941, and a hybrid OT. E.g., the one I own was printed in 1957; Genesis to Ruth, as well as Job to Sirach are from the “latest” Confraternity translation, meaning these 15 books were translated from the original languages, not the Vulgate. With the exception of Genesis (for which another translation was made), these books all became part of the 1970 NAB.

Around 1945, Pius XII promulgated a new Latin version of the Psalter, translated from the Hebrew, though not necessarily from the Massoretic text. This was used in the Roman Breviary. I know of no English translation of this version. Further, there is nothing which leads me to connect this version with Jerome’s Psalter juxta Hebraica.
 
Manfred said:
Some Confraternity editions of the Catholic bible, published from the mid 1950s and well into the 1960s, contain the Confraternity NT of 1941, and a hybrid OT. E.g., the one I own was printed in 1957; Genesis to Ruth, as well as Job to Sirach are from the “latest” Confraternity translation, meaning these 15 books were translated from the original languages, not the Vulgate. With the exception of Genesis (for which another translation was made), these books all became part of the 1970 NAB.

Around 1945, Pius XII promulgated a new Latin version of the Psalter, translated from the Hebrew, though not necessarily from the Massoretic text. This was used in the Roman Breviary. I know of no English translation of this version. Further, there is nothing which leads me to connect this version with Jerome’s Psalter juxta Hebraica.
Click to expand...
Manfred - Check out the description of this 1951 Douay-Confraternity edition.

Here is another bible from 1954. The Psalms are here described—along with the NT—as “in the Confraternity text.” However, I have personally seen a different edition from 1954 that specified the Psalms were from “the new Latin version authorized by Pope Pius XII.”

I have the same 1957 edition as you. The Psalms there are indeed the same as in the 1970 NAB. At first I assumed this was a unique Confraternity translation from some original Hebrew because I have seen Pius XII’s psalter described as all but supressed by John XXIII. Then I read this in Wikipedia:
While many of the books of the Old Testament in 1960s editions of the Confraternity Bible were new translations, by and large, these were translations from the Hebrew, and formed the basis of those books in the New American Bible. The Books of Psalms, which appeared at the same time as the New Testament, was not translated from the traditional Gallican Psalter of St Jerome’s Vulgate, but from the new Psalter from the Hebrew promulgated by Pope Pius XII.
Click to expand...
I do not know if this is accurate. The fact that the beginning of the article uses the phrase “Confraternity Bible” when “Confraternity New Testament” is meant, does not inspire confidence. mmortal03 also read this description of the Confraternity Psalms but drew a wrong conclusion about a connection with Jerome. You are correct that the Pius XII psalter is not based on the *juxta Hebraicum. *It’s origin is outlined under the heading Versio Piana here. Can it be that the pre-1991 NAB Psalms are those of Pius XII’s Psalterium novum?
 
Manfred said:
Some Confraternity editions of the Catholic bible, published from the mid 1950s and well into the 1960s, contain the Confraternity NT of 1941, and a hybrid OT. E.g., the one I own was printed in 1957; Genesis to Ruth, as well as Job to Sirach are from the “latest” Confraternity translation, meaning these 15 books were translated from the original languages, not the Vulgate. With the exception of Genesis (for which another translation was made), these books all became part of the 1970 NAB.
Click to expand...
Yep, and I also have both the 1970 NAB and the 1957 Confraternity hybrid Bible.
Around 1945, Pius XII promulgated a new Latin version of the Psalter, translated from the Hebrew, though not necessarily from the Massoretic text. This was used in the Roman Breviary. I know of no English translation of this version. Further, there is nothing which leads me to connect this version with Jerome’s Psalter juxta Hebraica.
Click to expand...
Yes, this is what I wasn’t sure of. I read into the Confraternity Bible page’s following statement at the bottom way too much: “The Books of Psalms, which appeared at the same time as the New Testament, was not translated from the traditional Gallican Psalter of St Jerome’s Vulgate, but from the new Psalter from the Hebrew promulgated by Pope Pius XII.”

That is a very confusing statement, because the context is not clear. What I think they mean is that the new Psalter came from the original languages as Pope Pius XII had requested, and in this case being from the Hebrew. However, I also didn’t initially follow what they meant by “at the same time as the New Testament”. I think they are talking about the 1970 NAB New Testament, NOT the Confraternity NT.

If this is the case, that statement should be revised to be more clear (which I will do once we get this settled). I really don’t think there is some intermediate, fourth translation of the Psalms into English in one of the Confraternity Bible hybrids, that we don’t know about. There should only be what was in the Douay Rheims, what was in the 1970 NAB, and what was in the 1991 NAB, and that is it, right?
Cranch said:
Manfred - Check out the description of this 1951 Douay-Confraternity edition.

Here is another bible from 1954. The Psalms are here described—along with the NT—as “in the Confraternity text.” However, I have personally seen a different edition from 1954 that specified the Psalms were from “the new Latin version authorized by Pope Pius XII.”
Click to expand...
That is interesting. Anybody have a 1951 or 1954 Confraternity Bible?
I have the same 1957 edition as you. The Psalms there are indeed the same as in the 1970 NAB. At first I assumed this was a unique Confraternity translation from some original Hebrew because I have seen Pius XII’s psalter described as all but supressed by John XXIII. Then I read this in Wikipedia:
I do not know if this is accurate. The fact that the beginning of the article uses the phrase “Confraternity Bible” when “Confraternity New Testament” is meant, does not inspire confidence. mmortal03 also read this description of the Confraternity Psalms but drew a wrong conclusion about a connection with Jerome. You are correct that the Pius XII psalter is not based on the *juxta Hebraicum. *It’s origin is outlined under the heading Versio Piana here. Can it be that the pre-1991 NAB Psalms are those of Pius XII’s Psalterium novum?
Click to expand...
We need to figure this out.
 
I sent the following message to 7 different eBay sellers of various early 50’s ('50-'53) Confraternity Bibles:

“This sounds counter-intuitive, but it is very important. Could you post a high resolution (e.g. readable) picture of the first full text page of the Psalms, or if that is not possible, transcribe the first paragraph or so of it? There has been a question regarding which Psalms this <insert 195X here> Confraternity Bible actually contains, and this would help to answer the question. Thanks!”

I will let you guys know the responses I get back. 🙂
 
The seller of that same 1954 Confraternity Bible mentioned above promptly got back to me, and I can confirm that it is the same Psalms as the 1957 Confraternity Bible (and also the same as the 1970 NAB Psalms, just with the form of the person names being based on the Anglicized Greek).
 
The 1953 edition here is also the same: cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=160132453845&sspagename=ADME:B:AAQ:US:1

The seller of one of the 1950 editions didn’t give me verse text, but I am not going to ask him for it. What he gave me was the intro text, which matches my 1957 identically, and furthermore, a different 1950 edition seller posted text and it is the same as my 1957 edition:cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=200117100563&sspagename=ADME:L:RTQ:US:1

Unless there are full Confraternity Bibles between 1941 and 1949 that are at issue, this should have answered our questions for good.
 
This makes me sad–it means that if you get a Confraternity bible with the psalms you get a NAB junky version of them.

Looks like just another in a long list of reasons for using the Douay Rheims.

Stylistically the King James is quite poetic and the RSV does have many similiarities with it.

How many differences are there between the RSV-CE 2d edition and the original RSV when it comes to the Psalms? How different are they from the Douay Rheims in references that prophesy Christ?
 
Jerry-Jet said:
This makes me sad–it means that if you get a Confraternity bible with the psalms you get a NAB junky version of them.

Looks like just another in a long list of reasons for using the Douay Rheims.
Click to expand...
Nothing wrong with that! 👍 However, I am fairly certain I have seen hybrid bibles containing the Confraternity NT with the entire OT including the Psalms taken from the D-R. Certainly the first full bibles with the Confraternity NT published prior to 1945 would have this combo as Pius XII’s Psalter didn’t come out until '45. But I’m pretty sure there were a few even later Confraternity bibles with an all-Douay-Rheims OT.
 
I would like a bible like that. I guess it’s time to go searching at the antique bookstores!
 
mmortal03 said:
The 1953 edition here is also the same: cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=160132453845&sspagename=ADME:B:AAQ:US:1

The seller of one of the 1950 editions didn’t give me verse text, but I am not going to ask him for it. What he gave me was the intro text, which matches my 1957 identically, and furthermore, a different 1950 edition seller posted text and it is the same as my 1957 edition:cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=200117100563&sspagename=ADME:L:RTQ:US:1

Unless there are full Confraternity Bibles between 1941 and 1949 that are at issue, this should have answered our questions for good.
Click to expand...
Deus meus! What hath God wrought!

I think you’ve solved the puzzle, mmortal; the so-called Confraternity Psalms from the Church’s “new Latin Psalter” is none other than that (with spelling of names updated) which went into the 1970 NAB.

As most of us know, the NAB OT was issued in FOUR separate volumes:

I. Genesis - Ruth (1952) [Genesis was re-translated before the NAB was published]
II. Job - Sirach (1955)
III. Isaia - Malachia (1961)
IV. Samuel - Maccabees (1969)

Obviously, the Book of Psalms would have been in vol. II, but that does not mean that this Psalter could not have been issued separately at an earlier date, say, 1953, for inclusion in bibles with the Confraternity NT.

The following is taken from the Intro. to the 1970 NAB, with emphasis added:

“The basic text for the Psalms is not the Massoretic but one which the editors considered closer to the original inspired form, namely the Hebrew text underlying the new Latin Psalter of the Church, the Liber Psalmorum (1944, 1945). Nevertheless they retained full liberty to establish the reading of the original text on sound critical principles.”

For what it’s worth, i.e., my two cents, this is a rather nice version of the Psalms, even better than the RSV-CE in many places. These were the Psalms that I became familiar with in my youth from reading “A Short Breviary” (Liturgical Press), and, of course, the version still used (albeit with some inclusivisms slipped in) in the Liturgy in the USA.
 
Cranch said:
…I’m pretty sure there were a few even later Confraternity bibles with an all-Douay-Rheims OT.
Click to expand...
Right you are! The Andover, MA public library had one. I say “had” because I’ve not seen it on their shelves in years.
 
How many different versions of the Confraternity Bible exist? Does anyone know the copyright date for each version?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top