RSV-CE Needs Corrections

[mike0219116]

mmortal03:

I contacted Oxford Press about their RSV Catholic Bibles, and I received a quick response:

Given this, I do not know why there are cases with people saying that their RSV Catholic Edition Bibles read differently with regards to Luke 1:34. All RSV-CE’s (1965) should read “How can…” and all RSV (1971) should read “How shall…” No RSV-CE’s should read “how shall…” unless somehow they were able to define this as an “obvious typographical error”.

jpy15026, can you confirm again that Luke 1:34 in your Oxford Press RSV-CE Compact Edition reads “how shall…”?

We know that the Ignatius Bible First and Second Editions read “how can…” From what I understand, the Scepter editons have the same text as the Ignatius First Edition, but it would be nice if someone could double check.

Just to be complete, does anyone have any of the two C. D. Stampley Enterprises editions (Family Bibles) from 2002? How about Oxford Press’ brand new “The Catholic Comparative New Testament”, how does it render it? Finally, how does My Daily Catholic Bible: Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition from Our Sunday Visitor (September 2004) render it?

I already stated in another thread that the compact edition of the RSV-CE published by Oxford renders John 19:5, “Behold the man,” and Luke 1:34, “And Mary said to the angel, ‘How shall this be…’”

 

[mike0219116]

mmortal03:

I contacted Oxford Press about their RSV Catholic Bibles, and I received a quick response:

Given this, I do not know why there are cases with people saying that their RSV Catholic Edition Bibles read differently with regards to Luke 1:34. All RSV-CE’s (1965) should read “How can…” and all RSV (1971) should read “How shall…” No RSV-CE’s should read “how shall…” unless somehow they were able to define this as an “obvious typographical error”.

jpy15026, can you confirm again that Luke 1:34 in your Oxford Press RSV-CE Compact Edition reads “how shall…”?

We know that the Ignatius Bible First and Second Editions read “how can…” From what I understand, the Scepter editons have the same text as the Ignatius First Edition, but it would be nice if someone could double check.

Just to be complete, does anyone have any of the two C. D. Stampley Enterprises editions (Family Bibles) from 2002? How about Oxford Press’ brand new “The Catholic Comparative New Testament”, how does it render it? Finally, how does My Daily Catholic Bible: Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition from Our Sunday Visitor (September 2004) render it?

I already stated in another thread that the compact edition of the RSV-CE published by Oxford renders John 19:5, “Behold the man,” and Luke 1:34, “And Mary said to the angel, ‘How shall this be…’”

 

[jpy15026]

"jpy15026, can you confirm again that Luke 1:34 in your Oxford Press RSV-CE Compact Edition reads “how shall…”?

Yep! My RSVCE Compact Oxford University Press Edition renders it “How Shall this be”
Just a sidenote :

I compared copyright dates

My Ignatius RSVCE
New Testament 1946
The Catholic edition of the New Testament copyright 1965.

My Oxford Compact RSV Catholic Edition:
New Testament section , First Edition copyright 1946
Second Edition copyright 1971.
The Catholic Edition of the New Testament copyright 1965.

*Also,My Oxford Compact renders

John 19:5 “Behold, the man”
Psalm 8 “Yet thou hast made him little less than God”.

 

[jpy15026]

"jpy15026, can you confirm again that Luke 1:34 in your Oxford Press RSV-CE Compact Edition reads “how shall…”?

Yep! My RSVCE Compact Oxford University Press Edition renders it “How Shall this be”
Just a sidenote :

I compared copyright dates

My Ignatius RSVCE
New Testament 1946
The Catholic edition of the New Testament copyright 1965.

My Oxford Compact RSV Catholic Edition:
New Testament section , First Edition copyright 1946
Second Edition copyright 1971.
The Catholic Edition of the New Testament copyright 1965.

*Also,My Oxford Compact renders

John 19:5 “Behold, the man”
Psalm 8 “Yet thou hast made him little less than God”.

 

[mmortal03]

"jpy15026, can you confirm again that Luke 1:34 in your Oxford Press RSV-CE Compact Edition reads “how shall…”?

Yep! My RSVCE Compact Oxford University Press Edition renders it “How Shall this be”
Just a sidenote :

I compared copyright dates

My Ignatius RSVCE
New Testament 1946
The Catholic edition of the New Testament copyright 1965.

My Oxford Compact RSV Catholic Edition:
New Testament section , First Edition copyright 1946
Second Edition copyright 1971.
The Catholic Edition of the New Testament copyright 1965.

*Also,My Oxford Compact renders

John 19:5 “Behold, the man”
Psalm 8 “Yet thou hast made him little less than God”.

It would seem as if they made a hybrid of the 1971 RSV and the 1965 RSVCE.

How does it render Isaiah 7:14 and Matthew 16:18?

Also, does anyone know the significance of the change in Psalm 8:5: “Yet you have made him little less than the angels” compared to the original “Yet thou hast made him little less than God”?

 

[mmortal03]

"jpy15026, can you confirm again that Luke 1:34 in your Oxford Press RSV-CE Compact Edition reads “how shall…”?

Yep! My RSVCE Compact Oxford University Press Edition renders it “How Shall this be”
Just a sidenote :

I compared copyright dates

My Ignatius RSVCE
New Testament 1946
The Catholic edition of the New Testament copyright 1965.

My Oxford Compact RSV Catholic Edition:
New Testament section , First Edition copyright 1946
Second Edition copyright 1971.
The Catholic Edition of the New Testament copyright 1965.

*Also,My Oxford Compact renders

John 19:5 “Behold, the man”
Psalm 8 “Yet thou hast made him little less than God”.

It would seem as if they made a hybrid of the 1971 RSV and the 1965 RSVCE.

How does it render Isaiah 7:14 and Matthew 16:18?

Also, does anyone know the significance of the change in Psalm 8:5: “Yet you have made him little less than the angels” compared to the original “Yet thou hast made him little less than God”?

 

[mmortal03]

jpy15026, can you also check these? These could also have been altered, because they were actually changed in the 1971 NT.

Changed in 1971, according to how Manfred would have the RSVCE:

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

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

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

Changed in 1971, but not according to how Manfred requests:

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

 

[mmortal03]

jpy15026, can you also check these? These could also have been altered, because they were actually changed in the 1971 NT.

Changed in 1971, according to how Manfred would have the RSVCE:

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

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

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

Changed in 1971, but not according to how Manfred requests:

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

 

[jpy15026]

"mmortal03

• jpy15026, can you also check these?"*

Isaiah 7:14 :
“Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.”
*footnote :Or virgin

Matthew 16:18
“And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.”
*footnote : Greek the gates of Hades

Matthew 19:5
and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?

• No footnote

Matthew 19:6
So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.”
*No footnote

1 Corinthians 6:16
Do you not know that he who joins himself to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two shall become one flesh.”
No footnote

1 Corinthians 6:9
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral***,** nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals**,

• , ** footnote: Two Greek words are rendered by this expression

 

[jpy15026]

"mmortal03

• jpy15026, can you also check these?"*

Isaiah 7:14 :
“Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.”
*footnote :Or virgin

Matthew 16:18
“And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.”
*footnote : Greek the gates of Hades

Matthew 19:5
and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?

• No footnote

Matthew 19:6
So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.”
*No footnote

1 Corinthians 6:16
Do you not know that he who joins himself to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two shall become one flesh.”
No footnote

1 Corinthians 6:9
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral***,** nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals**,

• , ** footnote: Two Greek words are rendered by this expression

 

[mmortal03]

Thanks so much jpy15026. It looks as if we have an alternative hybrid text on our hands here! It would be interesting to find out if there were other changes made as well, according to the 1971 NT revision. Does anyone know of a comprehensive list available that denotes the texual changes between the 1946 NT and the 1971 NT? That would be where to start.

Also, according to what you have mentioned, I would actually prefer this Oxford Press Edition to the Ignatius Second Catholic Edition. Hopefully the same changes are also present in the new Oxford Press Reader’s Edition to be released later this year.

The only thing I am shaky on here is the significance of the change that was made regarding Psalm 8:5. Can someone please elaborate on why “God” was changed to “the angels”?

Original 1965 RSVCE and Ignatius Bible First Edition:
Isaiah 7:14: “young woman”
Psalm 8:5 “Yet thou hast made him little less than God”
Matthew 16:18: “Powers of Death”, footnote “Gates of Hades”
Luke 1:34: “How can this be”
John 19:5: “Here is the man”
Matthew 19:5, 19:6, 1 Corinthians 6:16 “one”, footnote “one flesh”
Archaic language spoken to God.

Ignatius Bible RSV Second Catholic Edition:
Isaiah 7:14: “virgin”
Psalm 8:5 “Yet you have made him little less than the angels”
Matthew 16:18: “gates of Hades”, footnote “powers of death”
Luke 1:34: “How can this be”
John 19:5: “Here is the man”
Matthew 19:5, 19:6, 1 Corinthians 6:16 “one”, footnote “one flesh”
Only Archaic language in a few specific cases.

Oxford Press RSVCE Compact Edition (and possibly the new Reader’s Edition, we will have to see once it is released):
Isaiah 7:14: “young woman”
Psalm 8:5 “Yet thou hast made him little less than God”
Matthew 16:18: “Powers of Death”, footnote “Gates of Hades”
Luke 1:34: “How shall this be”
John 19:5: “Behold, the man”
Matthew 19:5, 19:6, 1 Corinthians 6:16 “one flesh”, no footnote
Archaic language spoken to God.

 

[mmortal03]

Thanks so much jpy15026. It looks as if we have an alternative hybrid text on our hands here! It would be interesting to find out if there were other changes made as well, according to the 1971 NT revision. Does anyone know of a comprehensive list available that denotes the texual changes between the 1946 NT and the 1971 NT? That would be where to start.

Also, according to what you have mentioned, I would actually prefer this Oxford Press Edition to the Ignatius Second Catholic Edition. Hopefully the same changes are also present in the new Oxford Press Reader’s Edition to be released later this year.

The only thing I am shaky on here is the significance of the change that was made regarding Psalm 8:5. Can someone please elaborate on why “God” was changed to “the angels”?

Original 1965 RSVCE and Ignatius Bible First Edition:
Isaiah 7:14: “young woman”
Psalm 8:5 “Yet thou hast made him little less than God”
Matthew 16:18: “Powers of Death”, footnote “Gates of Hades”
Luke 1:34: “How can this be”
John 19:5: “Here is the man”
Matthew 19:5, 19:6, 1 Corinthians 6:16 “one”, footnote “one flesh”
Archaic language spoken to God.

Ignatius Bible RSV Second Catholic Edition:
Isaiah 7:14: “virgin”
Psalm 8:5 “Yet you have made him little less than the angels”
Matthew 16:18: “gates of Hades”, footnote “powers of death”
Luke 1:34: “How can this be”
John 19:5: “Here is the man”
Matthew 19:5, 19:6, 1 Corinthians 6:16 “one”, footnote “one flesh”
Only Archaic language in a few specific cases.

Oxford Press RSVCE Compact Edition (and possibly the new Reader’s Edition, we will have to see once it is released):
Isaiah 7:14: “young woman”
Psalm 8:5 “Yet thou hast made him little less than God”
Matthew 16:18: “Powers of Death”, footnote “Gates of Hades”
Luke 1:34: “How shall this be”
John 19:5: “Behold, the man”
Matthew 19:5, 19:6, 1 Corinthians 6:16 “one flesh”, no footnote
Archaic language spoken to God.

 

[Manfred]

mmortal and jpy, you folks are doing a heck of a job! (I’m serious, do not confuse me with G W Bush!)

This is sad, viz, RSV Catholic editions seemingly hybridized from the 1966 RSV-CE and the 1971 RSV NT, 2nd ed.

A hardcover work I found in the library of a nearby Catholic college, “An Analytical Concordance to the RSV of the New Testament”, by Clinton Morrison, was published in 1979 by Westminster Press. Nice work, it gives all the variant readings found in the NT of the RSV from the editions of 1946, 1952, 1959, 1965 (RSV-CE). To quote from its Appendix II, “In this Appendix are recorded all readings of the RSV NT that have been superseded on one of the occasions just mentioned or that reamin peculiar to the Catholic Edition.”

Bottom line: 1971 2nd ed. was a slight improvement over some of these earlier “occasions” (except for Luke 1:28, of course). But in no way would you want to call it “Catholic”; it renders the Holy Spirit as “which” instead of “who”, for example. It corrects “one” to “one flesh”, renders Luke 1:34 “how shall…”, but there’s not much else to recommend it. “Powers of death” still prevails. You are requested to “Behold the man!” Biggest flaw: it relegates too many passages accepted as canonical by the Church to the footnotes.

Thanks, again, for your interest in this thread.

Manfred

 

[Manfred]

mmortal and jpy, you folks are doing a heck of a job! (I’m serious, do not confuse me with G W Bush!)

This is sad, viz, RSV Catholic editions seemingly hybridized from the 1966 RSV-CE and the 1971 RSV NT, 2nd ed.

A hardcover work I found in the library of a nearby Catholic college, “An Analytical Concordance to the RSV of the New Testament”, by Clinton Morrison, was published in 1979 by Westminster Press. Nice work, it gives all the variant readings found in the NT of the RSV from the editions of 1946, 1952, 1959, 1965 (RSV-CE). To quote from its Appendix II, “In this Appendix are recorded all readings of the RSV NT that have been superseded on one of the occasions just mentioned or that reamin peculiar to the Catholic Edition.”

Bottom line: 1971 2nd ed. was a slight improvement over some of these earlier “occasions” (except for Luke 1:28, of course). But in no way would you want to call it “Catholic”; it renders the Holy Spirit as “which” instead of “who”, for example. It corrects “one” to “one flesh”, renders Luke 1:34 “how shall…”, but there’s not much else to recommend it. “Powers of death” still prevails. You are requested to “Behold the man!” Biggest flaw: it relegates too many passages accepted as canonical by the Church to the footnotes.

Thanks, again, for your interest in this thread.

Manfred

 

[mmortal03]

Manfred:

mmortal and jpy, you folks are doing a heck of a job! (I’m serious, do not confuse me with G W Bush!)

This is sad, viz, RSV Catholic editions seemingly hybridized from the 1966 RSV-CE and the 1971 RSV NT, 2nd ed.

Thanks! I think this is definately going in the right direction. This thread has been my way of researching “which Bible is for me”. I would say that hybridizing could produce a fine translation, if they would just pick all the right passages!

A hardcover work I found in the library of a nearby Catholic college, “An Analytical Concordance to the RSV of the New Testament”, by Clinton Morrison, was published in 1979 by Westminster Press.

It is at my University’s library for reference use, so I will go and look into this more in a few weeks after some of my exams are over with.

Nice work, it gives all the variant readings found in the NT of the RSV from the editions of 1946, 1952, 1959, 1965 (RSV-CE). To quote from its Appendix II, “In this Appendix are recorded all readings of the RSV NT that have been superseded on one of the occasions just mentioned or that reamin peculiar to the Catholic Edition.”

The NT only changed between the 1946 editon and the 1965 and the 1946 and the 1971, though, right? The 1952 edition just included the OT, and the 1959 edition just added the deuterocanonical books. There hopefully shouldn’t be more than two variants of the NT to compare. I’ll just have to check out that concordance you mentioned.

Bottom line: 1971 2nd ed. was a slight improvement over some of these earlier “occasions” (except for Luke 1:28, of course).

I’m assuming Luke 1:28 is properly Catholic in the RSVCE, so that shouldn’t be a problem in these CE’s.

But in no way would you want to call it “Catholic”; it renders the Holy Spirit as “which” instead of “who”, for example.

Is this fixed in the CE’s?

“Powers of death” still prevails. You are requested to “Behold the man!”

Why is the “powers of death” rendering problematic compared to “gates of Hades” or, what you suggested, “gates of hell”? Is it simply not word for word?

“Behold the man” is the more preferred way of rendering that passage, correct?

Biggest flaw: it relegates too many passages accepted as canonical by the Church to the footnotes.

Do you mean John 7:53–8:11 and Mark 16:9–20, which were restored in the 1971 version, or are you referencing other passages?

Finally, does anyone know the significance of “God” being changed to “the angels” in Psalm 8:5?

Thanks

 

[mmortal03]

Manfred:

mmortal and jpy, you folks are doing a heck of a job! (I’m serious, do not confuse me with G W Bush!)

This is sad, viz, RSV Catholic editions seemingly hybridized from the 1966 RSV-CE and the 1971 RSV NT, 2nd ed.

Thanks! I think this is definately going in the right direction. This thread has been my way of researching “which Bible is for me”. I would say that hybridizing could produce a fine translation, if they would just pick all the right passages!

A hardcover work I found in the library of a nearby Catholic college, “An Analytical Concordance to the RSV of the New Testament”, by Clinton Morrison, was published in 1979 by Westminster Press.

It is at my University’s library for reference use, so I will go and look into this more in a few weeks after some of my exams are over with.

Nice work, it gives all the variant readings found in the NT of the RSV from the editions of 1946, 1952, 1959, 1965 (RSV-CE). To quote from its Appendix II, “In this Appendix are recorded all readings of the RSV NT that have been superseded on one of the occasions just mentioned or that reamin peculiar to the Catholic Edition.”

The NT only changed between the 1946 editon and the 1965 and the 1946 and the 1971, though, right? The 1952 edition just included the OT, and the 1959 edition just added the deuterocanonical books. There hopefully shouldn’t be more than two variants of the NT to compare. I’ll just have to check out that concordance you mentioned.

Bottom line: 1971 2nd ed. was a slight improvement over some of these earlier “occasions” (except for Luke 1:28, of course).

I’m assuming Luke 1:28 is properly Catholic in the RSVCE, so that shouldn’t be a problem in these CE’s.

But in no way would you want to call it “Catholic”; it renders the Holy Spirit as “which” instead of “who”, for example.

Is this fixed in the CE’s?

“Powers of death” still prevails. You are requested to “Behold the man!”

Why is the “powers of death” rendering problematic compared to “gates of Hades” or, what you suggested, “gates of hell”? Is it simply not word for word?

“Behold the man” is the more preferred way of rendering that passage, correct?

Biggest flaw: it relegates too many passages accepted as canonical by the Church to the footnotes.

Do you mean John 7:53–8:11 and Mark 16:9–20, which were restored in the 1971 version, or are you referencing other passages?

Finally, does anyone know the significance of “God” being changed to “the angels” in Psalm 8:5?

Thanks

 

[mmortal03]

Another couple changes to note in the Second Catholic Edition that I read about in another thread: Throughout the OT, “steadfast love” has been changed to “mercy”. In one particular case, in Ps.25:6, “mercy” is changed to “compassion” and “steadfast love” is changed to “mercy”, so as it does not sound repetitive.

Also, “donkey” is substituted for “***” throughout the OT.

jpy15026, some example passages are Ps. 25:6, as above, and Psalm 100[99]:5. If you could check whether your Oxford Press edition says “mercy” or “steadfast love”, that would be great. For “donkey” or “***” a sample passage to check is Gen.22:3.

 

[mmortal03]

Another couple changes to note in the Second Catholic Edition that I read about in another thread: Throughout the OT, “steadfast love” has been changed to “mercy”. In one particular case, in Ps.25:6, “mercy” is changed to “compassion” and “steadfast love” is changed to “mercy”, so as it does not sound repetitive.

Also, “donkey” is substituted for “***” throughout the OT.

jpy15026, some example passages are Ps. 25:6, as above, and Psalm 100[99]:5. If you could check whether your Oxford Press edition says “mercy” or “steadfast love”, that would be great. For “donkey” or “***” a sample passage to check is Gen.22:3.

 

[jpy15026]

jpy15026, some example passages are Ps. 25:6, as above, and Psalm 100[99]:5. If you could check whether your Oxford Press edition says “mercy” or “steadfast love”, that would be great. For “donkey” or "*" a sample passage to check is Gen.22:3.

**

Psalm 25:6
Be mindful of thy mercy, O Lord, and of thy steadfast love, for they have been from of old.

Psalm 100:5
For the Lord is good; his steadfast love endures for ever, and his faithfulness to all generations.

Gen.22:3.
So Abraham rose early in the morning, saddled his ***, and took two of his young men with him, and his son Isaac; and he cut the wood for the burnt offering, and arose and went to the place of which God had told him.

More……

Luke 1:28
And he came to her and said, “Hail, full of grace, The Lord is with you.”

Footnote: Or O favored one

Romans 5:5
and hope does not disappoint us, because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us.

2 Timothy 1:14
guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us.

Acts 5:32 And we are witnesses to these things, and so is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey him.”

 

[jpy15026]

mmortal03:

Finally, does anyone know the significance of “God” being changed to “the angels” in Psalm 8:5?

Use of the Hebrew word for God in Psalm 8:5

The Hebrew word translated “God” in this verse is **< **myhl) **> ***elohiym *which usually means God or gods. Hebrews 2:6-9 quotes from Psalm 8:4-6, but for verse 5 uses the wording, “You have made them for a little while lower than the angels.” You might ask, which is it? Is humanity a little lower than the angels or than God? The problem began in 250 B.C. when the Alexandrian Jews translated the Old Testament into Greek. This translation is called the Septuagint. For elohiym in Psalm 8:5, they rendered it avgge,louj *angelous *which means messengers and is the wording the writer of Hebrews used. This is the common Greek word for angels. Although *elohiym *is usually translated God, it is occasionally used as an adjective of greatness (Genesis 30:8, Jonah 3:3) and it sometimes refers to representatives of God (Exodus 21:6, 22:8-9, and probably Psalm 82:6). This second meaning is no doubt what the writers of the Septuagint had in mind.