RSV-CE Needs Corrections

[mmortal03]

mmortal,

I think you would do us all (well, me, at least) a favor by summarizing in a few lines what the differences are among the several editions of the Catholic RSV, from the “original” Ignatius, through the various Oxford-Scepter “compact” editions, to the Ignatius 2nd ed.

Thanks.

Manfred

Do you mean to compliment my two whole pages that document all the differences we have found so far? Well, here it is:

This page documents all of the differences that we have found so far between the original 1965 RSV:CE (Ignatius First Edition) and the Ignatius Second Edition (outside of archaic language removal). I have also listed other versions there, but ONLY relative to the changes between the two Ignatiuses, nothing further than that, because it would get lopsided. Keep reading.

It would get lopsided because the 1971 RSV brought a MUCH larger and worthwhile amount of revisions to the table than anything that Ignatius could claim. The problem was that no Catholic Edition had made use of the 1971 revisions, well, that is, until they were snuck into Oxford-Press-copyrighted Compact RSV:CEs in 2005! (Prior to that unofficial but greatly appreciated occurrence, Catholics had been stuck with RSV:CE’s based on the 1959 RSV.)

And just to let you know, the brand new Oxford Press RSV:CE Reader’s Version will be the first FULL SIZE RSV:CE to benefit from these same 1971 revisions. It is to be released, tentatively, on December 7th. Buy it as a gift, if it actually comes out, because it is better than the Ignatius Second Edition, by far.

I have documented all of the 1971 revisions by verse, and how they were incorporated into these new and improved, better than Ignatius, “unofficially getting away with it” RSV:CEs, copyrighted by Oxford Press here.

 

[Manfred]

Do you mean to compliment my two whole pages that document all the differences we have found so far? Well, here it is:

This page documents all of the differences that we have found so far between the original 1965 RSV:CE (Ignatius First Edition) and the Ignatius Second Edition (outside of archaic language removal). I have also listed other versions there, but ONLY relative to the changes between the two Ignatiuses, nothing further than that, because it would get lopsided. Keep reading.

It would get lopsided because the 1971 RSV brought a MUCH larger and worthwhile amount of revisions to the table than anything that Ignatius could claim. The problem was that no Catholic Edition had made use of the 1971 revisions, well, that is, until they were snuck into Oxford-Press-copyrighted Compact RSV:CEs in 2005! (Prior to that unofficial but greatly appreciated occurrence, Catholics had been stuck with RSV:CE’s based on the 1959 RSV.)

And just to let you know, the brand new Oxford Press RSV:CE Reader’s Version will be the first FULL SIZE RSV:CE to benefit from these same 1971 revisions. It is to be released, tentatively, on December 7th. Buy it as a gift, if it actually comes out, because it is better than the Ignatius Second Edition, by far.

I have documented all of the 1971 revisions by verse, and how they were incorporated into these new and improved, better than Ignatius, “unofficially getting away with it” RSV:CEs, copyrighted by Oxford Press here.

But I thought Scepter (and maybe even Oxford) had non-compact editions based on the 1959 NT with the 1965-66 Catholic changes, whereas their compact editions somehow managed to interject the Catholic changes within the 1971 NT; do I understand this correctly?

 

[mmortal03]

But I thought Scepter (and maybe even Oxford) had non-compact editions based on the 1959 NT with the 1965-66 Catholic changes, whereas their compact editions somehow managed to interject the Catholic changes within the 1971 NT; do I understand this correctly?

Right, that is why you have to go by the copyright. The only RSV:CEs that are based on the 1971 RSV are either published by Oxford Press or have Oxford University Press in their copyright (like the Scepter and Ignatius compacts). To further validate this rule of thumb, I just noticed that the RSV:CE portion of the Oxford Catholic Comparative New Testament (2006) is also is based on the 1971 RSV.

As for previously published editions, I am not aware of any Oxford RSV:CEs prior to these recent ones, so let me know if anyone has one. Either way, any RSV:CE older than 2004 shouldn’t be based on the 1971 RSV.

As for the Scepter full size, I think it is just an Ignatius First Edition clone with a leather cover.

The RSV:CEs at the following link should also be based on the 1959 RSV, though I haven’t been able to confirm this: stampley.com/catdexfambible.htm

 

[Manfred]

Right, that is why you have to go by the copyright. The only RSV:CEs that are based on the 1971 RSV are either published by Oxford Press or have Oxford University Press in their copyright (like the Scepter and Ignatius compacts). To further validate this rule of thumb, I just noticed that the RSV:CE portion of the Oxford Catholic Comparative New Testament (2006) is also is based on the 1971 RSV.

As for previously published editions, I am not aware of any Oxford RSV:CEs prior to these recent ones, so let me know if anyone has one. Either way, any RSV:CE older than 2004 shouldn’t be based on the 1971 RSV.

As for the Scepter full size, I think it is just an Ignatius First Edition clone with a leather cover.

The RSV:CEs at the following link should also be based on the 1959 RSV, though I haven’t been able to confirm this: stampley.com/catdexfambible.htm

OK, so…

Catholic Truth Society (Gr. Britain) edition, Ignatius First Edition, Scepter full-size edition: based on 1959 NT;

Oxford, Scepter compact editions: based on 1971 NT;

Ignatius Second Edition: based on 1959 NT

(Sorry to be so pedantic, but it seems Oxford “has some splainin to do”.)

 

[mmortal03]

A slight edit for clarity, but you were right:

Catholic Truth Society Edition, Ignatius First Edition, Stampley Edition, Scepter full-size edition, and any other RSV:CE published before 2004: based on 1959 NT;

Ignatius Second Edition: original revision based on the Ignatius First Edition;

Oxford, Scepter, and Ignatius compacts (all the same except for the binding), and any RSV:CE that Oxford currently publishes: based on 1971 NT.

 

[mmortal03]

I totally favor the new Oxford copyrighted RSV:CEs based on the 1971 RSV, however, it would be nice to have them not deny that it is any different from the original RSV:CE.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Why do they deny it?

 

[Manfred]

A slight edit for clarity, but you were right:

Catholic Truth Society Edition, Ignatius First Edition, Stampley Edition, Scepter full-size edition, and any other RSV:CE published before 2004: based on 1959 NT;

Ignatius Second Edition: original revision based on the Ignatius First Edition;

Oxford, Scepter, and Ignatius compacts (all the same except for the binding), and any RSV:CE that Oxford currently publishes: based on 1971 NT.

Thanks, mmortal; this is exactly what I was looking for!

Manfred

 

[mmortal03]

Why do they deny it?

Either the people we have contacted don’t know any different, or they are lying to us. Either way, the head Bible director, or whatever his title is, told me by email that it was not possible for it to be any different, because they are not allowed to alter it. He is clearly using faulty logic, because it IS possible for it to be different, because they could have simply broken the copyright. I assume that is what he is denying, that they wouldn’t break the copyright. And, if they DO have knowledge of it, they would still deny it to the public.

It could be that the NCCCUSA just wouldn’t let them do it, and they are trying to do it anyway on the sly, because it is actually a MUCH better bible translation now that it is based off of the 1971 RSV. Who knows?

 

[Jerry-Jet]

If someone violated the copyright of the NAB would the Catholics who own the copyright sue them? If they did would they be in agreeement with Paul who said that we are not to sue?

 

[Manfred]

If someone violated the copyright of the NAB would the Catholics who own the copyright sue them? If they did would they be in agreeement with Paul who said that we are not to sue?

Jerry-Jet,

Perhaps my sinus headache is getting the better of me today, but have you considered posting your question “If (the owners of the NAB sued someone who violated their copyright) would they be in agreeement with Paul who said that we are not to sue?” on Jim Baur’s Scholars’ Corner thread?

 

[Jerry-Jet]

I guess it was a dumb question. I just wonder if the Protestants or the Catholics protect their copyrights more by lawsuit than the other does.

I don’t mind copyrights being violated if the result is more accurate. Is such a notion bad?

 

[Manfred]

I guess it was a dumb question. I just wonder if the Protestants or the Catholics protect their copyrights more by lawsuit than the other does.

I don’t mind copyrights being violated if the result is more accurate. Is such a notion bad?

Here’s what puzzles me: for a publisher to take the 1971 RSV NT as is and then commission someone to edit the text to incorporate the changes peculiar to the RSV-CE - which is based on the 1959 RSV NT - without screwing it up has got to be a minor miracle of sorts. But even more so is that publisher’s ability to keep this all a secret except to the discerning eye of some of the posters on this thread!

As for copyrights - the NIV was the most copyright-conscious version before the web came along. you couldn’t quote more than a certain number of words without giving the beloved International Bible Committee all sorts of hosannas and acknowledgements. And it is a real pity that neither the RSV-CE nor the Jerusalem Bible is available online.

 

[Manfred]

OK, all of you with copies of the Compact Edition of the RSV Catholic Bible from Oxford/Scepter/Ignatius:

I’m listing here all the changes in the 1965 RSV-CE and their disposition with respect to the RSV 2nd ed. NT.

How much of what is below actually made it into these Compact Editions?

In what follows,

X - indicates rendering in 1965 RSV-CE that is NOT in the RSV 2nd ed. NT
2N - indicates rendering in 1965 RSV-CE that is in the footNotes of the RSV 2nd ed. NT
2T - indicates rendering in 1965 RSV-CE that is in the Text of the RSV 2nd ed. NT

Matthew
X - 1.19 send her away
2N - 19.9 and he who marries a divorced woman commits adultery
2N - 21.44 and he who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; but when it falls on any one, it will crush him
2N - 27.24 this righteous man’s blood

Mark
2N - 9.29 and fasting
2N - 10.24 for those who trust in riches
2N - 13.33 and pray

Luke
X - 1.28 full of grace
2N - 8.43 and had spent all her living upon physicians
2N - 22.43 And there appeared to him an angel from heaven, strengthening him.
2N - 22.44 And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly; and his sweat became like great drops of blood falling down upon the ground.
2N - 24.5 He is not here, but has risen
2N - 24.12 But Peter rose and ran to the tomb; stooping and looking in, he saw the linen cloths by themselves; and he went home wondering at what had happened
2N - 24.36 and said to them, "Peace to you
2N - 24.40 And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet
2N - 24.52 worshiped him, and

Romans
X - 5.5 who
2N - 9.5 Christ, who is God over all, blessed for ever. Amen.
X - 8;11 who

1 Corinthians
9.5 in footnote: woman, sister

Ephesians
X - 1.14 who
2T - 5.32 This is a great mystery, and I mean in reference to Christ and the church

Philippians
X - 2.5 which was in Christ Jesus

1 Thessalonians
2N - 4.4 control his own body
2T - 5.13 Be at peace among yourselves

Hebrews
X - 11.19 he did receive him back and this was a symbol

X - use of the term “brethren” instead of “brothers”
Matthew 12.46, 12.47, 12.48, 12.49, 13.55
Mark 3.31, 3.32, 3.33, 3.34
Luke 8.19, 8.20, 8.21
John 2.12, 7.3, 7.5, 7.10
Acts 1.14
1 Corinthians 9.5

I’m concerned that the Compact Editions may have only some of the renderings unique and peculiar to the RSV-CE, and we should know this before we get too wrapped up in anticipating the soon-to-be-released Reader’s Edition.

Oh, one thing more: please verify that the Compact Edition is NOT the Catholic edition of the NRSV!

Thanks.

Manfred

 

[mmortal03]

jpy and I already went through every one of those verses in question 3 or 4 months ago. He owns the compact, and we corresponded by email and checked EVERY difference documented between the 1965 RSV-CE and 1971 RSV. There is a list of these differences in the back of one of the concordances floating around, and the same exact list is also in the Oxford Catholic Comparative New Testament. That is what I based the page that I have now on.

Contrary to what you might think, if Oxford provided that list (which I am sure they must have) to whomever put together the new RSV-CE based on the 1971 RSV, there would be little room for error.

 

[Manfred]

jpy and I already went through every one of those verses in question 3 or 4 months ago. He owns the compact, and we corresponded by email and checked EVERY difference documented between the 1965 RSV-CE and 1971 RSV. There is a list of these differences in the back of one of the concordances floating around, and the same exact list is also in the Oxford Catholic Comparative New Testament. That is what I based the page that I have now on.

Contrary to what you might think, if Oxford provided that list (which I am sure they must have) to whomever put together the new RSV-CE based on the 1971 RSV, there would be little room for error.

mmortal,

I have a hard copy of the list from Morrison’s concordance. I went through his list and yours, and compared these with my Ignatius RSV-CE (1965-66) and my RSV 2nd ed. NT (1971). It seems there are some - not many -renderings from the RSV-CE that didn’t quite make it into the Compact Edition, either being omitted outright or relegated to a footnote as opposed to the text. I guess I’m having a hard time believing that Oxford went through all this trouble to insinuate the renderings peculiar to the RSV-CE into the RSV 1971 NT and then NOT state the correct dates on the copyright page. And then there’s the issue of the Imprimatur…

FYI - the renderings I marked with an “X” aren’t posted in your list of 1971 revisions that went into the Compact Edition, because they never made it into the '71 RSV NT. So a separate listing of “X” renderings and whether or not they are in the Compact edition is what I’m interested in.

Manfred

 

[mmortal03]

Right, you want to know if all the specifically Catholic revisions, unique to the 1965 RSV-CE, made it in. There was one verse that I can think of that was half 1971, half 1965. The rest of the CE verses from Morrison’s list are all in there, word for word. I am back home in Tennessee for Thanksgiving, but when I get back in to Miami, I will pull out my photocopy of the Morrison list, and I can tell you specifically what is what.

The reason that I did not put the CE verses on that page of mine is that those were all specifically left in, except for possibly one special case that I will have to double check. I realize that most people don’t know which verses those are, and so I may add those to the list when I get the chance.

 

[jpy15026]

Manfred :
The renderings I marked with an “X” aren’t posted in your list of 1971 revisions that went into the Compact Edition, because they never made it into the '71 RSV NT. So a separate listing of “X” renderings and whether or not they are in the Compact edition is what I’m interested in.

These are all in the Compact edition:

Matthew
X - 1.19 send her away…
Luke
X - 1.28 full of grace
Romans
X - 5.5 who
X - 8;11 who

Ephesians
X - 1.14 who
Philippians
X - 2.5 which was in Christ Jesus
Hebrews
X - 11.19 he did receive him back and this was a symbol
X - use of the term “brethren” instead of “brothers”
Matthew 12.46, 12.47, 12.48, 12.49, 13.55
Mark 3.31, 3.32, 3.33, 3.34
Luke 8.19, 8.20, 8.21
John 2.12, 7.3, 7.5, 7.10
Acts 1.14
1 Corinthians 9.5

*mmortal: There was one verse that I can think of that was half 1971, half 1965. *

I believe this is the verse mmortal is referring to:

The first half of Eph 5.32 changed from the 1959 “This is a great mystery” to the 1971 “This mystery is a profound one,” but the 1965 CE second half “and I mean in reference to Christ and the church” was retained, instead of the 1971 “and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church”.

Compact:
"This mystery is a profound one,and I mean in reference to Christ and the church"

.

 

[fantrl]

And it is a real pity that neither the RSV-CE nor the Jerusalem Bible is available online.

I’m not sure whether this is the original or new Jerusalem bible, but it’s one of them:
kofc.duq.edu/scripture/

 

[Cranch]

I’m not sure whether this is the original or new Jerusalem bible, but it’s one of them:
kofc.duq.edu/scripture/

Weird online combination. It’s the New Jerusalem Bible through 2 Samuel and the New Testament. It’s the RSV for the rest of the Old Testament and no Deuterocanon even though this is a Knights of Columbus site.