RSV-CE Needs Corrections

  • Thread starter Thread starter Manfred
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I purchased the Leather version. It is definitely of better quality than the original Leather for the 1st Ignatius Bible.

It is a very beautiful Bible!
 
I purchased the Leather version. It is definitely of better quality than the original Leather for the 1st Ignatius Bible.

It is a very beautiful Bible!
 
I just received my paperback version, and I checked each of the places that Manfred mentioned, and the only changes that I noticed that correlated were the two that mccorm45 noted above.

As far as it being revised according to Liturgiam Authenticam, I don’t know what they changed, but they specifically state on the title page, “This edition was revised according to Liturgiam Authenticam, 2002.”
 
I just received my paperback version, and I checked each of the places that Manfred mentioned, and the only changes that I noticed that correlated were the two that mccorm45 noted above.

As far as it being revised according to Liturgiam Authenticam, I don’t know what they changed, but they specifically state on the title page, “This edition was revised according to Liturgiam Authenticam, 2002.”
 
40.png
DaveBj:
RSV-CE also needs a grammar check in those areas where they retained the Elizabethan English (the thee/thou/thy pronouns in those sections where God is addressed). I ran across one reading the other day where they mentioned “thy altar.” It should have been “thine altar.”

DaveBj
Click to expand...
There are 10 instances of “thy altar” referenced here: hti.umich.edu/cgi/r/rsv/rsv-idx?type=simple&format=Long&q1=thy+altar&restrict=All&size=All

There is 1 instance of “thine altar” referenced here: hti.umich.edu/cgi/r/rsv/rsv-idx?type=simple&format=Long&q1=thine+altar&restrict=All&size=All

According to Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thine , “In a deliberately archaic style, the forms with /n/ are used before words beginning with a vowel sound (thine eyes). This practice is irregularly followed in the King James Bible; it may have emerged as a later nicety archaic genitive case.”

So, in actuality, the question becomes whether these verses are in the genitive or possessive case. If they are in the genitive case, in other words, God created the altar, then “thy altar” is grammatically correct, but they could have used “thine altar” because the noun starts with a vowel sound. If they are in the possessive case, God owns the altar, then it should be “thine altar”. Since all of these cases are apparently refering to the same thing, it should be one or the other, for the sake of continuity, even though it could be either.

This, however, is not an issue anymore, as they have removed these archaisms from the Second Edition.
 
40.png
DaveBj:
RSV-CE also needs a grammar check in those areas where they retained the Elizabethan English (the thee/thou/thy pronouns in those sections where God is addressed). I ran across one reading the other day where they mentioned “thy altar.” It should have been “thine altar.”

DaveBj
Click to expand...
There are 10 instances of “thy altar” referenced here: hti.umich.edu/cgi/r/rsv/rsv-idx?type=simple&format=Long&q1=thy+altar&restrict=All&size=All

There is 1 instance of “thine altar” referenced here: hti.umich.edu/cgi/r/rsv/rsv-idx?type=simple&format=Long&q1=thine+altar&restrict=All&size=All

According to Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thine , “In a deliberately archaic style, the forms with /n/ are used before words beginning with a vowel sound (thine eyes). This practice is irregularly followed in the King James Bible; it may have emerged as a later nicety archaic genitive case.”

So, in actuality, the question becomes whether these verses are in the genitive or possessive case. If they are in the genitive case, in other words, God created the altar, then “thy altar” is grammatically correct, but they could have used “thine altar” because the noun starts with a vowel sound. If they are in the possessive case, God owns the altar, then it should be “thine altar”. Since all of these cases are apparently refering to the same thing, it should be one or the other, for the sake of continuity, even though it could be either.

This, however, is not an issue anymore, as they have removed these archaisms from the Second Edition.
 
40.png
SFH:
My only complaint with the Nova Vulgata is that they followed St. Jerome’s translation of the Greek Septuagint when it came to the Book of Psalms. As you probably know, the translation in the Douay-Rheims Bible is based on St. Jerome’s translation from the Greek Septuagint not from the Hebrew. For whatever reason, the Nova Vulgata appears to have followed St. Jerome’s translation from the Greek Septuagint (with corrections to conform it to the Hebrew text) rather than work with St. Jerome’s translation from the Hebrew.
Click to expand...
Here is some information that I found that might interest you.

According to what I have read, since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, it has been found that the contents of the Greek Septuagint could be considered closer to what the original Hebrew scriptures contained than what is in the Hebrew Scriptures from the Masoretic Texts of the 9th century. Therefore, it might actually be better to translate from the Greek Septuagint, and correct the translation mistakes that the Greek translator might have made by comparing to the Masoretic Texts. One example I have read about is where the Greek translator did or would not have known Hebrew place names well enough and so would erroneously translate them as they literally read.

Also, according to Wikipedia: Of the fuller quotations in the New Testament of the Old, nearly one hundred agree with the Septuagint against the Masoretic (geocities.com/r_grant_jones/Rick/Septuagint/splist1.htm)
and six agree with the Masoretic.(geocities.com/r_grant_jones/Rick/Septuagint/splistMT.htm)
 
40.png
SFH:
My only complaint with the Nova Vulgata is that they followed St. Jerome’s translation of the Greek Septuagint when it came to the Book of Psalms. As you probably know, the translation in the Douay-Rheims Bible is based on St. Jerome’s translation from the Greek Septuagint not from the Hebrew. For whatever reason, the Nova Vulgata appears to have followed St. Jerome’s translation from the Greek Septuagint (with corrections to conform it to the Hebrew text) rather than work with St. Jerome’s translation from the Hebrew.
Click to expand...
Here is some information that I found that might interest you.

According to what I have read, since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, it has been found that the contents of the Greek Septuagint could be considered closer to what the original Hebrew scriptures contained than what is in the Hebrew Scriptures from the Masoretic Texts of the 9th century. Therefore, it might actually be better to translate from the Greek Septuagint, and correct the translation mistakes that the Greek translator might have made by comparing to the Masoretic Texts. One example I have read about is where the Greek translator did or would not have known Hebrew place names well enough and so would erroneously translate them as they literally read.

Also, according to Wikipedia: Of the fuller quotations in the New Testament of the Old, nearly one hundred agree with the Septuagint against the Masoretic (geocities.com/r_grant_jones/Rick/Septuagint/splist1.htm)
and six agree with the Masoretic.(geocities.com/r_grant_jones/Rick/Septuagint/splistMT.htm)
 
Another revision that did not happen is: Malichi 1:11 says “incense” instead of “sacrifice”.
 
Another revision that did not happen is: Malichi 1:11 says “incense” instead of “sacrifice”.
 
40.png
mmortal03:
There are 10 instances of “thy altar” referenced here: hti.umich.edu/cgi/r/rsv/rsv-idx?type=simple&format=Long&q1=thy+altar&restrict=All&size=All

There is 1 instance of “thine altar” referenced here: hti.umich.edu/cgi/r/rsv/rsv-idx?type=simple&format=Long&q1=thine+altar&restrict=All&size=All

According to Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thine , “In a deliberately archaic style, the forms with /n/ are used before words beginning with a vowel sound (thine eyes). This practice is irregularly followed in the King James Bible; it may have emerged as a later nicety archaic genitive case.”

So, in actuality, the question becomes whether these verses are in the genitive or possessive case. If they are in the genitive case, in other words, God created the altar, then “thy altar” is grammatically correct, but they could have used “thine altar” because the noun starts with a vowel sound. If they are in the possessive case, God owns the altar, then it should be “thine altar”. Since all of these cases are apparently refering to the same thing, it should be one or the other, for the sake of continuity, even though it could be either.

This, however, is not an issue anymore, as they have removed these archaisms from the Second Edition.
Click to expand...

The genitive case is the possessive case. And the usage in the KJV is completely regular (= every time the possessed word starts with a vowel not preceded by a consonant, the -ne form is used).

I agree that the use of thee/thou/thy/thine is an archaism that should be removed.

DaveBj
 
40.png
mmortal03:
There are 10 instances of “thy altar” referenced here: hti.umich.edu/cgi/r/rsv/rsv-idx?type=simple&format=Long&q1=thy+altar&restrict=All&size=All

There is 1 instance of “thine altar” referenced here: hti.umich.edu/cgi/r/rsv/rsv-idx?type=simple&format=Long&q1=thine+altar&restrict=All&size=All

According to Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thine , “In a deliberately archaic style, the forms with /n/ are used before words beginning with a vowel sound (thine eyes). This practice is irregularly followed in the King James Bible; it may have emerged as a later nicety archaic genitive case.”

So, in actuality, the question becomes whether these verses are in the genitive or possessive case. If they are in the genitive case, in other words, God created the altar, then “thy altar” is grammatically correct, but they could have used “thine altar” because the noun starts with a vowel sound. If they are in the possessive case, God owns the altar, then it should be “thine altar”. Since all of these cases are apparently refering to the same thing, it should be one or the other, for the sake of continuity, even though it could be either.

This, however, is not an issue anymore, as they have removed these archaisms from the Second Edition.
Click to expand...

The genitive case is the possessive case. And the usage in the KJV is completely regular (= every time the possessed word starts with a vowel not preceded by a consonant, the -ne form is used).

I agree that the use of thee/thou/thy/thine is an archaism that should be removed.

DaveBj
 
My copy of the RSV-CE 2nd edition arrived today. I ordered the leather version. I was a little disappointed that it wasn’t black in color, but instead a dark burgundy. In any case, the binding is wonderful and the leather is obviously of a high quality. If found it interesting that this Bible was printed in China. I don’t recall any other Bible that I own being printed there. The larger font is a huge improvement over the original RSV-CE and it’s really nice to have all of the footnotes located alongside the scripture. Since it just came today, I haven’t had a chance to read much of it to get a feel for the updated language without the “thee’s”, “thou’s”, etc… in verses referencing God the Father. I actually sorta like the older, more formal language but I think I’m in the minority here. It’s probably better that it’s been removed.

I think this Bible is a must-have for anybody that likes prefers RSV-CE as their translation of choice.
 
My copy of the RSV-CE 2nd edition arrived today. I ordered the leather version. I was a little disappointed that it wasn’t black in color, but instead a dark burgundy. In any case, the binding is wonderful and the leather is obviously of a high quality. If found it interesting that this Bible was printed in China. I don’t recall any other Bible that I own being printed there. The larger font is a huge improvement over the original RSV-CE and it’s really nice to have all of the footnotes located alongside the scripture. Since it just came today, I haven’t had a chance to read much of it to get a feel for the updated language without the “thee’s”, “thou’s”, etc… in verses referencing God the Father. I actually sorta like the older, more formal language but I think I’m in the minority here. It’s probably better that it’s been removed.

I think this Bible is a must-have for anybody that likes prefers RSV-CE as their translation of choice.
 
Count me in as someone who prefers the “thees” and “thous”.
 
Count me in as someone who prefers the “thees” and “thous”.
 
Mike ,
*My copy of the RSV-CE 2nd edition arrived today. I ordered the leather version. *

Mine came two days ago on Saturday,(leather also) and the gold leaf is already flaking off everywhere .Hows everyone elses? Did I just get a bad one?
John
 
Mike ,
*My copy of the RSV-CE 2nd edition arrived today. I ordered the leather version. *

Mine came two days ago on Saturday,(leather also) and the gold leaf is already flaking off everywhere .Hows everyone elses? Did I just get a bad one?
John
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top