RSV-CE Needs Corrections

[mmortal03]

Personally, I don’t trust any editions of the RSV-CE except the Ignatius first edition published for Ignatius by Thomas Nelson Publishers (in other words, the blue Bibles) since in those Bibles 1) the copyright laws are not violated, and 2) the claim of ecclesiastical approval is true.

You can trust us, though, because we know exactly what is in it, and it was good. The compact versions, while possibly conflicting with copyright and Imprimatur legality, are quite a step up from the original RSV:CE, and were not altered with some sort of malicious anti-Catholic intent. However it happened, you can be sure that the result was not against Catholic teachings or anything.

The following are a couple of possible scenarios of what might had happened, each varying in its amounts of naivety on the part of Oxford:

1.) Someone at Oxford simply had an excellent idea of basing their to-be-released typeset Catholic Version on the 1971 RSV, and chose to do it without permission.

2.) Those overseeing the new typesetting were unaware of (or disregarded) the differences between the 1965 CE and the 1971 RSV, and applied the specifically Catholic revisions to their 1971 digital text because they were not with access to the 1965 CE in a digital form, and then somehow a.) found and removed, or b.) altered with special consideration, numbers 2 through 5 above.

I find #2-#5 hard to argue from what you wrote as being Oxford’s ORIGINAL point of view, i.e. when they were in the process of typesetting the compacts.

Now, AFTER the compacts were released, and people found out what they had in their hands (e.g. on this board and others), it is quite probable that they then DID do a search and replace for as much as they could find differing. It still amazes me that they couldn’t have come up with the same list that we did from one of the well known RSV concordances, or at least come across our thread searching around on Google.

As far as applying ONLY the CE changes to the 1971, yes it WOULD have been very easy for them to do this initially and oblivious to any other knowledge of the rest, because THAT list is quite readily available, in contrast with the list of 1971 revisions, so initial naivety is probably more plausible. There could be some explanation of how they could have been this naive and still touched #2-#5, and that would be something I’d like to learn about.

 

[mmortal03]

Sorry to be so dense, but I don’t get it. Beside what point?

Beside the point of whether the text is okay or not. I can say this only because we already have thoroughly dissected what it contains and it is not dangerous to anyone’s faith or morals. You are right that it is a legal issue, but it isn’t a practical issue.

Whether the 1971 revisions are congruent with Catholicism has nothing to do with whether the imprimatur can be claimed. According to canon 829, the imprimatur only applies to the first edition and not to subsequent revisions, however praiseworthy the revisions might be.

Right. Future revisions must always be resubmitted for approval. I’m not arguing with you on this. I am also interested to know what might be done by the Church to Oxford about this, legally. Once the Church reviewed what the actual differences were, though, it is my standing that there wouldn’t be any need to take them off the market or anything, however, that isn’t even an issue anymore, because Oxford is basically removing al possibility of it staying available from any future printings, from what you said, which basically nullifies any chance of actually getting a full sized version of what we DO want.

 

[MTD]

"mmortal03:

You can trust us, though, because we know exactly what is in it, and it was good. The compact versions, while possibly conflicting with copyright and Imprimatur legality, are quite a step up from the original RSV:CE, and were not altered with some sort of malicious anti-Catholic intent. However it happened, you can be sure that the result was not against Catholic teachings or anything.

Well, I guess I have a different perspective on this. I don’t base my choice of a Bible solely on whether the Bible is consistent with Catholic teaching but also on whether it has valid church approval.

Beside the point of whether the text is okay or not. I can say this only because we already have thoroughly dissected what it contains and it is not dangerous to anyone’s faith or morals. You are right that it is a legal issue, but it isn’t a practical issue.

I get it now. However, I personally want only a Bible that is both legally and morally sound.

As an aside, according to canon 829, it sure seems that Ignatius cannot claim that 1966 imprimatur after making those editorial revisions even though they were told they could. I’m afraid the persons who told them they didn’t need a new imprimatur were mistaken.

Maria

 

[rocketrob]

Just for everyone’s knowledge, Gordon Joseph Gray was the former Bishop’s name, but Oxford accidentally left off his surname in all their Imprimaturs. I have contacted them about it, and they said that it will be fixed in the Reader’s Version.

If Oxford was truly so concerned about correcting their prior printing errors, how did they miss the above problem??!!

Why? Those compact versions have no church approval and yet they claim an imprimatur! How can one trust the translation to be accurate when the claim of an imprimatur is not even accurate?

Maria

Maria,
I agree with you on the point of the Imprimatur. My comment about collectors’ items was mostly a “tounge-in-cheek” statement. But given the fact that many people on this forum like that edition, I can see them being snapped up. Stranger “mistakes” have become collectors’ items.

Personally, I’m confused by this whole great RSV controversy (not about what has happened…but how it could have happened). When confusion reigns, perhaps it is best to stick with the Church and use the original RSV-CE that has the full Imprimatur approval.

 

[MTD]

rocketrob:

When confusion reigns, perhaps it is best to stick with the Church and use the original RSV-CE that has the full Imprimatur approval.

Right on! In my opinion, if it doesn’t have church approval, it’s not a Catholic Bible. The Church wants us to read approved Bibles, and if suitable Bibles have been approved (which they have–look at the Douay-Challoner, Ignatius RSV-CE, Confraternity translations), we should comply.

Maria

 

[djrakowski]

Right on! In my opinion, if it doesn’t have church approval, it’s not a Catholic Bible. The Church wants us to read approved Bibles, and if suitable Bibles have been approved (which they have–look at the Douay-Challoner, Ignatius RSV-CE, Confraternity translations), we should comply.

This is a sticky situation for the average Catholic in the pew, who likely hasn’t done as much research on the topic as the folks who’ve posted on this thread (and I am thankful for that research). I don’t have as much time to dig as deeply as some of you, so if I see an imprimatur or some other indication of approval by a church authority, I will likely make the purchase (and now, it seems even that doesn’t do much good). Other than reading this thread, I have no other way to ascertain whether I’m making a prudent purchase.

So I’m completely confused. Which one should I consider reliable? I have the blue Ignatius RSV-CE (which, apart from the translation, I can’t stand because of the lousy typesetting), then purchased one of their first RSV-2CE (which I am also growing to dislike for reasons apart from the translation itself), and have ordered the new Oxford Reader’s edition (which seems nicely typeset, with a decent font size). It sounds like I should stick with my blue RSV-CE, but I find it almost impossible to read for any length of time.

 

[MTD]

djrakowski:

This is a sticky situation for the average Catholic in the pew, who likely hasn’t done as much research on the topic as the folks who’ve posted on this thread (and I am thankful for that research). I don’t have as much time to dig as deeply as some of you, so if I see an imprimatur or some other indication of approval by a church authority, I will likely make the purchase (and now, it seems even that doesn’t do much good). Other than reading this thread, I have no other way to ascertain whether I’m making a prudent purchase.

Yes. This situation is very upsetting to me, too. Mistakes like these destroy the credibility of the imprimatur.

djrakowski:

It sounds like I should stick with my blue RSV-CE, but I find it almost impossible to read for any length of time.

Personally, I’m afraid this is really your only choice if you want to have a Catholic RSV Bible. Alternatively, you could also use the Douay-Challoner translation or the Confraternity New Testament (unfortunately, the Confraternity translation only has the New Testament).

Maria

 

[Manfred]

This is a sticky situation for the average Catholic in the pew, who likely hasn’t done as much research on the topic as the folks who’ve posted on this thread (and I am thankful for that research). I don’t have as much time to dig as deeply as some of you, so if I see an imprimatur or some other indication of approval by a church authority, I will likely make the purchase (and now, it seems even that doesn’t do much good). Other than reading this thread, I have no other way to ascertain whether I’m making a prudent purchase.

So I’m completely confused. Which one should I consider reliable? I have the blue Ignatius RSV-CE (which, apart from the translation, I can’t stand because of the lousy typesetting), then purchased one of their first RSV-2CE (which I am also growing to dislike for reasons apart from the translation itself), and have ordered the new Oxford Reader’s edition (which seems nicely typeset, with a decent font size). It sounds like I should stick with my blue RSV-CE, but I find it almost impossible to read for any length of time.

If you don’t mind reading mid-18th-century English (not all that incomprehensible, really), then TAN’s Douay-Rheims may be a good choice. Where it IS hard to understand is more likely the fault of the Latin’s interpretation of the Hebrew or Greek.

Given all that’s been written here just today alone, it’s too bad your blue Ignatius RSV-CE of 1965-66 is such an annoyance to you. Perhaps a used Scepter non-Compact original RSV-CE might satisfy you.

 

[djrakowski]

Yes. This situation is very upsetting to me, too. Mistakes like these destroy the credibility of the imprimatur.

Even worse, Maria, is the multitude of Catholics I know who aren’t on the internet or are not reading this thread, and rely upon the imprimatur as a guarantee of authenticity. More often than not, folks just fall back on the atrocious NAB, since that’s what they hear in Mass, and around here at least, are given in RCIA.

Personally, I’m afraid this is really your only choice if you want to have a Catholic RSV Bible. Alternatively, you could also use the Douay-Challoner translation or the Confraternity New Testament (unfortunately, the Confraternity translation only has the New Testament).

If you don’t mind reading mid-18th-century English (not all that incomprehensible, really), then TAN’s Douay-Rheims may be a good choice. Where it IS hard to understand is more likely the fault of the Latin’s interpretation of the Hebrew or Greek.

I don’t mind the DRB for looking up short passages, and I don’t mind reading the ‘old’ English. In fact, I took a course in literary interpretation of the Bible in university, and loved reading from the KJV. For some reason, I find the syntax of the DRB to be rather ponderous, which may be the result of, as you say, the Latin’s interpretation of the Greek/Hebrew manuscripts. At any rate, it can be a tiring read, though apparently quite accurate.

Given all that’s been written here just today alone, it’s too bad your blue Ignatius RSV-CE of 1965-66 is such an annoyance to you. Perhaps a used Scepter non-Compact original RSV-CE might satisfy you.

I’ll be on the lookout for it. Thanks for the suggestion.

Perhaps now’s the time to cancel the order for the reader’s editions, eh?

 

[mmortal03]

This is a sticky situation for the average Catholic in the pew, who likely hasn’t done as much research on the topic as the folks who’ve posted on this thread (and I am thankful for that research). I don’t have as much time to dig as deeply as some of you, so if I see an imprimatur or some other indication of approval by a church authority, I will likely make the purchase (and now, it seems even that doesn’t do much good). Other than reading this thread, I have no other way to ascertain whether I’m making a prudent purchase.

So I’m completely confused. Which one should I consider reliable? I have the blue Ignatius RSV-CE (which, apart from the translation, I can’t stand because of the lousy typesetting), then purchased one of their first RSV-2CE (which I am also growing to dislike for reasons apart from the translation itself), and have ordered the new Oxford Reader’s edition (which seems nicely typeset, with a decent font size). It sounds like I should stick with my blue RSV-CE, but I find it almost impossible to read for any length of time.

The new Oxford Reader’s Version will, minus a passage here or there, be the same text as your Ignatius, from what mike is telling us.

 

[mmortal03]

Besides the principle of it, no harm was done here to any layman Catholic who might pick up the compact. All these conspiracy theories about how it could be harmful to Catholics who are not on this forum not having known about it isn’t going to matter in this case, because nothing was changed that is harmful (and you can take a look for yourself here if you doubt me: umsis.miami.edu/~medmunds/ScepterChangesC.htm)

Now don’t get me wrong, it is a theoretical problem that needs to be dealt with, but the end result isn’t going to harm anybody who reads the compacts, because NOTHING there is harmful.

Further, there is no official Catholic English Bible, and the Church doesn’t officially recommend any particular translations. The only place where they have historically been safe about things was for the Lectionary (and logically so). Bibles that DON’T have an Imprimatur or Nihil Obstat are not discouraged from being used by the Church, they just haven’t been marked one way or the other. I think people on here are getting the wrong idea about what the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur are actually for, and what their purpose was historically, and how much of that actually carries over today. Just because something carries the two stamps only means that to the extent that they could find, the document contains no moral or theological errors. This doesn’t mean that they won’t later be found, and the stamps be revoked. It is just a guide, and isn’t some end all be all for what you are only allowed to read. Some Catholic publications aren’t even getting them anymore.

If you would just read through my page listing the differences between the original RSV:CE and the compact, you would see that those verses were the ONLY differences. Those are it. There isn’t anything that magically changed beneath the surface about the book.

Further, there are only a few verses in the Bible that the Church even has an authoritative interpretation for. There is a lot more scriptural leeway on vernacular translations than what you are perceiving there to be.

 

[Cranch]

Personally, I’m afraid this is really your only choice if you want to have a Catholic RSV Bible. Alternatively, you could also use the Douay-Challoner translation or the Confraternity New Testament (unfortunately, the Confraternity translation only has the New Testament).

Maria

I assume from it’s absence here, you don’t like the NAB. I’m not a fan either but I’m confused about your comment about the Confraternity translation. There was a Confraternity translation of much (though not all) of the Old Testament. Granted it was done from the Hebrew (unlike the New Testament) and formed the basis of the NAB. Importantly, however, the Confraternity Genesis was completely retranslated for the NAB. So that much of the Confraternity Old Testament is unique at least.

 

[mmortal03]

I assume from it’s absence here, you don’t like the NAB. I’m not a fan either but I’m confused about your comment about the Confraternity translation. There was a Confraternity translation of much (though not all) of the Old Testament. Granted it was done from the Hebrew (unlike the New Testament) and formed the basis of the NAB. Importantly, however, the Confraternity Genesis was completely retranslated for the NAB. So that much of the Confraternity Old Testament is unique at least.

Yep, the Confraternity Old Testament, except for Genesis and the transliteration of people’s names, was word for word what became the 1970 NAB OT, with Douay translations to fill in what hadn’t been translated yet. The New Testament and Genesis are the only books that are unique to the Confraternity Version. Genesis was a completely new revision, and the Confraternity NT books were revisions of the Rheims NT.

 

[HailMary]

Hey guys, do you know of a complete list of all the errors that everyone agrees on and those errors which people allege to be errors in this version of the bible?

I would scan the thread but my hands hurt me (please, if anyone remembers, ask the Blessed Virgin to heal me from my pain and offer a sacrifice for me)

 

[mmortal03]

mike0219116,

I don’t know how far down the list you got before you stopped (I know you at least got down half way through, e.g. 1 Corinthians 4.6) however, if you find the interest to go the rest of the way through and find anymore that don’t match the text underlined, let me know, because I am going to send a message to Don Kraus informing him of the ones they “missed” once we know them all.

so far, we’ve got: 1 Corinthians 4.6 “learn by us to live according to scripture” …not to go beyond what is written

and

Luke 1.34 “How can this be, since I have no husband?” …shall

 

[SFH]

If you don’t mind reading mid-18th-century English (not all that incomprehensible, really), then TAN’s Douay-Rheims may be a good choice. Where it IS hard to understand is more likely the fault of the Latin’s interpretation of the Hebrew or Greek.

Given all that’s been written here just today alone, it’s too bad your blue Ignatius RSV-CE of 1965-66 is such an annoyance to you. Perhaps a used Scepter non-Compact original RSV-CE might satisfy you.

If you can afford it, you might try a RSV-CE Family Edition. The bible’s more bulky, but the typeset is probably more like what you’re looking for. You can also get Confraternity texts on ebay, etc. That text has more modern language and avoids many of the pitfalls of the RSV. In many passages, it’s identical to the NAB that you hear at Mass every Sunday (if you attend an English Mass).

If you’re up for a challenge, why not learn Latin and read the Nova Vulgata? It is the official translation of the Latin Rite, after all. With a good high school text like Jenney’s Latin First Year (available on Amazon for a couple of bucks), you can learn enough Latin to read the Nova Vulgata comfortably within one year (what a great New Year’s resolution!!!). Plus, you’d get the added benefit of being able to participate at Mass in Latin and read official pronouncements from the Vatican.

 

[Cranch]

If you’re up for a challenge, why not learn Latin and read the Nova Vulgata? It is the official translation of the Latin Rite, after all. With a good high school text like Jenney’s Latin First Year (available on Amazon for a couple of bucks), you can learn enough Latin to read the Nova Vulgata comfortably within one year (what a great New Year’s resolution!!!).…

I’m doing this very thing starting this month. I joined the LatinStudy list online and will be working through Wheelock’s Latin. Mine and other group members’ answers are posted to the list where we learn by comparing our answers against the consensus.

 

[MTD]

djrakowski:

I’ll be on the lookout for it. Thanks for the suggestion.

One note of warning: earlier on this thread (or maybe on some other thread) someone said that the type and layout in old the Scepter edition is the same as that of the Ignatius first edition. This makes sense since Ignatius said that the copyright owners initially would not allow them to change anything in the first edition, not even the type.

Maria

 

[MTD]

mmortal03:

Besides the principle of it, no harm was done here to any layman Catholic who might pick up the compact. All these conspiracy theories about how it could be harmful to Catholics who are not on this forum not having known about it isn’t going to matter in this case, because nothing was changed that is harmful

It was harmful in the sense that they no longer can trust the claim of an imprimatur. A few months ago I almost bought the compact. I would have been furious to find out later on this forum that I had been deceived (no matter how Catholic the text was).

mmortal03:

Further, there is no official Catholic English Bible, and the Church doesn’t officially recommend any particular translations. The only place where they have historically been safe about things was for the Lectionary (and logically so). Bibles that DON’T have an Imprimatur or Nihil Obstat are not discouraged from being used by the Church, they just haven’t been marked one way or the other.

If the Church didn’t discourage using non-approved Bibles, she wouldn’t have established canon 825.

mmortal03:

Some Catholic publications aren’t even getting them anymore.

That’s right. Lots of good Catholic books don’t have imprimaturs, and they’re perfectly fine to read. But they aren’t Bibles; canon 825 doesn’t apply to them.

Maria

 

[MTD]

Cranch:

I assume from it’s absence here, you don’t like the NAB.

You assumed correctly.

Cranch:

I’m not a fan either but I’m confused about your comment about the Confraternity translation. There was a Confraternity translation of much (though not all) of the Old Testament. Granted it was done from the Hebrew (unlike the New Testament) and formed the basis of the NAB. Importantly, however, the Confraternity Genesis was completely retranslated for the NAB. So that much of the Confraternity Old Testament is unique at least.

Sorry for the confusion. You’re right that the Confraternity translation also included some books of the Old Testament. I should have said that only the Confraternity New Testament is in print.

Maria