RSV-CE Needs Corrections

  • Thread starter Thread starter Manfred
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Cranch said:
bengland - Good catch! My RSV-SCE (Second Catholic Edition) 2006 printing has “only-begotten”.

mmortal03 - Was your inclusion of RSV-SCE above a typo in the thread or do you need to go fix your Wikipedia edit? And here’s another puzzle I’d appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut on:
Click to expand...
I could have sworn that I checked it by hand first before saying that, though, but sure enough, it does say “only-begotten”. I must have just checked my list, thinking we had to have checked it already. Talk about missing a big verse all this time!

i think what I had edited on Wikipedia didn’t pertain to the RSV-SCE, so that shouldn’t matter.

I will add this to the differences page when I get the chance.
 
mmortal03 said:
I had thought that that web site was the RSV:CE 1971/1965 hybrid, if I remember correctly, and I remember checking some of the key verses, but I guess I didn’t check Romans 9.5. I had thought it should match the RSV:CE Compacts (it did in the places I checked), so that is unfortunate that they didn’t get all the spots.

Again, if people would only refer here for guidance… 🙂
Click to expand...
I suspected it was too good to be true, that the RSV-CE, even if it was a hybrid 1971/1965CE, was really online. Ignatius, Oxford, Scepter all saw to that, I’m sure.

So, let’s shout this out:

THE RSV-CE (1965-66 ed.) IS NOT ONLINE.

THE 1966 JERUSALEM BIBLE IS NOT ONLINE.

THE 1985 NEW JERUSALEM BIBLE IS NOT ONLINE.
 
Cranch said:
I don’t know what that purports to be, but the deuterocanonical books are missing and so are Thessalonians 1 & 2.
Click to expand...
That is not the NJB. It is a hodgepodge of something else. I have an NJB. I can tell you that what this website has is not the NJB.
 
lak611 said:
That is not the NJB. It is a hodgepodge of something else. I have an NJB. I can tell you that what this website has is not the NJB.
Click to expand...
The following is supposed to be the NJB, but it also doesn’t have Thessalonians or the deuterocanonicals. They probably came from the same source: kofc.duq.edu/scripture/
 
mmortal03 said:
The following is supposed to be the NJB, but it also doesn’t have Thessalonians or the deuterocanonicals. They probably came from the same source: kofc.duq.edu/scripture/
Click to expand...
Parts of it are the NJB. The first two chapters of Matthew and 1 Samuel match the NJB. Amos is not from the NJB (it says that it is from the RSV–I didn’t check which RSV). That whole site is a hodgepodge of all sorts of things, with much of the Bible missing completely. 😦
 
mmortal,what is your opinion regarding the accuracy of the 3 Catholic versions? Which translations do you prefer – “mercy” or “steadfast love”,“mortal sin” or “deady sin”?
And is the translation “chalice” justifiable?
 
anthony022071 said:
mmortal,what is your opinion regarding the accuracy of the 3 Catholic versions? Which translations do you prefer – “mercy” or “steadfast love”,“mortal sin” or “deady sin”?
And is the translation “chalice” justifiable?
Click to expand...
It has been a while since I reviewed over this stuff, but on those issues you have stated, I am “steadfast” with my support of the 1971/1965 hybrid. The reasoning for changing “steadfast love” to “mercy”, was based on flawed reasoning, I think. Based on some of my research into the multiple meanings of the word “mercy” which I did when I was looking into the issue demonstrated to me that what they did can only cause confusion, and that it was silly to try and make it match the DR in this case. I think I linked to an article on this before in this thread. See if you can find it if I did.

On “deadly sin” versus “mortal sin”, I think we discussed this here before. See if you can find it. It might be missing, as we lost some portions of this thread when the database crashed sometime ago. I had been convinced that “deadly sin” was the way to go, but I can’t recall why at the moment.

I apologize if I am not being helpful with providing you the knowledge you are looking for right off, but my time and energy has been dedicated to other things lately. See if you can find the discussions on this here from before and get back to us on your thoughts.
 
I would like to eventually be able to do a computer-driven text to text comparison of the The Ignatius Bible Second Edition versus the original RSV:CE to build a definitive difference index. We can, by hand, build a standard comparison text file of the original RSV:CE, because some slightly off copies online claiming to be the RSV:CE have been found, and could easily be corrected If we had to. We could also put together a text file representing the 1965/71 hybrid RSV:CE, since we have a definitive list of differences between it and both the original RSV:CE and the 1971 RSV.

The problem is that, to my knowledge, we don’t have an electronic copy of the Ignatius Bible Second Edition to compare to those. I have been away for a while, so I am posting this to ask you guys if an electronic version of it has appeared.
 
mmortal,
I wasn’t sure if you were keeping this effort up. But since you posted today, I thought I’d mention something I noticed in the Old Testament during a recent study of Exodus. Throughout Exodus (and possibly the entire OT), the 1st edition RSVCE refers to the “people of Israel.” The 2nd edition RSVCE has changed this to “sons of Israel.” The DR uses “children of Israel.” I’m not sure how relevant these differences are, but I have not seen them noted before.
mmortal03 said:
I’ve corrected and clarified a couple things on the two reference pages:
umsis.miami.edu/~medmunds/RSVCEdiff.htm
umsis.miami.edu/~medmunds/ScepterChangesC.htm
Click to expand...
Regarding your linked changes above, I am unclear whether Luke 1:34 (“How shall this be…”) is retained in the OUP Reader’s Edition, or if it reverted back to the 1st edition ('59 NT) rendering of “How can this be…”

Also, the 2nd edition RSVCE does have “can” in the text, but there is a footnote indicating that “shall” is another possible rendering.

Sincerely,
rocketrob
 
rocketrob said:
mmortal,
I wasn’t sure if you were keeping this effort up. But since you posted today, I thought I’d mention something I noticed in the Old Testament during a recent study of Exodus. Throughout Exodus (and possibly the entire OT), the 1st edition RSVCE refers to the “people of Israel.” The 2nd edition RSVCE has changed this to “sons of Israel.” The DR uses “children of Israel.” I’m not sure how relevant these differences are, but I have not seen them noted before.

Regarding your linked changes above, I am unclear whether Luke 1:34 (“How shall this be…”) is retained in the OUP Reader’s Edition, or if it reverted back to the 1st edition ('59 NT) rendering of “How can this be…”

Also, the 2nd edition RSVCE does have “can” in the text, but there is a footnote indicating that “shall” is another possible rendering.

Sincerely,
rocketrob
Click to expand...
We have a Jewish cemetery in our neck of the woods; it goes by the name “Children of Israel” Cemetery. So, if anyone thinks the Douay is deficient in translating the sense of the Hebrew, I’d mention that the Jews to this day refer to themselves thus.

As for “shall” vs “can” - any “literal” translation worth that designation has to reproduce the Greek verb correctly, and not alter the mood. No one has yet convinced me that “can” is a possible alternative and therefore an acceptable rendering.
 
Manfred said:
We have a Jewish cemetery in our neck of the woods; it goes by the name “Children of Israel” Cemetery. So, if anyone thinks the Douay is deficient in translating the sense of the Hebrew, I’d mention that the Jews to this day refer to themselves thus.
Click to expand...
The Hebrew has b’nai (sons) yisrael. So the 2CE’s change to “sons” of Israel is the correct move. It is, in fact, more precise than the DR’s inclusive “children”.
 
rocketrob said:
mmortal,
I wasn’t sure if you were keeping this effort up. But since you posted today, I thought I’d mention something I noticed in the Old Testament during a recent study of Exodus. Throughout Exodus (and possibly the entire OT), the 1st edition RSVCE refers to the “people of Israel.” The 2nd edition RSVCE has changed this to “sons of Israel.” The DR uses “children of Israel.” I’m not sure how relevant these differences are, but I have not seen them noted before.

Regarding your linked changes above, I am unclear whether Luke 1:34 (“How shall this be…”) is retained in the OUP Reader’s Edition, or if it reverted back to the 1st edition ('59 NT) rendering of “How can this be…”

Also, the 2nd edition RSVCE does have “can” in the text, but there is a footnote indicating that “shall” is another possible rendering.

Sincerely,
rocketrob
Click to expand...
The OUP’s Reader’s edition has “shall” in the text.
 
porthos11 said:
The OUP’s Reader’s edition has “shall” in the text.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the reply. For strict accuracy, I should correct my earlier post. The 2nd edition of the RSVCE has “How can this be” in the text with a footnote indicating that “How will this be” as an alternative…not “shall.”
 
rocketrob said:
mmortal,
I wasn’t sure if you were keeping this effort up. But since you posted today, I thought I’d mention something I noticed in the Old Testament during a recent study of Exodus. Throughout Exodus (and possibly the entire OT), the 1st edition RSVCE refers to the “people of Israel.” The 2nd edition RSVCE has changed this to “sons of Israel.” The DR uses “children of Israel.” I’m not sure how relevant these differences are, but I have not seen them noted before.
Click to expand...
Thanks, I’ll add that to the list. The RSV OT wasn’t changed in any revision until the Ignatius Second Edition, so the rendering “people of Israel” should also match the 1959 and 1971 RSV. Does anyone have an example verse of this so that I can double check these?
Regarding your linked changes above, I am unclear whether Luke 1:34 (“How shall this be…”) is retained in the OUP Reader’s Edition, or if it reverted back to the 1st edition ('59 NT) rendering of “How can this be…”
Click to expand...
Also, the 2nd edition RSVCE does have “can” in the text, but there is a footnote indicating that “shall” is another possible rendering.
Click to expand...
The Reader’s Edition matches the 1965 RSV:CE in all but a few very minute cases (you can count them on one hand), and that happens to be one of those cases where they still messed up when trying to move their accidental, hybrid manuscript back into correspondence with the real RSV:CE.

Manfred and I happen to like it better that way, though.

**Speaking of which, I just noticed something important. **Contrary to what I think I had written here before a while back, I don’t think the Reader’s Version messed up 1 Corinthians 4.6. Both the '65 RSV:CE and the '71 RSV render it the same way, so they couldn’t have messed that one up! It would be nice if someone with the Reader’s Version could double check that for us, to see if it indeed matches the following (which it should):

1 Corinthians 4.6 I have applied all this to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brethren, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another.

However, also, check Ephesians 5:32. I think they could very easily have messed this one up because it has been altered in various places between the various versions of the RSV. Make sure it COMPLETELY matches the following, and let me know, either way. The two spots that I have quotes around are the known difference places among the various editions. The following words are from the Ignatius First Edition:

Ephesians 5.32 “This is a great mystery”, and I “mean in reference to” Christ and the church;
 
Ephesians 5:32: "This mystery is a profound one, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church; "

Taken from EWTN’s RSV-Catholic Edition searchable version. However, they don’t seem to have any information on which version it is. Hope it helps though. Perhaps somebody out there knows which version the site uses?

Furthermore, someone said there isn’t a reliable RSVCE online, could it be possible to create a site using the RSVCE found on EWTN’s site, provided we noted all the copyrights and so forth? Their site is hard to use, as you can only search it by chapter and verses, alas it is the only RSV CE on the web that might be reliable.

Matt
 
Mattjolley said:
Ephesians 5:32: "This mystery is a profound one, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church; "

Taken from EWTN’s RSV-Catholic Edition searchable version. However, they don’t seem to have any information on which version it is. Hope it helps though. Perhaps somebody out there knows which version the site uses?

Furthermore, someone said there isn’t a reliable RSVCE online, could it be possible to create a site using the RSVCE found on EWTN’s site, provided we noted all the copyrights and so forth? Their site is hard to use, as you can only search it by chapter and verses, alas it is the only RSV CE on the web that might be reliable.

Matt
Click to expand...
Is this the site you are referring to? : ewtn.com/devotionals/biblesearch.asp

Unfortunately, it is not reliable, at least as compared to printed versions of any RSV-CE. This conclusion comes from an examination of its rendering of Romans 9:5 and is explored in this posting from another thread.
 
Mattjolley said:
Ephesians 5:32: "This mystery is a profound one, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church; "

Taken from EWTN’s RSV-Catholic Edition searchable version. However, they don’t seem to have any information on which version it is. Hope it helps though. Perhaps somebody out there knows which version the site uses?

Furthermore, someone said there isn’t a reliable RSVCE online, could it be possible to create a site using the RSVCE found on EWTN’s site, provided we noted all the copyrights and so forth? Their site is hard to use, as you can only search it by chapter and verses, alas it is the only RSV CE on the web that might be reliable.

Matt
Click to expand...
That is the 1971 RSV rendering. We are pretty sure that they, knowing less than what we know, just took the 1971 RSV and tried to add the CE changes and books to it, with very limited success. It just isn’t the Catholic Edition.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top