RSV-CE Needs Corrections

  • Thread starter Thread starter Manfred
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I bought a new Ignatius Second Catholic Edition paperback and am going to return it. The whole thing just doesn’t feel right. The font is thin and spindly, there are no accompanying texts and almost no footnotes, they have changed Isa. 7:14 and Luke 1:28 but were compelled to put the old text in the footnotes, which makes me feel like they really didn’t want to change it. I also don’t like the rampant use of apostrophes in names in the RSV. I have an Oxford hardcover of the RSV and it really blows away this Ignatius one in terms of production values. I agree with some other posters that the Douay-Rheims (and I include the Confraternity version as well. I have a 1961 Kenedy & Sons versions that has the Douay OT and Confraternity NT) is the only truly Catholic Bible out there. I treasure my large Catholic Treasures version with the Divinely inspired Haydock commentaries. These RSVs just don’t cut it compared to the Douay and Confraternity. And I can barely get myself to open an NAB or Jerusalem Bible.
 
I bought a new Ignatius Second Catholic Edition paperback and am going to return it. The whole thing just doesn’t feel right. The font is thin and spindly, there are no accompanying texts and almost no footnotes, they have changed Isa. 7:14 and Luke 1:28 but were compelled to put the old text in the footnotes, which makes me feel like they really didn’t want to change it. I also don’t like the rampant use of apostrophes in names in the RSV. I have an Oxford hardcover of the RSV and it really blows away this Ignatius one in terms of production values. I agree with some other posters that the Douay-Rheims (and I include the Confraternity version as well. I have a 1961 Kenedy & Sons versions that has the Douay OT and Confraternity NT) is the only truly Catholic Bible out there. I treasure my large Catholic Treasures version with the Divinely inspired Haydock commentaries. These RSVs just don’t cut it compared to the Douay and Confraternity. And I can barely get myself to open an NAB or Jerusalem Bible.
 
Luke 1:28 was changed in the Second Edition, or was this changed in the First?
 
Luke 1:28 was changed in the Second Edition, or was this changed in the First?
 
Sorry, you are right, I think Luke 1:28 was changed in the first.
 
Sorry, you are right, I think Luke 1:28 was changed in the first.
 
Good and Gentle People,

Re this new-fangled RSC-SCE: did it CORRECT Luke 1:34, to render it “How shall this be, since I do not know man?” instead of the VERY lame “How can this be, since I have no husband?”

If no - I’ll wait till Ignatius or some other publisher gets it right.
 
Good and Gentle People,

Re this new-fangled RSC-SCE: did it CORRECT Luke 1:34, to render it “How shall this be, since I do not know man?” instead of the VERY lame “How can this be, since I have no husband?”

If no - I’ll wait till Ignatius or some other publisher gets it right.
 
Manfred, thanks for that pointer, too, and no, the second edition did not correct that, as it still says, “How can this be, since I have no husband?”

Douay-Rheims, “How shall this be done, because I know not man?”
 
Manfred, thanks for that pointer, too, and no, the second edition did not correct that, as it still says, “How can this be, since I have no husband?”

Douay-Rheims, “How shall this be done, because I know not man?”
 
40.png
johnbres2:
Manfred, thanks for that pointer, too, and no, the second edition did not correct that, as it still says, “How can this be, since I have no husband?”

Douay-Rheims, “How shall this be done, because I know not man?”
Click to expand...
Johnbres2, thank YOU! Even the RSV NT, 2nd ed. (1971) changed “can” to “shall”; you’re telling me the RSV-2CE still didn’t get it right. Pity.

BTW - has anyone read “Which Bible Should You Read” by Thomas A. Nelson, he of TAN Publications? This little booklet made a convincing case for my purchasing/reading a Douay-Rheims Bible. To my knowledge, nobody has refuted it to any extent.
 
40.png
johnbres2:
Manfred, thanks for that pointer, too, and no, the second edition did not correct that, as it still says, “How can this be, since I have no husband?”

Douay-Rheims, “How shall this be done, because I know not man?”
Click to expand...
Johnbres2, thank YOU! Even the RSV NT, 2nd ed. (1971) changed “can” to “shall”; you’re telling me the RSV-2CE still didn’t get it right. Pity.

BTW - has anyone read “Which Bible Should You Read” by Thomas A. Nelson, he of TAN Publications? This little booklet made a convincing case for my purchasing/reading a Douay-Rheims Bible. To my knowledge, nobody has refuted it to any extent.
 
Can someone explain the significance of Luke 1:34? Since they removed all archaic language in this edition, I don’t follow how it could be translated any differently, since they cannot use ‘shall’.
 
Can someone explain the significance of Luke 1:34? Since they removed all archaic language in this edition, I don’t follow how it could be translated any differently, since they cannot use ‘shall’.
 
40.png
mmortal03:
Can someone explain the significance of Luke 1:34? Since they removed all archaic language in this edition, I don’t follow how it could be translated any differently, since they cannot use ‘shall’.
Click to expand...
It also lists an alternate translation: “How will this be…”.
 
40.png
mmortal03:
Can someone explain the significance of Luke 1:34? Since they removed all archaic language in this edition, I don’t follow how it could be translated any differently, since they cannot use ‘shall’.
Click to expand...
It also lists an alternate translation: “How will this be…”.
 
40.png
johnbres2:
Sorry, you are right, I think Luke 1:28 was changed in the first.
Click to expand...
That was changed in the first edition, I have it, and it says; “Hail, full of grace.”
 
40.png
johnbres2:
Sorry, you are right, I think Luke 1:28 was changed in the first.
Click to expand...
That was changed in the first edition, I have it, and it says; “Hail, full of grace.”
 
I decided to keep my new Ignatius Second CE after all. This happened mostly because over the weekend I began to delve into JP II’s “Catechesis on the Creed” works (priceless works), and I was reminded that in all his works, he used the RSV. I am going to be spending lots of time with JP II’s writings the rest of my life, so I softened to this new 2d edition, deciding I do need a good Catholic RSV, and that doesn’t get any better than this. Also, I was reminded in this thread that there are no perfect translations. And, we must realize now this RSV-SCE is now the only Catholic Bible in modern English (the Douay is the only other Bible in any English) that has both “virgin” at Isa. 7:14 AND “full of grace” at Luke 1:28. So, this RSV-SCE takes its place on the shelf next to my two Douays and Confraternity Bible. On “the bench” for reference are the NAB, KJV, NKJV, Oxford RSV, Jerusalem, and NIV.
 
I decided to keep my new Ignatius Second CE after all. This happened mostly because over the weekend I began to delve into JP II’s “Catechesis on the Creed” works (priceless works), and I was reminded that in all his works, he used the RSV. I am going to be spending lots of time with JP II’s writings the rest of my life, so I softened to this new 2d edition, deciding I do need a good Catholic RSV, and that doesn’t get any better than this. Also, I was reminded in this thread that there are no perfect translations. And, we must realize now this RSV-SCE is now the only Catholic Bible in modern English (the Douay is the only other Bible in any English) that has both “virgin” at Isa. 7:14 AND “full of grace” at Luke 1:28. So, this RSV-SCE takes its place on the shelf next to my two Douays and Confraternity Bible. On “the bench” for reference are the NAB, KJV, NKJV, Oxford RSV, Jerusalem, and NIV.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top