RSV-CE Needs Corrections

  • Thread starter Thread starter Manfred
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
mmortal03 said:
Yeah, I put two and two together the other day and realized that those compacts were mass produced for all three companies, the only difference being the cover material. Oxford holds the copyright to that, and had them printed for themselves, as well as Ignatius and Scepter.
Click to expand...
So does this COMPACT Ignatius RSV-CE contain the 1971 NT (with Catholic editorial changes) or the 1959 NT?
 
Manfred said:
So does this COMPACT Ignatius RSV-CE contain the 1971 NT (with Catholic editorial changes) or the 1959 NT?
Click to expand...
Yeah, all of these compacts that came out in 2005 are the same; they are based on the 1971 RSV, but retain the 1965 Catholic Edition revisions.

i.e. the Scepter, Ignatius, and Oxford compacts are all the same, inside their covers.
 
mmortal03 said:
Yeah, all of these compacts that came out in 2005 are the same; they are based on the 1971 RSV, but retain the 1965 Catholic Edition revisions.

i.e. the Scepter, Ignatius, and Oxford compacts are all the same, inside their covers.
Click to expand...
Now that’s just great. :mad: Even Ignatius adds to the confusion re the RSV-CE. I’ll bet their editors had NO idea the 1971 NT was the base in the Oxford Compact that they put their brand on. Just great.
 
Manfred said:
Now that’s just great. :mad: Even Ignatius adds to the confusion re the RSV-CE. I’ll bet their editors had NO idea the 1971 NT was the base in the Oxford Compact that they put their brand on. Just great.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I don’t think that anyone except for us and an editor or two at Oxford Press know about it. It amazes me that they could just get away with it, though, even if it is an improvement.
 
From what I have read in various Catholic news around the web, the Vox Clara Committee is expected to publish the “‘Ratio Translationis’ for the English Language,” before Christmas. They met about a week ago, and are to meet again in December. It’d be great if we can get a copy of this online somehow, whenever it is released.
 
I have been catching up on this thread and find it all very interesting. I own the RSV-CE published by Scepter/Oxford, and I really enjoy it! However, it is the compact edition. Does anyone know if a larger sized version is being released and where I might be able to purchase one?

Thanks. 🙂
 
ValiantDomain said:
I have been catching up on this thread and find it all very interesting. I own the RSV-CE published by Scepter/Oxford, and I really enjoy it! However, it is the compact edition. Does anyone know if a larger sized version is being released and where I might be able to purchase one?

Thanks. 🙂
Click to expand...
oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Bibles/TextReferenceBibles/RevisedStandardVersion/~~/c2Y9Y29taW5nc29vbiZ2aWV3PXVzYQ==

Tentative Dec 5, 2006, be there or be square!

Search the web by ISBN for better prices.
 
I’m enjoying all these posts about various Bible editions and how well they were written in relation to what should’ve been meant in the various readings. I’d like to contribute.

I have a Good News Bible: Catholic Study Edition [one of the many I have], so I need you wonderful people to give me a string of references to help me compare this Bible with other proper and okay editions. I use this Bible when I can’t understand something in the NAB or I want to read a more proper footnote.
 
I found this paragraph in an article entitled “THE NAVARRE BIBLE COMMENTARY: THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS” on the Roman Theological Forum (RTF) site:

rtforum.org/lt/lt102.html

"At Mark 7:3-5, the Commentators quote the Second Vatican Council (Dei Verbum, 25), regarding the need of translations of the sacred texts “which are equipped with necessary and really adequate explanations.” Well, this University of Navarre Commentary goes a long way toward providing an adequate explanation of the Synoptic Gospels, but, for the English edition, it is regrettable that they have had to use the Revised Standard Version of the King James Bible, rather than a suitable English translation of the New Vulgate, which Catholic biblical scholars have not undertaken to produce. (And the New American Bible is, in my opinion, no worthy alternative.)

Interesting, no, that the author states it is “regrettable” the RSV was the choice for the English version of the Navarre Commentary?
 
I read that as being more of a call or preference for an English translation of the Neo Vulgata, then it is a criticism of the RSV, but you never can know for sure what any particular individual might think about a translation.
 
mmortal03 said:
I read that as being more of a call or preference for an English translation of the Neo Vulgata, then it is a criticism of the RSV, but you never can know for sure what any particular individual might think about a translation.
Click to expand...
mmortal,

You could be right about the lament that there is no English translation of the Nova Vulgata.

I’m beginning to think that Divino Afflante Spiritu, permitting, but never mandating, vernacular translations of the Scriptures from the “original languages”, as opposed to the venerable Vulgate, provided modernists with a powerful tool with which to foist on us their bizarre translations and interpretations. And even Liturgiam Authenticam which insists that vernacular Scripture translations for liturgical be use from the original languages is starting to annoy me, since it states that the Nova Vulgata be used as a “point of reference”, but stops short of saying that translations from it would be not only permissible but even desirable.

Let me know if any US bishop comes to the side of this cause anytime soon, OK? :rolleyes:
 
I also think the Latin should be the point of reference, because it is what Catholic scholars have put the most research into over the centuries. If they find good reason for there to be alterations made due to archaeological findings like the DSS, so be it, they can make a good intellectual argument for that, and for the vernacular translations based on the original languages, they should.
 
If someone were to make a really good English translation of the Nova Vulgata–how much would that differ from the RSV-CE and from the Douay Rheims?

Since it wasn’t from the original languages directly–how far from accurate would it be?

Would it be more accurate than the RSV-CE?
 
Jerry-Jet said:
If someone were to make a really good English translation of the Nova Vulgata–how much would that differ from the RSV-CE and from the Douay Rheims?

Since it wasn’t from the original languages directly–how far from accurate would it be?

Would it be more accurate than the RSV-CE?
Click to expand...
Jerry-Jet,

“A really good English translation of the Nova Vulgata” should be closer in accuracy to the Douay-Rheims than to the RSV-CE; in English style it could surely be easier to read than the D-R, more like the RSV-CE, but with all the correct interpretations preserved.

The Nova Vulgata IS from the original languages, as was the Vulgate of St Jerome. The former is based on more and different manuscripts from which to translate, though some scholars could and would debate whether they were indeed better than those used by Jerome.

BTW - the Clementine Vulgate, from which the D-R is translated, is no slouch in the accuracy department, either. Ron Conte is working on his own English translation of the Clementine, with due respect and constant reference to the D-R. How cool is that!!
 
I have heard from some who prefer Jerome’s translation that the Nova Vulgata is a much freer and looser translation than Jerome’s–some people like that but others believe that Jerome’s is more literally accurate at least in regards to the Latin.

Right now my favorite is the Douay Rheims but I do look forward to the day when we’ll have other Catholic translations of the Bible.

I’m not a great fan of the RSV-CE but every time they try to revise it at least it’s getting better!

I wonder if the upcoming Reader’ edition will be EXACTLY the same as 1971 or will have its own anomalies?

It almost seems like people are trying to REVISE the scriptures on the sly without respect for copyrights.

That’s OK with me as long as they can make it better.

I don’t think anyone should own any version of the Bible

I do understand why certain groups need to reap the monetary rewards of such copyrights. Even the Catholic Church has to be a good steward of the money it receives.

If you want to convert the public then put it in the public domain!
 
Jerry-Jet said:
I wonder if the upcoming Reader’ edition will be EXACTLY the same as 1971 or will have its own anomalies?

It almost seems like people are trying to REVISE the scriptures on the sly without respect for copyrights.

That’s OK with me as long as they can make it better.
Click to expand...
There is no reason to doubt that it is the same as a 1971+ the 1965 CE changes, as it is just a full size version of the compact text that we have already been analyzing. If there ARE any differences there, then they are really small ones. I doubt that whomever it is that made the changes at Oxford Press would want to push the issue any further, so my position is that these should turn out to be exactly the same.
 
Forgive my ignorance but are any Catholic bibles Red letter editions?
 
Jerry-Jet said:
Forgive my ignorance but are any Catholic bibles Red letter editions?
Click to expand...
This question was raised some time ago on the EWTN Scripture and Divine Revelation Forum. The answer from the Forum “expert”, Fr. Echert, was that there was none of which he was aware, and there likely weren’yt any, as these red-letter editions seem to be more favored by Protestant readers than Catholics.
 
mmortal03 said:
Yeah, all of these compacts that came out in 2005 are the same; they are based on the 1971 RSV, but retain the 1965 Catholic Edition revisions.

i.e. the Scepter, Ignatius, and Oxford compacts are all the same, inside their covers.
Click to expand...
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
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top