RSV-CE Needs Corrections

[Epistemes]

I hope not. They have been delaying it over the last year or so in chunks of 3 to 5 months. It could be, however, I don’t know how visible this thread really is. The only correction that I know of that they needed to make was in the Imprimatur (they cut off the Bishop’s last name), and I was told that it would be corrected. Any other ideas as to why they have been delaying it I’d really like to know myself.

I thought the Oxford/Scepter Reader’s Version was to be released December 5th? It’s December 6th and I still see no sign of publication!

I’m reluctant to the purchase the Ignatius RSV-CE 2ed., but the wait for the Oxford/Scepter edition is getting ridiculous.

 

[vladimir998]

Manfred,

You wrote:

“My Reasons:- There is not likely to be either a new revision of the Douay-Rheims-Challoner version of the Bible or a translation into English of the Nova Vulgata.”

Robert Sungenis is apparently putting together a new edition of the D-R. His commentary on Matthew used his new D-R. His commentary on Revelation used the RSV/CE. His website, however, says that he is working on a new edition of the ENTIRE D-R Bible. It could be worthwhile.

 

[Manfred]

Manfred,

You wrote:

“My Reasons:- There is not likely to be either a new revision of the Douay-Rheims-Challoner version of the Bible or a translation into English of the Nova Vulgata.”

Robert Sungenis is apparently putting together a new edition of the D-R. His commentary on Matthew used his new D-R. His commentary on Revelation used the RSV/CE. His website, however, says that he is working on a new edition of the ENTIRE D-R Bible. It could be worthwhile.

It took the Catholic Biblical Association of Great Britain from 1954 till 1966 to edit and publish the RSV-CE; and only 60-some-odd changes were made to the NT!

It took the NAB translators 25 years (1944-1969) to get that work out.

How long do you think it will take that one person to do the whole Bible, including commentary?

 

[mmortal03]

I thought the Oxford/Scepter Reader’s Version was to be released December 5th? It’s December 6th and I still see no sign of publication!

I’m reluctant to the purchase the Ignatius RSV-CE 2ed., but the wait for the Oxford/Scepter edition is getting ridiculous.

According to Amazon, it was already released November 30th…wait for it…1899!

amazon.com/Revised-Standard-Version-Catholic-Bible/dp/0195288653

As far as the shipping date, I have another update. They sent me an email saying, " Unfortunately, the studio/publisher has delayed the release of this product until 12-16-2006." The funny thing about that is that my Overstock.com receipt listed the release date to be later, and also, some of them are listed on their site to be December 7th, and some the 31st. Basically, pick a random number between 1 and 12 and 1 and 28/30/31

 

[mmortal03]

I thought the Oxford/Scepter Reader’s Version was to be released December 5th? It’s December 6th and I still see no sign of publication!

I’m reluctant to the purchase the Ignatius RSV-CE 2ed., but the wait for the Oxford/Scepter edition is getting ridiculous.

According to Amazon, it was already released November 30th…wait for it…1899!

amazon.com/Revised-Standard-Version-Catholic-Bible/dp/0195288653

As far as the shipping date, I have another update. They sent me an email saying, " Unfortunately, the studio/publisher has delayed the release of this product until 12-16-2006." The funny thing about that is that my Overstock.com receipt listed the release date to be later, and also, some of them are listed on their site to be December 7th, and some the 31st. Basically, pick a random number between 1 and 12 and 1 and 28/30/31.

 

[mmortal03]

I thought the Oxford/Scepter Reader’s Version was to be released December 5th? It’s December 6th and I still see no sign of publication!

I’m reluctant to the purchase the Ignatius RSV-CE 2ed., but the wait for the Oxford/Scepter edition is getting ridiculous.

According to Amazon, it was already released November 30th…wait for it…1899!

amazon.com/Revised-Standard-Version-Catholic-Bible/dp/0195288653

As far as the shipping date, I have another update. They sent me an email saying, " Unfortunately, the studio/publisher has delayed the release of this product until 12-16-2006." The funny thing about that is that my Overstock.com receipt listed the release date to be later, and also, some of them are listed on their site to be December 7th, and some the 31st. Basically, pick a random number between 1 and 12 and 1 and 28/30/31.

 

[owenswain]

Hello, I’ve been following this thread for a while. My RSV 2nd CE Ignatius Press arrived from Amazon.ca the other day and I am thrilled with it in every way. For that reason I decided to register and say: mine is the leather bound edition; the gilding on the pages is perfect and shows no sign of flaking off as others noted; the gold impressions of the five icons seems fine now though I would expect imperfections with wear; I love the off white / cream colour of the pages, very easy on the eye though a mat finish over a gloss would have been more pleasing and the pages are twice as thick as any bible page I have ever seen which makes this the heaviest bible {including all my old Protestant study bibles} that I have ever owned.

The translation is much preferred over the NRSV approved by our Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops. My last Protestant bible was the English Standard Version. I wrote the publishers and was told they have no plan of ever releasing a Catholic edition so a return to the RSV in the 2nd CE is good news for me.

 

[Manfred]

mmortal,

Here, check this out!

ewtn.com/vbible/search.asp?abbr=Gal&ch=4&bv1=26&ev1=27

It’s not the Ignatius RSV-CE or RSV-2CE, but looks like the Oxford/Scepter edition.

As another poster suggested, you can hack into their virtual bible by guessing the correct abbreviation for a particular book (where necessary), and then typing in a bv1 and an ev1 (beginning and ending verse, respectively).

My thanks to that poster! And, of course, to you, for your chart which put all three side-by-side!

Good and Gentle People,

Kindly ignore this posting; in the “RSV-CE Online?” thread, I make it known that the RSV on the EWTN site is NOT a Catholic edition, but the ecumenical RSV with the 1971 NT.

I apologize for my unrestrained exuberance over what was obviously the result of my slipshod research into this matter.

Manfred

 

[owenswain]

Good and Gentle People,

Kindly ignore this posting; in the “RSV-CE Online?” thread, I make it known that the RSV on the EWTN site is NOT a Catholic edition, but the ecumenical RSV with the 1971 NT.

I apologize for my unrestrained exuberance over what was obviously the result of my slipshod research into this matter.

Manfred

I’m relieved because I hacked around and wasn’t keen on what I was reading. Thanks for the update.

 

[owenswain]

I’m curious to know why the RSV 2CE does not have the verses for one of today’s [Dec 11.06] Mass readings. Zec 214-17 does not exist in this bible. There is no footnote explaining this omission. Those verses are present in other Catholic Bibles. For example in my wife’s New Jerusalem {not a favorite translation of mine but that’s beside the point}.

Thanks.

 

[mmortal03]

I’m curious to know why the RSV 2CE does not have the verses for one of today’s [Dec 11.06] Mass readings. Zec 214-17 does not exist in this bible. There is no footnote explaining this omission. Those verses are present in other Catholic Bibles. For example in my wife’s New Jerusalem {not a favorite translation of mine but that’s beside the point}.

Just as a preliminary response, it isn’t in ANY edition of the RSV at all. I don’t know enough to tell you why.

 

[Manfred]

Just as a preliminary response, it isn’t in ANY edition of the RSV at all. I don’t know enough to tell you why.

In both the RSV and the Douay-Rheims, these four verses are numbered as Zechariah (Zacharias) 2:10-13. The NAB seems to have gone off on its own somewhere before these verses. Gee, I’m shocked.

 

[Manfred]

In both the RSV and the Douay-Rheims, these four verses are numbered as Zechariah (Zacharias) 2:10-13. The NAB seems to have gone off on its own somewhere before these verses. Gee, I’m shocked.

The NAB relocated (D-R and RSV) verses 18-21 of chapter 1 to chapter 2 verses 1-4. This then pushed what would have been 2:10-13 down to 2:14-17.

 

[owenswain]

The NAB relocated (D-R and RSV) verses 18-21 of chapter 1 to chapter 2 verses 1-4. This then pushed what would have been 2:10-13 down to 2:14-17.

This makes sense. I am Canadian and our CCCB has authorized the NRSV for liturgical use here so I am not familiar with the NAB. The site I took the liturgy readings from is from the US and would follow the NAB. I have not been able to find a complete daily Mass reading list for Canada online anywhere.

And, obviously the NJB, which my wife uses follows the NAB as far as the verses in question go.

Thanks so much for the explanation. I appreciate it.

 

[owenswain]

And, I meant to add that I am glad the RSV agrees with the D-R. I should have checked that myself.

 

[owenswain]

The NAB relocated (D-R and RSV) verses 18-21 of chapter 1 to chapter 2 verses 1-4. This then pushed what would have been 2:10-13 down to 2:14-17.

**
Is anyone familiar with other passages where this kind of relocation takes place in the NAB?**

I ask as I now work in a Catholic bookstore and if there is one thing I sell a lot of it is bibles. I like to be as informed as I can be.

Today I checked the Zec passage in the New Living Translation CE {the translation a friend of mine calls the New Lengthy Translation noting is penchant for over explaining - Amplified style but without the parenthesis within the text - and for over interpreting [always with a Protestant slant as it began as a Protestant paraphrase come translation]} and found that it follows the RSV, D-R in its placement of these verses.

 

[mmortal03]

**
Is anyone familiar with other passages where this kind of relocation takes place in the NAB?**

I ask as I now work in a Catholic bookstore and if there is one thing I sell a lot of it is bibles. I like to be as informed as I can be.

Today I checked the Zec passage in the New Living Translation CE {the translation a friend of mine calls the New Lengthy Translation noting is penchant for over explaining - Amplified style but without the parenthesis within the text - and for over interpreting [always with a Protestant slant as it began as a Protestant paraphrase come translation]} and found that it follows the RSV, D-R in its placement of these verses.

Well, the books of Maccabees are repositioned to be along with the rest of the Historical Books, which I like a lot better that it is this way in the NAB. That wouldn’t affect the verse numbering of anything, though.

I’ve always wondered why they didn’t also put Esther before Tobit and Judith (e.g. directly after Nehemiah), as it is said to have been written earlier than those two books, and from around the time following Nehemiah being written, and it would also follow the timeline of the events within the texts better this way, as well.

It doesn’t seem as if the events of Tobit and Judith fit in as well along with the rest of the Historical Books on the timeline. Judith is a narrative that doesn’t have a clear cut connection to specific dates in history, and Tobit discusses a story somewhere in between Kings and Chronicles, but was written much later than those books. For this reason, they should let those be found preceding the books of Maccabees at the end of the Historical Books if the NAB committee felt the need to rearrange the order as they did.

 

[Manfred]

Is anyone familiar with other passages where this kind of relocation takes place in the NAB?

Look at many of the chapters (particularly 24-27, if I’m correct) in the book of Job, as well as some verses in Proverbs, chap. 5 and 6. And this was well before MS Word was even a gleam in Bill Gates’ eye!

 

[Cranch]

**
Is anyone familiar with other passages where this kind of relocation takes place in the NAB?**

Check out the major surgery they did on 1 Kings chapters 4 and 5. Compare to the RSV-2CE or the Douay-Rheims (where the book is called 3 Kings). The question is why was it done?!

 

[TOME]

At the beginning of the OT in the NAB, there is a preface that briefly explains the changes talked about throughout this thread. Hopefully, this preface will answer some of the questions raised here.