RSV-CE Needs Corrections

  • Thread starter Thread starter Manfred
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
mmortal03 said:
mike0219116 stated that it has the same layout as the Compacts, only larger. I take that to mean page for page identical.
Click to expand...
That’s how it looks. Even the page numbers of the compact and readers editions are identical.
 
mike0219116 said:
I just noticed that the inside page credits Ignatius Press - San Francisco. The compact edition credits Oxford only.
Click to expand...
Wait, I missed this before. The inside page, e.g. it looks like a second title page but with credits, says “Ignatius Press - San Francisco” at the bottom, in the Oxford Press Reader’s Version?

Next, Luke 1:34 = “shall” (no Ignatius version has that), but then John 19.5 = “Here is the man” (no Oxford Catholic edition has that, and it is a regression)?

This thread may soon get violent, because it sure ain’t April 1st yet.

Can you tell us what the full Luke 1:34 verse says?
 
mmortal03 said:
Wait, I missed this before. The inside page, e.g. it looks like a second title page but with credits, says “Ignatius Press - San Francisco” at the bottom, in the Oxford Press Reader’s Version?

Next, Luke 1:34 = “shall” (no Ignatius version has that), but then John 19.5 = “Here is the man” (no Oxford Catholic edition has that, and it is a regression)?

This thread may soon get violent, because it sure ain’t April 1st yet.

Can you tell us what the full Luke 1:34 verse says?
Click to expand...
You are correct about the title page.

Luke 1:34 - And Mary said to the angel, “How shall this be, since I have no husband?”
 
mmortal03 said:
You have got to be kidding me!?

Edit: mike, if you would, can you check some of the verses on the following page and get back to us as to whether or not it matches the text to the right (mostly in red)?

umsis.miami.edu/~medmunds/ScepterChangesC.htm
Click to expand...
Matthew
6.2 "I say to you, they have their reward”
6.5 "I say to you, they have their reward”
6.16 "I say to you, they have their reward”
10.8 "You received without pay”
12.1 “they began to pluck ears of grain”
13.33 "leaven … in three measures of meal”
14.23 “he went up into the hills by himself”
15.27 "crumbs … from their master’s table”
15.29 “he went up into the hills”

I think I see a pattern here.
 
mike0219116 said:
You are correct about the title page.

Luke 1:34 - And Mary said to the angel, “How shall this be, since I have no husband?”
Click to expand...
Ok, well, at least with that verse, it is as it is supposed to be.

All I can ask you to do is go through the list that I linked to above and tell us which verses don’t match the colored text to the right of each verse. No rush necessarily, but it would be nice to get an idea of it so that I can cancel my order if it gets to be too off.

Edit: Well, based on what you just now posted, it looks like the delay was because they made a boo boo with the compact editions and changed too much, and the copyright holders found out and didn’t like it. I am going to bet that this is going to turn out to be more like the Ignatius First Edition than the Compacts, which is a bad, bad thing.

What I don’t get is how they got to leave Luke 1.34 changed?
 
mmortal03 said:
“lo” to “behold,”
“babe” to “baby,”

Where are those changes in the Second Edition?

And regarding the Reader’s Version, it isn’t going to have any changes that were unique to the Ignatius Second Edition (from when we previously compared them), and the probability of it matching the Oxford Compact Versions is around 99.99%.

mike0219116 stated that it has the same layout as the Compacts, only larger. I take that to mean page for page identical.

I’ll have mine in a little over a week, and I’ll be able to confirm all of this myself.
Click to expand...
Check out the Infancy Narrative in St. Luke’s Gospel. Original RSV had “babe in a manger.” Ignatius Second Edition changed it to “baby” in a manger. Same thing with “*ss” to “donkey” and “lo” to “behold.”

Based on the switch from “Behold the man” to “Here is the man”, it sounds like the Oxford is just the Ignatius Bible First Edition, which is a pretty crummy translation from my perspective.
 
Hello!

I’m new here. I just joined today since I think I have the answer to your confusion over the different versions of the RSV-CE.

Recently I was interested in buying the Ignatius Bible and started doing some research on the first and second editions. That’s how I found this thread and the wealth of information here. 👍

mmortal03’s and others’ discoveries of the differences between the Ignatius and Oxford editions of the same RSV-CE made me really concerned, and so a couple days ago I sent an email to Oxford containing the following:
I have a concern about the text of your Revised Standard Version Catholic Bibles.

The imprimatur printed in your RSV Catholic Bibles is dated 1966. The 1966 imprimatur, however, only applies to the 1966 Catholic RSV Old Testament (which is based on the 1952 RSV Old Testament and the 1957 RSV Apocrypha) and the 1965 Catholic RSV New Testament (which is based on the 1946 RSV New Testament).

Yet the New Testament in your Bibles appears to be based on the 1971 edition of the RSV New Testament together with the Catholic revisions that were made to the 1946 RSV New Testament in 1965. So how can you claim a 1966 imprimatur since the New Testament is mostly from 1971 and since that particular imprimatur only applies to the 1946 New Testament with Catholic revisions in 1965? Did you get some kind of ecclesiastical permission?
Click to expand...
Today I received a reply from Donald Kraus, the executive editor for Bibles. I’ll try to give a clear summary, based on the information he gave in his email, of what has been happening at Oxford.

As you already know by now, the Oxford RSV-CE has been retypeset. Apparently, in order to do this retypesetting, Oxford set up a database with the current RSV (which is the 1971 revision) since there is no standard text or database for the RSV-CE (according to Kraus). Then they attempted not only to incorporate the Catholic revisions into this database but also to remove the 1971 revisions by comparing their database with Catholic Truth Society’s, Ignatius’s, and other publishers’ editions of the RSV-CE. At the same time as creating this RSV-CE database, they were also trying to ensure the correct form of all their RSV databases and work out standard wording and American/British spelling issues, among other things. All this combined to make it a rather big task to bring out an accurate edition.

Unfortunately, however, with the first printing they failed to remove all 1971 revisions. They tried to correct these errors with the latest printing, but it appears from mike0219116’s observations that they still have more correcting to do.

To sum up, 1) with each printing, the Oxford RSV-CE is supposed to become more like the Ignatius first edition; 2) there are only two genuine editions of the RSV-CE: the first and second editions of the Ignatius Bible (the Oxford edition is supposed to be the same as the Ignatius first edition).

Personally, I’m disappointed with Oxford for listing that imprimatur without being absolutely sure of conformity with the 1966 RSV-CE. But I am happy that Oxford was not trying to create a new revision without permission.

Hope this helps to clarify things a little,
Maria
 
Maria,

Thank you very much for your information! I had emailed Donald Kraus before, and he told me none of this. To me, it sounds like a convenient excuse by them, and I would argue that they discovered this AFTER the Compact Editions came out, AFTER they then received emails from people like us.

I would be willing to bet that Oxford Press is simply backpedaling on this just so they don’t get into copyright trouble. I find it hard to believe that they couldn’t have referenced the SAME material that we have, and produced the same list of changes that we have, if they really HAD known about it originally. The compact editions didn’t have ANY of the 1971 revisions removed like Kraus is saying that they tried to do. It is clear that with those they just took the 1971 edition and plopped the specifically Catholic changes on top of it, which turned out to be QUITE good, however “unintentional” it was by them.

So now that they have whetted our appetite with something BETTER than the original, but illegal, they have ripped it out of our hands for good and left us with something little improved, and haven’t even done a good job of cleaning up their mess. What a joke!
 
Wow! This is unbelievable. I guess those original compact versions are going to become collectors’ items!
 
MTD said:
Hello!

To sum up, 1) with each printing, the Oxford RSV-CE is supposed to become more like the Ignatius first edition; 2) there are only two genuine editions of the RSV-CE: the first and second editions of the Ignatius Bible (the Oxford edition is supposed to be the same as the Ignatius first edition).
Maria
Click to expand...
I wonder how “genuine” or “official” Ignatius’ second edition actually is…they claim it as an “exclusive” offering. And, I’m not sure what is meant by the “with ecclesiastical approval” statement in their first few pages.

I was curious about this, and looked inside several of the Ignatius Bible Study series books at a store a few days ago. Those books had a completely different type of Imprimatur citation. In the end, they stated that the 2nd edition Imprimatur fell under the original Imprimaturs from 1966.

At any rate, I guess the 2nd edition is at least more “official” than what Oxford did in their compact versions.
 
40.png
mmortal03:
To me, it sounds like a convenient excuse by them, and I would argue that they discovered this AFTER the Compact Editions came out, AFTER they then received emails from people like us.
Click to expand...
I’m afraid that is rather common practice for many printing companies today: they print the first edition before all errors have been eliminated and rely on the buyers of the first editions to let them know where the rest of the errors are!
40.png
mmortal03:
The compact editions didn’t have ANY of the 1971 revisions removed like Kraus is saying that they tried to do.
Click to expand...
Are you sure? This what you listed on your page:
**The only 1971 revisions that the Oxford/Scepter does not include are: **
1.) the ones that differed from the uniquely Catholic revisions from 1965.
2.) 1 Cor 6.9 was left as “homosexuals” instead of the 1971 “sexual perverts”
3.) 1 Th 4.3 was left as “immorality” instead of the 1971 “unchastity”
4.) Hebrews 13.13 was left as “bearing abuse for him” instead of the 1971 “and bear the abuse he endured”
5.) James 2.7 was left as “by which you are called?” instead of the 1971 “which was invoked over you?”
Click to expand...
Maria
 
40.png
rocketrob:
Wow! This is unbelievable. I guess those original compact versions are going to become collectors’ items!
Click to expand...
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
 
rocketrob said:
I wonder how “genuine” or “official” Ignatius’ second edition actually is…they claim it as an “exclusive” offering. And, I’m not sure what is meant by the “with ecclesiastical approval” statement in their first few pages.

I was curious about this, and looked inside several of the Ignatius Bible Study series books at a store a few days ago. Those books had a completely different type of Imprimatur citation. In the end, they stated that the 2nd edition Imprimatur fell under the original Imprimaturs from 1966.

At any rate, I guess the 2nd edition is at least more “official” than what Oxford did in their compact versions.
Click to expand...
Yep, from what we have been told, Ignatius obtained permission such that their revisions would basically still be covered by the Imprimatur. I am not sure, however, how they obtained copyright permission. It may be that Ignatius owns the copyright to the Catholic Edition of the RSV now, but I can’t remember for sure.

One way of looking at all this from that angle is that if you lump all of their archaic language revisions together with the amount of actual translational revisions that they included, in an overall count of textual alteration that occurred for the Second Edition, the AMOUNT of individual differences might be roughly similar to the amount of differences between the original RSV:CE and the Oxford Compact editions.

The contrast here, and my guess, is that Oxford didn’t have permission to apply the 1971 revisions to it, unlike Ignatius, who had permission to apply their changes. Also, the fact that the 1971 revisions hold a lot more in translational difference than what the Second Edition incurred might have swayed any received permission, if Oxford even tried to obtain it.
 
40.png
rocketrob:
I wonder how “genuine” or “official” Ignatius’ second edition actually is…they claim it as an “exclusive” offering. And, I’m not sure what is meant by the “with ecclesiastical approval” statement in their first few pages.
Click to expand...
I share your concern. What I meant by genuine was that the Ignatius second edition does not appear to violate copyright laws (as the Oxford editions, however unintentionally, do) although it does seem that Ignatius took some liberties with their claim of ecclesiastical approval.
40.png
mmortal03:
The contrast here, and my guess, is that Oxford didn’t have permission to apply the 1971 revisions to it, unlike Ignatius, who had permission to apply their changes.
Click to expand...
Yes, I think that’s right. Ignatius implied in one of their emails listed here that they had been granted permission to reset the type and make editorial changes.

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.

Maria
 
MTD said:
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
Click to expand...
Whether or not the Imprimatur would stand with the differing compacts is really beside the point, because my guess is that it would; the 1971 revisions were actually very congruent with Catholicism.
The compact editions didn’t have ANY of the 1971 revisions removed like Kraus is saying that they tried to do.
Click to expand...
Are you sure? This what you listed on your page:The only 1971 revisions that the Oxford/Scepter does not include are:
1.) the ones that differed from the uniquely Catholic revisions from 1965.
2.) 1 Cor 6.9 was left as “homosexuals” instead of the 1971 “sexual perverts”
3.) 1 Th 4.3 was left as “immorality” instead of the 1971 “unchastity”
4.) Hebrews 13.13 was left as “bearing abuse for him” instead of the 1971 “and bear the abuse he endured”
5.) James 2.7 was left as “by which you are called?” instead of the 1971 “which was invoked over you?”
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Right, I could have worded that better and said “virtually none were changed”. The fact that only 3 full verse revisions and 1 partial verse revision were “removed” from the over 150 uniquely 1971 revisions that they could have removed lends me to believe what I stated above. I’m not saying it was originally done with the compacts with a full awareness by Oxford Press or any purposeful disregard for the law by them, per say, but the perceived events you describe do lend itself to my theory of what actually happened. Let me give you a number by number “rebuttal”:

1.) This goes without question that these would be included, as they make up what is “Catholic” about the RSV:Catholic Edition.

2.) & 3.) It can be argued that these were left in because they better match the Church’s teaching.

4.) & 5.) These are so minor of differences, however, we would have to look at the original languages, as I don’t know the significance.

For them to argue that the only differences that they “caught” in the printing of the compacts was 2-5 would be quite specious, and “convenient” for them.
 
40.png
mmortal03:
Whether or not the Imprimatur would stand with the differing compacts is really beside the point,
Click to expand...
Sorry to be so dense, but I don’t get it. Beside what point?
40.png
mmortal03:
because my guess is that it would; the 1971 revisions were actually very congruent with Catholicism.
Click to expand...
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.

Maria
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top