RSV-CE Needs Corrections

  • Thread starter Thread starter Manfred
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I own several different Bibles, including the NAB, NJB, Ignatius RSV-CE 2ed., the Oxford-Scepter RSV-CE Compact, and the Douay-Challoner.

To be honest with all of you, I simply prefer the text of the Oxford-Scepter Compact more than any other text when it comes to personal study and reflection, recent Imprimatur or not (I’m sorry to say). I find the language warming, mostly exact, and unobtrusive - unlike the 18th Century language of the Douay-Challoner, which, while a good Bible, is often difficult to understand.

I use the NAB for apologetics purposes since it is the Bible used for lectionary.
 
Here’s the latest on the subject of the approval of the RSV-2CE:

I sent a question to the canon law forum at EWTN and got this reply. 👍 Of course, we expect nothing less from Ignatius. 😉

Maria
 
MTD said:
Well, we all know the inspiration of the Holy Spirit is guaranteed to apply only to the original text of the inspired writers. However, I would think that the more literal the translation, the more likely it will be the true Word of God. Dynamic translations are really only man’s interpretation of the Word of God. At least that’s the way I see it.

Your aim is to read the Word of God, right? Then why settle for something less, be it for study or devotion?

Maria
Click to expand...
Well said, Maria.

One of the desires of Liturgiam Authenticam is to have a single vernacular translation of the Scriptures that can be used in the Liturgy as well as for private or devotional reading. In my view, the only English version today that adheres to LA is the Douay-Rheims, but I’m sure this will never fly, since the latter is not a direct translation from the original languages.
 
No matter how hard I hunt I find myself always coming back to the Douay Rheims.

Manfred: when do you think there will be an English translation of the bible that is better than the Douay Rheims?
 
Jerry-Jet said:
No matter how hard I hunt I find myself always coming back to the Douay Rheims.

Manfred: when do you think there will be an English translation of the bible that is better than the Douay Rheims?
Click to expand...
Jerry-Jet,

I probably shouldn’t do this to either of us, but we are in search of the truth, so I’m going to point you to yet another article, a pretty good one, in fact, and postpone answering your question.

As for an RSV-3CE: well, let’s see - it took from 1966 to 2006 to go from the FIRST CE to the 2CE, so, I’ll let you do the math for the 3CE. 😃

lumengentleman.com/content.asp?id=82

Manfred
 
I understand all the frustration. Personally, I want to try something daring. I want to make an English Catholic Bible that includes a commentary. Both this Bible and commentary will be in plain, simple English and larger print. My only challenge is this…

Which Bible and Commentary do I use as references so I can be accurate while simplifying? I imagine this project will take me years to do, but it’ll be worth it and I’d never publish it until it had full approval.
 
Manfred said:
In my view, the only English version today that adheres to LA is the Douay-Rheims, but I’m sure this will never fly, since the latter is not a direct translation from the original languages.
Click to expand...
As much as I am beginning to appreciate the value of the Douay-Rheims translation, I can’t help but trust the Oxford-Scepter Compact RSV-CE which I purchased a couple years ago for the very reason that you specify above: adherence to the original languages. The Imprimatur may be out of date, Oxford-Scepter may be just a tad sketchy on the version details, but when it comes down to a matter of adhering to the original Greek (for the NT), I am quite pleased by it. Though, I would love nothing more than to trust the DR - but after noticing some pretty substantial flaws in its translation, it’s hard to become completely reliant on it.
 
Epistemes said:
Though, I would love nothing more than to trust the DR - but after noticing some pretty substantial flaws in its translation, it’s hard to become completely reliant on it.
Click to expand...
There are some pretty substantial flaws in the RSV-CE translation too, regardless of what edition you have. Take a look at Luke 1:34:

“And Mary said to the angel, ‘How can (or shall) this be, since I have no husband?’”

In every instance I’ve looked at (for example, Gen. 4:1 and Matt. 1:25), the term knowing is left alone, except in Luke 1:34. Why didn’t they leave it alone in Luke 1:34? Is it because the translators wanted to exclude the possibility of Mary’s perpetual virginity? If you think about it, Mary’s response that she did not know man could mean one of two things: first, that she understood the conception to take place immediately, but she was not to be living with Joseph for several months; or second, that she intended to remain a virgin. There is no way of knowing for sure which she had in mind when she made that response. So why didn’t the translators leave that term untouched as they did in all the other instances?

Not only that, but it would have been a lie for Mary to say she had no husband. Technically the couple were married at betrothal; they could have relations. Besides, why would Joseph be thinking of divorcing Mary if he were not truly married to her in the first place?

Maria
 
It does sound like they inserted the wrong term, but the word “fiance” did not exist at that time; so they used husband. I would probably say “no relations” instead.

You have to keep in mind that Jewish marriages had two stages to it. The betrothal, in which Mary would’ve lived with Joseph with total celibacy. When Gabriel made the announcement [annunciation], Mary was referring to her vow to God and the lack of relations.

It was normal practise for Jewish virgins to vow their lives to God and live with a man as their guardian. This way, the woman would be protected from relations with any man, and not be accused of being a prostitute and never be endangered. So in this way, it was kinda similar to being a nun.

The 2nd stage was for Mary and Joseph to officially marry. Joseph was just going to “divorce her quietly” by kindly breaking up the betrothal and sending her back to her father. Had he raised a big stink because of her pregnancy, she’d be stoned to death. However, God let him know that she wasn’t pregnant by any man, but by the Holy Spirit, so he was to marry her without prejudice. Joseph obeyed. Thus, now, Mary and Joseph were married and soon Jesus would be born. After that birth, Joseph still respected Mary’s vow to God, so still no relations were taking place. The marriage was more for the sake of Jesus’ existence to protect Mary.

I hope this helps you understand?
 
seremina said:
It does sound like they inserted the wrong term, but the word “fiance” did not exist at that time; so they used husband. I would probably say “no relations” instead.

You have to keep in mind that Jewish marriages had two stages to it. The betrothal, in which Mary would’ve lived with Joseph with total celibacy. When Gabriel made the announcement [annunciation], Mary was referring to her vow to God and the lack of relations.

It was normal practise for Jewish virgins to vow their lives to God and live with a man as their guardian. This way, the woman would be protected from relations with any man, and not be accused of being a prostitute and never be endangered. So in this way, it was kinda similar to being a nun.

The 2nd stage was for Mary and Joseph to officially marry. Joseph was just going to “divorce her quietly” by kindly breaking up the betrothal and sending her back to her father. Had he raised a big stink because of her pregnancy, she’d be stoned to death. However, God let him know that she wasn’t pregnant by any man, but by the Holy Spirit, so he was to marry her without prejudice. Joseph obeyed. Thus, now, Mary and Joseph were married and soon Jesus would be born. After that birth, Joseph still respected Mary’s vow to God, so still no relations were taking place. The marriage was more for the sake of Jesus’ existence to protect Mary.

I hope this helps you understand?
Click to expand...
Maybe I am not following your logic, but I am interpreting you to not be following his. The whole point of the matter is that whether or not it said “since I have no husband” or “since I have no fiance” (which would actually make even LESS sense because you aren’t allowed to have sex with your fiance) this statement as translated in the RSV cannot be interpreted to come from anyone except the most naively scripted in their response, or a liar trying to avoid lying about their guilt.

To say that you have no husband does NOT remove the possibility that you could have had illegal sexual relations with another person. You might be understanding it to IMPLY this, but it wouldn’t be very logical for Mary say something like that in the very situation that she would assume to be being otherwise accused of.

To put it more bluntly, if she really hadn’t had sex illegally, she would straight up come out and say it, and not come across to be beating around the bush by stating the fact that she isn’t married.

I know that sometimes little children will mess up this kind of logic in their minds, and they will, when they are confessing their actual innocence, still restate the rule instead of deny that they committed the illegal action. However, usually they are NOT innocent, and are just trying to avoid lying when they do this. Adults will do this too, but usually ONLY when they are guilty.

I don’t think Mary, as a young adult, and being innocent, would make this mistake at all.
 
MTD said:
“And Mary said to the angel, ‘How can (or shall) this be, since I have no husband?’”

In every instance I’ve looked at (for example, Gen. 4:1 and Matt. 1:25), the term knowing is left alone, except in Luke 1:34. Why didn’t they leave it alone in Luke 1:34? Is it because the translators wanted to exclude the possibility of Mary’s perpetual virginity? If you think about it, Mary’s response that she did not know man could mean one of two things: first, that she understood the conception to take place immediately, but she was not to be living with Joseph for several months; or second, that she intended to remain a virgin. There is no way of knowing for sure which she had in mind when she made that response. So why didn’t the translators leave that term untouched as they did in all the other instances?

Not only that, but it would have been a lie for Mary to say she had no husband. Technically the couple were married at betrothal; they could have relations. Besides, why would Joseph be thinking of divorcing Mary if he were not truly married to her in the first place?

Maria
Click to expand...
The Greek andra (base aner) can be used for both the generic “man” (contrasted with woman) or husband, specifically. However, the Greek also uses the verb ginwskw (know), preceded by “ou” (not, no). A suitable translation would therefore be, lit. “I know no husband” or “I know no man”. I would have liked to see the “know” remain in there, but I cannot fault the translators for the use of “husband” here.
 
Without incurring the wrath of those who do not like the Jerusalem Bible 😉 I recently aquired the 1966 regular edition with the extensive notes and during a poustinia [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poustinia]](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poustinia]) I read through the gospel of Matthew is a single, slow, sitting and among the many passages I enjoyed is this:

Mary said to the angel, ‘But how can this come about, since I am a virgin?’

The note states: Lit. ‘since I do not know a man’…

Works for me.

P.S. The JB is giving my new RSV-CE by Ignatius a run for the money.
 
owenswain said:
Without incurring the wrath of those who do not like the Jerusalem Bible 😉 I recently aquired the 1966 regular edition with the extensive notes and during a poustinia [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poustinia]](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poustinia]) I read through the gospel of Matthew is a single, slow, sitting and among the many passages I enjoyed is this:

Mary said to the angel, ‘But how can this come about, since I am a virgin?’

The note states: Lit. ‘since I do not know a man’…

Works for me.

P.S. The JB is giving my new RSV-CE by Ignatius a run for the money.
Click to expand...
It is good to have both the RSV-CE and JB translations. I have both myself. I wouldn’t translate “I am a virgin”, but the JB is making no pretenses about its being a dynamic translation, so it can pass here. I like the JB myself and frequently refer to its notes, which are nowhere as bad as those of the NAB.
 
@seremina, I did partially misinterpret what you were saying about the word ‘fiance’ and the two stages of the Jewish wedding (you were replying to the post directly prior to yours, and there was some context that I missed initially), however, my point still stands that even if he wasn’t her husband but her ‘fiance’, they still wouldn’t have been able to have sexual relations after the first stage, or would they?
 
seremina said:
It does sound like they inserted the wrong term, but the word “fiance” did not exist at that time; so they used husband. I would probably say “no relations” instead.

You have to keep in mind that Jewish marriages had two stages to it. The betrothal, in which Mary would’ve lived with Joseph with total celibacy. When Gabriel made the announcement [annunciation], Mary was referring to her vow to God and the lack of relations.
Click to expand...
I quote from an out-of-print commentary from 1942 (A Commentary on the New Testament by the Catholic Biblical Association):

Betrothed: much more than our “engaged” but less than “married.” The Jewish marriage ceremony consisted of two parts: the first was the sealing of the marriage contract whereby the bridegroom gave a certain sum of money, “the purchase price,” to the father of the bride, and the bride received her dowry, usually equal to “the purchase price,” from her father; the second ceremony, separated by several months (usually a year) from the first, was the solemn, formal induction of the bride into the bridegroom’s house, the blessing of fruitfulness invoked upon the consummation of their union, and the joyful wedding feast. Between the two ceremonies the bride was said to be betrothed. But since the first ceremony effected a valid, though unconsummated, marriage, even before the second ceremony the bride and bridegoroom were spoken of as husband and wife (19 f), and any faithfulness on the part of the bride during this period was considered adultery and punishable with death.

Maria
 
MTD said:
I quote from an out-of-print commentary from 1942 (A Commentary on the New Testament by the Catholic Biblical Association):

Betrothed: much more than our “engaged” but less than “married.” The Jewish marriage ceremony consisted of two parts: the first was the sealing of the marriage contract whereby the bridegroom gave a certain sum of money, “the purchase price,” to the father of the bride, and the bride received her dowry, usually equal to “the purchase price,” from her father; the second ceremony, separated by several months (usually a year) from the first, was the solemn, formal induction of the bride into the bridegroom’s house, the blessing of fruitfulness invoked upon the consummation of their union, and the joyful wedding feast. Between the two ceremonies the bride was said to be betrothed. But since the first ceremony effected a valid, though unconsummated, marriage, even before the second ceremony the bride and bridegoroom were spoken of as husband and wife (19 f), and any faithfulness on the part of the bride during this period was considered adultery and punishable with death.

Maria
Click to expand...
Maria,

The above makes the RSV-CE rendering of Luke 1:34 even more lame, since, technically, during her betrothal, Mary did have a husband. As for the “can” vs “shall” controversy: “can” implies doubt, whereas “shall” denotes belief in, and acceptance of, the angel’s words, coupled with a (normal) curiosity as to the manner.
 
mmortal03 said:
@seremina, I did partially misinterpret what you were saying about the word ‘fiance’ and the two stages of the Jewish wedding (you were replying to the post directly prior to yours, and there was some context that I missed initially), however, my point still stands that even if he wasn’t her husband but her ‘fiance’, they still wouldn’t have been able to have sexual relations after the first stage, or would they?
Click to expand...
Yes, they could have relations after the first stage and before the second. I can’t recall where I learned this, but there is a reference to it here with these words under “Mary’s pregnancy becomes known to Joseph”:

After her return from Elizabeth, Mary “was found with child, of the Holy Ghost” (Matthew 1:18). As among the Jews, betrothal was a real marriage, the use of marriage after the time of espousals presented nothing unusual among them. Hence Mary’s pregnancy could not astonish anyone except St. Joseph.
40.png
Manfred:
Maria,

The above makes the RSV-CE rendering of Luke 1:34 even more lame, since, technically, during her betrothal, Mary did have a husband. As for the “can” vs “shall” controversy: “can” implies doubt, whereas “shall” denotes belief in, and acceptance of, the angel’s words, coupled with a (normal) curiosity as to the manner.
Click to expand...
True. But I chose not to address that part since I brought up the subject of Luke 1:34 in response to Epistemes’s post about the Oxford RSV-CE, which has shall instead of can.

Maria
 
Is there a typo in that article?
But since the first ceremony effected a valid, though unconsummated, marriage, even before the second ceremony the bride and bridegoroom were spoken of as husband and wife (19 f), and any faithfulness on the part of the bride during this period was considered adultery and punishable with death.
Click to expand...
Shouldn’t it be unfaithfulness?
 
mmortal03 said:
@seremina, I did partially misinterpret what you were saying about the word ‘fiance’ and the two stages of the Jewish wedding (you were replying to the post directly prior to yours, and there was some context that I missed initially), however, my point still stands that even if he wasn’t her husband but her ‘fiance’, they still wouldn’t have been able to have sexual relations after the first stage, or would they?
Click to expand...
No, absolutely not. There wasn’t sexual relations before, nor during, nor after, the two-stage process. I know I have trouble being clear with what I talk about, but I thought it would help everybody with the translation if they understood Mary and Joseph’s role in Jewish tradition.

You also have to keep in mind the Jewish tradition that women followed if they didn’t want a traditional marriage but wanted to make a vow to God; this would entail a marriage for this purpose, not for traditional purposes.

As someone said here, the JB interprets Mary’s speaking of her vow not as “I know no man” nor “I have no husband”, but as “I am a virgin”. To me, this is far more accurate. I love the fact that Gabriel was so kind to her and tried to make sure she had no reason to be scared. Its pretty special to be named the Mother of our Lord.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top