RSV-CE Needs Corrections

[Epistemes]

There are some pretty substantial flaws in the RSV-CE translation too, regardless of what edition you have.

I won’t deny that there are, but I, personally, find these flaws to be forgivable, as the preceding discussion lays out concerning Luke 1:34.

One of the flaw in DR which has always irked me is 2 Samuel 21:19

And there was a third battle in Gob against the Philistines, in which Adeodatus the son of the Forrest an embroiderer of Bethlehem slew Goliath the Gethite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam.

Compare this translation with any other translation, including the original Hebrew, and you’ll see a huge discrepancy. This is an important passage, as well, since it parallels the story of David and Goliath.

 

[MTD]

Is there a typo in that article?

Shouldn’t it be unfaithfulness?

Yes, it should be unfaithfulness. The typo is mine, not the article’s. My apologies.

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.

We were not discussing whether Joseph and Mary had conjugal relations; we already know they didn’t (it’s Church teaching). We were discussing whether or not a Jewish couple between the two stages of marriage could have relations. Technically they could. Please see my last post.

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.

Upon betrothal, the Jews considered the couple husband and wife. That translation, “I have no husband,” is completely wrong in every way. 1) It would have been a lie for Mary to say that since the Jews considered them already husband and wife (see my post above, and also Matt.1:24). 2) As mmortal03 pointed out, it would have been a stupid response to make in that situation. 3) It is not accurate to the Greek, which is translated literally as “I do not know man.”

If they really wanted to make the translation correspond to our modern way of speaking, they would have translated it “I have no relations with a man.” But they had an agenda. I believe they wanted to exclude the possibility of Mary’s intention of remaining virgin.

Maria

 

[MTD]

I won’t deny that there are, but I, personally, find these flaws to be forgivable, as the preceding discussion lays out concerning Luke 1:34.

To me, the RSV-CE translation of Luke 1:34 is unforgivable.

One of the flaw in DR which has always irked me is 2 Samuel 21:19

And there was a third battle in Gob against the Philistines, in which Adeodatus the son of the Forrest an embroiderer of Bethlehem slew Goliath the Gethite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam.

Compare this translation with any other translation, including the original Hebrew, and you’ll see a huge discrepancy. This is an important passage, as well, since it parallels the story of David and Goliath.

I find the RSV-CE translation of Gen. 22:18, “and by your descendants shall all the nations of the earth bless themselves,” just as annoying as you find the D-R translation of 2 Sam. 21:19. And I dare say that Gen. 22:18 is even more important than 2 Sam. 21:19 since it refers directly to Christ and the Church.

At least the D-R mis-translation of 2 Sam. 21:19 was not due to an agenda as the RSV-CE translation of Luke 1:34 is.

Maria

 

[Epistemes]

No doubt, one would think that the science of translation would happen without any theological nuances by the translators themselves; such is not forgivable, no. But each version has its’ particular pros and cons. Any translation must make compromises, which is unfortunate since Liturgiam Authenticam does not call for the kind of compromises which are just evident errors on the part of the translator, agenda or not. I’m no pro at Latin, but 2 Samuel 21:19 in the original Vulgate does read

19 Tertium quoque fuit bellum in Gob contra Philisthæos, in quo percussit Adeodatus filius Saltus polymitarius Bethlehemites Goliath Gethæum, cujus hastile hastæ erat quasi liciatorium texentium.

The Nova Vulgata has made the necessary corrections:

19 Et fuit iterum bellum in Gob contra Philisthaeos, in quo percussit Elchanan filius Iair Bethlehemites Goliath Getthaeum, cuius hastile hastae erat quasi liciatorium texentium.

You’ll notice why the discrepancies - or, at least, I will , “tertium” got confused for “iterum” allowing for the word “third” to be translated in English, and yet I’m not quite sure why Jerome would have included the word “polymitarius” (embroiderer) in the text. All around, the Nova Vulgata is in accordance with the original Hebrew.

Jerome’s errors are still errors even if he had no agenda, especially in a trivial case such as this, and so it causes me to wonder what more serious mistakes I’m to find in the Vulgate/DR which cannot be reconciled to the original languages.

While I will concede that not all mistakes in RSV-CE are forgivable, most of them are reconcilable.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

What is more forgivable–the errors of Jerome which sprang from 400 years of early Catholicism or the errors of the RSV-CE which sprang from 400 years of Protestantantism?

 

[mmortal03]

At least the D-R mis-translation of 2 Sam. 21:19 was not due to an agenda as the RSV-CE translation of Luke 1:34 is.

Maria

I personally agree with you Maria, however, we might say that the DR was translated with an “agenda”; though, a Catholic one! However, you and I would agree that that “agenda” is probably the right one!

This being said, I think that translations should avoid, as much as possible, being colored by a particular denominational viewpoint, regardless of which denomination might be professing the clearest ultimate truth. I think we should try as much as possible to just translate the words that are there. However, sometimes this can be difficult, and Catholics might argue that there could be some uniquely Catholic beliefs and perceptions that might guide translating certain nuances of scriptures more fully and beautifully, right?

However, shouldn’t the scripture itself, being itself Catholic, be able to express its meaning enough to obtain a beautiful rendering in a vernacular language, or do we need to apply our Catholic perceptions to how we translate the text? This is a hard one to decide for me.

We do know that the Vulgate has been deemed juridically accurate by the Catholic Church, even though it may not be critically innerrant, and the Douay Rheims is a word for word translation of it into English, so this needs to be accounted for here.

I think by saying there is an “agenda”, we must make sure that we clarify whether or not something is intentional. The Protestants who translated the RSV might have been unintentionally bending the scripture due to their Protestant indoctrination, in the same way that the Douay Rheims is Catholic-influenced. It is hard to say what is intentional and what is not sometimes (but sometimes it is clear as day!).

Is it possible to make a beautiful, accurate translation, and not apply a particular denomination’s perception, or its standpoint, as a filter for what the truth of the text is actually meaning to say, for the vernacular wording?

 

[MTD]

Jerome’s errors are still errors even if he had no agenda, especially in a trivial case such as this, and so it causes me to wonder what more serious mistakes I’m to find in the Vulgate/DR which cannot be reconciled to the original languages.

Well, I can’t help wondering the same thing about the RSV-CE. Luke 1:34 doesn’t speak much for its reliability.

What is more forgivable–the errors of Jerome which sprang from 400 years of early Catholicism or the errors of the RSV-CE which sprang from 400 years of Protestantantism?

That’s actually quite beside the point as it depends on what the errors are. Objectively, whether or not the translators had an agenda (I probably shouldn’t have made that comment about agenda because it’s only leading this discussion off track), the RSV-CE translation of Luke 1:34 is inexcusable.

The whole point of my bringing up this topic is that as the D-R has its errors, so does the RSV-CE. The RSV-CE cannot really be said to be more reliable than the D-R. And I’m not denying the flaws of the D-R. I’m just saying that the RSV-CE really is no better.

Maria

 

[MTD]

Is it possible to make a beautiful, accurate translation, and not apply a particular denomination’s perception, or its standpoint, as a filter for what the truth of the text is actually meaning to say, for the vernacular wording?

I do not think this is possible for the reason that no one language can perfectly translate into another. This obviously creates a problem for translators when one word or phrase can be translated more than one way. There has to be a guide for translating in these instances. I believe that that guide is Sacred Tradition. And since only the Catholic Church possesses the fulness of Divine Revelation through Scripture and Tradition, it follows that Scripture cannot be translated in accord with its true meaning without a Catholic understanding. At least that’s my line of reasoning.

Maria

 

[Jerry-Jet]

MTD: I’m not saying that the Douay Rheims is flawless–I will say that its errors are less egregious than the ones in the RSV-CE.

I really do believe that the Douay Rheims does not err in faith or morals. I don’t think the same can be said about the RSV-CE.

The RSV-CE does get some things right better than the Douay and it has less errors compared to the RSV–the polishing up helps–it just need much more polishing.

Maybe one of these years when the 3d edition comes out it will be close to right!

 

[seremina]

We were not discussing whether Joseph and Mary had conjugal relations; we already know they didn’t (it’s Church teaching). We were discussing whether or not a Jewish couple between the two stages of marriage could have relations. Technically they could. Please see my last post.

Upon betrothal, the Jews considered the couple husband and wife. That translation, “I have no husband,” is completely wrong in every way. 1) It would have been a lie for Mary to say that since the Jews considered them already husband and wife (see my post above, and also Matt.1:24). 2) As mmortal03 pointed out, it would have been a stupid response to make in that situation. 3) It is not accurate to the Greek, which is translated literally as “I do not know man.”

If they really wanted to make the translation correspond to our modern way of speaking, they would have translated it “I have no relations with a man.” But they had an agenda. I believe they wanted to exclude the possibility of Mary’s intention of remaining virgin.

Maria

I already knew it was a Church teaching. I was trying to explain the teaching, and the fact that I felt the only honest response would’ve been “I am a virgin”. Your thought on “I have no relations with a man” also works, so I thank you for that idea.

As for everyone else, I was just trying to help and explain things. I feel unwanted here. I’ll just go to another thread. God bless.

 

[Epistemes]

I really do believe that the Douay Rheims does not err in faith or morals. I don’t think the same can be said about the RSV-CE.

This is probably true. It definitely seems that the significant Catholic passages are retained, and I would definitely pick up the DR before the NAB; however, it really is quite hard for me to overlook some of Jerome’s alterations, which is all I’m trying to say (and there’s another thread floating around here about the alteration of Acts 1:18 in the DR) - not suggesting of course that the RSV-CE doesn’t have its own. The infamous Isaiah 7:14 is merely one such example.

The whole point of my bringing up this topic is that as the D-R has its errors, so does the RSV-CE. The RSV-CE cannot really be said to be more reliable than the D-R. And I’m not denying the flaws of the D-R. I’m just saying that the RSV-CE really is no better.

I can agree with this. Which makes me just a bit disappointed that there’s not one translation, RSV-CE or otherwise, that can be completely trusted for all that we wish it to be relied on for. The question remains: which translation’s mistakes are we willing to tolerate?

That ought to be a poll question.

 

[mmortal03]

This is probably true. It definitely seems that the significant Catholic passages are retained, and I would definitely pick up the DR before the NAB; however, it really is quite hard for me to overlook some of Jerome’s alterations, which is all I’m trying to say (and there’s another thread floating around here about the alteration of Acts 1:18 in the DR) - not suggesting of course that the RSV-CE doesn’t have its own. The infamous Isaiah 7:14 is merely one such example.

We should start a “Douay Rheims Needs Corrections” thread.

 

[MTD]

I feel unwanted here. I’ll just go to another thread. God bless.

I apologize for making you feel unwanted. Sometimes I forget to be courteous when countering another poster’s argument/statement. I didn’t mean to beat up the rabbit.

Maria

 

[Jerry-Jet]

I’d like to see a Douay Rheims needs corrections thread–but more thasn that I’d like to see someone improve the Douay Rheims.

I don’t think there would have to be a whole lot of changing and what you would end up with would really be great.

I think some people are really afraid of that–mostly people who support other versions!

mmortal03: how exstensive do you think the changes to the Douay Rheims would have too be to come out with a really accurate and readable bible?

 

[Epistemes]

Any changes to the DR would be similar to changing the Vulgate…

…so if we’re going to take that step, we might as well hope for a translation from the Nova Vulgata.

 

[Epistemes]

I was just reviewing this thread one final time:

Is it being said, then, that the Oxford-Scepter RSV-CE Reader’s Editions are, in fact, a regression in translation from the Compact Version?

 

[mmortal03]

mmortal03: how exstensive do you think the changes to the Douay Rheims would have too be to come out with a really accurate and readable bible?

I’d like to have a list myself of where the Clementine Vulgate/Douay Rheims doesn’t match up to what is now extant and excepted.

I was just reviewing this thread one final time:

Is it being said, then, that the Oxford-Scepter RSV-CE Reader’s Editions are, in fact, a regression in translation from the Compact Version?

Yes. It is the same as the original RSV:CE, besides the 4 differing verses.

 

[Cranch]

I’d like to have a list myself of where the Clementine Vulgate/Douay Rheims doesn’t match up to what is now extant and excepted.

Did you mean to write extant and accepted? Either way could you clarify what you’d like to see compared? Is it Vul/DR to Nova Vulgata or to original language texts?

 

[rocketrob]

…This obviously creates a problem for translators when one word or phrase can be translated more than one way. There has to be a guide for translating in these instances. I believe that that guide is Sacred Tradition. And since only the Catholic Church possesses the fulness of Divine Revelation through Scripture and Tradition, it follows that Scripture cannot be translated in accord with its true meaning without a Catholic understanding. At least that’s my line of reasoning.

Maria

As a former protestant, I’d like to say a big AMEN! This comment points out a major flaw in the viewpoint that “scripture interprets itself.” It also implies the need for submission to traceable, established authority…something that is also lacking in many faith traditions.

This thread is full of great discussion topics…many of them could be their own full threads!

 

[Manfred]

Good and Gentle People,

Despite the fact the the RSV-CE may need some fixin’, it is indeed still a WHOLE lot better than the NRSV, as you can all see from the article in this month’s Adoremus Bulletin

(adoremus.org/0207Translations.html)).

Of course, nothing in this article should be news to any of us who are aware of the pitfalls of “gender-neutralizing” the Scriptures.

However, I do want to opine here that I am not at all optimistic about the editing of the NRSV lectionary in one of the English-speaking countries where this is being considered for use. This “editing” is being carried out to render the NRSV more suitable for lectionary use, and, hey, maybe even conform to the guidelines of “Liturgiam Authenticam”. There’s too much inclusive language and loss of “traditional” wording therein for this to succeed. At best, all I expect is an alter-RNAB like we have in the US.

So, I’m going to go out on a limb here and say, “Don’t hold your breath”.

Manfred