C
Cranch
Guest
Manfred - Corrected the link above (end parenthesis was attached to url causing error).
- Status
J
Jerry-Jet
Guest
I wish someone one start a “RSV-CE–how remaining Protestant translations negate Catholic Doctrine” thread.
There are Catholics who though they applaud the polishing of the Protestant RSV in the Catholic editions do not believe that it is the greatest thing since sliced bread.
There are Catholics who though they applaud the polishing of the Protestant RSV in the Catholic editions do not believe that it is the greatest thing since sliced bread.
M
Manfred
Guest
Thanks, Cranch; I guess I was too eager to post the URL that I didn’t check to see if the parentheses were attached to it.
M
Manfred
Guest
From Liturgiam Authenticam:
"36. In order that the faithful may be able to commit to memory at least the more important texts of the Sacred Scriptures and be formed by them even in their private prayer, it is of the greatest importance that the translation of the Sacred Scriptures intended for liturgical use be characterized by a certain uniformity and stability, such that in every territory there should exist only one approved translation, which will be employed in all parts of the various liturgical books. This stability is especially to be desired in the translation of the Sacred Books of more frequent use, such as the Psalter, which is the fundamental prayer book of the Christian people.31
“The Conferences of Bishops are strongly encouraged to provide for the commissioning and publication in their territories of an integral translation of the Sacred Scriptures intended for the private study and reading of the faithful, which corresponds in every part to the text that is used in the Sacred Liturgy.”
Now, let me see if I’ve got this straight: even if that English group working on a new Lectionary based on the NRSV is successful in implementing the guidelines from Liturgiam Authenticam and their work is approved by the Holy See for the respective jurisdictions, then a complete edition of the Scriptures need also be prepared - whether by this same group or by one closely allied with it - for private study and reading. But they can’t call it the NRSV Catholic Edition, for there is already one with that name (though it probably doesn’t deserve that designation!). And, since it would differ immensely from the original NRSV, it would virtually amount to a new translation.
So, my question is: why not just start by commisssioning a new translation of the Catholic bible from the original languages (we would gladly “authorize” them to use many of our helpful suggestions from this thread now, wouldn’t we?), and THEN cull from THAT a new Lectionary?
Manfred
"36. In order that the faithful may be able to commit to memory at least the more important texts of the Sacred Scriptures and be formed by them even in their private prayer, it is of the greatest importance that the translation of the Sacred Scriptures intended for liturgical use be characterized by a certain uniformity and stability, such that in every territory there should exist only one approved translation, which will be employed in all parts of the various liturgical books. This stability is especially to be desired in the translation of the Sacred Books of more frequent use, such as the Psalter, which is the fundamental prayer book of the Christian people.31
“The Conferences of Bishops are strongly encouraged to provide for the commissioning and publication in their territories of an integral translation of the Sacred Scriptures intended for the private study and reading of the faithful, which corresponds in every part to the text that is used in the Sacred Liturgy.”
Now, let me see if I’ve got this straight: even if that English group working on a new Lectionary based on the NRSV is successful in implementing the guidelines from Liturgiam Authenticam and their work is approved by the Holy See for the respective jurisdictions, then a complete edition of the Scriptures need also be prepared - whether by this same group or by one closely allied with it - for private study and reading. But they can’t call it the NRSV Catholic Edition, for there is already one with that name (though it probably doesn’t deserve that designation!). And, since it would differ immensely from the original NRSV, it would virtually amount to a new translation.
So, my question is: why not just start by commisssioning a new translation of the Catholic bible from the original languages (we would gladly “authorize” them to use many of our helpful suggestions from this thread now, wouldn’t we?), and THEN cull from THAT a new Lectionary?
Manfred
C
Cranch
Guest
Isn’t that how we got into this mess in the first place?
St. Jerome pray for us!
J
Jerry-Jet
Guest
I totally agree–get the bible right first and if the Holy See says it is right then take the lectionary out of it.
It seems as if the USCCB is most concerned with maintaining as much of the NAB as possible in the liturgy.
What they should be more concerned with is getting the scriptures right first–then it would an easy task to FIX the liturgy.
I think the reason they don’t approach it this way is that they KNOW that the NAB doesn’t depart from the Latin Vulgate only when there are clear reasons for it to differ from the Latin Vulgate because the earliest original texts and biblical scholarship say it should–
the NAB text is much freer and runs away from the Latin Vulgate for reasons that can’t be justified if one was trying to come up with the most accurate translation of the Bible.
On the other hand by revising the lectionary just to pass muster with the Holy See they are not required to make that language as ACCURATE as they would if they were truely trying to produce an accurate Bible.
There can be minor variations from the Latin Vulgate tradition for what is the word they LOVE to use --Pastoral reasons.
this way they keep as much of their post Vatican II theology in the mass without having to have the lectionary OR the scriptures–in this case the NAB–be as 100% accurate as possible in the tradition of the latin vulgate and modified only when the original languages dictate it!
I’m not saying that the bishops are sinister. To be sure a complete new translation of the scriptures would take many years and they are concerned with making the liturgy as good as possible now.
I think what they should do is continue with their work–finally get a liturgy that can pass muster with the Holy See and then start maybe a 10 or 20 year project on a New Catholic translation of the scriptures.
After that then make the liturgy match the approved by the Holy See New Translation.
I don’t think they’ll do it that way because they’re still working on revising the NAB Old Testament.
Basically they are trying to do the best POLISHING job they can with what they currently have.
The NAB is too messed up to be polished pretty and the RSV is too protestant–no matter how polished it is it has protestant structural defects
and the Douay Rheims also has flaws and the idea of fixing it scares the liberals in the church to death.
so does making an English translation of the Nova Vulgata.
But there is hope. The liturgy will improve. The RSV will probably get another Catholic polishing. An attempt at polishing the NRSV will be made and who knows–maybe if a new liturgy is approved we’ll one day get a new NAB with an updated old Testament and with all the lectionary that is approved incorporated into it.
and even if the bishops don’t like it someone somewhere will attempt revising the Douay Rheims and translating the Nova Vulgata into Enlish.
all of this won’t happen before I die–my immediate task is to try to learn Latin!
It seems as if the USCCB is most concerned with maintaining as much of the NAB as possible in the liturgy.
What they should be more concerned with is getting the scriptures right first–then it would an easy task to FIX the liturgy.
I think the reason they don’t approach it this way is that they KNOW that the NAB doesn’t depart from the Latin Vulgate only when there are clear reasons for it to differ from the Latin Vulgate because the earliest original texts and biblical scholarship say it should–
the NAB text is much freer and runs away from the Latin Vulgate for reasons that can’t be justified if one was trying to come up with the most accurate translation of the Bible.
On the other hand by revising the lectionary just to pass muster with the Holy See they are not required to make that language as ACCURATE as they would if they were truely trying to produce an accurate Bible.
There can be minor variations from the Latin Vulgate tradition for what is the word they LOVE to use --Pastoral reasons.
this way they keep as much of their post Vatican II theology in the mass without having to have the lectionary OR the scriptures–in this case the NAB–be as 100% accurate as possible in the tradition of the latin vulgate and modified only when the original languages dictate it!
I’m not saying that the bishops are sinister. To be sure a complete new translation of the scriptures would take many years and they are concerned with making the liturgy as good as possible now.
I think what they should do is continue with their work–finally get a liturgy that can pass muster with the Holy See and then start maybe a 10 or 20 year project on a New Catholic translation of the scriptures.
After that then make the liturgy match the approved by the Holy See New Translation.
I don’t think they’ll do it that way because they’re still working on revising the NAB Old Testament.
Basically they are trying to do the best POLISHING job they can with what they currently have.
The NAB is too messed up to be polished pretty and the RSV is too protestant–no matter how polished it is it has protestant structural defects
and the Douay Rheims also has flaws and the idea of fixing it scares the liberals in the church to death.
so does making an English translation of the Nova Vulgata.
But there is hope. The liturgy will improve. The RSV will probably get another Catholic polishing. An attempt at polishing the NRSV will be made and who knows–maybe if a new liturgy is approved we’ll one day get a new NAB with an updated old Testament and with all the lectionary that is approved incorporated into it.
and even if the bishops don’t like it someone somewhere will attempt revising the Douay Rheims and translating the Nova Vulgata into Enlish.
all of this won’t happen before I die–my immediate task is to try to learn Latin!
T
tee_eff_em
Guest
Over a year ago…
(Additionally there is a Spanish bible available too)
I don’t know when it happened, nor who told them to do it. (Or: Maybe the Vatican Archivist reads this forum!
)
tee
I’m pleased to say I noticed today this oddity has been corrected – It now reads: “The Bible…”I always get a kick (and a bit of a start
The New American Bible
English, Italian, Latin]
The New American Bible in Italian and Latin!?
(Additionally there is a Spanish bible available too)
I don’t know when it happened, nor who told them to do it. (Or: Maybe the Vatican Archivist reads this forum!
)tee
M
mmortal03
Guest
Here is some stuff I just read on the RSV-CE Wikipedia page (go here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revised_Standard_Version_Catholic_Edition#Second_Catholic_Edition) that I don’t recall us having down as changes in the Second Catholic Edition:
I don’t know how we could have missed that in John 3.16. I don’t have my SCE on hand at the moment. Can anyone confirm these? Has that Wikipedia article just been badly written, and actually those changes were in the original RSV-CE, and they just threw those in to the SCE section by accident? I can’t recall this stuff off the top of my head.
M
Manfred
Guest
I almost choked when I noticed that this thread is up around 30 pages!
None of this was mentioned in your analysis comparing the RSV-2CE with the original RSV-CE. My guess is the focus was more on the NT than on the OT, so I can inderstand why Psalm 139 might have been missed. As for John 3:16, I don’t know if there is a way to render this verse so that no one can complain.
Why didn’t Ignatius take the time to summarize all these changes in an Appendix? Even a comparison with the RSV (not necessarily the original RSV-CE) would have been most welcome and appreciated.
M
Manfred
Guest
- from a post by demerzel on this same thread:
John 3:16 - For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
RSVCE 2nd Edition (Ignatius Study Bible)
John 3:16 - For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
Oxford University Press Compact Edition
John 3:16 - For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
BTW - you do know that you should take Wikipedia articles with a grain of salt, don’t you?
M
mmortal03
Guest
Yeah, and it would be longer if the crash hadn’t happened. I still have that stuff that I got off of google that we could use to partially construct what was lost, but who knows when I will ever have time for that.
Yep, I checked my analysis first. Well, we could also say that someone just hasn’t sat down with both and gone line by line yet, either.
No kidding. They have GOT to have it documented. Could someone contact them and request it for review purposes?
M
mmortal03
Guest
Yes, and they are simply a means, not an end to me. That is, unless I edit them. Then they are right.
Remember, though, I was born at the end of the MTV Generation, and we, as do anyone born since, happen to trust the internet as fact, remember?
(that was sarcasm if you didn’t get it from the wink)
J
Jerry-Jet
Guest
Look–if the RSV-CE can’t even get John 3:16 right why should a Protestant believe a Catholic who tries to explain otherwise?
See–the RSV-CE is Protestant! It errs in Doctrine! It does make a difference!
For all the Vulgate haters out there the Confraternity Version Bible did slightly
Why is it that no one seems to care?
For all the Vulgate haters out there the Confraternity Version did slightly modify the Vulgate sometimes in the direction of the Greek.
How does it render the verse?
See–the RSV-CE is Protestant! It errs in Doctrine! It does make a difference!
For all the Vulgate haters out there the Confraternity Version Bible did slightly
Why is it that no one seems to care?
For all the Vulgate haters out there the Confraternity Version did slightly modify the Vulgate sometimes in the direction of the Greek.
How does it render the verse?
M
mmortal03
Guest
Wow, sorry it took so long to reply on this one, but, yes, that is what I meant, “extant and accepted” by the Church as the best we have in the original languages. It would be nice to see a list of the important/crucial differences between the Douay Rheims/Clementine Vulgate and what we now take as the most accurate in the original languages. Though, I do think this was the purpose of the Nova Vulgata, correct? If this was done as it should have been done, I guess a comparison between the Clementine Vulgate and the Nova Vulgata would be sufficient, but we’ll need someone who knows Latin to explain it to us.
M
mmortal03
Guest
First of all, lets not get into the second half of this verse regarding shoulds, shalls, wills, mights, one shoulds, two shoulds, three shoulds, four, (I kid, I kid), etc. Leave that to one of the threads already started on the issue.
Ok, now regarding the “begotten” part, the Wikipedia page seems to have been completely wrong, and I edited it tonight, as such, because:
RSV, RSV-CE, RSV-SCE, ESV, NRSV, NAB, OJB,
…only Son…
KJV, ASV, NASB, DR: …only begotten Son…
NIV: …one and only Son… footnote: only begotten Son
So, it looks like the RSV committee took the word out of the KJV/ASV lineage, and it never went back in. Even still, no Christian should have a problem with this part of the verse. I have read that it is now understood that the meaning of the word was not a form of beget, but referred to the uniqueness or onliness of him. The only thing that I wonder about is why the usually “accurate” NASB, left in this KJV/ASV carry over.
Now as far as the other half, look elsewhere on the forum, people.
J
Jerry-Jet
Guest
In other words–don’t ask any questions about whether the RSV-CE really needs corrections that have yet to have been made!
M
mmortal03
Guest
Come on, Jerry-Jet. We know that it isn’t an RSV-CE only problem. It makes sense to discuss the RSV-CE only problems here, and then discuss the problems that plague many or most of the popular English translations elsewhere. There are things specific to the RSV-CE that need to be changed, and that is what I think this thread should discuss. If we try talking about all the problems of every translation here in this thread, it would grow exponentially.
I mean, I don’t think there is a problem with mentioning an issue like it here, but leave it at that, and if we want to go and argue it, leave it elsewhere.
M
Manfred
Guest
One can’t fault the KJV or DR here, since they worked within the limits of the understanding of the source texts available at the time.
The NIV and the NASB, though they purport to be really faithful to the originals, oftentimes deferred to the evangelical “tradition” (oooh, what a concept!) in their renderings. Apparently, they didn’t want to suffer the same fate as did the “heretical” RSV in the early 50s (book burnings by fundamentalist zealots).
M
Manfred
Guest
Where’s MTD (Maria) when you need her? She really scored a “hit” with them in January!
M
Manfred
Guest
Glad you told me; being the literalist that I am, I almost took you seriously.Remember, though, I was born at the end of the MTV Generation, and we, as do anyone born since, happen to trust the internet as fact, remember?
- Status