RSV-CE Needs Corrections

[Cranch]

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.

What’s a week, give or take five months? I would love to see the comparison you mention (in English). I am not well-versed (no pun intended) in this subject, but I note this from Wikipedia:The foundational text of most of the Nova Vulgata is the critical edition done by the monks of the Benedictine Abbey of St. Jerome under Pius X. The foundational text of the books of Tobit and Judith are from manuscripts of the Vetus Latina rather than the Vulgate. All of these base texts were revised to accord with the modern critical editions in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. There are also a number of changes where the modern scholars felt that Jerome had failed to grasp the meaning of the original languages.
That last line makes me think these modern scholars were not short on chutzpah!

 

[Jerry-Jet]

They were short on Protestant renderings.

When oh when will we ever see the Nova Vulgata in English and when oh when will we hear from 'RSV-CE lovers why the people that produced the Nova Vulgata didn’t know what they were talking about?

 

[Traditional_Ang]

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.

mmortal:

I just looked at a Greek-English Interlinear, and I’m definitely not a Greek Scholar, but the Greek word is “Mon-og-en-ace’” which is almost always translated in Koine Greek as “only son” or “only daughter” (Strongs Number 3499). We’ve only translated it as “only begotten Son” in the past because of the allusion to our Lord Jesus Christ.

To get the Greek, you’ll need to download the Greek Fonts or buy a Greek-English Interlinear.

studylight.org/isb/bible.cgi?query=john+3%3A16&section=2&it=nas&ot=bhs&nt=na&Enter=Perform+Search

The translations don’t change the meaning or the indescribable mercy and grace of God’s gift in sending the Son so that we might have eternal life.

The Scriptures were originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic, Syraic, Greek and I forget what other languages. Because of that, we have to rely on others to translate them for us. Anyone who’s ever tried to translate a page from one language to another will know how difficult it is to completely translate what someone was trying to say on that page into the new language. It’s even more difficult when the languages are dead, and many of the objects the authors were talking about no longer exist or have changed, and the cultures are as dramatically different as theirs and ours are.

I beg you to consider these things as you go about doing your criticisms, and to remember what our Lord said about the measure we use to judge others being applied to ourselves. I also beg you to remember that the Bible isn’t our ultimate authority, and that Christ set up the Church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth, and gave St. Peter and his successors the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[mmortal03]

mmortal:

I just looked at a Greek-English Interlinear, and I’m definitely not a Greek Scholar, but the Greek word is “Mon-og-en-ace’” which is almost always translated in Koine Greek as “only son” or “only daughter” (Strongs Number 3499). We’ve only translated it as “only begotten Son” in the past because of the allusion to our Lord Jesus Christ.

To get the Greek, you’ll need to download the Greek Fonts or buy a Greek-English Interlinear.

studylight.org/isb/bible.cgi?query=john+3%3A16&section=2&it=nas&ot=bhs&nt=na&Enter=Perform+Search

The translations don’t change the meaning or the indescribable mercy and grace of God’s gift in sending the Son so that we might have eternal life.

The Scriptures were originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic, Syraic, Greek and I forget what other languages. Because of that, we have to rely on others to translate them for us. Anyone who’s ever tried to translate a page from one language to another will know how difficult it is to completely translate what someone was trying to say on that page into the new language. It’s even more difficult when the languages are dead, and many of the objects the authors were talking about no longer exist or have changed, and the cultures are as dramatically different as theirs and ours are.

I beg you to consider these things as you go about doing your criticisms, and to remember what our Lord said about the measure we use to judge others being applied to ourselves. I also beg you to remember that the Bible isn’t our ultimate authority, and that Christ set up the Church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth, and gave St. Peter and his successors the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

Thanks for the advice, Michael. I just don’t see how such a deeply felt request like yours here applies to my post, though. Now, more generally, I have gotten into some more critical postings before, but when I do it is all about logic and knowledge. I don’t do this stuff to lay blame, defame, or hate on translators and publishers. I simply discuss the facts and my educated expectations. I continually seek out the right information and the right answers toward perfecting the English translations.

This isn’t disrespect, it is simply discussions of a standard that should always have been kept, and such that clearly hasn’t been in the last few decades. We don’t have to be able to translate the languages ourselves to be able to find these issues and point them out, though I have looked at the Greek before at spots… There are enough English translation variations out there that we can determine it much for ourselves within our native tongue and through knowledge acquired from other documents about how things should read. There is a difference between a logical implementation and physical implementation.

All these people who say we are being too harsh on the translators, just seem to always have some personal problem regarding judging the magnitude of one’s questioning authority. Questioning scriptural issues with hard facts should only strengthen the validity of translations yet to come, not harm them.

These mythical, unaccessible, nameless translators that we always talk about should get themselves on to the web and participate in forums like this, and actually demonstrate to their expertise, and spread their unique and novel answers to the issues that we have. It really amazes me that none have found this forum, if they are really Catholic translators who love their profession.

So far, much of what I have heard is subjective finger pointing and logically fallacious arguments about how it isn’t our place to use our brains and ask questions when it comes to matters like this, and usually it doesn’t have these people offering any new groundbreaking knowledge, either.

It should only be a translator’s best academic ability to tear what I have just written to complete shreds, if it really isn’t so substantial or shred proof.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

My brothers & Sisters in Christ:

For those who have been quibbling with the RSV-CE & other modern translations:

“Hallelujah” or “Halleluyah” - is Hebrew for “Praise the Lord!” & almost all of the modern translations translate it as “Hallelujah”. Please remember that the Apostles were all Jews and almost all of the first Christians were Jews.

The original RSV used the archaic second person singular to refer to God, along with some other archaic forms of speech which were kept from the KJV - RV. It seems that the Bishops requested these be removed so that the RSV-CE to be used for the Lexionary be easier for Lectors to read and for Congregations to understand.

Unlike many other Translations, the RSV-CE provides notes giving the alternative (often Septuagent) Versions matching the citations used in the New Testament.

We have a plethora of Translations available to us, and even some of our favorite priests ( e.g., Fr. Pachwa & Fr. Fessio, Fr. Mullady & Fr. Corapi) have urged that we use more than two or more translations when we study the Sacred Scriptures.

I believe that most will find the RSV-CE to be a useful first Translation in that situation, as well as useful for Leccio Divina. We need to read, breathe and try to live Scripture, not try to tear down what might be the best available translation (The NRSV hasn’t been de-feminized & de-degenderized, so the jury is still out on that one).

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Thanks for the advice, Michael. I just don’t see how such a deeply felt request like yours here applies to my post, though. Now, more generally, I have gotten into some more critical postings before, but when I do it is all about logic and knowledge. I don’t do this stuff to lay blame, defame, or hate on translators and publishers. I simply discuss the facts and my educated expectations. I continually seek out the right information and the right answers toward perfecting the English translations.

This isn’t disrespect, it is simply discussions of a standard that should always have been kept, and such that clearly hasn’t been in the last few decades. We don’t have to be able to translate the languages ourselves to be able to find these issues and point them out, though I have looked at the Greek before at spots… There are enough English translation variations out there that we can determine it much for ourselves within our native tongue and through knowledge acquired from other documents about how things should read. There is a difference between a logical implementation and physical implementation.

All these people who say we are being too harsh on the translators, just seem to always have some personal problem regarding judging the magnitude of one’s questioning authority. Questioning scriptural issues with hard facts should only strengthen the validity of translations yet to come, not harm them.

These mythical, unaccessible, nameless translators that we always talk about should get themselves on to the web and participate in forums like this, and actually demonstrate to their expertise, and spread their unique and novel answers to the issues that we have. It really amazes me that none have found this forum, if they are really Catholic translators who love their profession.

So far, much of what I have heard is subjective finger pointing and logically fallacious arguments about how it isn’t our place to use our brains and ask questions when it comes to matters like this, and usually it doesn’t have these people offering any new groundbreaking knowledge, either.

It should only be a translator’s best academic ability to tear what I have just written to complete shreds, if it really isn’t so substantial or shred proof.

Mmortal:

I once tried to help a friend translate some documents from Spanish into English Legalese (Immigration - for his son). We both spent several hours, & we were quibbling over words and phrases of two living languages. We had to get them right, or someone at “La Migra” would kick them back and send his son to be back of the line.

In translation terms, that’s considered a “Simple Job”… I sort of know, because I once took a German class from a man who was a scholar in several languages. To say he was busy would have been an understatement. I was carrying 17 units - 51 hours/week. He was working easily 60-70 hours/week teaching/translating/writing papers, etc. And, He had a family and his religious obligations on top of that. There was NO WAY he would ever have had time to log into a discussion on a board such as this.

He once made his point by having the class translate a document from German into English, “On the Freedom of the Christian Man,” by Martin Luther. We all had German-English Dictionaries, Grammers, etc. Many of us still couldn’t do it.

The Studylight link I gave has two different Hebrew Texts for the OT + the Septuagent, and three different texts for the NT - These are all Interlinears, which means you can’t get too lost.

Remember, Jerome’s Vulgate was undertaken because the several Latin translation of the Scriptures were seen to be corrupt and filled with errors, including errors of doctine. Jerome’s was accepted, not because it was perfect, but because it was the best that could be done at the time, and because it was free from Doctrinal Error.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[mmortal03]

For those who have been quibbling with the RSV-CE & other modern translations:

Here we go…

“Hallelujah” or “Halleluyah” - is Hebrew for “Praise the Lord!” & almost all of the modern translations translate it as “Hallelujah”. Please remember that the Apostles were all Jews and almost all of the first Christians were Jews.

I don’t think this was the issue that Manfred had at all.

The original RSV used the archaic second person singular to refer to God, along with some other archaic forms of speech which were kept from the KJV - RV. It seems that the Bishops requested these be removed so that the RSV-CE to be used for the Lexionary be easier for Lectors to read and for Congregations to understand.

Yep, I have no problem with that in principle, and generally, I have no problem with that in reality, regarding the RSV, because when they left in only the archaic 2nd person when it referred to God, or in traditional passages, they removed most of the interpretive meaning of being able to differentiate between the addressing of a group vs. an individual that was in there anyway.

There are also certain cases when archaic language requires translation of more than just swapping words to retain the full meaning, but generally, this doesn’t apply to the RSV, either, but to what occurred between the Douay Rheims and subsequent other Catholic translations.

Unlike many other Translations, the RSV-CE provides notes giving the alternative (often Septuagent) Versions matching the citations used in the New Testament.

Again, I will default to Manfred’s logic: If the better translation is in the footnotes, then why is it in the footnotes? I guess it depends on what you think is better, which is what we have never been able to ascertain: what are the hard facts for them leaving certain questionable passage’s better translations in the footnotes?

We have a plethora of Translations available to us, and even some of our favorite priests ( e.g., Fr. Pachwa & Fr. Fessio, Fr. Mullady & Fr. Corapi) have urged that we use more than two or more translations when we study the Sacred Scriptures.

And it is good advice. We support this, completely. It isn’t an argument for not correcting individual translations, however.

I believe that most will find the RSV-CE to be a useful first Translation in that situation, as well as useful for Leccio Divina. We need to read, breathe and try to live Scripture, not try to tear down what might be the best available translation

No one said it isn’t useful. This isn’t about tearing down, either. It is about making better.

(The NRSV hasn’t been de-feminized & de-degenderized, so the jury is still out on that one).

Yep, not yet. We’ll see if those translators and revisers do have a penchant for particulars.

 

[owen]

I am revisiting this forum to ask a specific question. I understand somewhere in this very long thread the answers likely already exist but it’s a very long thread…

Late in '06 I got my copy of (the heaviest Bible ever to be produced, the Ignatius RSV-CE 2ndE) and read it until about March when I began reading the (O)JB 1966 edition with the Notes and have enjoyed it but I find myself drawn back to the RSV/RSV-CE. This has sparked the following two questions:

( 1) what is the essential difference or what are the essential differences between the RSV and the RSV-CE and
(2) what is the essential difference or what are the essential differences between the RSV-CE and the RSV-CE 2ndE?

I understand the differences are what the whole thread is about in detail but I’d value a brief overview pertaining to my questions.

Any help is much appreciated. My thanks.

P.S. I apologize if this is not the best place to insert my questions. If that’s the case please kindly redirect me.

 

[mmortal03]

In translation terms, that’s considered a “Simple Job”… I sort of know, because I once took a German class from a man who was a scholar in several languages. To say he was busy would have been an understatement. I was carrying 17 units - 51 hours/week. He was working easily 60-70 hours/week teaching/translating/writing papers, etc. And, He had a family and his religious obligations on top of that. There was NO WAY he would ever have had time to log into a discussion on a board such as this.

You know about one example of an overworked man. One exception does not remake the rule. Maybe all Catholic affiliated translators ARE just overworked and underpaid, though. Maybe all the good ones must be too old to be likely to surf the Internet. I would hope not. They are missing something that is an information sciences revolution and an unparalleled tool to apply to their craft.

He once made his point by having the class translate a document from German into English, “On the Freedom of the Christian Man,” by Martin Luther. We all had German-English Dictionaries, Grammers, etc. Many of us still couldn’t do it.

Just because something is difficult does not mean that it shouldn’t be done right, nor that you can’t have a good enough understanding of the results to argue for change. Take NASA for example. Just because we aren’t in the know about the particulars of how the Columbia disaster occurred does not remove the appropriateness for calls for efforts to fix the problems.

I think you will like the way that I just put translators on the level of rocket scientists, no?

The Studylight link I gave has two different Hebrew Texts for the OT + the Septuagent, and three different texts for the NT - These are all Interlinears, which means you can’t get too lost.

Thanks for providing this resource. I’m sure it will be handy at some point.

Remember, Jerome’s Vulgate was undertaken because the several Latin translation of the Scriptures were seen to be corrupt and filled with errors, including errors of doctine. Jerome’s was accepted, not because it was perfect, but because it was the best that could be done at the time, and because it was free from Doctrinal Error.

I think you may be replying to the wrong thread! We have had many discussions regarding this in other threads, and we know that Jerome’s Vulgate wasn’t perfect, and I also further understand your analogy, but I don’t like the result of somehow just conceding that what we have is good enough.

 

[mmortal03]

( 1) what is the essential difference or what are the essential differences between the RSV and the RSV-CE

Regarding the 1959 RSV and the RSV-CE, this would, confusingly enough, be in the back of your Ignatius 2nd Catholic Edition.

Regarding the differences between the 1971 RSV and the RSV-CE, that would basically be what is listed at the following link, without being mentioned the RSV-CE changes that went into the 1971 RSV (there were a handful of these).

If you do a slight bit of reframing of how I have it labeled, you can get a basic understanding of the differences. Basically, everything on the left is what the RSV-CE has, and everything on the right is what the 1971 RSV has (with minor exceptions, and with an understanding that also there were some of those changes listed in your RSV-2CE’s appendix were not added to the 1971 RSV that are not on this page):

umsis.miami.edu/~medmunds/ScepterChangesC.htm

There are also some differences regarding footnoted items being removed or added to the text, but that is secondary. There is a concordance appendix out there that we used to determine that list: Appendix II of “An analytical concordance to the Revised Standard Version of the New Testament” by Clinton Morrison. See if you can find it. It was priceless, and demonstrates all the 1971 and prior revisions of all RSV editions, with few mistakes.

(2) what is the essential difference or what are the essential differences between the RSV-CE and the RSV-CE 2ndE?

That would be this list: umsis.miami.edu/~medmunds/RSVCEdiff.htm

 

[owen]

Thanks for the answers.

Regarding the 1959 RSV and the RSV-CE, this would, confusingly enough, be in the back of your Ignatius 2nd Catholic Edition.

Unfortunately it isn’t. We may have a slightly different copy. My RSV-2CE is the 2006 Ignatius dark burgundy leather edition with the Pantocrator and Four Evangelists icons. No Appendix, just maps are in the back. The Introduction is for the 1966 translation.

Thanks so much for the other lists. Excellent work you’ve done that I will certianly benefit from reviewing.

Returning the favor…I found the Morrison article online, free, here The site uses frames but you can navigate to the Appendix II by clicking the page link from the Table of Contents. CORRECTION: One can only get so far and then one has to sign up and pay. I thought it was too good to be true. Sorry for any inconvenience.

 

[owen]

mmortal03

So, speaking in very broad terms here it seems that the essential difference between the RSV-CE 2005 Oxford Press/Scepter Press/Ignatius Compact editions (one of which I own and was able to compare along with my RSV-2CE Oxford/Ignatius) is that the former has more NT revisions whereas the later returns (reverts?) to the 1959 RSV NT except in the case of the “Uniquely changed” NT passages where the RSV-2CE Oxford/Ignatius resembles the D-R NT Challoner Edition which has overtly Catholic renderings.

Would this be a fair assessment?

And, as a sidebar to the main discussion:
It’s interesting to note that Scepter of “the 2005 Oxford Press/Scepter Press/Ignatius Press RSV: Catholic Bible Compact Versions” is an Opus Dei associated publisher. For me this is not a bad thing at all. However it strikes me as interesting knowing that Opus Dei is very much a conservative (not politically but morally/sociologically) Church magisterium promoting body.

 

[mmortal03]

Unfortunately it isn’t. We may have a slightly different copy. My RSV-2CE is the 2006 Ignatius dark burgundy leather edition with the Pantocrator and Four Evangelists icons. No Appendix, just maps are in the back. The Introduction is for the 1966 translation.

Thanks so much for the other lists. Excellent work you’ve done that I will certianly benefit from reviewing.

Returning the favor…I found the Morrison article online, free, here The site uses frames but you can navigate to the Appendix II by clicking the page link from the Table of Contents. CORRECTION: One can only get so far and then one has to sign up and pay. I thought it was too good to be true. Sorry for any inconvenience.

No, no inconvenience here. We have jumped through the hoops once so that you don’t have to! (and I am not being sarcastic) That is the great thing among the occasional pitfalls about the Internet. I only wish that the really good translators that are Catholics participated more online, but I digress.

Now, regarding the appendix, I must have just mixed things up. I actually own the same exact Ignatius 2nd Catholic Edition that you have, except it is the paperback, so what is in mine is identical to yours, I just didn’t have access to it here at that moment to double check it. (It is in storage in a box in my closet for the summer.)

If you have ever ordered something from Amazon.com (e.g. have an account) go to the following page and follow these steps after it asks you to log in and you click ok once or twice: amazon.com/gp/reader/019528299X/ref=sib_dp_pt/102-6331077-7302516
1.) In the search inside this book box on the left, type 1762, and click Go.
2.) Click on the link it brings up, and then flip to the left three pages. That is the Appendix that I was referring to (but not the better Morrison one that covers all the differences).

It is exactly the same one that is in the standard Oxford RSV-CE, and I think in the original Ignatius Bible. Don’t be fooled by it being in a NT comparision; the differences between the 1959 RSV and the 1966 RSV-CE were only NT revisions.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

You know about one example of an overworked man. One exception does not remake the rule. Maybe all Catholic affiliated translators ARE just overworked and underpaid, though. Maybe all the good ones must be too old to be likely to surf the Internet. I would hope not. They are missing something that is an information sciences revolution and an unparalleled tool to apply to their craft.

MMortal:

You’re Right - I can’t speak for all of the translators - only for those I know. Another one I’ve known was connected with the RSV-CE 2nd Ed. He is Provost of Ave Maria College, Professor of Theology and Editor and Chief of Ignatius Press, and gives interviews on behalf of the Church and defending the Faith on the radio and on TV. When I knew him 30 years ago, he got up before I did, went to bed I did, and was because he was in the office 10 hours/day on top of his priestly duties.

And, I don’t recall any of the others being any less busy. And, someone I know now has been asked to help out on the new International Standard Version of the Bible which is the process of being translated.

Translation is a CRAFT, and not a SCIENCE. and, Because it’s the former, and not the later, and because the Biblical Languages are DEAD Languages, translators, and groups of translators, debate the shades of meanings of words and what they meant in the context of the sentences, and in the cultures, in which they were used TO DEATH…

Just because something is difficult does not mean that it shouldn’t be done right, nor that you can’t have a good enough understanding of the results to argue for change. Take NASA for example. Just because we aren’t in the know about the particulars of how the Columbia disaster occurred does not remove the appropriateness for calls for efforts to fix the problems.

I think you will like the way that I just put translators on the level of rocket scientists, no?

…It’s not nearly as cut and dried as Rocket Science - The Greek Text from Luke 1:28 most Translators rely on doesn’t have, “Euloghmenh su en gunaixin,” “Blessed art thou among women,” which is in the Byzantine Text, the KJV and the DRC.

My father used to have most of the translations of the Scriptures, including Interlinears (Greek NT & OT) that he thought were any good. They all differed with each other on multiple key passages - That’s why he’d look a passage up in 3 or 4 translations and then in the Greek and then see what one of his commentaries had to say…

Thanks for providing this resource. I’m sure it will be handy at some point.

… That’s one of reasons I linked StudyLight for you, and why I think you might want to use this one as well:

biblegateway.com/ (Remember to set your default to include versions with Deuterocanonical Books)

And, You’re welcome…

MMortal, I was responding to the right thread - Jerome’s Vulgate, in spite of its flaws, was a very good Translation into LATIN. For us to understand it, someone has to translate it for us again, unless we read LATIN FLUENTLY…

I think you may be replying to the wrong thread! We have had many discussions regarding this in other threads, and we know that Jerome’s Vulgate wasn’t perfect, and I also further understand your analogy, but I don’t like the result of somehow just conceding that what we have is good enough.

… So, It’s not a question of “concluding that what we have is good enough”. because, Someone else has to translate the LATIN into ENGLISH. And, we’ll lose lot of the Greek words such as “agape”, and Hebrew words, such as “Hallelujah”, which don’t translate into Latin. Whereas, If we translate directly from Hebrew & Greek to English, we can keep these words and their meanings.

Different translations, when the job has been done right, give us fresh & different looks at the various nuances of the Biblical Languages that we only really hear second hand. If they’ve done that, we can not understand just what the writer said, but what the first hearers understood when they heard it read aloud. That’s why my father used to do what he did.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[mmortal03]

@Traditional Ang: Thanks for your perspective. I understand that things are not so black and white with translating. I understand your viewpoint that it is a craft, i.e. an art. I also think it is an art, with a lot of science applied to it, even if ultimately all of it can’t be scientifically validated or proven. (Science can only disprove things anyway, and this craft doesn’t have all that much first hand empirical data to work with.)

From Wikipedia:

Perhaps the most common misconception about translation is that there exists a simple “word-for-word” relation between any two languages, and that translation is therefore a straightforward and mechanical process. On the contrary, historical differences between languages often dictate differences of expression. Hence, source and target texts may differ significantly in length[1]. In addition, translation is always fraught with uncertainties as well as the potential for inadvertent “spilling over” of idioms and usages from one language into the other, producing linguistic hybrids, for example, “Franglais” (French-English), “Spanglish” (Spanish-English) and “Poglish” (Polish-English).

…

Misconceptions

Many newcomers to translation erroneously believe it to be an exact science, and mistakenly assume that firmly-defined one-to-one correlations exist between words and phrases in different languages, thus rendering translations fixed and identically-reproducible, much as in cryptography. They assume that all that is needed in order to translate a text is to encode and decode between languages, using a translation dictionary as the codebook.[2]

Given all of that, I think this thread contains some excellent arguments for what corrections should be made to the RSV-CE that I have not seen argued against elsewhere. Their lack of opposition does not make these arguments definitive, but it would be nice to hear any well thought out arguments against them.

 

[mmortal03]

FYI, the copyright for the RSV is scheduled to expire in 2008 or 2009. Then we can get to work! Someone should actually start working on it earlier than that, so that we could have the RSV-CARE (Catholic Answers Revised Edition) out by the expiration date.

Edit: I bet that only applies to the 1957 edition, though. We should actually wait until the 1971 RSV expires around 2021-21. That way, we’d have all those revisions as well as the RSV-CE revisions available to us to combine into one, and we could call it the Catholic Answers Oxford Press RSV-CE Compact Version Reader’s Version.

 

[Cranch]

…we could call it the Catholic Answers Oxford Press RSV-CE Compact Version Reader’s Version.

Funny! I would suggest one change to the title for the sake of mellifluousness:
Catholic Answers Oxford Press RSV-CE Compact Edition Reader’s Version

 

[mmortal03]

Funny! I would suggest one change to the title for the sake of mellifluousness:
Catholic Answers Oxford Press RSV-CE Compact Edition Reader’s Version

Yeah, I thought about that one, too. I actually just looked it up, and the form factor would be called: The Catholic Answers Oxford Press Revised Standard Version Catholic Bible - Compact Edition - Reader’s Version.

The text would be called The Catholic Answers Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition, Formerly Known As The Variously Branded Oxford Press Published Shortly Lived But Fortuitously Good Causer Of Mass Confusion.

 

[Cranch]

Yeah, I thought about that one, too. I actually just looked it up, and the form factor would be called: The Catholic Answers Oxford Press Revised Standard Version Catholic Bible - Compact Edition - Reader’s Version.

The text would be called The Catholic Answers Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition, Formerly Known As The Variously Branded Oxford Press Published Shortly Lived But Fortuitously Good Causer Of Mass Confusion.

Better and better!

 

[Traditional_Ang]

FYI, the copyright for the RSV is scheduled to expire in 2008 or 2009. Then we can get to work! Someone should actually start working on it earlier than that, so that we could have the RSV-CARE (Catholic Answers Revised Edition) out by the expiration date.

Edit: I bet that only applies to the 1957 edition, though. We should actually wait until the 1971 RSV expires around 2021-21. That way, we’d have all those revisions as well as the RSV-CE revisions available to us to combine into one, and we could call it the Catholic Answers Oxford Press RSV-CE Compact Version Reader’s Version.

MMortal:

If you really want to do some good, stipulate that the text to be used for the New Testament shall be the 1991 Byzantine Text which is the one used by the Eastern Orthodox Churches. Not only would this further the cause of unity between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, but a case can be made that the Byzantine Text represent that used by most Christians, not the Egyptus used by most modern translators.

I would hope that placing footnotes with the cross-references to where passages are cited in the NT and how there are cited in those passages (on the same pages as the passages) would be sufficient as long as the translations given doesn’t contradict the citations in the NT. This should be sufficient except in cases such as Isa. 7:14.

Otherwise, I would hope that those doing the revising would not replace Hebrew transliteration (“Hallelujah”) with Latin (“Alleluia”) or try to place archaisms back in the text after they were removed at the request of the Vatican and the Bishops.

You could also "de-Feminize and “Re-genderize” the NRSV which has been declared Anathema by the Orthodox Church in America. Removal of the garbage will be a sisyphian task, but the reward may be a better translation than is possible quibbling with the RSV-CE 2nd Ed.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael