RSV-CE Needs Corrections

[jpy15026]

###It doesn’t matter what the Church says - what matters, is that the text being translated should be translated as well as possible, given whatever constraints the translators may be working under.

It’s our Catholic Church who wrote it,and Catholics that translated it.

**Church doctrines have their place - but that place is not as a substitute for what the texts mean. *

The New Testament is Church Doctrine.The Texts mean what they say because of the our Catholic Church that wrote it.

. If we inject our theologies or doctrines into it, that is all we shall get out of it. Ignoring what it does say in favour of what we think it ought to say, is not faithful translation.

Isn’t this exactly what “Pope” Martin Luther did ???

If all the original manuscripts of the New Testament,written by their original authors were available for each of us on this forum to “translate” into english for all to read and understand ,then I guess we could all debate meanings of words and the inspired message the Holy Spirit wants to communicate to us through the Holy Scriptures…but we don’t have the originals,so how can anyone say this word was used in the original document that was written 2000 years ago,or this was the word that the author used? We have only the “Tradition” of our Catholic Church that has been in existence since 32 AD to guide and instruct us.We can analyze words and give our “opinions” all we want but we don’t have the originals, so how can anyone insist this word or that word was used. I love reading and meditating on the Scriptures,and without the Catholic Church there would be no New Testament for any of us to read,it does matter what the Church says.

 

[jpy15026]

###It doesn’t matter what the Church says - what matters, is that the text being translated should be translated as well as possible, given whatever constraints the translators may be working under.

It’s our Catholic Church who wrote it,and Catholics that translated it.

**Church doctrines have their place - but that place is not as a substitute for what the texts mean. *

The New Testament is Church Doctrine.The Texts mean what they say because of the our Catholic Church that wrote it.

. If we inject our theologies or doctrines into it, that is all we shall get out of it. Ignoring what it does say in favour of what we think it ought to say, is not faithful translation.

Isn’t this exactly what “Pope” Martin Luther did ???

If all the original manuscripts of the New Testament,written by their original authors were available for each of us on this forum to “translate” into english for all to read and understand ,then I guess we could all debate meanings of words and the inspired message the Holy Spirit wants to communicate to us through the Holy Scriptures…but we don’t have the originals,so how can anyone say this word was used in the original document that was written 2000 years ago,or this was the word that the author used? We have only the “Tradition” of our Catholic Church that has been in existence since 32 AD to guide and instruct us.We can analyze words and give our “opinions” all we want but we don’t have the originals, so how can anyone insist this word or that word was used. I love reading and meditating on the Scriptures,and without the Catholic Church there would be no New Testament for any of us to read,it does matter what the Church says.

 

[porthos11]

I understand the previous poster. He’s not bashing Tradition. What he’s saying is that we don’t need to color translations because of surface “contradictions.” Ultimately, everything is reconcilable when done faithfully.

Hence, when we come across the Greek adelphoi, the proper translation is brothers (brethren is also okay), NOT “brothers and sisters” or “kinsmen” (even though that is a valid meaning, it’s not the right translation). The dogma of Mary’s perpetual virginity should not prevent Catholic translators from translating the right way.

Another issue is the “full of grace” rendering. I personally am in favor of “full of grace” but “full of grace”, while close, is still not an exact rendering of kecharitomene. Neither is “gratia plena” or “favored one.” Kecharitomene is virtually untranslatable, and for apologetics here, one MUST go to the Greek, not the English or the Latin (except for the argument of ancient witness.) But I am not one of those who would brand “favored one” renditions as “evil”.

Isn’t this exactly what “Pope” Martin Luther did ???

Actually, it’s what Martin Luther did not. He did allow his doctrinal biases to creep in. So do the Jehovah’s Witnesses. See which respectable Christian group even considers their NWT scripture. We Catholics should not do the same.

but we don’t have the originals,so how can anyone say this word was used in the original document that was written 2000 years ago,or this was the word that the author used? We have only the “Tradition” of our Catholic Church that has been in existence since 32 AD to guide and instruct us.We can analyze words and give our “opinions” all we want but we don’t have the originals, so how can anyone insist this word or that word was used.

By Textual Criticism, which the Church supports and uses. We use this science for all ancient texts. Yes, there are passages that remain obscure, but none of them affect faith and morals in any way.

Also, remember that we are talking about translation here, not meditation or interpretation. Yes, we must do these with the mind of the Church. But translation, while it should also be done with the mind of the Church, should not be done in a way that is unfaithful to the original languages or reinforces bias (e.g. NIV).

 

[porthos11]

I understand the previous poster. He’s not bashing Tradition. What he’s saying is that we don’t need to color translations because of surface “contradictions.” Ultimately, everything is reconcilable when done faithfully.

Hence, when we come across the Greek adelphoi, the proper translation is brothers (brethren is also okay), NOT “brothers and sisters” or “kinsmen” (even though that is a valid meaning, it’s not the right translation). The dogma of Mary’s perpetual virginity should not prevent Catholic translators from translating the right way.

Another issue is the “full of grace” rendering. I personally am in favor of “full of grace” but “full of grace”, while close, is still not an exact rendering of kecharitomene. Neither is “gratia plena” or “favored one.” Kecharitomene is virtually untranslatable, and for apologetics here, one MUST go to the Greek, not the English or the Latin (except for the argument of ancient witness.) But I am not one of those who would brand “favored one” renditions as “evil”.

Isn’t this exactly what “Pope” Martin Luther did ???

Actually, it’s what Martin Luther did not. He did allow his doctrinal biases to creep in. So do the Jehovah’s Witnesses. See which respectable Christian group even considers their NWT scripture. We Catholics should not do the same.

but we don’t have the originals,so how can anyone say this word was used in the original document that was written 2000 years ago,or this was the word that the author used? We have only the “Tradition” of our Catholic Church that has been in existence since 32 AD to guide and instruct us.We can analyze words and give our “opinions” all we want but we don’t have the originals, so how can anyone insist this word or that word was used.

By Textual Criticism, which the Church supports and uses. We use this science for all ancient texts. Yes, there are passages that remain obscure, but none of them affect faith and morals in any way.

Also, remember that we are talking about translation here, not meditation or interpretation. Yes, we must do these with the mind of the Church. But translation, while it should also be done with the mind of the Church, should not be done in a way that is unfaithful to the original languages or reinforces bias (e.g. NIV).

 

[Manfred]

It’s not just the booklet from TAN Books that attests to the translation of Luke 1:34 as I quoted it in my earlier post.

Check the New American Standard Bible, a favorite of some (not enough) evangelical Protestants. Luke 1:34 - with footnote references interspersed - reads as follows:

Mary said to the angel, “How can F23 this be, since I am F24 a virgin?”

FOOTNOTES:
F23: Lit {will}
F24: Lit {know no man}

RSV-CE: “How can this be, since I have no husband?”

If the NASB can get it right, even if only in its footnotes, then the RSV-CE and RSV-2CE could have as well.

And, no, neither the Catholic Church nor TAN Books is injecting its own interpretation into this verse; the NASB, known for its fidelity to the Greek, pulled the correct rendering right out of the “original”.

 

[Manfred]

It’s not just the booklet from TAN Books that attests to the translation of Luke 1:34 as I quoted it in my earlier post.

Check the New American Standard Bible, a favorite of some (not enough) evangelical Protestants. Luke 1:34 - with footnote references interspersed - reads as follows:

Mary said to the angel, “How can F23 this be, since I am F24 a virgin?”

FOOTNOTES:
F23: Lit {will}
F24: Lit {know no man}

RSV-CE: “How can this be, since I have no husband?”

If the NASB can get it right, even if only in its footnotes, then the RSV-CE and RSV-2CE could have as well.

And, no, neither the Catholic Church nor TAN Books is injecting its own interpretation into this verse; the NASB, known for its fidelity to the Greek, pulled the correct rendering right out of the “original”.

 

[Crumpy]

mike0219116:

*

Yes, they are an excellent merchant. I bought my Haydock Bible from them. Their price on that particular item is about the best anywhere.*

Thanks for the tip.

 

[Crumpy]

mike0219116:

*

Yes, they are an excellent merchant. I bought my Haydock Bible from them. Their price on that particular item is about the best anywhere.*

Thanks for the tip.

 

[SFH]

mike0219116:

Out of curiosity, I looked-up Malachi 1:11 in my copy of “A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture,” which is based on the DR. I found it interesting that it says, “The LXX [Septuagint] translates, probably correctly: ‘In every place incense is offered to my name and a pure oblation’. It is certainly worthy of remark that whenever the Sacrifice of the New Testament is offered with full ritual, the use of incense is an integral part of the sacred function.”

The French Jerusalem Bible reads “a sacrifice of incense”

 

[SFH]

mike0219116:

Out of curiosity, I looked-up Malachi 1:11 in my copy of “A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture,” which is based on the DR. I found it interesting that it says, “The LXX [Septuagint] translates, probably correctly: ‘In every place incense is offered to my name and a pure oblation’. It is certainly worthy of remark that whenever the Sacrifice of the New Testament is offered with full ritual, the use of incense is an integral part of the sacred function.”

The French Jerusalem Bible reads “a sacrifice of incense”

 

[tee_eff_em]

SFH:

The French Jerusalem Bible reads “a sacrifice of incense”

Odd. I would have expected it to say something in French.

:ehh:
tee

 

[tee_eff_em]

SFH:

The French Jerusalem Bible reads “a sacrifice of incense”

Odd. I would have expected it to say something in French.

:ehh:
tee

 

[SFH]

tee_eff_em:

Odd. I would have expected it to say something in French.

:ehh:
tee

OK. It actually says “un sacrifice d’encens,” but for those who don’t read French that translates to “a sacrifice of incense” I like to quote the French Jerusalem Bible every now and then to remind people of the vast differences between the French translation and the English translation. The English translation is a case study in the unhappy result of too much Protestant influence on a biblical translation.

By the way, unless the second edition of the RSV-CE changes “Truly, I say to you” to “Amen, I say to you” in the Gospels and “Praise the Lord” to “Alleluia” in the Psalms, unless it reads “a HORN of salvation” and “in your SEED all the nations of the earth …”, I question the accuracy of their representation that the text conforms to Liturgiam Authenticam.

 

[SFH]

tee_eff_em:

Odd. I would have expected it to say something in French.

:ehh:
tee

OK. It actually says “un sacrifice d’encens,” but for those who don’t read French that translates to “a sacrifice of incense” I like to quote the French Jerusalem Bible every now and then to remind people of the vast differences between the French translation and the English translation. The English translation is a case study in the unhappy result of too much Protestant influence on a biblical translation.

By the way, unless the second edition of the RSV-CE changes “Truly, I say to you” to “Amen, I say to you” in the Gospels and “Praise the Lord” to “Alleluia” in the Psalms, unless it reads “a HORN of salvation” and “in your SEED all the nations of the earth …”, I question the accuracy of their representation that the text conforms to Liturgiam Authenticam.

 

[mmortal03]

porthos11:

I believe just as in all RSV first editions, all references to God are thee’s and thou’s.

Yeah, I looked it up, and all versions of the RSV are like that. So basically, one can’t tell the difference between a singular second person pronoun (thou) and a plural second person pronoun (you) with the RSV. If I remember correctly, aren’t there certain verses where this is important?

 

[mmortal03]

porthos11:

I believe just as in all RSV first editions, all references to God are thee’s and thou’s.

Yeah, I looked it up, and all versions of the RSV are like that. So basically, one can’t tell the difference between a singular second person pronoun (thou) and a plural second person pronoun (you) with the RSV. If I remember correctly, aren’t there certain verses where this is important?

 

[Manfred]

SFH:

By the way, unless the second edition of the RSV-CE changes “Truly, I say to you” to “Amen, I say to you” in the Gospels and “Praise the Lord” to “Alleluia” in the Psalms, unless it reads “a HORN of salvation” and “in your SEED all the nations of the earth …”, I question the accuracy of their representation that the text conforms to Liturgiam Authenticam.

SFH,

Thou hast answered rightly.

Liturgiam Authenticam is very clear re what these renderings should be; why did the editors of RSV-2CE just seem to ignore them?

 

[Manfred]

SFH:

By the way, unless the second edition of the RSV-CE changes “Truly, I say to you” to “Amen, I say to you” in the Gospels and “Praise the Lord” to “Alleluia” in the Psalms, unless it reads “a HORN of salvation” and “in your SEED all the nations of the earth …”, I question the accuracy of their representation that the text conforms to Liturgiam Authenticam.

SFH,

Thou hast answered rightly.

Liturgiam Authenticam is very clear re what these renderings should be; why did the editors of RSV-2CE just seem to ignore them?

 

[SFH]

Manfred:

SFH,

Thou hast answered rightly.

Liturgiam Authenticam is very clear re what these renderings should be; why did the editors of RSV-2CE just seem to ignore them?

And lest anyone think that Manfred and I are making a mountain out of a mole hill, consider what St. Augustine had to say about translating “Amen” as “Truly”

“Amen in a way may be interpreted, truly; and yet it is not interpreted, though it might have been said, Truly, I say unto you. Neither the Greek translator nor the Latin has dared to do so; for this word Amen is neither Greek nor Latin, but Hebrew. So it has remained without interpretation, to possess honor as the covering of something hidden; not in order to be disowned, but that it might not, as a thing laid bare to the eye, fall into disrepute.” – On the Gospel of St. John, Tractate XLI, 3.

I might add that both the Greek text and the Latin Vulgate (as well as the Nova Vulgata) preserve certain Aramaic expressions in the New Testament, e.g., “Raca,” “Maranatha,” “anathema,” “amen,” which Liturgiam Authenticam strongly encourages translators to preserve in vernacular translations. When those words are translated, an additional layer of information is stripped from the biblical passage, namely, that the Evangelist or Apostle chose to leave certain words in Aramaic.

 

[SFH]

Manfred:

SFH,

Thou hast answered rightly.

Liturgiam Authenticam is very clear re what these renderings should be; why did the editors of RSV-2CE just seem to ignore them?

And lest anyone think that Manfred and I are making a mountain out of a mole hill, consider what St. Augustine had to say about translating “Amen” as “Truly”

“Amen in a way may be interpreted, truly; and yet it is not interpreted, though it might have been said, Truly, I say unto you. Neither the Greek translator nor the Latin has dared to do so; for this word Amen is neither Greek nor Latin, but Hebrew. So it has remained without interpretation, to possess honor as the covering of something hidden; not in order to be disowned, but that it might not, as a thing laid bare to the eye, fall into disrepute.” – On the Gospel of St. John, Tractate XLI, 3.

I might add that both the Greek text and the Latin Vulgate (as well as the Nova Vulgata) preserve certain Aramaic expressions in the New Testament, e.g., “Raca,” “Maranatha,” “anathema,” “amen,” which Liturgiam Authenticam strongly encourages translators to preserve in vernacular translations. When those words are translated, an additional layer of information is stripped from the biblical passage, namely, that the Evangelist or Apostle chose to leave certain words in Aramaic.