RSV-CE Needs Corrections

[peregrinus_sg]

BIG difference between those two comments; the RSV, while not challenging the ever-virginity of Mary, asserts that this verse does not prove it. The Douay-Rheims takes the opportunity to defend with well-reasoned arguments an essential tenet of the One True Church.

I’m not a Douay-Rheims-onlyist by any means, but I do take issue with this part of the RSV. Otherwise I rather like the translation: it is both readable and, if I am to trust the words of my intellectual superiors, quite accurate to the oldest extant manuscripts.

Perhaps I’m misunderstanding you, but surely it is not necessary for the, err, very brief notes that the RSV Catholic editions provide to argue passionately for every Catholic doctrine. The verse really does not deny the Catholic doctrine of the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Mother of God, but neither does it “prove” it. The notes of the D-R and RSV Catholic editions say that much, and I’m not sure why you take issue with this part of the RSV notes specifically.

Of course, I would understand if anyone is not pleased with the paucity of notes in the RSV Catholic editions. Though most people who prefer the RSV translation probably don’t care very much for the notes anyway.