RSV-CE Needs Corrections

[James_the_Least]

I’ve really enjoyed reading all your posts upo to this point, and am gratified that so many of you want to share good information about Bible translations. Although I don’t know any of you personally, I have a sense that I do. We seem to form a community within the Church, a band of those who love God’s Word and want to get all we can out of it. We also love the Church and are grateful to Almighty God for giving us so much help in reading, understanding, and applying the Word in our lives. So, brothers and sisters, I have been edified by your posts and look forward to many more.

I have many of the same translations and editions you have been speaking about, so it’s been rather easy to follow your comments.
I use a variety of translations, Catholic and other, as well as an interlinear Bible combined with Strong’s Concordance. When I really want to get into a word or phrase, I’ll check out my Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew-English Lexicon, or my Thayer’s Greek-English lexicon. I’ve learned much from these, but I wholeheartedly agree with the poster who desires knowledge of some ancient languages! It’s tough for us moderns, but the Holy Spirit provides helps.

An old, Catholic scholar of the Scriptures once told us in his Old Testament class that there is an Italian saying, which I can only share here in English, my Italian being rather weak. The saying is, “The translator is a traitor.” I’ve thought about that many times.
I’ve actually come to pity the honest and diligent translator who wishes to remain as faithful as possible to the ancient languages of Scripture, yet follow the Church’s invitation to make use of all that the sciences have to offer in the study of the Sacred Scriptures. He or she is often hampered in the faithful transmission of the words of those ancient texts, or revisions, or fragments, or redactions, or whatever there is to work with. It’s a job Id love to have, but I know that I’d not please everybody with my work. Well, I guess I’d have to “do my work as unto the Lord, rather than unto men.”

Here’s a hoot for those who have not discovered it yet. (And I won’t give it away in this post for the sake of those who like to discover cool things themselves.) In the Douay-Rheims (the edition I have is the Challoner, reprinted by TAN in 2000, and am one of those who was influenced to buy it by the Thomas Nelson booklet], go to Mt. 6:11 and read the Our Father slowly. Enjoy the surprise.

God bless you all. -James the Least

 

[James_the_Least]

I’ve really enjoyed reading all your posts upo to this point, and am gratified that so many of you want to share good information about Bible translations. Although I don’t know any of you personally, I have a sense that I do. We seem to form a community within the Church, a band of those who love God’s Word and want to get all we can out of it. We also love the Church and are grateful to Almighty God for giving us so much help in reading, understanding, and applying the Word in our lives. So, brothers and sisters, I have been edified by your posts and look forward to many more.

I have many of the same translations and editions you have been speaking about, so it’s been rather easy to follow your comments.
I use a variety of translations, Catholic and other, as well as an interlinear Bible combined with Strong’s Concordance. When I really want to get into a word or phrase, I’ll check out my Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew-English Lexicon, or my Thayer’s Greek-English lexicon. I’ve learned much from these, but I wholeheartedly agree with the poster who desires knowledge of some ancient languages! It’s tough for us moderns, but the Holy Spirit provides helps.

An old, Catholic scholar of the Scriptures once told us in his Old Testament class that there is an Italian saying, which I can only share here in English, my Italian being rather weak. The saying is, “The translator is a traitor.” I’ve thought about that many times.
I’ve actually come to pity the honest and diligent translator who wishes to remain as faithful as possible to the ancient languages of Scripture, yet follow the Church’s invitation to make use of all that the sciences have to offer in the study of the Sacred Scriptures. He or she is often hampered in the faithful transmission of the words of those ancient texts, or revisions, or fragments, or redactions, or whatever there is to work with. It’s a job Id love to have, but I know that I’d not please everybody with my work. Well, I guess I’d have to “do my work as unto the Lord, rather than unto men.”

Here’s a hoot for those who have not discovered it yet. (And I won’t give it away in this post for the sake of those who like to discover cool things themselves.) In the Douay-Rheims (the edition I have is the Challoner, reprinted by TAN in 2000, and am one of those who was influenced to buy it by the Thomas Nelson booklet], go to Mt. 6:11 and read the Our Father slowly. Enjoy the surprise.

God bless you all. -James the Least

 

[mmortal03]

SFH:

And lest anyone think that Manfred and I are making a mountain out of a mole hill

Yeah, I seriously don’t know how they could have labeled it that way, and think that it was proper. There is no need to mention LA if it doesn’t truly, truly follow it.

I personally think it is largely deceiving. However, to be pedantic, it doesn’t say that it was revised to “conform to” or “comply with” LA, meaning that it would have had to follow everything contained therein, it says it was revised “according to” LA. So, strictly speaking, it wouldn’t technically have to follow everything that LA stipulates, based on how they worded it.

Now, as to why they WOULDN’T want it to do completely conform, I can’t say. Hopefully, they release a new revision when the Ratio Translationis for the English Language comes out.

Speaking of which, for those of you not familiar with the Ratio Translationis: Liturgiam Authenticum, part 9, states that a Ratio Translationis for each vernacular language will be created that will further define and explain how to apply the stipulations of Liturgiam Authenticam to a translation. Work has been done recently on a Ratio Translationis for the English-language. The Vox Clara Committee, the group working on this English vernacular Ratio Translationis will meet again in May 2006, in which, from what I understand, they will finalize supplementary material and complete it.

 

[mmortal03]

SFH:

And lest anyone think that Manfred and I are making a mountain out of a mole hill

Yeah, I seriously don’t know how they could have labeled it that way, and think that it was proper. There is no need to mention LA if it doesn’t truly, truly follow it.

I personally think it is largely deceiving. However, to be pedantic, it doesn’t say that it was revised to “conform to” or “comply with” LA, meaning that it would have had to follow everything contained therein, it says it was revised “according to” LA. So, strictly speaking, it wouldn’t technically have to follow everything that LA stipulates, based on how they worded it.

Now, as to why they WOULDN’T want it to do completely conform, I can’t say. Hopefully, they release a new revision when the Ratio Translationis for the English Language comes out.

Speaking of which, for those of you not familiar with the Ratio Translationis: Liturgiam Authenticum, part 9, states that a Ratio Translationis for each vernacular language will be created that will further define and explain how to apply the stipulations of Liturgiam Authenticam to a translation. Work has been done recently on a Ratio Translationis for the English-language. The Vox Clara Committee, the group working on this English vernacular Ratio Translationis will meet again in May 2006, in which, from what I understand, they will finalize supplementary material and complete it.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

johnbres2:

porthos, I’m with you there, as that is nowhere near as key as the “young woman”/“virgin”, “full of grace”/“favored one” type distinctions. I am prepared to accept the RSV-SCE with some minor imperfections like that, since no translation is perfect.

johnbres2:

“Young woman” - HEBREW of Isaiah 7:14
“Virgin” - GREEK Septuagent of Isaiah 7:14
“Truly, truly” - Trans of GREEK “Amen, amen”
“Amen, amen” GREEK Transliteration of Aramaism
"Full of Grace/“Favored One” - Translation of GREEK kecharitomene “Having been graced or favored” - which still supports the Immaculate Conception.

I think these are great tools, and you don’t have to be a greek scholar to use them:

Scripture4All - Online Greek Interlinear
scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Greek_Index.htm

Greek Alphabet for novices:
physlink.com/reference/GreekAlphabet.cfm

Greek Septuagent, Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia and NT Greek:
studylight.org/isb/

This last one you have to know Greek - It’s the Greek Orthodox Website with the entire Bible in Greek, no subtitles:
apostoliki-diakonia.gr/bible/old_testament/index.html

In Christ, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

johnbres2:

porthos, I’m with you there, as that is nowhere near as key as the “young woman”/“virgin”, “full of grace”/“favored one” type distinctions. I am prepared to accept the RSV-SCE with some minor imperfections like that, since no translation is perfect.

johnbres2:

“Young woman” - HEBREW of Isaiah 7:14
“Virgin” - GREEK Septuagent of Isaiah 7:14
“Truly, truly” - Trans of GREEK “Amen, amen”
“Amen, amen” GREEK Transliteration of Aramaism
"Full of Grace/“Favored One” - Translation of GREEK kecharitomene “Having been graced or favored” - which still supports the Immaculate Conception.

I think these are great tools, and you don’t have to be a greek scholar to use them:

Scripture4All - Online Greek Interlinear
scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Greek_Index.htm

Greek Alphabet for novices:
physlink.com/reference/GreekAlphabet.cfm

Greek Septuagent, Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia and NT Greek:
studylight.org/isb/

This last one you have to know Greek - It’s the Greek Orthodox Website with the entire Bible in Greek, no subtitles:
apostoliki-diakonia.gr/bible/old_testament/index.html

In Christ, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

James the Least:

Here’s a hoot for those who have not discovered it yet. (And I won’t give it away in this post for the sake of those who like to discover cool things themselves.) In the Douay-Rheims (the edition I have is the Challoner, reprinted by TAN in 2000, and am one of those who was influenced to buy it by the Thomas Nelson booklet], go to Mt. 6:11 and read the Our Father slowly. Enjoy the surprise.

God bless you all. -James the Least

James:

I think the Tanslator and commentator both got it wrong - The Lord wants us to pray for EVERYTHING that we need, and not just to be fed in the Eucharist.

Et cum Spiritu tuom, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

James the Least:

Here’s a hoot for those who have not discovered it yet. (And I won’t give it away in this post for the sake of those who like to discover cool things themselves.) In the Douay-Rheims (the edition I have is the Challoner, reprinted by TAN in 2000, and am one of those who was influenced to buy it by the Thomas Nelson booklet], go to Mt. 6:11 and read the Our Father slowly. Enjoy the surprise.

God bless you all. -James the Least

James:

I think the Tanslator and commentator both got it wrong - The Lord wants us to pray for EVERYTHING that we need, and not just to be fed in the Eucharist.

Et cum Spiritu tuom, Michael

 

[SFH]

Traditional Ang:

James:

I think the Tanslator and commentator both got it wrong - The Lord wants us to pray for EVERYTHING that we need, and not just to be fed in the Eucharist.

Et cum Spiritu tuom, Michael

If you’re referring to “supersubstantial bread,” I believe that’s an alternate translation of the Greek text. The Nova Vulgata maintains “supersubstantiam” rather than “quotidianum” (daily bread).

 

[SFH]

Traditional Ang:

James:

I think the Tanslator and commentator both got it wrong - The Lord wants us to pray for EVERYTHING that we need, and not just to be fed in the Eucharist.

Et cum Spiritu tuom, Michael

If you’re referring to “supersubstantial bread,” I believe that’s an alternate translation of the Greek text. The Nova Vulgata maintains “supersubstantiam” rather than “quotidianum” (daily bread).

 

[rciadan]

tjmiller:

The DRV:
the ONLY Catholic version.

Agreed!

 

[rciadan]

tjmiller:

The DRV:
the ONLY Catholic version.

Agreed!

 

[tilis]

Manfred:

What think ye, brethren?

    Texts of the RSV-CE and Some Suggested Corrections

Genesis 12:3 text “and by you all the families of the earth shall bless themselves”; footnote “in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed” to agree with Acts 3:25 and Galatians 3:8

Genesis 18:18 text “and all the nations of the earth shall bless
themselves by him”; footnote “in him all the nations of the earth shall be blessed” to agree with Acts 3:25 and Galatians 3:8

Genesis 22:18 text “and by your descendants shall all the nations of the earth bless themselves”; better “be blessed”

Genesis 26:4 text “and by your descendants all the nations of the earth shall bless themselves”; better “be blessed”

Genesis 28:14 text “and by you and your descendants shall all the families of the earth bless themselves”; footnote “be blessed”

Genesis 9:20 text “Noah was the first tiller of the soil. He planted a vineyard” better “Noah began to till the soil and planted a vineyard”

Exodus 3:14 text “I AM WHO I AM”; better “I AM WHO AM”

Tobit 13:18 text “Hallelujah”; better “Alleluia”

Psalm 45:6-9

text “[6] Your divine throne endures for ever and ever.
Your royal scepter is a scepter of equity;
[7] you love righteousness and hate wickedness.
Therefore God, your God, has anointed you
with the oil of gladness above your fellows;
[8] your robes are all fragrant with myrrh and aloes and cassia.
From ivory palaces stringed instruments make you glad;
[9] daughters of kings are among your ladies of honor;
at your right hand stands the queen in gold of Ophir.”

better “[6] Thy throne, O God, endures for ever and ever.
Thy royal scepter is a scepter of equity;
[7] thou lovest righteousness and hatest wickedness.
Therefore God, thy God, has anointed thee
with the oil of gladness above thy fellows;
[8] thy robes are all fragrant with myrrh and aloes and cassia.
From ivory palaces stringed instruments make thee glad;
[9] daughters of kings are among thy ladies of honor;
at thy right hand stands the queen in gold of Ophir.”

Psalm 104:35; 105:45; 106:1,48; 112:1; 113:1,9; 115:18; 116:19; 117:2; 135:1,21; 146:1,10; 147:20; 148:1,14; 149:1,9; 150:1,6 text “Praise the LORD!”; better “Alleluia!”

Proverbs 5:19 text “affection” better “breasts”

Isaiah 7:14 text “young woman”; footnote “virgin”

Throughout all four Gospels text “Truly, I say to you” or “Truly,
truly, I say to you”; better “Amen, I say to you” or Amen, amen I say to you"

Note: texts of all parallel NT passages have not been included herein.

Matthew 16:18 text “powers of death”; footnote “gates of Hades”; better “gates of hell”

Matthew 16:26 text “life”; better “soul”

Matthew 19:5 text “one”; footnote “one flesh”

Matthew 19:6 text “one”; footnote “one flesh”

Matthew 16:9 text “unchastity”; better “fornication”

Matthew 20:15 text “Or do you begrudge my generosity?” footnote “Or is your eye evil because I am good?”

Luke 1:34 text “How can this be, since I have no husband?”; better “How shall this be, since I do not know man?”

John 2:4 text “what have you to do with me?”; better “what to you and to me?”

John 19:5 text “Here is the man!”; better “Behold, the man!”

1 Corinthians 6:9 text “the immoral”; Explanatory Notes “fornicators”

1 Corinthians 6:9 text “homosexuals”; Explanatory Notes “effeminate nor sodomites”

1 Corinthians 6:16 text “one”; footnote “one flesh”

1 Corinthians 7:9 text “cannot”; better “do not”

1 Corinthians 9:5 text “wife”; footnote “woman, sister”

Hebrews 2:10 text “pioneer”; better “author”

Hebrews 12:2 text “pioneer”; better “author”

Revelation 3:15 text “I will spew you out of my mouth.”; better “I am about to vomit you out of my mouth.”

Revelation 19:1,3,4,6 text “Hallelujah”; better “Alleluia”

Some of the “corrections” that you call for concern the old testament and New Testament quotations of the Old Testament. The reason that differences occur is becasue the Old Testament was written in Hebrew (mostly) but the New Testament quotes from the greek translation of the Old Testament. I think that the differences should remain so that there is no confusion about what the original texts are actually saying. Forcing the translation of the Hebrew OT to fit the NT quotations of the greek OT seems a bit dishonest.

 

[tilis]

Manfred:

What think ye, brethren?

    Texts of the RSV-CE and Some Suggested Corrections

Genesis 12:3 text “and by you all the families of the earth shall bless themselves”; footnote “in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed” to agree with Acts 3:25 and Galatians 3:8

Genesis 18:18 text “and all the nations of the earth shall bless
themselves by him”; footnote “in him all the nations of the earth shall be blessed” to agree with Acts 3:25 and Galatians 3:8

Genesis 22:18 text “and by your descendants shall all the nations of the earth bless themselves”; better “be blessed”

Genesis 26:4 text “and by your descendants all the nations of the earth shall bless themselves”; better “be blessed”

Genesis 28:14 text “and by you and your descendants shall all the families of the earth bless themselves”; footnote “be blessed”

Genesis 9:20 text “Noah was the first tiller of the soil. He planted a vineyard” better “Noah began to till the soil and planted a vineyard”

Exodus 3:14 text “I AM WHO I AM”; better “I AM WHO AM”

Tobit 13:18 text “Hallelujah”; better “Alleluia”

Psalm 45:6-9

text “[6] Your divine throne endures for ever and ever.
Your royal scepter is a scepter of equity;
[7] you love righteousness and hate wickedness.
Therefore God, your God, has anointed you
with the oil of gladness above your fellows;
[8] your robes are all fragrant with myrrh and aloes and cassia.
From ivory palaces stringed instruments make you glad;
[9] daughters of kings are among your ladies of honor;
at your right hand stands the queen in gold of Ophir.”

better “[6] Thy throne, O God, endures for ever and ever.
Thy royal scepter is a scepter of equity;
[7] thou lovest righteousness and hatest wickedness.
Therefore God, thy God, has anointed thee
with the oil of gladness above thy fellows;
[8] thy robes are all fragrant with myrrh and aloes and cassia.
From ivory palaces stringed instruments make thee glad;
[9] daughters of kings are among thy ladies of honor;
at thy right hand stands the queen in gold of Ophir.”

Psalm 104:35; 105:45; 106:1,48; 112:1; 113:1,9; 115:18; 116:19; 117:2; 135:1,21; 146:1,10; 147:20; 148:1,14; 149:1,9; 150:1,6 text “Praise the LORD!”; better “Alleluia!”

Proverbs 5:19 text “affection” better “breasts”

Isaiah 7:14 text “young woman”; footnote “virgin”

Throughout all four Gospels text “Truly, I say to you” or “Truly,
truly, I say to you”; better “Amen, I say to you” or Amen, amen I say to you"

Note: texts of all parallel NT passages have not been included herein.

Matthew 16:18 text “powers of death”; footnote “gates of Hades”; better “gates of hell”

Matthew 16:26 text “life”; better “soul”

Matthew 19:5 text “one”; footnote “one flesh”

Matthew 19:6 text “one”; footnote “one flesh”

Matthew 16:9 text “unchastity”; better “fornication”

Matthew 20:15 text “Or do you begrudge my generosity?” footnote “Or is your eye evil because I am good?”

Luke 1:34 text “How can this be, since I have no husband?”; better “How shall this be, since I do not know man?”

John 2:4 text “what have you to do with me?”; better “what to you and to me?”

John 19:5 text “Here is the man!”; better “Behold, the man!”

1 Corinthians 6:9 text “the immoral”; Explanatory Notes “fornicators”

1 Corinthians 6:9 text “homosexuals”; Explanatory Notes “effeminate nor sodomites”

1 Corinthians 6:16 text “one”; footnote “one flesh”

1 Corinthians 7:9 text “cannot”; better “do not”

1 Corinthians 9:5 text “wife”; footnote “woman, sister”

Hebrews 2:10 text “pioneer”; better “author”

Hebrews 12:2 text “pioneer”; better “author”

Revelation 3:15 text “I will spew you out of my mouth.”; better “I am about to vomit you out of my mouth.”

Revelation 19:1,3,4,6 text “Hallelujah”; better “Alleluia”

Some of the “corrections” that you call for concern the old testament and New Testament quotations of the Old Testament. The reason that differences occur is becasue the Old Testament was written in Hebrew (mostly) but the New Testament quotes from the greek translation of the Old Testament. I think that the differences should remain so that there is no confusion about what the original texts are actually saying. Forcing the translation of the Hebrew OT to fit the NT quotations of the greek OT seems a bit dishonest.

 

[mmortal03]

tilis:

Some of the “corrections” that you call for concern the old testament and New Testament quotations of the Old Testament. The reason that differences occur is becasue the Old Testament was written in Hebrew (mostly) but the New Testament quotes from the greek translation of the Old Testament. I think that the differences should remain so that there is no confusion about what the original texts are actually saying. Forcing the translation of the Hebrew OT to fit the NT quotations of the greek OT seems a bit dishonest.

I agree with you, but this is one of the differing opinions people have with you and I that I have read before:

In terms of translation philosophy, Augustine got it right when he said,

“The New Testament is concealed in the Old and the Old is revealed in the New”. You cannot understand one without the other. So if Matthew translates Isaiah 7:14 as “the virgin shall conceive” I think that should be taken into consideration when translating that passage. Translators always have choices. In this case “young woman” and “virgin” are two valid choices. That being the case, why not translate using the word Matthew uses, which enhances (rather than blurs) the Messianic meaning. The RSV translators, by self consciously translating as if the NT did not exist, are unique among Bible translators in using this tactic.

In my own opinion, they should never use the Old Testament to translate the New, but instead place in the sidenotes a reference to the New Testament at that passage in the Old Testament. Translate the language as close as possible to what it would have meant back then, not what it would have meant to the New Testament writer.

A side question I have is: How does the Septuagint translate this passage?

 

[mmortal03]

tilis:

Some of the “corrections” that you call for concern the old testament and New Testament quotations of the Old Testament. The reason that differences occur is becasue the Old Testament was written in Hebrew (mostly) but the New Testament quotes from the greek translation of the Old Testament. I think that the differences should remain so that there is no confusion about what the original texts are actually saying. Forcing the translation of the Hebrew OT to fit the NT quotations of the greek OT seems a bit dishonest.

I agree with you, but this is one of the differing opinions people have with you and I that I have read before:

In terms of translation philosophy, Augustine got it right when he said,

“The New Testament is concealed in the Old and the Old is revealed in the New”. You cannot understand one without the other. So if Matthew translates Isaiah 7:14 as “the virgin shall conceive” I think that should be taken into consideration when translating that passage. Translators always have choices. In this case “young woman” and “virgin” are two valid choices. That being the case, why not translate using the word Matthew uses, which enhances (rather than blurs) the Messianic meaning. The RSV translators, by self consciously translating as if the NT did not exist, are unique among Bible translators in using this tactic.

In my own opinion, they should never use the Old Testament to translate the New, but instead place in the sidenotes a reference to the New Testament at that passage in the Old Testament. Translate the language as close as possible to what it would have meant back then, not what it would have meant to the New Testament writer.

A side question I have is: How does the Septuagint translate this passage?

 

[tilis]

mmortal03:

I agree with you, but this is one of the differing opinions people have with you and I that I have read before:

In my own opinion, they should never use the Old Testament to translate the New, but instead place in the sidenotes a reference to the New Testament at that passage in the Old Testament. Translate the language as close as possible to what it would have meant back then, not what it would have meant to the New Testament writer.

A side question I have is: How does the Septuagint translate this passage?

agreed.

 

[tilis]

mmortal03:

I agree with you, but this is one of the differing opinions people have with you and I that I have read before:

In my own opinion, they should never use the Old Testament to translate the New, but instead place in the sidenotes a reference to the New Testament at that passage in the Old Testament. Translate the language as close as possible to what it would have meant back then, not what it would have meant to the New Testament writer.

A side question I have is: How does the Septuagint translate this passage?

agreed.

 

[mmortal03]

mmortal03:

Were the recent Oxford Press RSV Catholic Bibles before this one that is to be released soon just a reissue of the original RSVCE? Shouldn’t these new ones just be the same as the First Edition Ignatius Bibles and the Scepter Publishers version?

If this is not the case, and this one contains revisions, did the Compact Editions that were just released a year ago by Oxford also have these revisons and then this new one is just a full size text of those? Does the Oxford Press version have archaic language? Does anyone have more info?

I contacted Oxford Press about their RSV Catholic Bibles, and I received a quick response:

Although the RSV Catholic Edition Reader’s Size Bible has been
delayed, and we still do not have a firm date for its publication, I
can answer your question.

The text of the RSV Catholic Edition is fixed and cannot be altered.
The translation owner, the National Council of Churches, licenses the
text as it is. In addition, since the text carries an imprimatur, it
cannot be changed because an imprimatur is granted for the form of the
text that was submitted for that approval. Except for the correction
of obvious typographical errors, therefore, every RSV-CE will be
identical.

Sincerely,

Donald Kraus
Executive Editor, Bibles

Given this, I do not know why there are cases with people saying that their RSV Catholic Edition Bibles read differently with regards to Luke 1:34. All RSV-CE’s (1965) should read “How can…” and all RSV (1971) should read “How shall…” No RSV-CE’s should read “how shall…” unless somehow they were able to define this as an “obvious typographical error”.

jpy15026, can you confirm again that Luke 1:34 in your Oxford Press RSV-CE Compact Edition reads “how shall…”?

We know that the Ignatius Bible First and Second Editions read “how can…” From what I understand, the Scepter editons have the same text as the Ignatius First Edition, but it would be nice if someone could double check.

Just to be complete, does anyone have any of the two C. D. Stampley Enterprises editions (Family Bibles) from 2002? How about Oxford Press’ brand new “The Catholic Comparative New Testament”, how does it render it? Finally, how does My Daily Catholic Bible: Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition from Our Sunday Visitor (September 2004) render it?

 

[mmortal03]

mmortal03:

Were the recent Oxford Press RSV Catholic Bibles before this one that is to be released soon just a reissue of the original RSVCE? Shouldn’t these new ones just be the same as the First Edition Ignatius Bibles and the Scepter Publishers version?

If this is not the case, and this one contains revisions, did the Compact Editions that were just released a year ago by Oxford also have these revisons and then this new one is just a full size text of those? Does the Oxford Press version have archaic language? Does anyone have more info?

I contacted Oxford Press about their RSV Catholic Bibles, and I received a quick response:

Although the RSV Catholic Edition Reader’s Size Bible has been
delayed, and we still do not have a firm date for its publication, I
can answer your question.

The text of the RSV Catholic Edition is fixed and cannot be altered.
The translation owner, the National Council of Churches, licenses the
text as it is. In addition, since the text carries an imprimatur, it
cannot be changed because an imprimatur is granted for the form of the
text that was submitted for that approval. Except for the correction
of obvious typographical errors, therefore, every RSV-CE will be
identical.

Sincerely,

Donald Kraus
Executive Editor, Bibles

Given this, I do not know why there are cases with people saying that their RSV Catholic Edition Bibles read differently with regards to Luke 1:34. All RSV-CE’s (1965) should read “How can…” and all RSV (1971) should read “How shall…” No RSV-CE’s should read “how shall…” unless somehow they were able to define this as an “obvious typographical error”.

jpy15026, can you confirm again that Luke 1:34 in your Oxford Press RSV-CE Compact Edition reads “how shall…”?

We know that the Ignatius Bible First and Second Editions read “how can…” From what I understand, the Scepter editons have the same text as the Ignatius First Edition, but it would be nice if someone could double check.

Just to be complete, does anyone have any of the two C. D. Stampley Enterprises editions (Family Bibles) from 2002? How about Oxford Press’ brand new “The Catholic Comparative New Testament”, how does it render it? Finally, how does My Daily Catholic Bible: Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition from Our Sunday Visitor (September 2004) render it?