RSV-CE Needs Corrections

  • Thread starter Thread starter Manfred
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Original 1965 RSVCE and Ignatius Bible First Edition:
Isaiah 7:14: uses Masoretic Text “young woman”
Psalm 8:5: uses Masoretic Text “Yet thou hast made him little less than God”
Matthew 16:18: “powers of death”, footnote “gates of Hades”
Luke 1:34: “How can this be”
John 19:5: “Here is the man”
Matthew 19:5, 19:6, 1 Corinthians 6:16 “one”, footnote “one flesh”
Throughout OT: “steadfast love”, “***”
Exodus 15:13: “steadfast love”
Archaic language spoken to God.
Full pronunciation marks on names.
Psalms: “double numbering” from 11 to 148.
Romans 5:5: “Holy Spirit who”
Luke 1:28: "Hail, full of grace"
Luke 23:42: “in your *kingly power” *footnote: Greek “kingdom”
Footnotes and cross references, with the Appendix 1 containing further explanatory notes at the end.

Ignatius Bible RSV Second Catholic Edition:
(based on the 1965 RSVCE and Ignatius First Edition)
Isaiah 7:14: uses Septuagint “virgin”
Psalm 8:5: uses Septuagint “Yet you have made him little less than the angels”
Matthew 16:18: “gates of Hades”, footnote “powers of death”
Luke 1:34: “How can this be”
John 19:5: “Here is the man”
Matthew 19:5, 19:6, 1 Corinthians 6:16 “one”, footnote “one flesh”
Throughout OT: “mercy”, “donkey”
Exodus 15:13: “merciful love”
Only Archaic language in a few specific cases.
“semi” pronunciation marks on names.
Psalms: “double numbering” from 11 to 148.
Romans 5:5: “Holy Spirit who”
Luke 1:28: "Hail, full of grace"
Luke 23:42: “in your *kingly power” *footnote: Greek “kingdom”
Footnotes and cross references. All the explanatory notes were moved to the footnotes.

Douay Rheims: Challoner Edition:
Isaiah 7:14: uses Septuagint “virgin”
Psalm 8:5: uses Septuagint “Thou hast made him a little less than the angels”
Matthew 16:18: “gates of Hell”
Luke 1:34: “How shall this be”
John 19:5: “Behold the man”
Matthew 19:5, 19:6, 1 Corinthians 6:16 “one flesh”
Throughout OT: “mercy”, “***”
Exodus 15:13: “mercy”
Archaic language spoken to God.
No pronunciation marks on names.
Psalms: No “double numbering” from 11 to 148.
Romans 5:5: “Holy Ghost who”
Luke 1:28: “Hail, full of grace”
Luke 23:42: “into thy kingdom”

Oxford Press/Scepter RSVCE: **
(presumably based on the 1971 RSV)
Isaiah 7:14: uses Masoretic Text “young woman”
Psalm 8:5: uses Masoretic Text “Yet thou hast made him little less than God”
Matthew 16:18: “powers of death”, footnote “gates of Hades”
Luke 1:34: “How shall this be”
John 19:5: “Behold, the man”
Matthew 19:5, 19:6, 1 Corinthians 6:16 “one flesh”, no footnote
Throughout OT: “steadfast love”, "*"
Exodus 15:13: “steadfast love”
Archaic language spoken to God.
“semi” pronunciation marks on names.
Psalms: No “double numbering” from 11 to 148.
Romans 5:5: “Holy Spirit who”
Luke 1:28: "Hail, full of grace"
Luke 23:42: “into your kingdom”
Footnotes and cross references, with the Appendix 1 containing further explanatory notes at the end.

1971 RSV
Isaiah 7:14: uses Masoretic Text “young woman”
Psalm 8:5: uses Masoretic Text “Yet thou hast made him little less than God”
Matthew 16:18: “powers of death”, footnote “gates of Hades”
Luke 1:34: “How shall this be”
John 19:5: “Behold, the man”
Matthew 19:5, 19:6, 1 Corinthians 6:16 “one flesh”
Throughout OT: “steadfast love”, “***”
Exodus 15:13: “steadfast love”
Archaic language spoken to God.
“semi” pronunciation marks on names.
Psalms: No “double numbering” from 11 to 148.
Romans 5:5: “Holy Spirit which” elsewhere it is “who”
Luke 1:28" "Hail, O favored one"
Luke 23:42: “into your kingdom”

I have bolded where Catholic changes were made. Otherwise, the Oxford Press Compact CE matches the 1971 RSV, and the Ignatius Bible First Edition matches the 1959 RSV.

The Ignatius Bible Second Edition looks to have simply updated the Ignatius Bible First Edition according to the Douay Rheims in a few cases, while the Oxford Press CE matches the Douay Rheims by way of the 1971 RSV in other different cases.
 
I have bolded where Catholic changes were made. Otherwise, the Oxford Press Compact CE matches the 1971 RSV, and the Ignatius Bible First Edition matches the 1959 RSV.

Your slipping,You forgot one:

Ignatius 1st
Job11:12
But a stupid man will get understanding, when a wild ***'s colt is born a man.

*Ignatius 2nd. *
Job11:12
A “wild donkey”

Scepter
Job11:12
But a stupid man will get understanding, when a wild ***'s colt is born a man.

DouayRheims
Job11:12
A vain man is lifted up into pride, and thinketh himself born free like a wild ***'s colt
 
Original 1965 RSVCE and Ignatius Bible First Edition:

Differences compared to Standard RSV editions
Romans 5:5: “Holy Spirit who”
Luke 1:28: “Hail, full of grace”

The following match the 1959 RSV
Luke 1:34: “How can this be”
John 19:5: “Here is the man”
Matthew 19:5, 19:6, 1 Corinthians 6:16 “one”, footnote “one flesh”
Luke 23:42: “in your *kingly power” *footnote: Greek “kingdom”

The following also match the 1959 RSV
Isaiah 7:14: uses Masoretic Text “young woman”
Psalm 8:5: uses Masoretic Text “Yet thou hast made him little less than God”
Matthew 16:18: “powers of death”, footnote “gates of Hades”
Throughout OT: “steadfast love”, “***”
Exodus 15:13: “steadfast love”

Other
Psalms: “double numbering” from 11 to 148.
Footnotes and cross references; Appendix 1 contains further explanatory notes.
Archaic language spoken to God.
Full pronunciation marks on names.

Ignatius Bible RSV Second Catholic Edition: (based on the Ignatius First Edition)

Differences compared to Standard RSV editions
Romans 5:5: “Holy Spirit who”
Luke 1:28: “Hail, full of grace”

The following match the 1959 RSV
Luke 1:34: “How can this be”
John 19:5: “Here is the man”
Matthew 19:5, 19:6, 1 Corinthians 6:16 “one”, footnote “one flesh”
Luke 23:42: “in your *kingly power” *footnote: Greek “kingdom”

The following were changed in this edition
Isaiah 7:14: uses Septuagint “virgin”
Psalm 8:5: uses Septuagint “Yet you have made him little less than the angels”
Matthew 16:18: “gates of Hades”, footnote “powers of death”
Throughout OT: “mercy”, “donkey”
Exodus 15:13: “merciful love”

Other
Psalms: “double numbering” from 11 to 148.
Footnotes and cross references. All the explanatory notes were moved to the footnotes.
Only Archaic language in a few specific cases.
“semi” pronunciation marks on names.

Douay Rheims: Challoner Edition:

All Catholic Editions match the following
Romans 5:5: “Holy Ghost who”
Luke 1:28: “Hail, full of grace”

Only The 1971 RSV (and because of this, the Oxford) matches this
Luke 1:34: “How shall this be”
John 19:5: “Behold the man”
Matthew 19:5, 19:6, 1 Corinthians 6:16 “one flesh”
Luke 23:42: “into thy kingdom”

Only the Ignatius Bible Second Catholic Edition tried to match this
Isaiah 7:14: uses Septuagint “virgin”
Psalm 8:5: uses Septuagint “Thou hast made him a little less than the angels”
Matthew 16:18: “gates of Hell”
Throughout OT: “mercy”, “***”
Exodus 15:13: “mercy”

Other
Psalms: No “double numbering” from 11 to 148.
Footnotes and cross references?
Archaic language spoken to God.
No pronunciation marks on names.

**Oxford Press/Scepter RSVCE: ** (based on the 1971 RSV)

Differences compared to Standard RSV
Romans 5:5: “Holy Spirit who”
Luke 1:28: “Hail, full of grace”

The following match the 1971 RSV
Luke 1:34: “How shall this be”
John 19:5: “Behold, the man”
Matthew 19:5, 19:6, 1 Corinthians 6:16 “one flesh”, no footnote
Luke 23:42: “into your kingdom”

The following also match the 1971 RSV
Isaiah 7:14: uses Masoretic Text “young woman”
Psalm 8:5: uses Masoretic Text “Yet thou hast made him little less than God”
Matthew 16:18: “powers of death”, footnote “gates of Hades”
Throughout OT: “steadfast love”, “***”
Exodus 15:13: “steadfast love”

Other
Psalms: No “double numbering” from 11 to 148.
Footnotes and cross references; Appendix 1 contains further explanatory notes.
Archaic language spoken to God.
“semi” pronunciation marks on names.

1971 RSV

Romans 5:5: “Holy Spirit which”, but elsewhere it is “who”
**Luke 1:28" “Hail, O favored one”

Luke 1:34: “How shall this be”
John 19:5: “Behold, the man”
Matthew 19:5, 19:6, 1 Corinthians 6:16 “one flesh”
Luke 23:42: “into your kingdom”

Isaiah 7:14: uses Masoretic Text “young woman”
Psalm 8:5: uses Masoretic Text “Yet thou hast made him little less than God”
Matthew 16:18: “powers of death”, footnote “gates of Hades”
Throughout OT: “steadfast love”, “***”
Exodus 15:13: “steadfast love”

Other
Psalms: No “double numbering” from 11 to 148.
Footnotes and cross references?
Archaic language spoken to God.
“semi” pronunciation marks on names.

I have separated the Catholic changes that are not in the Standard RSV editions and placed them at the top. Besides these specifically Catholic changes that we have found so far, the Oxford Press Compact Catholic Edition matches the 1971 RSV and the Ignatius Bible First Edition matches the 1959 RSV.

The Ignatius Bible Second Edition looks to have simply updated the Ignatius Bible First Edition according to the Douay Rheims in a few cases (I have separated the differences so it is visible), while the Oxford Press CE also matches the Douay Rheims, but by way of the 1971 RSV, and in different cases.**
 
There, I’ve cleaned up everything, and made it much easier to tell the differences between the versions. Can a moderator please delete post #143?

jpy, I purposely left out the new donkey-related verse that you posted because the part about “Throughout OT: “steadfast love”, “***”” already covers it.

Thanks!
 
You guys are amazing.

We have a DR Family bible and are looking to replace, for obvious reasons, our NAB’s. What would you all recommend at this point of those already available or to be published in the near future?

Thanks.
 
Manfred, I assume that that reference you spoke of earlier is refering to the same Luke verses as the following page does?

bible-researcher.com/noninterp.html

Speaking of which, all but two of them (one is in none, one is footnoted) are all in the Ignatius Bible 1st and 2nd Catholic Edition, matching the NRSV listing on that page, and NOT matching the RSV 1959 and 1971 listing on that page. Looks like this issue is corrected in the Catholic Editions!

Thanks!
 
40.png
mmortal03:
Manfred, I assume that that reference you spoke of earlier is refering to the same Luke verses as the following page does?

bible-researcher.com/noninterp.html

Speaking of which, all but two of them (one is in none, one is footnoted) are all in the Ignatius Bible 1st and 2nd Catholic Edition, matching the NRSV listing on that page, and NOT matching the RSV 1959 and 1971 listing on that page. Looks like this issue is corrected in the Catholic Editions!

Thanks!
Click to expand...
Sorry, actually both that are missing are footnoted. Even better! 🙂

jpy, does your Oxford Press version match the retained and omitted passages as per the NRSV Bible column on the chart in the page referred to above? Your Appendix says it should, but does it actually? 😉 Thanks!
 
The soon to be released Oxford Press RSV:CE Reader’s Edition, if it matches their compact edtion, is looking pretty good to me, but then, I might be in the minority.

Some people will object to the following, because of various, in my opinion, unfounded, reasons:

Isaiah 7:14: uses Masoretic Text “young woman”
Psalm 8:5: uses Masoretic Text “Yet thou hast made him little less than God”
Matthew 16:18: “powers of death”, footnote “gates of Hades”

I actually have no problem with them. The first two properly match up with the Hebrew, and the third is arguably trivial. I personally don’t agree with the camp that somehow wants the RSV OT translation, based primarily on the Masoretic Text, to conveniently match any NT counterpart verses that were quoted from the Greek Septuagint.

Here is what I say: Forget what is traditional, and just do what is the most accurate. If the RSV translators, as well as their detractors, the conservatives of the time, both happened to agree that we should base our OT translations on the Hebrew, then by gracious, base our RSV OT translation on the Hebrew. Some say we shold then correct them if necessary from the Greek and the Dead Sea Scrolls. I agree with the concept of correcting them according to the Greek and the DSS regarding verses determined to be more accurate, but only in cases where there are clearly differences in passage wording, and not simply these differences in word definitions, like the two above cases are.

I am actually all for the recent translation projects, in progress as we speak, of the OT based solely on the Septuagint, which would, by default, correct all these “problems” that conservatives have related to how the RSV did its job. Have a problem with the RSV OT? Use the NETS OT then. That may just be what I do if the NETS project turns out a winner. Then we wouldn’t have to listen to any of this “take from the Septuagint when it is convenient” lameness, because someone just can’t split themselves from the MT because they historically placed their bets on its accuracy.

How is it that the same “conservatives” that say we should base our OT translations on the Hebrew also think that somehow the Greek is more accurate, but only in these specific cases where the Greek is quoted in the NT?
 
I apologize if the above is taken as a rant with no substance. Here is the actual black and white. Here are some more problems that “conservatives” (primarily Protestants) have said that they have with the RSV. I have yet to see the real examples. It’s not that I don’t trust what they are saying, I just want to see the actual examples besides the predictable Isaiah 7:14. Has anyone found a site providing them?

Quoting bible-researcher.com/rsv.html, emphasis mine :
As the conservative scholar R. Laird Harris wrote:
Click to expand...
It is a curious study to check the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, a monument of higher critical scholarship, and note how every important Old Testament passage purporting to predict directly the coming of Christ has been altered so as to remove this possibility … It is almost impossible to escape the conclusion that the admittedly higher critical bias of the translators has operated in all of these places. The translations given are by no means necessary from the Hebrew and in some cases … are in clear violation of the Hebrew.
Click to expand...
and
in Genesis 22:18 the RSV renders an ambiguous sentence as “by your descendents shall all the nations of the earth bless themselves” contrary to the interpretation given by the Apostle Paul in Galatians 3:8 and 3:16.
Click to expand...
I’d like to know more about how the line from Genesis actually differs from the Hebrew before I am completely convinced that the RSV translators didn’t actually believe (or want us to believe) that the OT prophesized the coming of Christ.

As for the quote about “the translations given are by no means necessary from the Hebrew and in some cases … are in clear violation of the Hebrew,” I’d have to read R. Laird Harris full opinion before I could completely comment, but I do have to say the folowing:

The problem I have with this is that the cases that it seems that he is describing as being “by no means necessary from the Hebrew”, are, for example, one’s like what we always hear about, e.g. Isaiah 7:14, which, remember, is completely fine in my eyes. If it is the proper translation of the Hebrew, but the New Testament just so happened to quote the Greek, I have no problem with the mismatch, as long as it is known to be primarily a translation from the Hebrew. For some reason, conservative Protestants don’t see this in the same light.

As for the verses in the OT that he describes as being “in clear violation of the Hebrew” that the RSV translators allegedly, for anti-Messianic purposes, altered, I have yet to not seen anybody ACTUALLY QUOTE WHICH PASSAGES that these offensive verses actually are. Can someone please list the “clearly” anti-Messianic, anti-Masora, AND anti-Septuagint verses in the RSV that R. Laird Harris speaks of? Has anyone read his “Inspiration and Canonicity of the Bible: An Historical and Exegetical Study. Contemporary Evangelical Perspectives. 2nd ed.” (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1969), p. 58, that this is quoted from?
 
40.png
mmortal03:
jpy, does your Oxford Press version match the retained and omitted passages as per the NRSV Bible column on the chart in the page referred to above? Your Appendix says it should, but does it actually?QUOTE]

They all match except words I underlined,Also Math 27:49,and Lk 24:6 are not in my Scepter Appendix,since it compares only the RSV to the RSV CE

** Luke 22:19b-20. “which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me. And likewise the cup after they had eaten*, saying, This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.”

Scepter
“which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me. And likewise the cup after supper, saying, This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.”

** Luke 24:12. “But Peter rose and ran to the tomb; stooping and looking in, he saw the linen cloths by themselves; and he went home marveling* at what had happened.”

Scepter
Luke 24:12. “But Peter rose and ran to the tomb; stooping and looking in, he saw the linen cloths by themselves; and he went home wondering at what had happened.”

.*
 
Genesis 22:18 (KJV)
*18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed (1288 barak) ; because thou hast obeyed my voice.

1288 בָּרַךְ , בָּרַךְ * barak / baw· rak* /] v . A primitive root; TWOT 285 ; GK 1384 and 1385 ; 330 occurrences; AV translates as “bless” 302 times, “salute” five times, “curse” four times, “blaspheme” twice, “blessing” twice, “praised” twice, “kneel down” twice, “congratulate” once, “kneel” once, “make to kneel” once, and translated miscellaneously eight times. 1 to bless, kneel. 1a ( Qal ). 1a1 to kneel. 1a2 to bless. 1b ( Niphal ) to be blessed, bless oneself. 1c ( Piel ) to bless. 1d ( Pual ) to be blessed, be adored. 1e ( Hiphil ) to cause to kneel. 1f ( Hithpael ) to bless oneself. 2 (TWOT) to praise, salute, curse.

A. Verb

barak ( 1288 ), “to kneel, bless, be blessed, curse.” The root of this word is found in other Semitic languages which, like Hebrew, use it most frequently with a deity as subject. There are also parallels to this word in Egyptian.

Barak occurs about 330 times in the Bible, first in Gen. 1:22 : “And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful and multiply, …” God’s first word to man is introduced in the same way: “And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply …” (v. 28 ). Thus the whole creation is shown to depend upon God for its continued existence and function (cf. Ps. 104:27-30 ). Barak is used again of man in Gen. 5:2 , at the beginning of the history of believing men, and again after the Flood in Gen. 9:1 : “And God blessed Noah and his sons.…” The central element of God’s covenant with Abram is: “I will bless thee … and thou shalt be a blessing: And I will bless them that bless thee … and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed” ( Gen. 12:2-3 ). This “blessing” on the nations is repeated in Gen. 18:18 ; 22:18 ; and 28:14 (cf. Gen. 26:4 ; Jer. 4:2 ). In all of these instances, God’s blessing goes out to the nations through Abraham or his seed. The Septuagint translates all of these occurrences of barak in the passive, as do the kjv , nasb , and niv . Paul quotes the Septuagint’s rendering of Gen. 22:18 in Gal. 3:8 .
The covenant promise called the nations to seek the “blessing” (cf. Isa. 2:2-4 ), but made it plain that the initiative in blessing rests with God, and that Abraham and his seed were the instruments of it. God, either directly or through His representatives, is the subject of this verb over 100 times. The Levitical benediction is based on this order: “On this wise ye shall bless the children of Israel … the Lord bless thee … and they shall put my name upon the children of Israel; and I will bless them” ( Num. 6:23 - 27 )

The passive form of barak is used in pronouncing God’s “blessing on men,” as through Melchizedek: “Blessed be Abram of the most high God …” ( Gen. 14:19 ). “Blessed be the Lord God of Shem …” ( Gen. 9:26 ) is an expression of praise. “Blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand” ( Gen. 14:20 ) is mingled praise and thanksgiving.

A common form of greeting was, “Blessed be thou of the Lord” ( 1 Sam. 15:13 ; cf. Ruth 2:4 ); “Saul went out to meet [Samuel], that he might salute him” ( 1 Sam. 13:10 ; “greet,” nasb and niv)

The simple form of the verb is used in 2 Chron. 6:13 : “He … kneeled down.…” Six times the verb is used to denote profanity, as in Job 1:5 : “It may be that my sons have sinned, and cursed God in their hearts.”
…Continued:
 
continued…
**B. Noun. **

berakah ( 1293 ), “blessing.” The root form of this word is found in northwest and south Semitic languages. It is used in conjunction with the verb barak (“to bless”) 71 times in the Old Testament. The word appears most frequently in Genesis and Deuteronomy. The first occurrence is God’s blessing of Abram: “I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing * berakah* ]” ( Gen. 12:2 ).

When expressed by men, a “blessing” was a wish or prayer for a blessing that is to come in the future: “And [God] give thee the blessing of Abraham, to thee, and to thy seed with thee; that thou mayest inherit the land wherein thou art a stranger, which God gave unto Abraham” ( Gen. 28:4 ). This refers to a “blessing” that the patriarchs customarily extended upon their children before they died. Jacob’s “blessings” on the tribes ( Gen. 49 ) and Moses’ “blessing” ( Deut. 33:1ff .) are other familiar examples of this.

Blessing was the opposite of a cursing (* qelalah* ): “My father peradventure will feel me, and I shall seem to him as a deceiver; and I shall bring a curse upon me, and not a blessing” ( Gen. 27:12 ). The blessing might also be presented more concretely in the form of a gift. For example, “Take, I pray thee, my blessing that is brought to thee; because God hath dealt graciously with me, and because I have enough. And he urged him, and he took it” ( Gen. 33:11 ). When a “blessing” was directed to God, it was a word of praise and thanksgiving, as in: “Stand up and bless the Lord your God for ever and ever: and blessed be thy glorious name, which is exalted above all blessing and praise” ( Neh. 9:5 ).

The Lord’s “blessing” rests on those who are faithful to Him: “A blessing, if ye obey the commandments of the Lord your God, which I command you this day …” ( Deut. 11:27 ). His blessing brings righteousness ( Ps. 24:5 ), life ( Ps. 133:3 ), prosperity ( 2 Sam. 7:29 ), and salvation ( Ps. 3:8 ). The “blessing” is portrayed as a rain or dew: “I will make them and the places round about my hill a blessing; and I will cause the shower to come down in his season; there shall be showers of blessing” ( Ezek. 34:26 ; cf. Ps. 84:6 ). In the fellowship of the saints, the Lord commands His “blessing”: "[It is] as the dew of Hermon, and as the dew that descended upon the mountains of Zion: for there the Lord commanded the blessing, even life for evermore” ( Ps. 133:3 ).

In a few cases, the Lord made people to be a “blessing” to others. Abraham is a blessing to the nations ( Gen. 12:2 ). His descendants are expected to become a blessing to the nations ( Isa. 19:24 ; Zech. 8:13 ).

The Septuagint translates berakah as eulogia (“praise; blessing”). The kjv has these translations: “blessing; present (gift).
 
jpy15026 said:
*

Click to expand...

*jpy, does your Oxford Press version match the retained and omitted passages as per the NRSV Bible column on the chart in the page referred to above? Your Appendix says it should, but does it actually?
They all match except words I underlined,Also Math 27:49,and Lk 24:6 are not in my Scepter Appendix,since it compares only the RSV to the RSV CE

Actually, your appendix should list 24:6, it just lists it as 24:5. Your appendix should also not list 27:49 and 24:3, because these were not altered, they were just left in the footnotes.

Thanks a lot for giving the differences. I don’t know if the translations of these verses matter so much for the current topic as far as comparing different RSV editions; what is more important is just whether they were included or not. By the way, I think those verses he uses are the ESV translations.
Click to expand...
 
*Galatians 3:8 *
*8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be *blessed ( 1757).”

***Vine’s Expository ***( 1757 ), eneulogeomai “to bless,” is used in the passive voice, Acts 3:25 , and Gal. 3:8 . The prefix en apparently indicates the person on whom the blessing is conferred.

New Stong’ Dictionary* 1757* .ἐνευλογέωĕnĕulŏgĕō , en-yoo-log-eh´-o; from 1722 and 2127 ; to confer a benefit on: — bless.

Strong’s Lexicon 1757 ἐνευλογέω * eneulogeo* / en·yoo·log·** eh** ·o /] v erb. From 1722 and 2127 ; TDNT 2:765 ; TDNTA 275 ; GK 1922 ; Two occurrences; AV translates as “bless” twice.1 to confer benefits on, to bless.

TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament
TDNTA Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Abridged in One Volume
GK Goodrick-Kohlenberger
AV Authorized Version
 
Yeah, so it looks like Genesis 22:18 is obviously not refering to the second description in the notes you gave, the patriarchical blessing (as in some other verses in Genesis), because in this case, God is speaking to them, right? This is obviously God’s blessing (as traditionally found in this verse and others), so the “bless themselves” part is completely wrong. It is implicitly “be blessed [by Me, God]” and not them blessing themselves, unless I am missing something.

I recognize the passive voice, but what about the tense? Is there a difference in tense between “may they be blessed” and “may they bless themselves”? We read either as to be refering to the future, but it is confusing whether or not the words themselves are actually in the future tense or not.

Now, what about the “by your descendents” part? It is rendered elsewhere as “in you” and “in your seed”. Which most appropriately matches the Hebrew?
 
Hey,
What does everyone think about drafting a small e-mail request to submit to Scepter/Oxford on a very few Major corrections(changes) that we would really like to see ,based on findings on this forum,in the upcoming new full size RSVCE Reader’s Edition if it matches their compact?

Such as Genesis 22:18 the RSV renders an ambiguous sentence as “by your descendents shall all the nations of the earth bless themselves” contrary to the interpretation given by the Apostle Paul in Galatians 3:8 and 3:16

Isaiah 7:14: uses Masoretic Text “young woman”

Psalm 8:5: uses Masoretic Text “Yet thou hast made him little less than God”

Matthew 16:18: “powers of death”, footnote “gates of Hades”

Mercy instead of steadfast love through out O.T

Any others that are major?? Add ,subtract , correct from these??
A few major changes might be acceptable to them,all we can do is ask,we have nothing to lose!
 
40.png
jpy15026:
Hey,
What does everyone think about drafting a small e-mail request to submit to Scepter/Oxford on a very few Major corrections(changes) that we would really like to see ,based on findings on this forum,in the upcoming new full size RSVCE Reader’s Edition if it matches their compact?

Such as Genesis 22:18 the RSV renders an ambiguous sentence as “by your descendents shall all the nations of the earth bless themselves” contrary to the interpretation given by the Apostle Paul in Galatians 3:8 and 3:16

Isaiah 7:14: uses Masoretic Text “young woman”

Psalm 8:5: uses Masoretic Text “Yet thou hast made him little less than God”

Matthew 16:18: “powers of death”, footnote “gates of Hades”

Mercy instead of steadfast love through out O.T

Any others that are major?? Add ,subtract , correct from these??
A few major changes might be acceptable to them,all we can do is ask,we have nothing to lose!
Click to expand...
I looked up the “Mercy instead of steadfast love” situation the other day, and while you might think that “mercy” is more “readable,” actually, “steadfast love” is the less confusing and more appropriate rendering of the Hebrew word in the many of the specific verses where they made the change. One example is Psalm 136. see here: brow.on.ca/Sermons/Ps136.htm

Also, like I said above, I would NOT want them to change Isaiah 7:14 or Psalm 8:5. I just don’t think they need to change them for the translation to be Catholic. As for Matthew 16:18 and Genesis 22:18, yeah, if it seems like they didn’t translate the Hebrew accurately, sure, try to get them changed. The only thing is, it isn’t like they had some monkey throw random words in for those specific verses… it is probable that there is a method to their madness, and I’d like to know what their method was for those verses before I go and tell them that they should change it.
 
Speaking of which, now that we know more, and, as per thread #94, emphasis mine:
40.png
mmortal03:
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.
Click to expand...
The text of the RSV Catholic Edition is fixed and cannot be altered.
Click to expand...
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

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?
Click to expand...
So, they tell us that there cannot be changes made, but OBVIOUSLY there were changes made, and they were not corrections of typographical errors. What gives?

jpy, Did you say that your Ignatius Bible First Edition contains the same imprimatur as your Compact Oxford Press?

Btw, why does the Ignatius Bible First Edition have two imprimaturs, one for the British and one for the US? That is what it looks like.
 
Now, what about the “by your descendents” part? It is rendered elsewhere as “in you” and “in your seed”. Which most appropriately matches the Hebrew?

I did a search for the word descendents/descendent and it is not found anywhere in the KJV (It is in found in the NKJV)
so there is no way to do a Hebrew/Greek study on it.

The term used is “seed”

**SEED B. Noun. **

zera˓ ( 2233 ), “seed; sowing; seedtime; harvest; offspring; descendant(s); posterity.” This word occurs about 228 times in biblical Hebrew and in all periods. It has cognates in Aramaic, Phoenician, Arabic, Ethiopic, and Akkadian.

Zera˓ refers to the process of scattering seed, or “sowing.” This is the emphasis in Gen. 47:24 : “And it shall come to pass in the increase, that ye shall give the fifth part unto Pharaoh, and four parts shall be your own, for seed of the field, and for your food.…” Num. 20:5 should be rendered: “It [the wilderness] is not a place of sowing nasb , “grain”] or figs or vines or pomegranates, nor is there water to drink.” Ezek. 17:5 should be rendered: “He also took some of the seed of the land and planted it in a field [suitable for] sowing” ( nasb , “in a fertile field”). A closely related emphasis occurs in passages such as Gen. 8:22 , where the word represents “sowing” as a regularly recurring activity: “While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat … shall not cease.”

Zera˓ frequently means “seed.” There are several nuances under this emphasis, the first being what is sown to raise crops for food. The Egyptians told Joseph: “Buy us and our land for bread, and we and our land will be servants unto Pharaoh: and give us seed, that we may live, and not die, that the land be not desolate” ( Gen. 47:19 ). The word represents the product of a plant: “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed [food], and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself …” ( Gen. 1:11 -the first biblical appearance). In this and other contexts zera˓ specifically refers to “grain seed,” or “edible seed” (cf. Lev. 27:30 ). This may be the meaning of the word in 1 Sam. 8:15 : “And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards.…” However, it is possible that here the word refers to arable land, as does its Akkadian cognate. In other contexts the word represents an entire “crop or harvest”: “For the seed [harvest] shall be prosperous; the vine shall give her fruit, and the ground shall give her increase, and the heavens shall give their dew …” ( Zech. 8:12 ). In Isa. 23:3 zera˓ and the usual Hebrew word for “harvest” (* gatsir* ) are in synonymous parallelism.

Zera˓ sometimes means “semen,” or a man’s “seed”: “And if any man’s seed of copulation go out from him [if he has a seminal emission] …” ( Lev. 15:16 ). A beast’s “semen” can also be indicated by this word ( Jer. 31:27 ). Zera˓ often means “offspring.” Only rarely is this nuance applied to animals: “And I will put enmity between thee [the devil] and the woman [Eve], and between thy seed and her seed …” ( Gen. 3:15 ). This verse uses the word in several senses. The first appearance means both the descendants of the snake and those of the spiritual being who used the snake (evil men). The second appearance of the word refers to all the descendants of the woman and ultimately to a particular descendant (Christ). In Gen. 4:25 zera˓ appears not as a collective noun but refers to a particular and immediate “offspring”; upon the birth of Seth, Eve said: “God … hath appointed me another seed [offspring].…” Gen. 46:6 uses the word (in the singular) of one’s entire family including children and grandchildren (cf. Gen. 17:12 ). One’s larger family, including all immediate relatives, is included in the word in passages such as 1 Kings 11:14 . The word is used of an entire nation of people in Esth. 10:3 .

Zera˓ is used of groups and individuals marked by a common moral quality. This usage was already seen in Gen. 3:15 . Isa. 65:23 mentions the “seed” of the blessed of God. The Messiah or Suffering Servant will see His “offspring,” or those who believe in and follow Him ( Isa. 53:10 ). We also read about the followers of the righteous ( Prov. 11:21 ), the faithful “seed” ( Jer. 2:21 ), and godly “offspring.” In each case this word represents those who are united by being typified by the modifier of zera˓ Several other passages exhibit the same nuance except that zera˓ is modified by an undesirable quality.

Vine, W., Unger, M. F., & White, W. (1997, c1996). Vine’s complete expository dictionary of Old and New Testament words (electronic ed.) (Vol. 1, Page 238-239). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
Continued…
.
 
Continued…
2233****זֶרַע * zera`* /** zeh** ·rah /] n m . From 2232 ; TWOT 582a ; GK 2446 ; 229 occurrences; AV translates as “seed” 221 times, “child” twice, “carnally + 7902 ” twice, “carnally” once, “fruitful” once, “seedtime” once, and “sowing time” once. 1 seed, sowing, offspring. 1a a sowing. 1b seed. 1c semen virile. 1d offspring, descendants, posterity, children. 1e of moral quality. 1e1 a practitioner of righteousness (fig.). 1f sowing time (by meton).

n n : noun

m m : masculine

TWOT Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament

GK Goodrick-Kohlenberger

AV Authorized Version

Strong, J. (1996). The exhaustive concordance of the Bible : Showing every word of the test of the common English version of the canonical books, and every occurence of each word in regular order. (electronic ed.) (H2233). Ontario: Woodside Bible Fellowship.

2233 . זֶֶרַע zera˓ , zeh’-rah; from 2232 ; seed; fig. fruit, plant, sowing-time, posterity: — × carnally, child, fruitful, seed (-time), sowing-time.fig. fig. = figurative, figuratively

× × (* multiplication* ) denotes a rendering in the A.V. that results from an idiom peculiar to the hebrew or Aramaic. For example, in Psa. 132:15 , the whole Hebrew phrase in which בּרָךַ , bârak ( 1288 ) appears is a means of expressing a verb root emphatically, i.e. “blessing, I will bless” = “I will abundantly bless.”

Strong, J. (1997, c1996). The new Strong’s dictionary of Hebrew and Greek words (electronic ed.) (H2233). Nashville: Thomas Nelson
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top