RSV-CE Needs Corrections

  • Thread starter Thread starter Manfred
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
7 “bless themselves” etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/rsv2www?specfile=%2Ftexts%2Fenglish%2Freligion%2Frsv%2Frsv-pub.o2w&query=bless+themselves&docs=TEI2&sample=1-100&grouping=work

16 “be blessed” (may not all be used the same way)
etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/rsv2www?specfile=%2Ftexts%2Fenglish%2Freligion%2Frsv%2Frsv-pub.o2w&query=be+blessed&docs=TEI2&sample=1-100&grouping=work

as far as for the word “descendants” in the RSV, it says “generations” in the KJV in some places, but then, we found above, it also says “seed” in at least one place. It is hard to search for this specific “descendants” case of “seed”, because it also brings up the other uses for the word (e.g. plant a seed).

To confuse things further, the RSV also uses the word “generations” in other certain cases, and it is hard to sort out which of these cases correlate with the KJV uses of “generations” and which don’t.

Maybe if we subtract the uses of “generations” in the RSV from the uses of “generations” in the KJV, it will leave us with the correlating KJV “generations” verses to the RSV “descendants”. Then if we subtract these KJV “generations” verses from all the RSV “descendants” verses, it will leave us with the RSV “descendants” verses that correlate with “seed”? I’ll leave that for later. 😉

At least, in the RSV, if you see the word “seed” you know it isn’t refering to one’s descendants. It would be nice, however, if they would mark it in the footnotes as "literally, ‘seed’ ".
 
mmortal3 and others:

Blessings!

Here’s what I’ve learned over the past 20 years of researching various biblical translations; you can check most of this out yourselves.

In May, 1967, Reader’s Digest published an article, a paper copy of which I have directly from them, entitled “At Last - One Bible for All”. This was to “celebrate” the Oxford Annotated Bible - RSV w/Apocrypha for having received the Imprimatur of Richard Cardinal Cushing, Archbishop of Boston in 1965. This Imprimatur was never actually printed on any page within that edition, mind you, for fear of scaring off non-Catholics. (Go figure.) Anyway, the NT was the then current edition from 1959. THIS WAS NOT THE CATHOLIC EDITION. Cardinal Cushing, in a gesture of ecumenism, went beyond what the (British) editors of the RSV-CE were attempting to do at the time and gave his approval to an existing edition of the RSV and its footnotes. Only some VERY minor changes were made in the Introduction to one of the OT books.

Later, in 1971, the RSV NT 2nd edition was published. In 1977, several more books were added to the Apocrypha in response to requests from the Orthodox churches. This was all bundled together in The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha and published in 1977. To my knowledge - and I own a copy of this - there was no Imprimatur ever granted to this. Conjecture: the US Catholic Episcopate was so wrapped up in its 1970 NAB and its forthcoming revision (1986 NT), plus there was that RSV-CE of 1965-66.

Neither of the above Oxfords contained the wording “Hail, full of grace”, and the Holy Spirit was referred to with the pronoun “which”, not “who”.

Would that Ignatius, Scepter, Oxford, Nelson, anyone would devour and digest this thread, compare it to Liturgiam Authenticam, and THEN give us a TRUE RSV Catholic Edition!
 
jpy, Did you say that your Ignatius Bible First Edition contains the same imprimatur as your Compact Oxford Press?
Yes

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

Another good Question!
 
*The word seed / descendants in the RSV, *

*At least, in the RSV, if you see the word “seed” you know it isn’t referring to one’s descendants. It would be nice, however, if they would mark it in the footnotes as "literally, ‘seed’ *

When you refer to Abraham’s “seed”, in today’s world I don’t think most people would have a clue that it meant “his descendants”, So descendants is a much clearer term to use;. Having said that got me thinking about Genesis 22:18 “by your descendents shall all the nations of the earth bless themselves”

Had I been born “Hebrew” I would automatically receive God’s blessing as a descendent of Abraham, whether I wanted the blessing or not, just being “born into” God’s chosen people would have “entitled me” to the blessing being of Abraham’s seed. Now fast forward a few thousand years and here I am, a Gentile. How do I become a joint Heir to Abraham? I’m not Jewish! I have to “bless myself” by faith in believing in my Lord and Savoir, Jesus Christ!

Romans 4:16-24
16 That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his descendants—not only to the adherents of the law but also to those who share the faith of Abraham, for he is the father of us all, 17 as it is written, “I have made you the father of many nations”—in the presence of the God in whom he believed, who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist. 18 In hope he believed against hope, that he should become the father of many nations; as he had been told, “So shall your descendants be.” 19 He did not weaken in faith when he considered his own body, which was as good as dead because he was about a hundred years old, or when he considered the barrenness of Sarah’s womb. 20 No distrust made him waver concerning the promise of God, but he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God, 21 fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised. 22 That is why his faith was “reckoned to him as righteousness.” 23 But the words, “it was reckoned to him,” were written not for his sake alone, 24 but for ours also. It will be reckoned to us who believe in him that raised from the dead Jesus our Lord,
 
jpy15026 said:
jpy, Did you say that your Ignatius Bible First Edition contains the same imprimatur as your Compact Oxford Press?
Yes
Click to expand...

jpy, can you post an image of your copyright page, or transcribe it for us? How does it differ from your Ignatius Bible’s copyright page?

Hmm, well, while I highly doubt Oxford Press would do something illegal and/or violate the imprimatur, obviously there is something improper going on here. Donald Kraus, the person I contacted from Oxford Press, who sent me the above reply, is the editor listed for “Bibles”. I am going to wait until the Reader’s Edition is released, and then I am going to email him again, and ask him according to the facts we have found here. While I doubt contacting him about this now would do anything to harm the release of the Reader’s Edition, I don’t want to push any buttons just yet.
 
jpy, can you post an image of your copyright page, or transcribe it for us? How does it differ from your Ignatius Bible’s copyright page?

I don’t have a way to post it (no link to anywhere) I could e-mail you a scan if you like ,if you could send me your e-mail address.
 
I read in this other thread that John 3:16 in the RSV (and RSV Catholic Editions) looks to be a purposefully Protestant (and inaccurate) translation. It renders the verse “shall not perish” instead of “may not perish” and removes the second indefinite article “may” completely, compared to the DR and all other Catholic Bibles. The NRSV, however, also got it right. 😦
 
40.png
mmortal03:
I read in this other thread that John 3:16 in the RSV (and RSV Catholic Editions) looks to be a purposefully Protestant (and inaccurate) translation. It renders the verse “shall not perish” instead of “may not perish” and removes the second indefinite article “may” completely, compared to the DR and all other Catholic Bibles. The NRSV, however, also got it right. 😦
Click to expand...
Scepter.
“Should not perish”…Hmmm Can I understand it to be I should’nt parish if I believe in Him?
 
40.png
jpy15026:
Scepter.
“Should not perish”…Hmmm Can I understand it to be I should’nt parish if I believe in Him?
Click to expand...
By the way, yeah, all the RSV’s say “should”. Ignore the “shall” above, I meant to write “should”. Also “may” is indefinite by definition, but is not an “indefinite article”, that would be “a”. “May” is a verbal auxiliary. Sorry for the grammar slip above!

Anyway, yes, that is how I read it too…and it is not Catholic in my eyes. Probably not even technically Christian. I mean, maybe I am wrong, but are there any other verses in the Bible with definitives on “believing in”, (e.g. you will not die if you believe in him) because the above just doesn’t sit right with me. Just because you believe in God and Jesus doesn’t mean you won’t parish.

It actually seems as if the translators were trying to make it correlate with “Sola Fide,” but, in my opinion, even THAT doesn’t really work. “Belief” and “Faith” are two different things, as well.

It should properly be translated “may not” or “might not”, and definately not “should not” or “shall not”, unless I am completely misinformed. As for the “might not” in the NAB, isn’t “might” technically the past tense of “may”? Can it actually properly be used in the manner?

Thanks
 
I copied this from the other thread…He got it right! This is what I meant ,no “Ollie,Ollie in Free” there are a couple of a big “ifs” included! Pretty Catholic to me!
  • I think the sense of it is - if you truly believe (and If you follow the Authority of the Church/Tradition and follow Christs path of conversion) you ‘shouldn’t’ perish, and you may have eternal life If you perform the will of the Father. (Matthew 7:21-23)
 
Ok, so here are the differences in the Copyright pages of the Ignatius First Edition and the Oxford Press Compact Edition:

In the Oxford Press, they have the 1971 New Testament listed (explicit confirmation of what we assumed)

In the Oxford Press, only the British imprimatur is listed. They do not include the American imprimatur. Plus, they accidently left off the now deceased cardinal’s last name! His name is “Gordon Joseph Gray”, not “Gordon Joseph”. Maybe THAT is how they are getting around this! 😉 But more seriously, I don’t know how his 1966 imprimatur would still stand now that they have included the changes from 1971.
 
Perhaps I’m all blogged out, but am I alone in thinking that Catholic Answers, Ignatius Press, Scepter/Oxford Press, Scott Hahn and yes, the Navarre folks, should be told they made an unfortunate choice in “backing” the so-called and now seemingly hard-to-identify RSV-CE?

Can the reason this version is so highly vaunted by the above be because it’s translated from the “original tongues” and contains the deutero-canonicals?

Look - Pius XII in Divino Afflante Spiritu merely said it was not forbidden to make vernacular translations of the Scriptures from the original languages; he never said it was a REQUIREMENT!

The RSV-CE, the 1970 NAB, the RNAB, the JB, NJB - all supposedly “Catholic” - have major flaws, as we see in this and some other threads. And, yes, while the Douay-Rheims may be getting on in years, admit it: we can’t really trust any of these modern versions.

Can’t some brave Catholic team of scholars make a formal-equivalent translation of the Nova Vulgata into “standard” English and be done with it?
 
40.png
Manfred:
Perhaps I’m all blogged out, but am I alone in thinking that Catholic Answers, Ignatius Press, Scepter/Oxford Press, Scott Hahn and yes, the Navarre folks, should be told they made an unfortunate choice in “backing” the so-called and now seemingly hard-to-identify RSV-CE?

Can the reason this version is so highly vaunted by the above be because it’s translated from the “original tongues” and contains the deutero-canonicals?

Look - Pius XII in Divino Afflante Spiritu merely said it was not forbidden to make vernacular translations of the Scriptures from the original languages; he never said it was a REQUIREMENT!

The RSV-CE, the 1970 NAB, the RNAB, the JB, NJB - all supposedly “Catholic” - have major flaws, as we see in this and some other threads. And, yes, while the Douay-Rheims may be getting on in years, admit it: we can’t really trust any of these modern versions.

Can’t some brave Catholic team of scholars make a formal-equivalent translation of the Nova Vulgata into “standard” English and be done with it?
Click to expand...
Also keep in mind that Divino Afflante Spiritu was merely an encyclical letter; it was not an apostolic constitution. Scripturarum Thesaurus, which was issued by Pope John Paul II, was an apostolic constitution and it clearly establishes the Nova Vulgata as the official text of the Latin Rite and indicates that it should be used as a reference text when making translations into the vernacular.

With respect to translating almah as “young woman” versus “virgin.” I think the Septuagint can be seen as a witness as to how later generations of Jews interpreted the more general word in Isaiah. Thus, a translation that gives the more specific designation “virgin” is perfectly acceptable as an indication of how the word almah was understood at the time of Christ.

With respect to translating “descendants” and “seeds,” even if people didn’t know what “thy seed” meant, that’s what footnotes are for. I think it’s more preferable to translate the word as “seed” and give the explanation in the footnotes.
 
Well, due to the crash, it looks like we lost a good portion of this thread, which had a large amount of information. Had anyone, by any chance, saved a copy of it to their computer before the crash?

Edit: I have found a sizable portion of it cached on google, so we may be able to rebuild parts of it. Let me know, though, if any of you had any of it backed up.
 
Original RSVCE 1965 (Ignatius Bible 1st Edition)
John 3:16 - For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

RSVCE 2nd Edition (Ignatius Study Bible)
John 3:16 - For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

**Oxford University Press Compact Edition **
John 3:16 - For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

Corrected
John 3:16 - For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but should have eternal life.
 
Just thinking.

I don’t pretend to know the reason the editors of the Navarre Bible chose the RSV-CE as their base text, but consider this, if you will:

The Navarre places the RSV-CE and the Nova Vulgata texts side-by-side, ostensibly for comparison purposes. Both of these versions, of course, were translated from original-language sources, following some very careful text-critical principles.

But there are places where the RSV-CE misses the mark slightly; e.g., John 2:4 “Woman, what have you to do with me?” (RSV-CE) vs. “Quid mihi et tibi, mulier?” (NV), literally “What (is that) to me and you, woman?” And, there may even be some places where the NV could’ve done better, I don’t know.

Did the Navarre editors perhaps suppose that between the RSV-CE and the NV, we can get as close as is humanly possible to an “accurate” rendering of the biblical text? And, if they did, were they right?

And - did anyone ever wonder why they didn’t just bypass the RSV-CE altogether and make their own translation of the NV into English?

Discuss.
 
demerzel85 said:
Original RSVCE 1965 (Ignatius Bible 1st Edition)
John 3:16 - For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

RSVCE 2nd Edition (Ignatius Study Bible)
John 3:16 - For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

**Oxford University Press Compact Edition **
John 3:16 - For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

Corrected
John 3:16 - For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but should have eternal life.
Click to expand...
Funny how the NRSVCE, the Canadian liturgical and ecumenical Bible, although seemingly avoided by a lot of American Catholics, does this verse correctly. 🙂
  • John 3:16 - For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.*
 
silverwings_88 said:
Funny how the NRSVCE, the Canadian liturgical and ecumenical Bible, although seemingly avoided by a lot of American Catholics, does this verse correctly. 🙂
  • John 3:16 - For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not* perish but may have eternal life.
Click to expand...
And I, as one Catholic in America, will continue to avoid the NRSV and other politically-correct, gender-neutered translations of the Scriptures. 🙂
 
When will the RSVCE third edition come out?

If you took out all of the inclusive language from the NRSV–would it be much better than any of the RSV editions?

I had heard that some Catholic group was attempting to do that.

What if the choice was between the latest improved NAB–whatever that is–versus the RSVCE–2d edtition and Scepter Reader’s edition versus the NRSV with all the inclusivie language taken out?

Which would be the LEAST BAD?

Until they come out with a third eidtion of the RSVCE–I’ll stick to the Challoner Douay Rheims and I’ll probably stay with it AFTER a 3d version of the RSVCE like that comes out.

I’m 47 years old. What are the chances that I’ll see a decent Catholic English version of the Clementine Vulgate or the Nova Vulgata that could IMPROVE on the Challoner Douay Rheims consulting the original languages in a Catholic–not Protestant–and not inclusive language or liberal way before I die?

What’s SO HARD about such a needed project?

Are there any Catholics in the world who are brave enough to do it?

It’s pretty bad when all Catholics can do is arue with one another over which PROTESTANT RSV is the least bad and if it’s LESS bad than the Jerusalem bible of the NAB.

Don’t English speaking Catholics deserve better?

Wouldn’t a better Catholic bible advance the cause of the Catholic Church and Jesus Christ?

How can Catholicism combat Protestantism in English countries if it won’t stick up for and publish a CATHOLIC Bible?
 
Jerry-Jet said:
When will the RSVCE third edition come out?

If you took out all of the inclusive language from the NRSV–would it be much better than any of the RSV editions?

I had heard that some Catholic group was attempting to do that.
Jerry-Jet,

One of the Vatican Congregations was pressed into service to edit the US Lectionary based on the NAB; SOME of the inclusive language came out, but none of the NAB’s blandness. I can’t get optimistic about the NRSV’s being “tidied up”.
What if the choice was between the latest improved NAB–whatever that is–versus the RSVCE–2d edtition and Scepter Reader’s edition versus the NRSV with all the inclusivie language taken out?

Which would be the LEAST BAD?
I’d opt for the Scepter RSV-CE.
Until they come out with a third eidtion of the RSVCE–I’ll stick to the Challoner Douay Rheims and I’ll probably stay with it AFTER a 3d version of the RSVCE like that comes out.

I’m 47 years old. What are the chances that I’ll see a decent Catholic English version of the Clementine Vulgate or the Nova Vulgata that could IMPROVE on the Challoner Douay Rheims consulting the original languages in a Catholic–not Protestant–and not inclusive language or liberal way before I die?

What’s SO HARD about such a needed project?
Not everyone agrees with us, Jerry, that an English translation of the Nova Vulgata would be useful, let alone needed.
Are there any Catholics in the world who are brave enough to do it?

It’s pretty bad when all Catholics can do is argue with one another over which PROTESTANT RSV is the least bad and if it’s LESS bad than the Jerusalem Bible or the NAB.

Don’t English speaking Catholics deserve better?

Wouldn’t a better Catholic bible advance the cause of the Catholic Church and Jesus Christ?

How can Catholicism combat Protestantism in English countries if it won’t stick up for and publish a CATHOLIC Bible?
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top