RSV-CE Needs Corrections

[mmortal03]

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

Yeah, there is work being done revising the NRSV for the countries of England, Ireland, Wales, and others, as a lectionary.

I think the link to this information went with the crash, so we will have to find that site again.

I am going to be getting the Oxford Press Reader’s Edition in December, and that will be my main bible until this one in Britain is finished (which we assume is going to take a LONG time to finish).

I am also going to get a good Douay-Challoner, and it will be my Reader’s Edition’s companion.

I have many of the very same questions as you do about all of this, and hopefully, someone will step up and produce something extraordinary.

And don’t forget about the Catholic Apologetics Study Bible. Once it finally ever gets finished, we could practically take the excellent work it has done on updating the Douay-Rheims language and throw it all together as one bible.

Check it out here:catholicintl.com/products/books/casb.html

 

[Danw]

Caution on the Catholic Apologetics Study bible as mentioned above. It is by Robert Sungenis who is a little controversial right now. You may want to do a google search on his name to learn more.

I would prefer to stay with the more solid orthodox commentaries.

 

[mmortal03]

Caution on the Catholic Apologetics Study bible as mentioned above. It is by Robert Sungenis who is a little controversial right now. You may want to do a google search on his name to learn more.

I would prefer to stay with the more solid orthodox commentaries.

Right, so apparently he promotes a geocentric worldview, and has favored an antisemitic viewpoint in his recent writings. Therefore, we should make sure, when we are reading any of his commentary on Matthew, or any of the CASB books to be released in the future, that we keep those in mind.

With that not looking to be a problem, I really doubt the issue will even come up with regards to his CASB, or is previous “Not by … Alone” books, anyway. However, watch out for this in his next book, “Not by Science Alone,” though. There might be a controversy brewing inside of it, right?

So make sure not to boycott or badmouth an author’s entire writings just because of their views on particular subjects. For another example, look at the controversy surrounding Tan Books, and then read their greatly informative “Which Bible Should You Read”. I haven’t read a proper criticism of that one yet, all you ever hear when you bring it up is a bad mouthing of Tan Books themselves. I really think people should stop spouting off criticisms of individuals, and instead just start criticizing whichever individual’s individual work is controversial. Heard of Salvador Dali, anyone? How about Anne Rice?

 

[Jerry-Jet]

I love some of what Tertullian says and hate other things he says.

Robert Sungenis is no different–though as far as I know the Catholic Church has not yet branded him a heretic–

I guess the bottom line is to treat whatever way ANY theolgian translates the Bible with a grain of salt–

I just look forward to the day when we can read Catholic English translations based primarily on the Vulgate–differeing from it when there is convincing evidence that the original languages should be rendedred in more accuarate ways–without inclusive language and without liberal bias.

If we ever get a Catholic English versiojn like that and ALSO have it EXACTLY match the liturgy and readings of Mass and also have it be endorsed by the Bishops AND the Holy See–then we’ll be on our way to finishing the evangelization of the world!

 

[mmortal03]

Robert Sungenis is no different–though as far as I know the Catholic Church has not yet branded him a heretic–

So has he done anything else that I haven’t read about (I’ve only read about him briefly). I mean, the Catholic Church has no problem with a person believing in geocentricism, so that is no problem and while I am sure they would have a problem with any antisemitic remarks and writings that he has made, that wouldn’t be grounds for “branding him a heretic” either, would it?

 

[Manfred]

…look at the controversy surrounding Tan Books, and then read their greatly informative “Which Bible Should You Read”. I haven’t read a proper criticism of that one yet, all you ever hear when you bring it up is a bad mouthing of Tan Books themselves.

We’re probably going to wait a very long time for one, as well, mmortal; those who might be qualified to refute that little gem of a book point-by-point somehow don’t feel it’s worth their time or efforts. If it weren’t for that little book, I wouldn’t have even bought a Douay-Rheims, because I saw no value in reading an “archaic” “translation of a translation”. I’ve been reading the D-R now for over five years (!), and I haven’t seen anything written by anybody from anywhere (yes, that includes Jimmy Akin) to counter TAN’s assertions.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Does anybody know what the most recent printing of the Douay Rheims by Baronius is?

Does it have less typos? It seems to me like whichever one you could get from them that would have thre least typos would be the best one to get.

 

[mmortal03]

Right, I think the newest Baronius had most (if not all) of those typos corrected. There may still be a few in it, though I don’t know if anyone has specifically stated what they are.

Apparently, the following is the one to get: allcatholicbooks.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=ACB&Product_Code=AT20xgh1&Category_Code=

 

[Manfred]

Does anybody know what the most recent printing of the Douay Rheims by Baronius is?

Does it have less typos? It seems to me like whichever one you could get from them that would have thre least typos would be the best one to get.

The edition by TAN, though probably less elegant than Baronius’, has EXTREMELY FEW typos. That’s because it’s a photographic reprint of a VERY well done and carefully proofread 1899 edition, published long before there was computer typesetting et al.

 

[mmortal03]

This is an attempt to get this thread moving again. Here is some subject matter from other threads that more properly fits within this one:

ridesawhitehors:

Is the Ignatius Bible a study Bible?
I have been reading the NAB study bible. But have been told to get the Ignatius Bible. I like notes and studies guides though.
I’m a geek, what can I say.

If you are going to get an RSV-CE, don’t get the Ignatius one, get the Oxford Press RSV-CE Reader’s Edition when it comes out in December. It amounts to a much better RSV-CE than the Ignatius First or Second Catholic Edition.

Basically, the original 1965 RSV-CE (the Ignatius First Edition) and the Ignatius Second Edition are still based on the 1959 RSV.

In contrast, The Oxford Press RSV-CE Reader’s Edition is based on the 1971 RSV, but still includes all the uniquely Catholic changes that made the difference between the 1959 RSV and the 1965 RSV-CE.

Therefore, with it you get all the changes that were made in the 1971 RSV, which are much more worthwhile and practical than the new changes in the Ignatius Second Editon, along with keeping all the Catholic changes from the 1965 RSV-CE.

Again, the 1971 revisions are MUCH more worthwhile and extensive (and even “more Catholic”) than any of the new changes in the Ignatius Second Catholic Edition, which still has as its base the 1965 RSV-CE.

So, with the Oxford Press RSV-CE Reader’s Edition, you get a Bible that still has all the original Catholic revisions from the RSV-CE, and also matches right up with the 1971 RSV that some Conservative Protestants may still use (if they haven’t gone to the NASB or ESV). This makes it a much better apologetic tool than the Ignatius.

The revisions that make up the Ignatius Second Catholic Edition are just not as important in the grand scheme of things compared to what you get in the Oxford Press Reader’s Edition. There is just no contest. Basically, I can tell you why most of the changes in the Ignatius Second Edition aren’t really important, however, I can’t say the same about the Oxford Press Reader’s Edition. The revisions that it contain are quite necessary.

Keep in mind that neither is perfect, but the Oxford Press Reader’s Edition is a MUCH more practical purchase if you are just going to own one of the two.

Go here to see my pages summarizing the changes that we have found so far that occurred between the Ignatius First and Second Edition, as well as how this compares to the Oxford Press Reader’s Edition (same as the Scepter): umsis.miami.edu/~medmunds/RSVCEdiff.htm

Go here to then supplement this information with the ADDITIONAL changes that are UNIQUE to the new Oxford Press Reader’s Edition (and the 1971 RSV) that will be coming out in December:
umsis.miami.edu/~medmunds/ScepterChangesC.htm

 

[mmortal03]

Jerry Jet:

The Oxford/Scepter Reader’s edition using “young woman” instead of “virgin” is just PLAIN wrong.

If even Protestants can see that–surely Catholics should be able to see that.

Are there any other Catholic renderings from the Ignatius Second Edition that the Reader’s edition doesn’t incorporate?

I’ve seen so many different renderings in different versions of the RSV that my advice would be to just produce an RSV that would ALWAYS go with the Catholic sense–I don’t think anybody would sue you over it–it seems as if most Protestants wouldn’t even know the difference!

I knew someone would mention that. I went over this before, however the crash deleted my comments.

I suggest that you don’t get caught up on that one verse. Everyone overreacts regarding it, and it really is not such a bad translation considering it FROM THE HEBREW. I might write it in, and I suggest that you do as well if it bothers you, and not turn down a superior edition of a Bible translation based on one particular verse. This particular issue is GROSSLY overshadowed by the vast improvement of the rest of the revisions that comprise the Reader’s Edition.

To explain my mindset on this issue more fully, please keep in mind that the RSV OT was a translation of the Hebrew, and it was that SPECIFICALLY that they were going for (they were translating from the Masoretic Texts). I have never agreed that we should take the any additional meaning that a New Testament book revealed to us about a verse (or of another version in a different language of the same text) and apply it to a translation of the Old Testament, unless a hybridization is the goal. This was not the goal here.

Yes, it isn’t a traditionally Catholic rendition, but if you want that particular verse to be properly translated, look into English translations of the Septuagint. There are translation projects progressing on this task as we speak, producing modern English translations of the Septuagint that should contain Isaiah 7.14 rendered in the traditional way. One of these projects could even turn out a text that is more Catholic than any modern Hebrew translation that we have.

So, you can see that I personally understand why they translated it the way that they did, and I will not allow the originally Evangelical Protestant bible-burning overreaction to carry over into my own thoughts here. I can calmly see it for what it is.

With that being said, let me get back to the main issue, and that is that there are, Isaiah 7.14 included, just three “critically important” verses that the Ignatius Second Edition renders more “appealing to Catholics” than the Reader’s Edition. Those are:

Isaiah 7.14: LXX “virgin”
Psalm 8.5: LXX “little less than the angels”
Matthew 16.18: “gates of Hades”
footnote “powers of death”

vs.

Isaiah 7.14: MT “young woman”
Psalm 8.5: MT “little less than God”
Matthew 16.18: “powers of death”
footnote “gates of Hades”

The first two verses are a difference between translating from the Greek or translating from the Hebrew, and regarding the third example, while neither is great, the Ignatius 2nd Edition happens to be a little better.

However, besides those 3 negative points, the Oxford Press Reader’s Edition has around 240 positives (yes, I said 240) over the Ignatius Second Catholic Edition.

Finally, just to clarify, please understand that there is no intentional cross-pollination between the Oxford Reader’s Edition and the Ignatius Second Edition outside of the original Catholic revisions. The Oxford Press RSV-CE Reader’s Edition has no awareness of the Ignatius Second Edition. Both are almost completely separate in the majority revisions, outside of the original 1965 CE verses, and any other revision similarities are just coincidental.

Here is a recap:

1959 RSV → 1965 RSV-CE (Ignatius First Edition) → Ignatius Second Catholic Edition

1959 RSV → 1971 RSV → Oxford Press RSV-CE Reader’s Edition (contains the 1965 RSV-CE Catholic-specific revisions, with the rest identical to the 1971 RSV)

 

[mmortal03]

Ron Conte:

The RSV-CE has problems. First, it was mostly translated by Protestants, so that it lacks the Catholic point of view in translating the NT. And its approach to the OT is not Christological. Also, it is a revision of a revision, which was then amended to be more Catholic. And it is showing its age. This is not the idea translation for the lectionary.

Are you familiar with the 1971 RSV NT’s revisions that are amazingly “Catholic”? The new Oxford Press RSV-CE Reader’s Edition is based on the 1971 instead of the 1959, so maybe it will make it 11 more years?

Let’s see what happens with the new Catholic revision of the NRSV that is to remove inclusive language. It might turn out to be good as well.

As far as the RSV-CE being a revision of a revision, that is a baseless argument. The changes were all for the better, and they have been clearly documented.

And about the OT translation not being Christological, to what extent of the verses is this argument based? I am definitely not one to support the translation of the OT based on what is contained in the NT, but many people have been convinced that it is the way to go. Is Isaiah 7.14 your only problem verse? I have yet to have seen a thorough listing of verses in the RSV OT that Protestants have found to be removing revelations related to Christ. All I ever hear about is Isaiah 7.14, which I have argued FOR in the past, as I understand their motives.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Are you familiar with the 1971 RSV NT’s revisions that are amazingly “Catholic”? The new Oxford Press RSV-CE Reader’s Edition is based on the 1971 instead of the 1959, so maybe it will make it 11 more years?

I’m familiar with the RSV, with Challoner’s revision, and with the original Douai Rhemes Bible. I have to say that Challoner and the Douai make the RSV look like a Protestant translation, despite the changes and improvements made by Catholic scholars to the RSV. I still think that the RSV is a good translation, but it has its weaknesses.

As far as the RSV-CE being a revision of a revision, that is a baseless argument. The changes were all for the better, and they have been clearly documented.

The problem is not merely that it is a revision of a frevision, but that the revisions are based on the KJV, which was translated during a time when Catholics were persecuted in England. Also the KJV is not very accurate. I had a chance to work with it when I worked on the World English Bible project (deuterocanonical/apocryphal books).

And about the OT translation not being Christological, to what extent of the verses is this argument based? I am definitely not one to support the translation of the OT based on what is contained in the NT, but many people have been convinced that it is the way to go. Is Isaiah 7.14 your only problem verse? I have yet to have seen a thorough listing of verses in the RSV OT that Protestants have found to be removing revelations related to Christ. All I ever hear about is Isaiah 7.14, which I have argued FOR in the past, as I understand their motives.

I prefer the OT to be translated from a thoroughly Christological and Roman Catholic point of view.

Ron

 

[mmortal03]

Ron, I think you are talking about the problems with the RSV as a whole, for which I understand.

What I was asking was whether you understood the differences between the 1959 RSV and the 1971 RSV? That was a large change (for the better) that is now also going to be available in the RSV-CE format as the Oxford Press RSV-CE Reader’s Edition.

I prefer the OT to be translated from a thoroughly Christological and Roman Catholic point of view.

I’d like to discuss this issue in more detail. My opinion is that we shouldn’t write New Testament revelations into the Old Testament, we should footnote them.

 

[Ron_Conte]

I have the 1966 edition. I’m not familiar with the changes made after that edition.

If the OT is not translated from a Catholic point of view, then how would it be translated?

Surely it does not make sense for Catholic scholars to try to translate from the perspective of a Jew in ancient times. How would a translator even know what that perspectives was like, without making many assumptions?

A translator who believes that the Catholic faith is the one true faith will translate from the insights offered by that truth. This was the approach used in the original Douay Rhemes translation.

Ron

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Just because a Hebrew translation might be older does not automatically mean it is more accurate–this is true for any language and any translation.

Given the fact that we know that the Masoretic text has been altered in a Jewish direction away from what was originally written in Hebrew–how can we be for sure if other Hebrew texts–even many centuries older are NECESSARILY more accurate than the Latin or Greek texts?

All I know is this–Jews of the 1st century got the Canon wrong–if they can get the canon wrong I would be very hesitant to rely on their texts of the Bible 100% unless I knew for sure that what was written was exactly like what the original writer wrote!

When it is not clear I will TRUST the wisdom of the Catholic Church and St. Jerome–who though they may not be 100% accurate–are certainly centuries CLOSER to texts that we do not today have access to.

That’s not to say that we can never find old texts in Hebrew and rely on them with alternative renderings to the Latin tradition but that the Church’s witness is more trustworthy than wily-nilly coming up with new alternatives just because we THINK they are “Hebrew” and “Old”.

“Old” and “Hebrew” do not equal TRUE and what the original writer wrote!

Fore that we need the wisdom of the Catholic Church!

 

[mmortal03]

I have the 1966 edition. I’m not familiar with the changes made after that edition.

If the OT is not translated from a Catholic point of view, then how would it be translated?

It should be translated from the point of view of those writing the revelations. For example, if I prophesied that “a cat would take over the world” in the OT, and then it is concluded after it happens that in fact the prophesy was fufilled because a “black spotted kitten” did take over the world, of which a person writing the NT writes about, referring to the original prophecy by paraphrasing it as “a black spotted kitten will take over the world”, then we should still render the OT prophecy as “a cat will take over the world” because the original prophesy did not specify that the cat was more specifically going to be a black spotted kitten. See Isaiah 7.14.

Surely it does not make sense for Catholic scholars to try to translate from the perspective of a Jew in ancient times. How would a translator even know what that perspectives was like, without making many assumptions?

A translator who believes that the Catholic faith is the one true faith will translate from the insights offered by that truth. This was the approach used in the original Douay Rhemes translation.

The translator MUST try his hardest to understand what the perspective of the original author was, so that he can understand the context of the words that were written. Just because we can’t do this perfectly does not mean that he should not try.

Frankly, trying to translate from the perspective of a Jew writing an OT book in ancient times from what we know about that time wouldn’t be problematic at all, because that would have been the extent of the truth that was so far revealed to him.

The problem that I have heard brought up, comes when you translate the OT in terms of what Modern Jews with an anti-Christian intent would translate it as. I have not read a review that properly delineates which one of these that the RSV committee was trying to do, and there is a distinct difference.

I don’t think that we should translate a document by including further revelation into it that was not present at the time that it was written. The Catholic Church, in the fullness of its truth, has come to a greater understanding of many of the truths that were originally revealed to us which we were not fully able to understand. If this later knowledge helps us to comprehend and interpret its meaning, that is awesome, that doesn’t change the actual words on the page, so we should put any of this other stuff in the footnotes. We should translate it for what it says, not for what we as Catholics necessarily interpret it to mean. Jews should be able to pick it up and use it, and Catholics should be able to pick it up and use it. It is the same document (unless it has been corrupted through the ages by the Jews, but then that is a separate issue, and even still, we would have used what would now be found to be corrupted for many years, and it would still say whatever it incorrectly said.)

Hopefully, a translator who believes that the Catholic faith is the one true faith will translate by trying to understand what the original author’s knowledge, intent, and context was. Then later, when he is reading this translation, he will be able to interpret the words on the page by the insights offered by any later truth, and anything that he put in the footnotes.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Is it not possible that Isaiah DID say that a Virgin would conceive and that that is what Isaiah said but that Jews who copied his manuscript shortly after his death CHANGED it to young woman?

They COULD have done so WITHOUT even any malice–maybe they thought to themselves–SURELY this is what Isaiah really meant!

If they COULD make such a mistake–could not people who THINK that they would know what a Jewish Prophet like Isaiah would HEAR from God alsop make a mistake?

I’m not saying the Bible is not INERRANT. I am saying that Jews may not have copied it exactly as the original writers wrote it. I’m also saying that THE CHURCH later on would have the Holy Spirit to guide it in CORRECTING it!

 

[porthos11]

Is it not possible that Isaiah DID say that a Virgin would conceive and that that is what Isaiah said but that Jews who copied his manuscript shortly after his death CHANGED it to young woman?

Such an assertion must be proven, and I haven’t found any such proof. The oldest and best Hebrew manuscripts still have ‘almah’ in Is. 7:14, and no extant Hebrew manuscripts have ‘betulah.’ Scholars cannot translate because it’s “possible” unless the text has suffered so much in transmission that a conjectural emendation is required (as is the case with much of the book of Job). Isaiah 7:14 has not suffered in transmission (and in fact, the book of Isaiah is very well preserved). And I believe the Great Isaiah Scroll from Qumran still carries ‘almah’, centuries before the Masoretes.

If one is translating from the Hebrew, then “young woman” or “maiden” is an honest and valid translation, and there is nothing anti-Christian about it.

However, we also have the witness of the Septuagint, which has ‘parthenos’ in this verse, giving us a strong cultural indication that ‘almah’ usually connotes an unmarried young woman who is presumably a virgin, and so the two terms may have been interchangeable.

If one is translating the Septuagint, then “virgin” is the only acceptable rendering, hence, you won’t find any New Testaments (including the RSV) with “young woman” in Matthew 1:23. All English renderings properly translate it as “virgin” even if there is a discrepancy with Isaiah 7:14.

 

[porthos11]

Just because a Hebrew translation might be older does not automatically mean it is more accurate–this is true for any language and any translation.

Given the fact that we know that the Masoretic text has been altered in a Jewish direction away from what was originally written in Hebrew–how can we be for sure if other Hebrew texts–even many centuries older are NECESSARILY more accurate than the Latin or Greek texts?

How do we know that the MT has been altered? What is the proof of this? As far as I can remember, the Jews were sticklers for preservation.

It’s true that age doesn’t automatically equal accuracy, but age combined with textual criticism gives us a reasonable assessment of a manuscript’s authenticity and accuracy. That’s why Biblical scholarship can identify the points at which the MT suffers in transmission, and counter-check them against other ancient manuscripts or the DSS.

All I know is this–Jews of the 1st century got the Canon wrong–if they can get the canon wrong I would be very hesitant to rely on their texts of the Bible 100% unless I knew for sure that what was written was exactly like what the original writer wrote!

You limit it to Palestinian Jews. Hellenistic Jews continued accepting the LXX canon.

When it is not clear I will TRUST the wisdom of the Catholic Church and St. Jerome–who though they may not be 100% accurate–are certainly centuries CLOSER to texts that we do not today have access to.

And St. Jerome did not have access to many of the manuscripts we have today. Moreover, St. Jerome did a lousy job with some of the Deuterocanonical books, because he did not personally accept them as inspired.

Besides, the Church has never objected to alternative renderings, except where there was a question of canonicity.

That’s not to say that we can never find old texts in Hebrew and rely on them with alternative renderings to the Latin tradition but that the Church’s witness is more trustworthy than wily-nilly coming up with new alternatives just because we THINK they are “Hebrew” and “Old”.

“Old” and “Hebrew” do not equal TRUE and what the original writer wrote!

Again, that’s true, but we can let textual criticism handle that. The Vulgate is invaluable for this, but it cannot be used alone for this science. Criticism as a science requires a study of ALL extant manuscripts and parallels. There are points at which the Vulgate is not the best, textually speaking.

Fore that we need the wisdom of the Catholic Church!

And the Church has not offered her wisdom except on a very few important points, such as the canonicity of John 7:53; 8:1-11, or the longer ending of Mark, or the Deuterocanonical portions of Daniel and Esther.