RSV-CE Needs Corrections

[porthos11]

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?

The OT and NT should be translated from a scholarly point of view, free from any and all doctrinal bias.

Why? Because the Word of God is Truth, and for as long as we do so honestly, the translation will never contradict the Faith.

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

And why not? In fact, applying the perspectives of the ancients to translations will greatly enhance Biblical understanding. How many times have apologists clobbered their opponents and upheld the Catholic faith because they exhibited a thorough knowledge of the ancient languages and cultures?

A translator who believes the Catholic faith is the true faith will not be afraid to properly translate the Bible despite possible “contradictions” because he knows they will never clash.

 

[mmortal03]

Even if that was true, there would be no way for the Church to prove that Isaiah wrote “virgin” instead of “young woman”, therefore, I think that they should leave the Hebrew alone; it isn’t as if “young woman” contradicts our belief (and there are other prophesies). I don’t think Matthew wrote it in terms of a correction of the Hebrew either, and I don’t think it would have been within his needs to do so either. He would have rather left the original prophesy as is, don’t you think?

There are a couple ways that it could go, however, I think the following is the most important to follow your logic:

Say that Isaiah wrote “virgin” in the original, but Jewish scribes around the time of Jesus (remember, it says almah in the DSS as well) thought that he had to have meant “young woman”.

I would be very surprised if this was the case, that Jewish scribes thought they had more authority than Isaiah at that point in history where they would second guess Isaiah, but I just really can’t say when it would be more likely to happen, in terms of Jewish knowledge and scholarship, much earlier (which we don’t have) or around the time of Jesus.

However, say that that happened, and then the Septuagint translators, through a revelation from God, knew that it should actually say “virgin” and translated it that way into the Greek BEFORE Christ was born or before he was known to be our Savior.

The problem is we don’t have extant copies of the Septuagint’s Isaiah until much later than when Matthew wrote his Gospel, therefore it just seems more likely to me that those who were transcribing the Septuagint LATER changed the Isaiah verse to match what Matthew said in the Gospel, especially considering the fact that the DSS also said almah, which are around the time of Matthew.

Just because the Septuagint has been found to, overall, more closely match the DSS than the Hebrew, I’d be interested to know what researchers have found regarding quoted OT material in the NT and how both the MT and the LXX compare, and more importantly, why they think they match up the way they do.

 

[mmortal03]

FYI, my previous message was replying to the following from Jerry Jet (there were unpredicted replies to this thread this morning before I finished writing my response!):

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!

 

[Ron_Conte]

The OT and NT should be translated from a scholarly point of view, free from any and all doctrinal bias.

Why? Because the Word of God is Truth, and for as long as we do so honestly, the translation will never contradict the Faith.

As it turns out, the scholarly point of view is a severe bias in itself. Consider the footnotes to the JB or NJB. They treat the text as an historical artifact to be examined in a scientific manner. They don’t treat it as the Word of God.

Doctrine is not bias; it is truth. If we translate the Word of God without being informed and enlightened by doctrine, then we are translating words of truth while ignoring truth.

I agree that considering the historical circumstances and religious/social context is indispensible. But I object to the exclusion of the insights that the faithful have had into Scripture for the last 2000 years. Translating from a doctrinal perspective is essental also. Those translators who claim to put doctrine aside always end up substituting some other pseudo-doctrine to replace it, such as the use of inclusive language or the idea that the Bible offends women, so must be altered in translation.

concerning ‘young woman’ versus ‘virgin’ the Hebrew word 'almah refers to a young unmarried woman of marrying age. In that ancient religious and social context, an 'almah would be a virgin. The OT even has the death penalty for an 'almah who has not remained a virgin until her wedding night. So the translation of virgin takes into account doctrinal truth and ancient religous/social context.

Ron

 

[porthos11]

As it turns out, the scholarly point of view is a severe bias in itself. Consider the footnotes to the JB or NJB. They treat the text as an historical artifact to be examined in a scientific manner. They don’t treat it as the Word of God.

I don’ agree. I don’t believe translators are first and foremost translating because they’re on some scientific rampage. I’m very sure the translators do treat the Bible as the Word of God, or at least intend to do so.

But even if they know the Word of God, it would be foolish to deny that the Bible’s texts are historical artifacts and they should be examined in a scientific manner, just as we would all ancient documents. That’s the way we can get the most out of them in terms of linguistic accuracy, which is crucial for doctrinal accuracy. And sometimes, accuracy is subjective, and difficult choices need to be made. Here doctrine can guide in that decision, but any decision to be made must be done on primarily critical grounds.

Doctrine is not bias; it is truth. If we translate the Word of God without being informed and enlightened by doctrine, then we are translating words of truth while ignoring truth.

Again, I don’t immediatley jump to such quick conclusions. We believe in the unity of truth, and therefore to seek the truth through critical studies will never contradict doctrinal truth.

Yet there are those who translate while letting doctrine cloud their translation rather then *guide *them. That’s how masterpieces like the New World Translation came into being.

I agree that considering the historical circumstances and religious/social context is indispensible. But I object to the exclusion of the insights that the faithful have had into Scripture for the last 2000 years. Translating from a doctrinal perspective is essental also. Those translators who claim to put doctrine aside always end up substituting some other pseudo-doctrine to replace it, such as the use of inclusive language or the idea that the Bible offends women, so must be altered in translation.

One must not disregard the insights of the past 2000 years, but we cannot let those insights color the Old Testament. Now we must all realize that no translation is completely free from doctrinal bias, but the effort must be made anyway.

These people who translate according to inclusive language are themselves dishonest, and are as dishonest as those who translate with doctrinal bias (yes, *bias), *for the reasons you mentioned. When the text says anthropos, then there is only one valid translation: man. There’s nothing doctrinal about it; just sound linguistic principles.

concerning ‘young woman’ versus ‘virgin’ the Hebrew word 'almah refers to a young unmarried woman of marrying age. In that ancient religious and social context, an 'almah would be a virgin. The OT even has the death penalty for an 'almah who has not remained a virgin until her wedding night. So the translation of virgin takes into account doctrinal truth and ancient religous/social context.

Ron

But the word ‘almah’ doesn’t directly mean ‘virgin’. As you just mentioned, an almah who was found to not be a ‘betulah’ was stoned. So ‘almah’ does not automatically equate ‘betulah’, or mathematically, betulah is a subset of almah. ‘Virgin’ is a correct translation, and the LXX reflects this, but it’s not right to bite off the heads of those who translate the Hebrew according to the broader term, because it is, and I daresay, more accurate.

And this is made even clearer when we take the historical context (the Israelite-Aramean seige of Jerusalem). Isaiah is first and foremost giving a sign to King Ahaz that the birth of Immanuel will signal the downfall of both Pekah and Rezin. The oracle is not about a virgin birth; it is about the salvation of Jerusalem from the Israelite and Syrian invaders. The immediate context then points to a young Jerusalem woman who may already be pregnant or will be soon, most probably Ahaz’s wife. ‘Young woman’ would be the first sense here, ‘virgin’ comes in secondary. I accept ‘virgin’ at this point, but ‘young woman’ is just right for this passage.

BUT, if you see ‘young woman’ in Matthew 1:23, then throw out that Bible because in Matthew 1:23, the Greek is ‘parthenos’ which is properly rendered only as ‘virgin.’

 

[Manfred]

I strongly suggest everyone read porthos’ last two posts very carefully; he’s sifted through a lot of what’s been written in this thread and others like it and makes many excellent points.

Great analysis, porthos! You have MY sincere gratitude.

Manfred

 

[Manfred]

Ever since the forums came back, it seems that I am not always guaranteed to get the first unread post by clicking “View First Unread”.

Bottom line: the comment in my previous post should be expanded to endorse all (not just two) of porthos’ last posts wherein he defends textual criticism PROPERLY done, the kind Pius XII very likely had in mind when he wrote Divino Afflante Spiritu in 1943.

 

[porthos11]

I strongly suggest everyone read porthos’ last two posts very carefully; he’s sifted through a lot of what’s been written in this thread and others like it and makes many excellent points.

Great analysis, porthos! You have MY sincere gratitude.

Manfred

Coming from you, Manfred, that’s practically a canonization .

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Virgin over young woman is a no brainer!

Why?

It doesn’t matter what the oldest text we have from Hebrews says.

Jesus was the final revelation of God and the New Testament writers were the last ones to convey that revelation.

If they were Divinely and Inerrantly inspired by the Holy Spirit to use Virgin instead of young woman in Matthew then any text that did not PREVIOUSLY use that translation must have been in error.

Also if the quotes from the New Testament writers where Jesus is qouting form the Old Testament many times MATCH more closely he Greek instead of the Hebrew–then the Hebrew text–no matter how OLD it might be is not to be WORSHIPPED as more accurate than the Greek in all instances.

Jews might think it should be translated young woman–maybe even Isaiah himself said young woman–that does not mean that the Holy Spirit which INSPIRED the text said young woman.

The ideas of the Old Testament were true–that doesn’t mean that the Hebrew scriptures were DEFINITIVELY the Bible until the Catholic Church said they were. They could have been true without being perfected.

Young woman is true. Virgin is perfect.

One thing is for sure–the Latin Vulgate is free from error in matters of faith. We as Catholics believe that Mary was more than just a young woman that she was a Virgin.

While it can’t be proved I believe that the Holy Spirit that inspired Isaiah to write 7:14 is more likey to conveyed to him “Virgin” than “young woman”.

As for high falooting textual criticism maybe the people who strongly believe that 7:14 should be “young woman” can tell us why the Holy Spirit used that term for Mary in 7:14 and didn’t use it later in the New Testament. Did the Holy Spirit change?

 

[porthos11]

Virgin over young woman is a no brainer!

Why?

It doesn’t matter what the oldest text we have from Hebrews says.

Wrong. It does matter. The original Hebrew (as in the most ancient one, now lost) is the one inspired by the Holy Spirit as the Book of Isaiah.

Jesus was the final revelation of God and the New Testament writers were the last ones to convey that revelation.

If they were Divinely and Inerrantly inspired by the Holy Spirit to use Virgin instead of young woman in Matthew then any text that did not PREVIOUSLY use that translation must have been in error.

Wrong also. If the original Hebrew Isaiah had ‘almah’, which it most likely did, then that’s what the Holy Spirit inspired Isaiah to write.

There isn’t widespread acceptance that the LXX was inspired.

BUT, Matthew quoted Isaiah from the LXX, and there he wrote ‘virgin.’ That’s what the Holy Spirit inspired Matthew to write. So what if it varies from Isaiah’s Hebrew? Matthew comes down to us in Greek. There are bound to be linguistic differences.

Also if the quotes from the New Testament writers where Jesus is qouting form the Old Testament many times MATCH more closely he Greek instead of the Hebrew–then the Hebrew text–no matter how OLD it might be is not to be WORSHIPPED as more accurate than the Greek in all instances.

And we accept those quotes as inspired as they stand in the New Testament, i.e. the Holy Spirit inspired the NT authors to quote them as they are from the LXX. Yet we do not need to attribute inspiration to the LXX, any more than we attribute inspiration to Epimenides or Aratus. Yet Luke was inspired to quote them. So Luke was the inspired one, not Epimenides or Aratus.

Jews might think it should be translated young woman–maybe even Isaiah himself said young woman–that does not mean that the Holy Spirit which INSPIRED the text said young woman.

You have no proof either way. But most likely he did. However, the weight of textual criticism trumps mere speculation.

The ideas of the Old Testament were true–that doesn’t mean that the Hebrew scriptures were DEFINITIVELY the Bible until the Catholic Church said they were. They could have been true without being perfected.

Young woman is true. Virgin is perfect.

Young woman is true and sufficient and perfect for Isaiah 7:14, as is virgin, which is why I never criticize translations that use virgin here. But virgin is the ONLY acceptable translation for Matthew 1:23.

One thing is for sure–the Latin Vulgate is free from error in matters of faith. We as Catholics believe that Mary was more than just a young woman that she was a Virgin.

This is not about Mary. This is about the accuracy of translations from Hebrew and Greek. No one is attacking the prophecy as quoted by Matthew. We are only discussing the validity of alternative renderings for Isaiah. Isaiah 7:14 is not primarily about Mary and Jesus. It is about a young Judean woman and a kid named Immanuel during the reign of King Ahaz. That is the first context by which we should translate the Hebrew.

While it can’t be proved I believe that the Holy Spirit that inspired Isaiah to write 7:14 is more likey to conveyed to him “Virgin” than “young woman”.

As for high falooting textual criticism maybe the people who strongly believe that 7:14 should be “young woman” can tell us why the Holy Spirit used that term for Mary in 7:14 and didn’t use it later in the New Testament. Did the Holy Spirit change?

The Holy Spirit inspired Matthew to quote the Greek. The Holy Spirit inspired Isaiah to write in Hebrew. So what? There’s no problem here.

Again, Isaiah 7:14 doesn’t refer to Mary, primarily anyway. The prophecy in Matthew 1:23 does. So translating Isaiah 7:14 as young woman does not deny Mary’s virginity, but translating Matthew 1:23 in such a manner does.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

If they took a vote from every Catholic in the world about how Isaiah 7:14 should be translated how do you think it would come out?

Of course that means nothing but sometimes the Sensus Fidelium of the Catholic Church does know what it is talking about!

One last note: when translations as diverse as the NAB and the Douay Rheims BOTH translate Isaiah 7:14 as “Virgin” instead of “young woman” then maybe it’s time to get on board that train!

What Catholic–not Protestant train is pushing for “young woman”?

 

[mmortal03]

If they took a vote from every Catholic in the world about how Isaiah 7:14 should be translated how do you think it would come out?

Of course that means nothing but sometimes the Sensus Fidelium of the Catholic Church does know what it is talking about!

They would also say that the NAB is the Bible translation to pick up, because they are brainwashed or don’t know any better, and haven’t actually been educated about what the Catholic Church is all about. Cradle Catholics that haven’t even researched about what the foundation of their faith is all about FOR THEMSELVES. My generation’s CCD was severely lacking, and it might just be because so was my parent’s generation. (Oh, and don’t get confused about my age; I am a senior in college).

One last note: when translations as diverse as the NAB and the Douay Rheims BOTH translate Isaiah 7:14 as “Virgin” instead of “young woman” then maybe it’s time to get on board that train!

What Catholic–not Protestant train is pushing for “young woman”?

Those who think it is a proper translation of the Hebrew and who want to keep the different language traditions separated and the laity educated about this by putting a footnote where these contrasts occur.

 

[porthos11]

If they took a vote from every Catholic in the world about how Isaiah 7:14 should be translated how do you think it would come out?

Of course that means nothing but sometimes the Sensus Fidelium of the Catholic Church does know what it is talking about!

One last note: when translations as diverse as the NAB and the Douay Rheims BOTH translate Isaiah 7:14 as “Virgin” instead of “young woman” then maybe it’s time to get on board that train!

What Catholic–not Protestant train is pushing for “young woman”?

Who’s pushing for anything? And NOW you defend the NAB?

No one is pushing for one over the other. All we say is that the RSV translators do not deserve to be eaten alive because they made a reasonable choice, if unpopular choice. That doesn’t make it wrong, just uncommon.

In cases like these, when decisions have to be made, they are footnoted. The Good News Bible has an excellent footnote, which is why I’ve never had a problem with this rendering.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

It may indeed be unfair but as long as any translation insists on “young woman” they will be eaten alive".

I’m not defending the NAB. I am saying that the NAB chose “virgin” and the Douay-Rheims chose “virgin”.

The Protestants who came up with the RSV chose “young woman”.

Ignatius who revised the RSV chose “virgin”.

Now the way I see it is that is 3 different groups of Catholics at different times choosing "virgin"and 1 group of Protestants choosing “young woman”.

Take a vote and see which group most Catholics would entrust their soul to!

And without a doubt sometimes there are more than one rendering of a Bible verse but how many people will regard the alternative rendering to be as plausible as the one that has been chosen.

I would and probably most of the people at this thread would but the average uninformed reader wouldn’t!

What I don’t understand is why some Catholics will bend over backwards trying to extol to everyone the virtures of the Protestant scriptures!

Can the Protestants or ancient Hebrews sometimes be right about things–of course! The problem is when people get to believing that alternative renderings are always wonderful things. They aren’t!

Bottom line: If you think that “young woman” is the superior rendering of the text feel free to tell people that. The Catholic Church as far as I know has not made a dogmatic definitive declaration on the matter.

I will tell anyone that I think “virgin” is better.

May the Holy Spirit guide them into all truth!

P.S. Manfred: Do you believe that “virgin” is better or “young woman” is better? I would agree that either is acceptable–I just think “virgin” is better and I’m not as knowledgeable as some of our other Catholic brothers here. Am I a nut case for sid9ing with the NAB and the Douay Rheims?

 

[porthos11]

What I don’t understand is why some Catholics will bend over backwards trying to extol to everyone the virtures of the Protestant scriptures!

Because the Protestants got most of it right.

Can the Protestants or ancient Hebrews sometimes be right about things–of course! The problem is when people get to believing that alternative renderings are always wonderful things. They aren’t!

Bottom line: If you think that “young woman” is the superior rendering of the text feel free to tell people that. The Catholic Church as far as I know has not made a dogmatic definitive declaration on the matter.

I personally prefer “virgin” in Isaiah 7:14 for devotional reasons.

I accept “young woman” (RSV/TEV) or “maiden” (JB) in translations that use it for the critical and historical reasons already given.

I refuse to attribute evil motives to the translators, and neither to I brand them just because they were primarily Protestant. No one’s saying the RSV is perfect, and as Manfred has pointed out, it could be improved. Ignatius tried to do that, and while mmortal and Manfred have pointed out its own shortcomings, it still stands as the easily best Catholic Bible available today, perhaps side-by-side with the Oxford RSV-CE. Outside of liturgical celebrations, I will pick up the RSV-CE or CE2 first hand.

This and plus the fact that you will see only the RSV on EWTN outside of its televised liturgy, it’s used in CDF documents and the Catechism, is endorsed by the CDW, and used in the most orthodox Catholic publications has much going for it, despite its problems. I have yet to see any translation that doesn’t have any.

It’s clear you love the DR, and you must do so and use it. I personally prefer the RSV and JB over it, but that’s my own choice. But the RSV is NOT a heretical Bible, otherwise the Church would not use it in her own official pronouncements.

 

[Manfred]

Manfred: Do you believe that “virgin” is better or “young woman” is better? I would agree that either is acceptable–I just think “virgin” is better and I’m not as knowledgeable as some of our other Catholic brothers here. Am I a nut case for sid9ing with the NAB and the Douay Rheims?

Jerry-Jet,

The translators of the NAB originally rendered the term as “young woman”, as in the RSV, but the US bishops, who had final say, ordered it changed to “virgin”. (Aside: they obviously did not bother to fix Luke 1:28, so we got “Rejoice, O highly favored daughter!” Just great, huh?) And the 1966 JB chose “young maiden”, in my view the best all-round rendering.

But the RSV translators at least had the integrity to include “virgin” in the footnotes. I’m talking here about the Protestant RSV. Of course, the RSV-CE has this as well.

The Palestinian Jews rejected the deutero-canonicals because these were in the LXX and not composed in Palestine. Their problem with the LXX was that Christians were using it. But it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to prove they actually ALTERED texts in an attempt to knock Christianity.

I’m no fan of the NAB, I like - and read - the D-R, but Pius XII (DAS, 1943), John Paul II (Nova Vulgata, 1979) and Liturgiam Authenticam all seem to support textual criticism. As much as I’d like to dismiss the RSV-CE, I cannot, though, as I and others state here, it could use some corrections.

 

[mmortal03]

It may indeed be unfair but as long as any translation insists on “young woman” they will be eaten alive".

That just shows how subjective, easily manipulated, and biased people’s “knowledge” of the Bible is.

Popular does not mean right: see Argumentum ad populum, and argumentum ad antiquitatem for good measure.

I’m not defending the NAB. I am saying that the NAB chose “virgin” and the Douay-Rheims chose “virgin”.

The Protestants who came up with the RSV chose “young woman”.

Ignatius who revised the RSV chose “virgin”.

Now the way I see it is that is 3 different groups of Catholics at different times choosing "virgin"and 1 group of Protestants choosing “young woman”.

Take a vote and see which group most Catholics would entrust their soul to!

Hopefully, most Catholics would entrust their souls to Jesus, and would at least question the authority of any Bible translation not done by God himself. (i.e. all of them) I am not saying that no Bible translation is right, but I am saying that we should be knowledgeable and ask questions.

And without a doubt sometimes there are more than one rendering of a Bible verse but how many people will regard the alternative rendering to be as plausible as the one that has been chosen.

I would and probably most of the people at this thread would but the average uninformed reader wouldn’t!

What I don’t understand is why some Catholics will bend over backwards trying to extol to everyone the virtures of the Protestant scriptures!

It depends on how well they have done, case by case. Conservative Protestants and Conservative Catholics often have a lot more complementary interests in having accurate Biblical scholarship then you might think.

Bottom line: If you think that “young woman” is the superior rendering of the text feel free to tell people that. The Catholic Church as far as I know has not made a dogmatic definitive declaration on the matter.

I will tell anyone that I think “virgin” is better.

I will tell people that “young woman” is an accurate translation of the Hebrew. I will not tell people which one is better. I am comfortable with either, as long as the context is properly described in the footnotes, and I think it is a non-issue in the grand scheme of things. I think that once we have some modern English translations of the Septuagint floating around, I will be very happy.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

I will be very happy when we can get English translations better than what we have today. I don’t see why that is so hard to accomplish.

I hope the next Pope will take the name Jerome I!

 

[fantrl]

I bought a compact Ignatius RSV-CE and it was the same text as the Oxford RSV-CE.

 

[mmortal03]

I bought a compact Ignatius RSV-CE and it was the same text as the Oxford RSV-CE.

Yeah, I put two and two together the other day and realized that those compacts were mass produced for all three companies, the only difference being the cover material. Oxford holds the copyright to that, and had them printed for themselves, as well as Ignatius and Scepter.