RSV-CE Online?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tim_in_MI
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
If this is in fact a revised 1971 RSV, would that necessarily be a bad translation? I don’t care for the NRSV, but I was unfamiliar with earlier RSVs before joining this forum…
 
TheOneTrueFred said:
If this is in fact a revised 1971 RSV, would that necessarily be a bad translation? I don’t care for the NRSV, but I was unfamiliar with earlier RSVs before joining this forum…
Click to expand...
The RSV’s do not use inclusive language (none in the Catholic editions or in the Protestant editions). The NRSV is probably the worst translation in terms of the use of inclusive language. Both the Catholic and Protestant NRSV’s use much inclusive language (more than the RNAB).
 
TheOneTrueFred said:
If this is in fact a revised 1971 RSV, would that necessarily be a bad translation? I don’t care for the NRSV, but I was unfamiliar with earlier RSVs before joining this forum…
Click to expand...
Are you referring to this web site? As I said earlier it does not match any published RSV-CE as far as I know. That makes it spurious.

This is a convoluted story, but while the Ignatius RSV-CE and RSV-2CE have as their base the 1962 RSV, Oxford Press has out a Catholic Edition RSV with verses from the 1971 RSV. We have heard from at least one poster in touch with Oxford that this may have been unintentional, but as you suggest, some here believe it to be a fortuitous event. Much more on this can be found at this thread (I would start at post #445 and move forward or backward from there). Helpful comparisons are at this page.
 
Tim_in_MI said:
Can anyone tell me where to find the Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition online? I want to be able to search, read, etc.

So far, I’ve only found the RSV online (with Deuteros) at Univ. of Virginia here
Click to expand...
.

Any help is appreciated - thanks in advance
 
Manfred said:
Cranch,

I’m copying the statement I made earlier today in two other threads:

I suspected it was too good to be true, that the RSV-CE, even if it was a hybrid 1971/1965CE, was really online. Ignatius, Oxford, Scepter all saw to that, I’m sure.

So, let’s shout this out:

THE RSV-CE (1965-66 ed.) IS NOT ONLINE.

THE 1966 JERUSALEM BIBLE IS NOT ONLINE.

THE 1985 NEW JERUSALEM BIBLE IS NOT ONLINE.
Click to expand...
what’s wrong with this link for the NJB?: kofc.duq.edu/scripture/
 
MH84 said:
what’s wrong with this link for the NJB?: kofc.duq.edu/scripture/
Click to expand...
Not only are most of the Old Testament books identified as the RSV (once you click a book), but the deuterocanonical books are missing altogether as are Thessalonians 1 & 2 from the New Testament. I don’t own the NJB, so I can’t vouch for what little of it is here.
 
Cranch said:
Not only are most of the Old Testament books identified as the RSV (once you click a book), but the deuterocanonical books are missing altogether as are Thessalonians 1 & 2 from the New Testament. I don’t own the NJB, so I can’t vouch for what little of it is here.
Click to expand...
I just checked a bit. Matthew and 1 Samuel are the NJB. Amos is the RSV (which one I did not check). That site has a hodgepodge of different things, with much of the Bible missing completely. 😦
 
Cranch said:
… but while the Ignatius RSV-CE and RSV-2CE have as their base the 1962 RSV, Oxford Press has out a Catholic Edition RSV with verses from the 1971 RSV. We have heard from at least one poster in touch with Oxford that this may have been unintentional, but as you suggest, some here believe it to be a fortuitous event. Much more on this can be found at this thread (I would start at post #445 and move forward or backward from there). Helpful comparisons are at this page.
Click to expand...
Cranch,

One teensie-weensie correction: the Ignatius RSV-xCE’s have as their base the 1959, not 1962, RSV NT.

What is from 1962 is the Missale Romanum that’s used in the extra-ordinary form of the Latin Rite Mass, aka the Traditional Latin Mass.
 
Manfred said:
Cranch,

One teensie-weensie correction: the Ignatius RSV-xCE’s have as their base the 1959, not 1962, RSV NT.

What is from 1962 is the Missale Romanum that’s used in the extra-ordinary form of the Latin Rite Mass, aka the Traditional Latin Mass.
Click to expand...
Hi Manfred-

As I attend a TLM weekly and follow along closely in my 1962 missal, let me assure you I am not confusing it with the RSV. 🙂 I know mmortal03 uses 1959 in the RSV comparison chart, but I used the 1962 date based on this statement from the Wikipedia article “Revised Standard Version”:“Minor modifications to the RSV text were authorized in 1959 and completed for the 1962 printings.”

And this statement from the Wikipedia article “Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition”:*“The RSV-CE was based on the 1962 printing of the Protestant RSV.”
  • While there doesn’t seem to have been any actual RSV edition produced in 1959, and while other bible versions seem to be referred to by their copyright dates (e.g. 1941 Confraternity NT, 1985 NAB revised NT), I agree a case can be made here for 1959 based on the RSV Committee’s “authorization.”
 
Cranch said:
Hi Manfred-

As I attend a TLM weekly and follow along closely in my 1962 missal, let me assure you I am not confusing it with the RSV. 🙂 I know mmortal03 uses 1959 in the RSV comparison chart, but I used the 1962 date based on this statement from the Wikipedia article “Revised Standard Version”:“Minor modifications to the RSV text were authorized in 1959 and completed for the 1962 printings.”

And this statement from the Wikipedia article “Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition”:*“The RSV-CE was based on the 1962 printing of the Protestant RSV.”
  • While there doesn’t seem to have been any actual RSV edition produced in 1959, and while other bible versions seem to be referred to by their copyright dates (e.g. 1941 Confraternity NT, 1985 NAB revised NT), I agree a case can be made here for 1959 based on the RSV Committee’s “authorization.”
Click to expand...
Cranch,

There’s a book by Clinton Morrison entitled “An Analytical Concordance to the New Testament of the Revised Standard Version”. I believe both mmortal and I mentioned this in the thread “RSV-CE Needs Corrections”.

In one of the book’s appendices, the author does a comparison of readings from four editions of the RSV NT which preceded the 1971 NT. The four are: (A) the 1946 NT; (B) the 1952 NT; (C) the 1959 NT; (CE) the 1965 Catholic Edition. Morrison notes that the CE was based on the then current edition of the RSV NT, which, drawing an inference from his comparison, would be that of 1959.

This is why mmortal and I would cite 1959, not 1962.
 
Manfred said:
Cranch,

There’s a book by Clinton Morrison entitled “An Analytical Concordance to the New Testament of the Revised Standard Version”. I believe both mmortal and I mentioned this in the thread “RSV-CE Needs Corrections”.

In one of the book’s appendices, the author does a comparison of readings from four editions of the RSV NT which preceded the 1971 NT. The four are: (A) the 1946 NT; (B) the 1952 NT; (C) the 1959 NT; (CE) the 1965 Catholic Edition. Morrison notes that the CE was based on the then current edition of the RSV NT, which, drawing an inference from his comparison, would be that of 1959.

This is why mmortal and I would cite 1959, not 1962.
Click to expand...
That makes sense. I own the original RSV-CE, not the RSV-2CE.
 
The RSV-CE IS ONLINE, I just found out it is on EWTN!!!

ewtn.com/devotionals/biblesearch.asp

{edit} at this point however the navigation is not too great and there is no search feature either…hopefully they will improve this soon, I sent them an email.
 
Catholic_Dude said:
The RSV-CE IS ONLINE, I just found out it is on EWTN!!!

ewtn.com/devotionals/biblesearch.asp

{edit} at this point however the navigation is not too great and there is no search feature either…hopefully they will improve this soon, I sent them an email.
Click to expand...
Some of us have “been there, done that”, but, alas, it’s NOT the RSV-CE in its entirety.

Whoever it is who really holds the RSV-CE copyright is pretty serious about it.
 
Mannyfit75 said:
There is a 3rd Edition? I hope it isn’t gender neutral like the NRSV.
Click to expand...
There is no 3rd edition yet. I am waiting for it whenever it is available, but that probably will not be for another 5 years or so. Since I know that there will be a 3rd edition eventually, I am not going to purchase the 2nd edition. I will just stick to the original edition until the 3rd edition is available.

I doubt if there will be any inclusive language in the RSV-3CE when it is completed. There already is the NRSV-CE for persons who like the inclusive language.
 
I am dusting off this thread to thank inthecloud for pointing out recently that Biblia Clerus apparently uses the RSV-CE for its presentation of Scripture in English. I have looked at Luke 1:28, 34, Romans 5:5, 8:11, 9:5 and John 19:5 among others. Based on mmortal’s handy verse comparison reference, it looks to me to be consistent with an Oxford RSV-CE (which has a 1971 New Testament base), but it is unfortunately labeled 1966 which would imply (wrongly in this case) an Ignatius RSV-CE. Nevertheless, I think it possible that this is the first online RSV-CE that might actually fully match a printed version.
 
Cranch said:
I am dusting off this thread to thank inthecloud for pointing out recently that Biblia Clerus apparently uses the RSV-CE for its presentation of Scripture in English. I have looked at Luke 1:28, 34, Romans 5:5, 8:11, 9:5 and John 19:5 among others. Based on mmortal’s handy verse comparison reference, it looks to me to be consistent with an Oxford RSV-CE (which has a 1971 New Testament base), but it is unfortunately labeled 1966 which would imply (wrongly in this case) an Ignatius RSV-CE. Nevertheless, I think it possible that this is the first online RSV-CE that might actually fully match a printed version.
Click to expand...
That is an AMAZING resource (BOOKMARK), thanks to you and Inthecloud.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top