RSV:CE online?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JezuUfamTobie
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JezuUfamTobie

Guest
Is the text of the Revised Standard Version: Catholic Edition available online? I really like the convenience of the New American Bible on the USCCB web site, but I prefer the RSV:CE translation. If you know of a web site that has this version posted, please tell me where. Thanks!
 
JezuUfamTobie said:
Is the text of the Revised Standard Version: Catholic Edition available online? I really like the convenience of the New American Bible on the USCCB web site, but I prefer the RSV:CE translation. If you know of a web site that has this version posted, please tell me where. Thanks!
Click to expand...
To my knowledge, the RSV-CE, being under copyright restrictions, is not online. The Protestant RSV, without the Catholic editorial additions and changes, can be found in several places online.

However, EWTN does have the complete book of Esther from the RSV-CE.

ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/ESTHERRS.HTM
 
Some websites which I gather from various sources

drbo.org/
Douay Rheims

etext.virginia.edu/rsv.browse.html
RSV - KjV

vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_INDEX.HTMhttp://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/index.htmNANAB

innvista.com/culture/religion/bible/versions/tjb.htm
JB

kofc.duq.edu/scripture/
NJB

latinvulgate.com/
Latin Vulgate - Douay-Rheims English translation in parallel

latinvulgate.com/
Latin Vulgate can help in the difficult verses

bible.crosswalk.com/
Cross-walk-Concordance-Dictionary-Commentary

biblegateway.com/
Biblegateway

bible.org/

bible.org

Bible.org | Where the World Comes to Study the Bible

Where the world comes to study the Bible.
bible.org bible.org

blueletterbible.org/
Blue Letter Bible

e-sword.net/index.html
E-Sword

chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=63255
Judaism 101

jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Bible/jpstoc.html
The Hebrew Scriptures-the Tanakh

bsw.org/index
Biblical Studies on the Web

torreys.org/bible/
Resource links for Bible studies
 
fantrl said:
You can trick EWTN into giving you the RSV-CE by manipulating the daily readings.

ewtn.com/vbible/search.asp?abbr=Luke&ch=1&bv1=28&ev1=28
is luke 1:28

for abbr= you but the abbreviation of the name of the book
for ch= you put the chapter
for bv1= you put the starting verse
for ev1= you put the ending verse
Click to expand...
That would be great! I really only needed to look up small portions, namely the verses that are different from the RSV.

…but aren’t the daily mass readings taken from the NAB? :confused:
 
JezuUfamTobie said:
That would be great! I really only needed to look up small portions, namely the verses that are different from the RSV.

…but aren’t the daily mass readings taken from the NAB? :confused:
Click to expand...
EWTN takes them from the RSV-CE. Obviously, they’re for private devotions, and not for use in the Mass.
 
The Catechism of the Catholic Church doesn’t use the RSV:CE. The CCC (see pg .xix) uses instead the ecumenical 1973 RSV which is Imprimatured.

It’s a constant source of amazement to me that so few people acknowledge this.

etext.lib.virginia.edu/rsv.browse.html

Most of the “Catholic” differences between the earlier RSV and the RSV:CE New Testament were incorporated into the 1973 RSV. Also, the later edition has many improvements to the Old Testament.

From an apologetics point of view, I think there are advantages in not having "Catholic Edition" written on my bible. Evangelicals will be suspicious of this!
 
dalcent said:
From an apologetics point of view, I think there are advantages in not having "Catholic Edition" written on my bible. Evangelicals will be suspicious of this!
Click to expand...
This is a very good point. Thanks for the link and helpful information on the RSV vs. RSV:CE as well. I wasn’t aware that the RSV could include the apocrypha–I thought that was only available in the CE. It’s amazing how much conflicting (or even incorrect) information one gets from fellow Catholics regarding various translations.
 
JezuUfamTobie said:
This is a very good point. Thanks for the link and helpful information on the RSV vs. RSV:CE as well. I wasn’t aware that the RSV could include the apocrypha–I thought that was only available in the CE. It’s amazing how much conflicting (or even incorrect) information one gets from fellow Catholics regarding various translations.
Click to expand...
Jezu:

When I was confirmed (as an Episcopalean in 1971), my father gave me an RSV with Apocrypha (and that was the original version - Which is much better than the NRSV which is a DEGENDERIZED version of the RSV).

I think the following are all useful links to Bookmark and will provide edification:

etext.lib.virginia.edu/rsv.browse.html (RSV)
drbo.org/ (Douay-Rheims)
vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_INDEX.HTM (NAB - Vatican)
biblegateway.com/ (Accesses Multiple Translations)
scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Hebrew_Index.htm (Online Hebrew OT Interlinear)
scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Greek_Index.htm (Online Greek Interlinear - NT)
studylight.org/isb/ (Interlinear Concordance Look-up)

Anyone who knows a good Resource (Such as the Nova Vulgata or a Online copy of The Jerusalem Bible) is welcome to add to the list.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael
 
dalcent said:
The Catechism of the Catholic Church doesn’t use the RSV:CE. The CCC (see pg .xix) uses instead the ecumenical 1973 RSV which is Imprimatured.

It’s a constant source of amazement to me that so few people acknowledge this.

etext.lib.virginia.edu/rsv.browse.html

Most of the “Catholic” differences between the earlier RSV and the RSV:CE New Testament were incorporated into the 1973 RSV. Also, the later edition has many improvements to the Old Testament.

From an apologetics point of view, I think there are advantages in not having "Catholic Edition" written on my bible. Evangelicals will be suspicious of this!
Click to expand...
First order of business: I am not aware of any changes made to the RSV OLD Testament in any edition beyond 1959. Can you cite some, please?

Secondly, whether the RSV is the Protestant or the Catholic Edition, evangelicals will always be suspicious, since it was THEY who initiated the effort which resulted in the NIV. And before that, another conservative Protestant group rejected the RSV and began work on the NASB. Why Catholic apologists think that the RSV is great when engaging in discussions with evangelicals - who reject it vehemently - baffles me. And fundamentalists are so enamored of their KJV that nothing else will do. And many Catholics know no other version than the NAB because that’s what’s read at Mass.

To me, there is no translation that ALL Christians - Catholic, mainstream Protestants, evangelicals, fundamentalists, Orthodox - can find acceptable.
 
fantrl said:
You can trick EWTN into giving you the RSV-CE by manipulating the daily readings.

ewtn.com/vbible/search.asp?abbr=Luke&ch=1&bv1=28&ev1=28
is luke 1:28

for abbr= you but the abbreviation of the name of the book
for ch= you put the chapter
for bv1= you put the starting verse
for ev1= you put the ending verse
Click to expand...
fantrl,

GREAT FIND! I tried other passages and it works. FYI, the EWTN virtual bible seems to be that of the Oxford/Scepter RSV-CE (based on 1971 NT), which is different than the Ignatius RSV-CE (based on 1959 NT).

Thanks ever so much!

Manfred
 
The RSV that is cited in the Catechism does not have the Apocrypha; at least my Oxford version does not.
 
Manfred said:
To me, there is no translation that ALL Christians - Catholic, mainstream Protestants, evangelicals, fundamentalists, Orthodox - can find acceptable.
Click to expand...
The 1973 Ecumenical RSV *had *the broadest denominational acceptance of any Bible. Even some conservative evangelical bible colleges were using it.

With the recent profusion of new Bible translations, emergence of “King James Only-one-brain-cell-ism”, and the trend towards gender-inclusiveness any hope of a single authoritative English bible is long gone.

A lot of evangelicals hold the New American Standard Bible in great esteem even if they find it too heavy and literal to actually use. They won’t argue if you dig it out in an Apologetic encounter unless they are KJV-only.
johnbres2 said:
The RSV that is cited in the Catechism does not have the Apocrypha; at least my Oxford version does not.
Click to expand...
It came with or without. I suppose most old copies lying around belonged to Protestants.
 
dalcent said:
With the recent profusion of new Bible translations, emergence of “King James Only-one-brain-cell-ism”, and the trend towards gender-inclusiveness any hope of a single authoritative English bible is long gone.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

As late as 1977 when “The Oxford Annotated Bible with The Apocrypha” (RSV with 1952 OT, 1971 NT, 1977 Apocrypha) was published, it was billed as “an ecumenical study bible” for Catholics, Protestants and the Orthodox. But it couldn’t have held much sway, as the NASB was already published, the NIV was a year away, and the NAB and JB had been out for several years each as well, so… And no self-respecting fundamentalist is going to even acknowledge any other bible than the KJV. And now the NRSV is available in an Oxford Annotated edition. Yay.
 
Manfred said:
FYI, the EWTN virtual bible seems to be that of the Oxford/Scepter RSV-CE (based on 1971 NT), which is different than the Ignatius RSV-CE (based on 1959 NT).
Click to expand...
Good and Gentle People,

I must apologize for the misinformation above.

The EWTN virtual bible is NOT, repeat NOT the Oxford/Scepter RSV-CE based on the 1971 RSV NT. Nor is it the Ignatius RSV-CE based on the 1959 RSV NT. I checked several other passages, notably in Luke 22 and 24, and, as it turns out, EWTN’s vbible is none other than the ecumenical (generic) RSV. HOWEVER, they somehow managed to change Luke 1:28 to read “Hail, full of grace”, instead of “Hail, O favored one”, which lead me to conclude (though falsely and with very limited evidence) that it was indeed the RSV-CE.

Again, my apologies for getting anyone’s hopes up, but, as it now appears, the RSV-CE is NOT available online.

Manfred
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top