Rsv-ce

  • Thread starter Thread starter tobinatorstark
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
NAB 1970=approved
NAB 1986 NT=not approved. Lectionaries required adjustment and now do not match published NAB’s.
NAB 1991 Psalms=completely rejected.

It should be noted there is a difference between being approved for liturgy and for private reading. The NAB, RSV, NJB, JB, and NRSV all have imprimaturs from various people and national conferences.

Back to the liturgy question, yes the NAB is approved in varying ways. As you stated the OT, including the original Psalms, are approved for Liturgy, while the revised '86 NT is for the most part approved for liturgy. As you know, there are a few places where there is an alternative rendering, but I have actually spotted a few cases in the OT as well, but certainly not as numerous. Overall, not counting the wretched '91 Psalms, I would say the 95%+ of the current NAB is read at Mass. The changes are not all due to inclusive language.

As for the NRSV, it has recently been approved, after many years, for use in the Canadian liturgy. There will obviously be some alterations with various points of the text, so it will be interesting to see where these are.

The inclusive language debate is an interesting one. While it is very clear that the Vatican will never, nor should they, allow any vertical inclusive language, it seems that some modest horizontal inclusive language is being deemed acceptable. It will be interesting to see what happens in the next few years.
 
The inclusive language debate is an interesting one. While it is very clear that the Vatican will never, nor should they, allow any vertical inclusive language, it seems that some modest horizontal inclusive language is being deemed acceptable. It will be interesting to see what happens in the next few years

Indeed
 
Good and Gentle People,

i’ve been reading through this and other related threads (Which Catholic Bible is best? Your views on the NAB) with much amusement, since most of this has been hashed out numerous times and will continue to be for as long as these Forums operate. Now I have a comment:

Does anyone really believe that Benedict XVI or any one else in the Holy See who pens a document actually has a copy of the RSV(-CE) in front of him? I would submit that the writer has the Nova Vulgata at hand, since, after all, the document that will emanate from Rome will be in LATIN, and the NV was indeed translated from the original languages.

Now, as far as the translation into English of any of the Papal or Curial documents, the RSV(-CE) may very well be the English version of choice, the rationale being that it (1) comes from the original languages, and (2) it more closely tracks the NV than say, the (R)NAB or the (N)JB. But “more closely” is just that; it does not PERFECTLY track the NV, it just does it better and in more places than do the others I’ve mentioned. And there are places where it diverges from the NV. Try to keep this in mind.
 
Manfred said:
Good and Gentle People,

i’ve been reading through this and other related threads (Which Catholic Bible is best? Your views on the NAB) with much amusement, since most of this has been hashed out numerous times and will continue to be for as long as these Forums operate. Now I have a comment:

Does anyone really believe that Benedict XVI or any one else in the Holy See who pens a document actually has a copy of the RSV(-CE) in front of him? I would submit that the writer has the Nova Vulgata at hand, since, after all, the document that will emanate from Rome will be in LATIN, and the NV was indeed translated from the original languages.

Now, as far as the translation into English of any of the Papal or Curial documents, the RSV(-CE) may very well be the English version of choice, the rationale being that it (1) comes from the original languages, and (2) it more closely tracks the NV than say, the (R)NAB or the (N)JB. But “more closely” is just that; it does not PERFECTLY track the NV, it just does it better and in more places than do the others I’ve mentioned. And there are places where it diverges from the NV. Try to keep this in mind.
Click to expand...
As a scholar he’d have more then one Text as a resource.He could use all the resources in the Vatican Library! you think he’d really use just one! And shifting from Latin to English or about a dozen other languages would not be a big deal especially with world famous scholars at your beck and call.:confused:
 
juliamajor said:
As a scholar he’d have more then one Text as a resource.He could use all the resources in the Vatican Library! you think he’d really use just one! And shifting from Latin to English or about a dozen other languages would not be a big deal especially with world famous scholars at your beck and call.:confused

The Pope has a lot access to a lot of resources. He leads the church and does so much for the world not just the Catholic Church. I would love to have half the knowledge that he has. Shifting to Latin to English and the reverse is probably easy for him. Since he has done liturgy in both Latin and English. His seminary training was probably really intense. He is most def. filled with the Holy Spirit.
Click to expand...
 
tobinatorstark said:
Yes I do know what the Immaculate Conception is. It when Mary was conceived For her to be full of grace the Immaculate Conception had to occur. She was born without original sin and remained a virgin. This is why she is blessed among women because of the Immaculate Conception. True, the Immaculate Conception happened quite some time before the conception and eventual birth of Jesus.Mary was the chosen one. Why would the angel have spoken to her if she wasn’t the woman that God promised in the prophesy of Isaias (Isaiah for modern translations). She had to be blessed among women and well as full of grace to be pregnant with the Lord. The Immaculate Conception is as pure as Mary being full of grace and blessed among women. Mary had to be blessed among women or her conception wouldn’t have been Immaculate to God, for to be chosen as the mother of the Lord
Click to expand...
I was not trying to be confrontational, when I read or misread your post I was wondering why you had a reference to the Immaculate Conception during the discussion regarding the Annunciation and I was not sure where you were going with it. I was not intentionally trying to test your faith, but there are those who miss interpret what the Immaculate Conception is, even some Catholics. My apologies if I offended you.
 
Even though the Immaculate Conception had nothing to do with the Annunciation, the fact that Mary is blessed among women is partly due to the Immaculate Conception. I was just offended that the NAB, JB and the RSV-CE had removed the words blessed are thou amongst women in Luke 1:28. You didn’t offend me at all
 
I want to know those who do like the RSV-CE, why do you like the RSV-CE over other translations. Please omit responses that it is “better and more accurate” and so and so reads it.
 
I have no problem with 99% of the RSV-CE and believe that it is possible on non doctrinal areas that in some places it can be superior to the Vulgate.
 
tobinatorstark said:
I want to know those who do like the RSV-CE, why do you like the RSV-CE over other translations. Please omit responses that it is “better and more accurate” and so and so reads it.
Click to expand...
Well, the fact is that I read the RSV/NRSV because it is “better and more accurate” than most translations. I know that we debated this issue to the ground, so I will leave it at that.

But outside of the accuracy issue, I like to use the RSV/NRSV is because I enjoy reading from it. To me, it reads better than most other Bibles available today. I don’t like the use of archaic language. I know that some people like that in their versions, particularly those who like the DR or the KJV. I just don’t. In particular, I find that the OT reads very smoothly.

Secondly, I have found that I can use the RSV/NRSV for both study and prayer. Therefore, if I am leading a Bible study or just praying with the Psalms, I use the RSV/NRSV. In particular, when I am leading a Bible study, the translational differences between the RSV/NRSV will be somewhat close to the Bibles most people use…like the NAB, NIV, etc…

Finally, there are just more editions of the RSV/NRSV out there to choose from. I can find study Bibles, interlinears, devotional Bibles, comparative Bibles in the RSV/NRSV translation, with many different binding from genuine leather to paperback. There are just a lot more resources out there in the RSV/NRSV translations.

Just my 2 cents.
 
mccorm45 said:
Well, the fact is that I read the RSV/NRSV because it is “better and more accurate” than most translations. I know that we debated this issue to the ground, so I will leave it at that.

But outside of the accuracy issue, I like to use the RSV/NRSV is because I enjoy reading from it. To me, it reads better than most other Bibles available today. I don’t like the use of archaic language. I know that some people like that in their versions, particularly those who like the DR or the KJV. I just don’t. In particular, I find that the OT reads very smoothly.

Secondly, I have found that I can use the RSV/NRSV for both study and prayer. Therefore, if I am leading a Bible study or just praying with the Psalms, I use the RSV/NRSV. In particular, when I am leading a Bible study, the translational differences between the RSV/NRSV will be somewhat close to the Bibles most people use…like the NAB, NIV, etc…

Finally, there are just more editions of the RSV/NRSV out there to choose from. I can find study Bibles, interlinears, devotional Bibles, comparative Bibles in the RSV/NRSV translation, with many different binding from genuine leather to paperback. There are just a lot more resources out there in the RSV/NRSV translations.

Just my 2 cents.
Click to expand...
Thank you for an honest answer. I too find myself praying with the Psalms during adoration at my church. Your answers is exactly what I have been waiting to hear:thumbsup:
 
It must really be hard to translate the Psalms–St. Jerome caught alot of grief for the job he did on them–he translated them three times!

And there seems to be more varience in the Psalms than any other part of the bible.

Anybody who says that any translation of the Psalms is 100% accurate is not telling the truth.
 
Jerry-Jet said:
It must really be hard to translate the Psalms–St. Jerome caught alot of grief for the job he did on them–he translated them three times!

And there seems to be more varience in the Psalms than any other part of the bible.

Anybody who says that any translation of the Psalms is 100% accurate is not telling the truth.
Click to expand...
As you know, any time one is translating poetry from one language to another, there is going to inevitably be some loss in meaning. That is why a translator may have to switch back and forth from formal to functional equivalence in translating. A word for word literal translation may not make sense in a different language. Again, poetry is probably the most difficult to translate.
 
I couldn’t imagine reading Greek, Hebrew, Aremaic and Latin and trying to translate from one language to another.
 
tobinatorstark said:
I want to know those who do like the RSV-CE, why do you like the RSV-CE over other translations. Please omit responses that it is “better and more accurate” and so and so reads it.
Click to expand...
In my RSV-CE Second Edition by Ignatius has Luke 1:28 as “Full of Grace”. I will need to check my RSV-CE by Scepter later today.
 
tobinatorstark said:
Thank you, Thank you Thank you!!! Why should we let Protestantism into a CATHOLIC CHURCH
Click to expand...
Frankly, I don’t care who translated it. I’m more interested in the accuracy of the translation and, while the RSVCE is not perfect - no translation is - they certaily did a much better job than the all-Catholic team that translated the NAB.

The Vatican has chosen the RSVCE as the version to be used in Church documents. Are you saying they are guilty of ‘‘Protestantizing’’ the Catholic Church?

Gary
 
garysibio said:
Frankly, I don’t care who translated it. I’m more interested in the accuracy of the translation and, while the RSVCE is not perfect - no translation is - they certaily did a much better job than the all-Catholic team that translated the NAB.

The Vatican has chosen the RSVCE as the version to be used in Church documents. Are you saying they are guilty of ‘‘Protestantizing’’ the Catholic Church?

Gary
Click to expand...
The team that translated the NAB was NOT all Catholic. As far as the as the RSV-CE’s concern. It is a Protestant Bible at heart therefore it has PROTESTANT BIASED view in it. I plain don’t like it for a lot of verse in what they do or do not include. Example is Luke 1:28. The NAB, Jerusalem Bible and the RSV-CE all omit the ending. Blessed are thou amongst women. That is offensive in my book
 
tobinatorstark said:
The team that translated the NAB was NOT all Catholic. As far as the as the RSV-CE’s concern. It is a Protestant Bible at heart therefore it has PROTESTANT BIASED view in it. I plain don’t like it for a lot of verse in what they do or do not include. Example is Luke 1:28. The NAB, Jerusalem Bible and the RSV-CE all omit the ending. Blessed are thou amongst women. That is offensive in my book
Click to expand...
The fact is that the RSV-CE is not a protestant Bible, it is approved by the Church for the Faithful to read, it is used in the Pope’s English writings, it is used for the Navarre Bible, and on and on. If you don’t like it, don’t read it, but you saying it is protestant is not true and is in opposition to the Church.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top