Rsv-ce

  • Thread starter Thread starter tobinatorstark
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
We understand what you are saying–that the RSV-CE is Catholic approved. Our argument here is that the RSV is a derivative translation from the King Jame Version, and so it is a “child” of that mother of protestant bibles. That does not make it evil by any means, or not good in many ways. But this lay person wants to feel like I am reading a true Catholic Bible, and I only have that feeling with the Douay.

I do find the argument that the Pope uses the RSV interesting. If it’s “good enough” for the Pope, shouldn’t it be good enough for the rest of us? If you want to read the RSV-CE, go ahead! As you note, it is approved, etc. I have an RSV on my shelf, for reference purposes. The RSV is probably the best, most readable translation that is “universal” in the English speaking world. So, it makes sense that the Pope would use it in his writings. What else would he use? The Douay is really considered “archaic” and so people would not have a copy of what the Pope is referring to. Again, I am not saying the RSV is a bad translation. (I do think it is a bit disingenuous though, to think you can change “favored” one to “full of grace” and a few other things and act like you now have a Catholic edition). Also, the Pope is a scholar and the RSV is widely used in scholarly circles.
Mea_Culpa said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Mea_Culpa said:
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.
Click to expand...
How can you not say it isn’t Protestant??? The RSV is a PROTESTANT translation. The only thing they did to make it Catholic is that they changed a couple of verses and added the deutrocanonical books. By changing a couple of verses and adding the 7 books does not make it Catholic. In my view it is not shy of Protestant and shouldn’t be allowed for scripture period. I would argue this case to Pope if I had to. I don’t find the RSV-CE a good translation overall, but a rather poor translation. What don’t people see that I don’t feel that the RSV-CE(fraud Catholic) Bible is a rather poor translation completely?? And how can rejecting a protestant Bible be in opposition of the Church. Give an example where something is totally Catholic as opposed to Protestantism. I can’t think of any
 
tobinatorstark said:
How can you not say it isn’t Protestant??? The RSV is a PROTESTANT translation. The only thing they did to make it Catholic is that they changed a couple of verses and added the deutrocanonical books. By changing a couple of verses and adding the 7 books does not make it Catholic. In my view it is not shy of Protestant and shouldn’t be allowed for scripture period. I would argue this case to Pope if I had to. I don’t find the RSV-CE a good translation overall, but a rather poor translation. What don’t people see that I don’t feel that the RSV-CE(fraud Catholic) Bible is a rather poor translation completely?? And how can rejecting a protestant Bible be in opposition of the Church. Give an example where something is totally Catholic as opposed to Protestantism. I can’t think of any
Click to expand...
If it’s good enough for John Paul II and Benedict XVI, it’s good enough for me.

I get the idea that you don’t like it. So don’t read it. If it were “protestant,” why would the Church approve it, the Pope use it, the University of Navarre have it as the basis of their Navarre Bible, etc.

What you’re saying doesn’t make any sense. Are you saying that everybody from the Pope on down has been fooled into approving and using this “protestant” Bible translation, and you’re the only one who can see what’s really going on?
 
The RSV-CE has been approved for Catholic use, and it is widely used, and that is why the Pope cites it, and they used it for Navarre. What else could they have used? The Douay is archaic, by the standards needed for mass consumption. The Jerusalem Bible is just plain bad. What else would they use in Europe to publish in English? The RSV it is. The Pope does not care about the protestant taint we are talking about. Sometimes lay people take certain things more seriously than the hierarchy. The hierarchy has a concern of Ecumenism, while a lot of us lay people just want to write off the protestants as being wrong and astray and we want nothing to do with their bibles. It is not a very mature position, perhaps, but there is nothing wrong with wanting a pure Catholic bible, and we are saying the Duoay-Rheims is the only one with a pure pedigree. And we love it.
Mea_Culpa said:
If it’s good enough for John Paul II and Benedict XVI, it’s good enough for me.

I get the idea that you don’t like it. So don’t read it. If it were “protestant,” why would the Church approve it, the Pope use it, the University of Navarre have it as the basis of their Navarre Bible, etc.

What you’re saying doesn’t make any sense. Are you saying that everybody from the Pope on down has been fooled into approving and using this “protestant” Bible translation, and you’re the only one who can see what’s really going on?
Click to expand...
 
Anyone who thinks that the Protestants who decided the textual rendering choices made in the RSV did not do that through the lens of Protestantism would be the kind of people who would say that the New York Times was not biased.

Who believes that?

They had many textual choices to make.

I’m saying an all Catholic group of scholars would not have made all the choices they made.

What’s hard to understand about that?

Just because a scholar is a scholar does not mean that he approaches textual rendering choices from a blank linguistic slate!

Know any blank journalistic slate journalists?

Every choice they made can be defended and argued about until the cows come home.

Just don’t tell me that the cumulative effect of all their choices is not influenced by their own theological upbringing!

That upbringing is not of the Catholic Church’s magisterium influence.

Does that mean that the cumulative effect of all their choices is way off base?

No!

But it certainly is not the same as the cumulative effect of all their textual choices if those choices were seen through the window of the Catholic Church’s magisterium and its teaching over the centuries!

The defenders of the RSV would claim that it is “scholarly” and without any bias whatsoever.

I dispute that. There are Catholic scholars that would dispute that.

Does nuance matter? It certainly does if the Holy Spirit inspired it!

And we’re not talking about perfection because there is no translation of the bible that will be 100% accurate.

But that being the case I would take 98% accurate over 97% accurate any day!

And even with lack of perfection Trent teaches us that the Vulgate is without doctrinal error!

I do not think the case that the RSV is 100% without doctrinal error can be conclusively proved.

For Catholics the FACT that the Vulgate is 100% without doctrinal error is CONCLUSIVELY proven by those of the Catholic FAITH withTrent!

So use the RSV–of course–just don’t tell any Catholics with a brain that it is doctrinally a bowl of cherries.

We don’t buy it!
 
Go rant all you want .I will continue to use my RSV- and teach with it like our seminarians do.you can read any which one you wish. I use a mulitude of translations. i use my Anchor bible Dictionary,my Collegeville, Harper Collins, NJBC.,Sacra Paginas etc.If you want a semblance of the truth just don’t read your Bible by itself.It really isn’t enough insight.
 
notice that this thread to was to see who dislikes the RSV-CE. Just because I dislike this translation and I won’t read it doesn’t mean everyone hear has to cry about it and say so and so uses it. I would rather read the KJV over the RSV-CE in the first place. I disagree with some of the verses in the RSV-CE that make it sound like a Protestant Bible
 
Again, let me just say that if you like the DR that is great, but don’t try to condemn the rest of us who use modern translations approved and encouraged by the Church.

The Church could have one official English translation but it doesn’t. That in itself speaks volumes. There are plenty of wonderful Biblical scholars who could easily come up with a translation from the Nova Vulgata, the official Bible of the Church, yet there is no desire from Rome to do so. Funny enough, the Nova Vulgata follows many decisions in the RSV, and other original language translations, including the exclusion of “blessed are you among women” in Luke 1:28. Clearly those who produced the Nova Vulgata recognized that those words came from the mouth of Elizabeth only, not the Angel.

Simply put, if Pope Benedict wanted a better English translation of the Bible he would commission it. But, the fact remains that there is no need to do so. Pope Benedict is simply continuing the path led by the Church hierarchy, and the Holy Spirit, which encouraged for Biblical translations from the original languages. There is really no way to debate this. It has been a part of the Catholic tradition now for well over 50 years.

One other minor point, while it is true that the RSV/NRSV come in the tradition of the KJV, it would be incorrect to call them direct descendents, because the RSV/NRSV use far earlier manuscripts than than the Textus Receptus that was used in translating the KJV. Often, the connection between the two is in regards to the use of particular English grammar and phrases.

Also, ease off the protestants. Last time I checked, they are Christians too! Do they have the fulness of faith? No, but it doesn’t mean that any contributions they make to Biblical studies shouldn’t be considered. Read Joseph Ratzinger’s works, clearly he sites the works of protestants at various times. You might want to read Lumen Gentium when you get a chance.
 
The RSV-CE does not translate the OT in the light of the NT, nor in the light of Catholic teaching. This is perhaps the most serious flaw of the translation. on the former point, even many Protestants complained about the OT of the RSV not being translated in the light of the NT. Also, the RSV is not a literal translation; it is moderate, between literal and loose.
 
mccorm45 said:
Again, let me just say that if you like the DR that is great, but don’t try to condemn the rest of us who use modern translations approved and encouraged by the Church.

I am not trying to condemn anyone. Like I said in a previous on this thread. I wanted to see who also DISLIKED the RSV-CE and not why people love it so much. Never mind the fact I like the Douay-Rhiems. I plain do not like the RSV-CE

Also, ease off the protestants. Last time I checked, they are Christians too! Do they have the fulness of faith? No, but it doesn’t mean that any contributions they make to Biblical studies shouldn’t be considered. Read Joseph Ratzinger’s works, clearly he sites the works of protestants at various times. You might want to read Lumen Gentium when you get a chance.
Click to expand...
I am not saying that the Protestants are bad. Yes they are Christians too. Yes the have fullness in faith. I disagree that Catholics should study Protestant Biblical studies. I will read Pope Benedict XVI work after I finish reading the works of Pope Leo XII, Pius V, Pius X, Pius XII and John Paul II. I just don’t think we need Protestant views in the Catholic Church and I think that the RSV-CE has plenty of Protestant views.
Ron_Conte said:
The RSV-CE does not translate the OT in the light of the NT, nor in the light of Catholic teaching. This is perhaps the most serious flaw of the translation. on the former point, even many Protestants complained about the OT of the RSV not being translated in the light of the NT. Also, the RSV is not a literal translation; it is moderate, between literal and loose.
Click to expand...
Thank you Ron.
 
Ron_Conte said:
The RSV-CE does not translate the OT in the light of the NT, nor in the light of Catholic teaching. This is perhaps the most serious flaw of the translation. on the former point, even many Protestants complained about the OT of the RSV not being translated in the light of the NT. Also, the RSV is not a literal translation; it is moderate, between literal and loose.
Click to expand...
  1. First of all, the RSV is a literal translation. You will find no one, Catholic or Protestant, who thinks it is somewhere “between literal and loose”. Translations that fit that catagory are the Jerusalem Bible and the TNIV and the NLT. Look at any Bible translation chart and the RSV is clearly on the literal side. zondervan.com/Cultures/en-US/Product/Bible/About+Bible+Translations.htm?QueryStringSite=Zondervan Also, just because translations are not literal, word for word, doesn’t mean they are not accurate either. This is a whole different subject, one which is not the point of this thread.
  2. We do not translate Holy Scripture in light of doctrine. The sources of Catholic Doctrine come from Divine Revelation, which is found in Scripture and Tradition. Doctrine comes from the authentic interpretation of Divine Revelation, which is done by the Holy Mother Church. Check out Dei Verbum par. 7-10 on this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top