RSV Confusion

[swampboy]

Thanks Manfred–
I just downloaded the Biblia Clerus and am messing with it now. WOW!! I am answering my own questions now…I am looking at the text of the RSV and NAB side by side and can see the differences quite easily now. If you haven’t checked out this software I highly recommend you do. One thing I am noticing right now is the use of “happy” instead of “blessed” in the NAB. I can’t remember how the NJB tranlsates that (I know it uses blessed for the beatitudes) but something about that verbage bothers me–guess that is why I have always shied from the NAB–I find it more quirky than the NJB. The more I read, the more I think I need to buy that Scepter RSV with the original wording–I like the thees and thous to the degree they are used…sort of gives a sense of dignity to the passages.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

If anyone reads Pope Benedict’s Encyclical on Hope they will find that he believes much more in “Substance” and “Evidence” as used by the Vulgate.

Assurance and conviction are subjective–substance and evidence are objective realities.

One view is Protestant–the other view is Catholic!

It really astounds me that Catholics can’t see the Protestant bias of the RSV.

And it also astounds me that people can’t see the sometimes as in this case bias of the notes to the Confraternity Version.

Some people will continue to try to sell the RSV’s Protestant bias. I won’t buy it and I’ll urge others don’t buy it either!

I have heard that the bestg reaon to posses an RSV CAtholic 2d Edition bible is because the Dueterocanonical books are very close to the Nova Vulgata and don’t contain much Protestant bias because Protestants haven’t spent much time “polishing” them to fit their doctrinal bias.

Is this true?

If the Deuterconanoical books wrere close to the Nova Vulgata and devoid of Protestantisms it would make an RSV Catholic 2d Edition bible worth possesing if for those books alone.

I wish someone would publish and English translation of Jerome’s last translation of the Psalm from the Hebrew–I have heard that it may be the most accurate Psalter.

 

[Manfred]

If anyone reads Pope Benedict’s Encyclical on Hope they will find that he believes much more in “Substance” and “Evidence” as used by the Vulgate.

Assurance and conviction are subjective–substance and evidence are objective realities.

One view is Protestant–the other view is Catholic!

It really astounds me that Catholics can’t see the Protestant bias of the RSV.

And it also astounds me that people can’t see the sometimes as in this case bias of the notes to the Confraternity Version.

Some people will continue to try to sell the RSV’s Protestant bias. I won’t buy it and I’ll urge others don’t buy it either!

I have heard that the bestg reaon to posses an RSV CAtholic 2d Edition bible is because the Dueterocanonical books are very close to the Nova Vulgata and don’t contain much Protestant bias because Protestants haven’t spent much time “polishing” them to fit their doctrinal bias.

Is this true?

If the Deuterconanoical books wrere close to the Nova Vulgata and devoid of Protestantisms it would make an RSV Catholic 2d Edition bible worth possesing if for those books alone.

I wish someone would publish and English translation of Jerome’s last translation of the Psalm from the Hebrew–I have heard that it may be the most accurate Psalter.

Jerry-Jet,

I watched - twice - The Journey Home episode wherein Marcus Grodi and Fr Mitch Pacwa discussed Hebrews 11:1 in the context of Spe Salvi. I was sure that I would come away with a loud, ringing endorsement of the D-R over the RSV-CE, but, alas, I didn’t get one. Now, as you know, I did post the footnote from the Confraternity NT, one of your favorite translations, and I was not a little surprised that the sense intended was that of the RSV(-CE). Which leaves me scratching my head in parsing this sentence of yours:

“And it also astounds me that people can’t see the sometimes as in this case bias of the notes to the Confraternity Version.” Could you re-state this without the typos?

As for the Deutero-canonicals of the RSV-2CE being THE closest to the NV: other than the inclusion of a verse in Sirach, the D-Cs of the RSV-2CE are probably further from the NV than those of the D-R.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

I was stating that the notes of the Confraternity were more in the direction of the RSV. I believe that is because the people that made the Confraternity were much more liberal in how they translated the bible than those who at that time would have staunchly backed the Douay Rheims.

In other words the only reason that some of those translators stuck with Douay Rheims translations was that their translation was not permitted to go far from the Vulgate–they could only tinker at the edges because the Confraternity would be used in the Liturgy–but If they had been able to have more freedom in translating they probably would have come up with translations that would have been more in the direction of the RSV.

I don’t think that is a good thing–I think it reflected the change in relgious education that many of these translators had received which was not in the tradition of the Vulgate nd I think that that was bad.

I didn’t know that the Doauy got much more about the deuteros right than the RSV–I thought the Protestants hadn’t “Twisted” much of the deuteros.

Everytime I wind up in an exchange with you Manfred I come out of it believing in the RSV even less that the small trust I had had in it before.

And I come out believing that the only way to get close to the real bible is to go to the Douay Rheims.

I guess you can’t believe all you read.

Some traditionalists think that the Bea Psalter was blatant liberalism while NAB supporters think that it was just a moderate translation to more accuracy.

Some think that the RSV Catholic editions were great Catholic polishing while others think they they did very little to fix Protestant bias and flaws.

I did read an article that said that Jerome’s last Psalter from the Hebrew that was never much used in the Liturgy is very accurate.

I really do believe sometimes that the real reason we don’t see an accurate English translation of the Nova Vulgata is because not only would it be a great translation but its flaws would be very minor.

Any translation could be criticized but an English translation of the Nova Vulgate would be hard to criticize and I just don’t see how the RSV, NRSV, New Jerusalem, or NAB bibles would fare if compared to the Nova Vulgata accurately translated into English.

Who would have a problem with a translation like that?

Would it be so Catholic that some people just couldn’t take it?

 

[Manfred]

I was stating that the notes of the Confraternity were more in the direction of the RSV. I believe that is because the people that made the Confraternity were much more liberal in how they translated the bible than those who at that time would have staunchly backed the Douay Rheims.

In other words the only reason that some of those translators stuck with Douay Rheims translations was that their translation was not permitted to go far from the Vulgate–they could only tinker at the edges because the Confraternity would be used in the Liturgy–but If they had been able to have more freedom in translating they probably would have come up with translations that would have been more in the direction of the RSV.

You bring up a very good point, Jerry-Jet; that is, I just assumed that the footnotes in my edition of the Confraternity NT were prepared at the same time as the biblical text was translated. It IS entirely possible that the footnotes, and that would include the one I quoted, were added to later printings of the Confraternity NT. My edition was from 1957, and as such contained the “new” Confraternity translations from the original languages of Genesis-Ruth and Job-Sirach, the rest of the OT being from the Douay. And, since the RSV NT had been out for over 10 years at this point, the footnotes COULD have been added sometime after 1946. I have no proof of this; we’d need someone who has a copy of the Confraternity NT from between 1941 and, say, 1946.

I didn’t know that the Doauy got much more about the deuteros right than the RSV–I thought the Protestants hadn’t “Twisted” much of the deuteros.

Everytime I wind up in an exchange with you Manfred I come out of it believing in the RSV even less that the small trust I had had in it before.

And I come out believing that the only way to get close to the real bible is to go to the Douay Rheims.

This is a tough one, because Jerome is said to have translated Tobias and Judith from Aramaic paraphrases, or that he just left the Vetus Latina untouched. Yet, notes in the RSV-CE, JB and NJB strongly suggest that the findings from Qumran of copies of these books are more in agreement with what Jerome did than the Greek from which these more modern translations are made.

Some traditionalists think that the Bea Psalter was blatant liberalism while NAB supporters think that it was just a moderate translation to more accuracy.

Some think that the RSV Catholic editions were great Catholic polishing while others think they they did very little to fix Protestant bias and flaws.

I did read an article that said that Jerome’s last Psalter from the Hebrew that was never much used in the Liturgy is very accurate.

If you could send me a link to this article, I would be very appreciative. As for that whole thread on the various versions of the Psalms from few months ago - I got a headache trying to follow it, let alone make any sense out of it. :hypno:

I really do believe sometimes that the real reason we don’t see an accurate English translation of the Nova Vulgata is because not only would it be a great translation but its flaws would be very minor.

Perhaps if Benedict XVI in his encyclicals keeps pointing out errors in the various vernacular translations, he might just be led to point out that while it is desirable that vernacular translations be from the original languages, it is NOT required that they be so. However, I’m sure Catholic biblical “scholars” the world over would be screaming loudly.

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Swampboy,

You wrote (awhile back):* I have been reading the various postings regarding the RSV-CE and the numerous issues pertaining to this translation. All I have to say is that I am really confused as to which is the “best”. I have the second edition and think it is okay–however, I have read that there are even several issues with some of the edits that were made to this newer version. I have been going crazy trying to find the “best” (i.e. most accurate and readable) translation. I have tried and tried to like the D-R and RSV but find myself continually going back to the NJB, despite some of the strange phraseology. I know the RSV is a far better translation as far as the literal aspect goes (used by most EWTN folks, the Pope, Catechism, etc.), but I think it is more difficult to extract the meaning of certain things (which the NJB makes much easier IMO). The D-R is great, as is the KJV, as they are very poetic but difficult to read for any length of time. I do not mind the archaic English, actually I prefer it, but I think that modern translations may be better for me.

Now, I would like to give the RSV another try, and am thinking of buying one of the original ones (not sec. ed.). I know the old “blue back” is laid out terribily, but it has the thees and thous that I like as well as cross-references and such. I have been looking at the 2006 Oxford Readers Edition (amazon.com/Revised-Standa…cm_cr_pr_pb_t). DOes anyone have any thoughts on this version? Does it have cross-references? I want a full size version–which is best? I see that there are pages and pages of info on the RSV and that different publishers used different year revisions etc. in newer editions. I find it all quite confusing, as well as aggravating–I may just stick with the NJB!
Any help is appreciated. Thanks in advance. *

You wrote what is quoted here back in December, but I thought that I would add a suggestion very briefly about the various forms that the R.S.V. Bible has taken. Although the Authorised “King James” Version was always primary in my life, I did use the R.S.V. rather a lot, too, over the years. The main problems with the R.S.V. are liberal bias in translation, especially in passages touching on Christology and the Holy Trinity, and the resort to the so-called “Critical Text” that liberals so love, incorporating so many minority manuscript readings that undermine doctrine clearly asserted in majority readings, and which they have fobbed off on a lot of believing Christians, too. The R.S.V.-C.E. and R.S.V.-2nd C.E. only touched up a few passages; most of what is wrong in R.S.V. renderings remains. However, when it is not being devious about passages touching on these central issues (and a few others at times), the overall approach to translation that the R.S.V. takes is quite lucid and as clear as its relative literalism permits (as should be the case in translating the Bible, of course). The Wisdom writings of the canonical and deutero-canonical Old Testament especially benefit from the greater clarity than they have in the A.V., where that great version is at its literary weakest.

You might try the newly published conservative revision of the R.S.V. Bible, the English Standard Version, which now (as of this year, 2009) includes the deutero-canonical writings (included as the “Apocrypha” placed in the publication after the New Testament) of the full Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Anglican Bibles at their fullest, which makes it a good candidate for consideration, now, as a Bible that Roman Catholics can use, albeit with the usual caution in using versions done under Protestant auspices. Here is the citation in ISBD form:

The English Standard Version Bible : Containing the Old and New Testaments with Apocrypha. – E.S.V. text edition [with] the Apocrypha. – New York : Oxford University Press, 2009. – xiii, 1446 p. + [16] p. of 9 col. maps, some spread over facing pages). – ISBN 978-0-19-528910-7.

In addition to cleaning up some of the worst liberal and intentional misrenderings of Holy Scripture found in the R.S.V. (and mostly also in the R.S.V.'s Catholic editions), there is a more consistent use of English idiom and, what pleases me perhaps most of all, an increased luicidity and sharp clarity of language, even more elegantly and marvellously clearly expressed than in earlier R.S.V.-based Bibles.

The hardback edition, being a text edition, is free of dubious opion-mongering by Protestant or sectarian annotators, and it is very reasonably priced, too.

I hope that helps a bit with your R.S.V. dilemna!

Jerry Parker

 

[tobinatorstark]

swampboy,

You sound like me. That’s good 'cause it shows I’m not alone in this. That’s bad 'cause it shows I’m not alone in this. Somehow the Church has been a bit delinquent in ensuring we have a decent, accurate, dignified English translation for the Mass and for private reading and study.

Seriously, I own a regular edition NJB (purchased in 1987), the Ignatius blue hardcover RSV-CE, and a TAN Douay-Rheims.

Yes, the NJB, by far the best among the three for layout, user-friendliness, abundance of study aids (sub-headings, footnotes, cross-references), has some quirky renderings, but gives a pretty smooth ride. If anyone tells you it’s not “literal” enough for catechetical or study purposes, then ask him/her why did Fr. John Hardon use the original (1966) JB as the Scripture text for his “Catholic Catechism”? The NJB is far more consistent in its renderings and far less paraphrastic than the JB.

Yes, the whole RSV situation is way too confusing and there’s probably no one publisher’s edition that’ll make me happy. Darned print’s too small an/or little white space on page and/or chintzy study material. (Aside: the Catechism did NOT specifically use the RSV-CE; it used an ecumenical edition, containing the 1971 NT sans Catholic changes, as well as that awful NRSV. Also, the Pope probably doesn’t need to use this version; he’s got the Nova Vulgata.)

Yes, the D-R is beautiful with its “archaic” language, probably the most accurate of the three (though some frown on its being a translation from the Vulgate instead of the “original” languages), but requires more than a little effort to read and comprehend. If you’ve previewed the Haydock Commentary online, you’ll notice that it can be as obscure as the text it purports to expound on.

On a scale of translation style ranging from dynamic-equivalent on one end to formal-equivalent at the other, the NJB goes on the D-E end, the D-R on the F-E end, the RSV-CE right smack in the middle. And I’m one of those who feel the RSV-2CE is a “work-in-progress” that stopped way short of being a first-class translation.

I can’t help but agree with everything you are saying in this post Manfred…but with the few interactions we have had I am sure you know that already. I am confident that people can use the RSV/NJB/DR with great profit.

I also have the problem the swampboy alluded to…always looking for the perfect translation, while not just being happy with what is out there now until something better comes along. I am seriously considering selling my Bible collection and just focusing on two or three translations. I guess the only real hope out there is that the Ignatius people actually finish the Ignatius Study Bible before the Second Advent. At that point, nobody will need it then!

I also agree with the both of you. McCorm45, I especially agree with the statement that you are confident that people can use the RSV/NJB/DR with great profit. I have started use the RSV-CE a little in my studies and it simply is the best of the modern translations in my opinion. I don’t know what I was afraid of. I guess the idea of it coming a Protestant translation was a bit overwhelming. Swampboy. Hang in there buddy, Give the RSV-CE another chance as well with the D-R. I personally had to give the RSV-CE another shot before I could accept it and talking to others about my concerns did help me quite a bit. I wouldn’t stop reading your NJB. You feel really comfortable reading it and you should stick to it.

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Tobina Torstarck and Swampboy,

You have made some excellent comments upon and assessments of the various R.S.V. permutations and of the (New) Jerusalem Bible(s).

I find that the N.J.B. is much superior in the N.T., with fewer eccentric readings, to the original J.B., but I think that I still tend to favour using the J.B.'s rendering of the O.T.

As for the R.S.V., do give the English Standard Version with “Apocrypha” a try; it is clearer and has fewer rogue readings than any other version in the R.S.V. stream of Bibles in English.

Jerry Parker

 

[swampboy]

Tobina Torstarck and Swampboy,

You have made some excellent comments upon and assessments of the various R.S.V. permutations and of the (New) Jerusalem Bible(s).

I find that the N.J.B. is much superior in the N.T., with fewer eccentric readings, to the original J.B., but I think that I still tend to favour using the J.B.'s rendering of the O.T.

As for the R.S.V., do give the English Standard Version with “Apocrypha” a try; it is clearer and has fewer rogue readings than any other version in the R.S.V. stream of Bibles in English.

Jerry Parker

Jerry:
Thanks for the suggestion. I have the ESV w/o apocrypha on my iPhone and agree that it is very well done–nice and clean and easy flowing. I think it should be considered by the Church as a replacement for the RSV. I will pick up the new one in hardcopy so I’ll have all the books. The N/JB is such a great resource but it is too bad that the translation is a little loose. I still like using it though to clear up difficult passages and for it’s x-refs.

 

[Mattjolley]

…the main gripe I have with the RSV (aside from always having stuck in my head that it is of protestant origin), is the way they present the various names in the Scriptures, like this: ‘Nicode’mus’.

I don’t need help pronouncing names, thankyou very much Ignatius.

I know it’s a nice idea but it really annoys me for some reason!

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Hi, Swampboy (gotta love that Dixified name!),

**You wrote: ***Thanks for the suggestion. I have the ESV w/o apocrypha on my iPhone and agree that it is very well done–nice and clean and easy flowing. I think it should be considered by the Church as a replacement for the RSV. I will pick up the new one in hardcopy so I’ll have all the books. The N/JB is such a great resource but it is too bad that the translation is a little loose. I still like using it though to clear up difficult passages and for it’s x-refs. *

Again, we agree about both the New Jerusalem Bible and original Jerusalem Bible (N/JB) and English Standard Version (ESV). I expanded on what I had written to you about the ESV with “Apocrypha”, to which what you wrote above is a reply, for Amazon WWW sites in a “customer review”. One thing that makes me curious is to wonder how the 2007 differs from the initial 2001 text (of the copy that I own) of the fully canonical O.T. and N.T. of the ESV. Or perhaps those copyright dates involve ancillary matters and not the text itself. The introductory matter in the ESV with “Apocrypha” is very cursory. Do you know something about this? Anyhow, so that you know, the ESV with “Apocrypha” is the 2007 ESV with 2009 “Apocrypha”. I shall continue to use the RSV-2nd CE, but I feel more confident in using this new variant of the ESV; more of the lingering Liberal Protestant influences that pockmark the RSV have been corrected, though, alas, some (and “any” is too much!) persist.

When I resort to the New Jerusalem Bible I normally use a compact text-only edition. This is not simply because it is easier to handle, but, more significantly, it lacks those often horridly liberalising, tendentious notes, at foot-of-page in even the standard trade editions of the NJB, which really irk me. (If I want to know what “liberal scholars”, Roman Catholic or Protestant, think about scriptural matters, I’ll look at the Oxford Annotated Bible, RSV or NSRV with deuterocanonicals, thank you, Messrs. NJB Liberal-Busybodies!). The N/JB is too paraphrastic, but it is so beautifully worded! It stands head-and-shoulders above other Bibles of its paraphrastic kind.

Jerry Parker

 

[swampboy]

Hi, Swampboy (gotta love that Dixified name!),

**You wrote: ***Thanks for the suggestion. I have the ESV w/o apocrypha on my iPhone and agree that it is very well done–nice and clean and easy flowing. I think it should be considered by the Church as a replacement for the RSV. I will pick up the new one in hardcopy so I’ll have all the books. The N/JB is such a great resource but it is too bad that the translation is a little loose. I still like using it though to clear up difficult passages and for it’s x-refs. *

Again, we agree about both the New Jerusalem Bible and original Jerusalem Bible (N/JB) and English Standard Version (ESV). I expanded on what I had written to you about the ESV with “Apocrypha”, to which what you wrote above is a reply, for Amazon WWW sites in a “customer review”. One thing that makes me curious is to wonder how the 2007 differs from the initial 2001 text (of the copy that I own) of the fully canonical O.T. and N.T. of the ESV. Or perhaps those copyright dates involve ancillary matters and not the text itself. The introductory matter in the ESV with “Apocrypha” is very cursory. Do you know something about this? Anyhow, so that you know, the ESV with “Apocrypha” is the 2007 ESV with 2009 “Apocrypha”. I shall continue to use the RSV-2nd CE, but I feel more confident in using this new variant of the ESV; more of the lingering Liberal Protestant influences that pockmark the RSV have been corrected, though, alas, some (and “any” is too much!) persist.

When I resort to the New Jerusalem Bible I normally use a compact text-only edition. This is not simply because it is easier to handle, but, more significantly, it lacks those often horridly liberalising, tendentious notes, at foot-of-page in even the standard trade editions of the NJB, which really irk me. (If I want to know what “liberal scholars”, Roman Catholic or Protestant, think about scriptural matters, I’ll look at the Oxford Annotated Bible, RSV or NSRV with deuterocanonicals, thank you, Messrs. NJB Liberal-Busybodies!). The N/JB is too paraphrastic, but it is so beautifully worded! It stands head-and-shoulders above other Bibles of its paraphrastic kind.

Jerry Parker

Jerry:
The NJB has some very “interesting notes”, such as the one pertaining to Gn 1:2, where it states that the “Spirit of God” is not in fact a reference to the Spirit of God and his part in creation. It is really too bad that the NJB is like that and is such a paraphrase…for no other bible in my opinion tops it in regards to the layout and study helps. The JB is much more conservative in terms of study notes.

I took a peek on Amazon at the ESV and read your review. Does that bible have abundant cross-references or any notes? The notes are not a big deal as it is so close to the RSV that it would work fine with the New Jerome Commentary; but I like my bibles to be somewhat complete and at least have x-refs. Also, how is the text size? I know the white-covered ESV has really tiny print. Thanks in advance.

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Hi, Swampboy!
*
**You wrote: ** The NJB has some very “interesting notes”, such as the one pertaining to Gn 1:2, where it states that the “Spirit of God” is not in fact a reference to the Spirit of God and his part in creation. It is really too bad that the NJB is like that and is such a paraphrase…for no other bible in my opinion tops it in regards to the layout and study helps. The JB is much more conservative in terms of study notes.

I took a peek on Amazon at the ESV and read your review. Does that bible have abundant cross-references or any notes? The notes are not a big deal as it is so close to the RSV that it would work fine with the New Jerome Commentary; but I like my bibles to be somewhat complete and at least have x-refs. Also, how is the text size? I know the white-covered ESV has really tiny print.*

Ah! My customer review for one of Amazon’s national WWW sites already is viewable; usually it takes longer than that for a submitted review to appear posted. I’ll try to answer your questions. To deal with my own self-posed question earlier, I encountered mention of the changes in 2007 to the fully canonical O.T. and the N.T. after I had submitted the Amazon.com and Amazon.co.uk customer review; I checked this evening, by “Googling”, and found that there have been some changes in the 2007 text from that of 2001; they are, from one account, 348 in number, which may seem like a lot, but it is easy to pile up numbers like that in making miniscule changes, and the editors themselves regard them as very minor, so much so that the 2001 and 2007 texts are being marketed concurrently.

There is rather little in the way of study aids in the E.S.V. “with Apocrypha”; there are some notes at bottom of pages, but not of a commentary nature, and there is no systematic presentation of cross-references, which are so abundant in the original 2001 “Classic Reference Bible” edition that I have. In the ISBD description which I included in the Amazon “customer review” I included the statement on the verso of the title page that this new publication is a “text edition”, so I did not elaborate further about such features for Amazon; perhaps I’ll add statements to that effect when I adapt the review for Amazon.ca. My hunch would be that to produce a study edition with the deutero-canonical writings included would not likely be a very high priority for the E.S.V. team(s), but, who knows, perhaps that could be a miscalculation on my part. As for the graphic aspect, the printing in this edition with deutero-canonicals is admirably clear, airy in appearance with a nicely chosen type face, the characters not particularly large, but easy on the eyes and pleasantly plain.

Yup! You caught what tarnishes the N.J.B. in my eyes, too! Who needs those dreadful, modernist comments in all but the harder-to-find text edition of the N.J.B.? The N/JB translation is an elegant one that is surprisingly good for a paraphrase, and those odiously liberal comments are “strictly for the birds” (although even our avian friends deserve better!). The J.B., I suppose, is better in that regard, but the N.T. of the N.J.B. is so positive for the changes made to the translation that I continue to opt normally to use the N.J.B. when I use either of these two. Why do post-Vatican II Roman Catholic vernacular versions lay upon readers these atrocious and even downright heretical notes? I guess that the R.C. bishops in Western Anglophone (and Francophone) societies simply are too permissive and that they modishly hanker too much for the praise of the ecumenical liberal establishment!

Anyway, I hope that these additional comments help you in deciding whether or not to obtain the E.S.V. with “Apocrypha”.

Jerry Parker