RSVCE or NRSVCE?

[MTD]

Thanks, porthos11.

Now would you mind outlining a few more things you don’t like about the D-R besides St. Jerome’s lousy translation of some books?

Maria

 

[porthos11]

porthos11,

Your comments are most intriguing and informational. I’ve got a couple questions, if you don’t mind.

What are some other things you don’t like about the D-R besides the lousy translation by St. Jerome of some books of the Vulgate, which of course is reflected in the D-R?

Of course, you hit the main reason. Some books, especially those among the Deuterocanonicals are not well translated (reflecting St. Jerome’s own opinion).

Another thing I’m not too comfortable with is, of course, the Catholic bias. Now for devotions, that’s not a problem. It is, however a problem for apologetics, since it simply means that a Protestant can simply dismiss it as “tainted” and his argument will not be without merit. Nevertheless, I still believe Bible translations should aim to be translated without doctrinal coloring of any kind as far as we are able. That’s not always possible, I know, but bias affects authority.

Among these are the rendering that “she” will crush the serpent’s head, the inclusion Johannine Comma and the use of “supersubstantial bread” in the Our Father.in Matthew. All of these, while doctrinally correct, do not accurately reflect the original languages in the best critical editions.

The other “objections” I have are petty and a matter of preference. I don’t like the Latinisms and the Latin-based names. I can’t stand reading about the prophets Elias and Eliseus and the contest with King Achab and the books of Isaias and Jeremias, or 1 and 2 Paralipomenon, or Jonas, Osee, Abdias, etc…

None of these complaints diminish the DRV’s value and place in history, and neither do they detract from its correctness in faith and morals. I just find it unsuitable for my needs now, and is sufficient reason for me to prefer something else.

 

[MTD]

Note, however, that these are highly personal and preferential opinions and are in no way impositions on others.

Nonetheless, thanks for sharing them. I’ve thought seriously about getting the RSV-2CE to replace my RSV-CE, but I guess the changes were small enough, as well as some such as chalice in place of cup a little undesirable to me, that I didn’t get around to it. I was just asking because I wanted to know if there were any other changes for the better in the quality of the translation itself.

Another thing I’m not too comfortable with is, of course, the Catholic bias. Now for devotions, that’s not a problem. It is, however a problem for apologetics, since it simply means that a Protestant can simply dismiss it as “tainted” and his argument will not be without merit.

Well, I should say that’s valid complaint on an apologetics forum. Anyhow, I’ve heard that quite a few Protestants don’t like the RSV translation; have you experienced that?

Nevertheless, I still believe Bible translations should aim to be translated without doctrinal coloring of any kind as far as we are able. That’s not always possible, I know, but bias affects authority.

It does appear that the RSV was meant to be that way; i.e., an inter-faith translation without doctrinal bias.

The other “objections” I have are petty and a matter of preference. I don’t like the Latinisms and the Latin-based names. I can’t stand reading about the prophets Elias and Eliseus and the contest with King Achab and the books of Isaias and Jeremias, or 1 and 2 Paralipomenon, or Jonas, Osee, Abdias, etc…

I’ve studied Latin, and I have to say even I don’t like those Latinisms and Latin-based names! I don’t like archaic language either (although I don’t mind thee/thou, specifically, too much since it does help to distinguish between singular and plural).

What is the Johannine Comma?

Maria

 

[Manfred]

Maria,

The Johannine Comma consists of the italicized words of 1 John 5:7-8:

7 And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one. 8 And there are three that give testimony on earth: the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are one.

These words do not appear in any of the early Greek mss.

 

[japhy]

The “kicker” is that, while the Johannine Comma is found in the Douay-Rheims, it is not found in the Latin Vulgate. The DR is not a translation of Jerome’s Latin text by itself.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

The “kicker” is that, while the Johannine Comma is found in the Douay-Rheims, it is not found in the Latin Vulgate. The DR is not a translation of Jerome’s Latin text by itself.

The DRV uses a lot of text directly from the KJV.

 

[porthos11]

Well, I should say that’s valid complaint on an apologetics forum. Anyhow, I’ve heard that quite a few Protestants don’t like the RSV translation; have you experienced that?

Not in recent memory. I believe the complaints of “liberal” slant in the RSV were after its Old Testament was released, and the favorite verse is Isaiah 7:14 (the “virgin”/“young woman” issue). Yet I’m not certain of any other verses in the Old Testament used to “prove” the liberal position of the RSV.

I think Protestants don’t make much noise anymore about the RSV because the RSV isn’t widely used among them in their pews (that honor belongs to the NIV).

But if you can quote the RSV or RSV-CE from memory, you’ll get better mileage in inter-religious debate, since it sounds remarkably like the KJV or NASB. Also, the RSV appears to be still some kind of de facto standard among English Bibles in scholarly circles, both Protestant and Catholic.

 

[Manfred]

Not in recent memory. I believe the complaints of “liberal” slant in the RSV were after its Old Testament was released, and the favorite verse is Isaiah 7:14 (the “virgin”/“young woman” issue). Yet I’m not certain of any other verses in the Old Testament used to “prove” the liberal position of the RSV.

I think Protestants don’t make much noise anymore about the RSV because the RSV isn’t widely used among them in their pews (that honor belongs to the NIV).

But if you can quote the RSV or RSV-CE from memory, you’ll get better mileage in inter-religious debate, since it sounds remarkably like the KJV or NASB. Also, the RSV appears to be still some kind of de facto standard among English Bibles in scholarly circles, both Protestant and Catholic.

In 1967, Readers’ Digest published an article, “At Last - One Bible For All”, extolling the virtues of the New Oxford Annotated Edition of the RSV, citing the acceptance of the RSV by Protestants, Catholics and the Orthodox for “ecumenical” study and use. But it completely overlooked the fact that evangelicals had rejected the RSV, principally for Isaiah 7:14, and had begun the venture that was to culminate in the NIV.

The site bible-researcher.com features several critiques of the RSV, by evangelicals, of course. Your comment that criticism of the RSV has indeed died down is right on, but due mainly, as you point out, to its decreased use among Protestants, whether mainstream or evangelical.

Now the Catholic Church seems to have ignored all this and “Catholicized” it, anyway. Given what else was available in 1954 when the British Catholic Biblical Assn. began its work the RSV was about the only choice. And, even today, there is no other translation produced by Protestants, that has less bias than the RSV; the NIV, in fact, is notoriously biased in places, as has been documented in other threads.

Don’t get me wrong - I use the RSV-CE (1965-66) in my daily reading for the Psalms and much of the OT, especially the Deutero-canonicals, and I’m thinking of doing so for the Epistles (of Paul, especially!). [Aside: imagine preferring to read the DCs from a bible translated by Protestants who don’t even accept the DCs as canonical! But I digress.] Our venerable and beloved Douay-Rheims does read a bit dense in many places; e.g., the Prophets, NT Epistles, Psalms, Wisdom books.

Yet I must admit that those posts on 2 Corinthians 2:10 did give me pause for thought; I hate when that happens.

 

[Manfred]

The DRV uses a lot of text directly from the KJV.

I believe you will find the Johannine Comma in the Clementine Vulgate; it is not, however, in the Nova Vulgata.

And, as you may know, the KJV translators borrowed from the original (1609) D-R, which, when revised by Bp. Challoner circa 1750, in turn borrowed renderings from the KJV.

 

[porthos11]

Nonetheless, thanks for sharing them. I’ve thought seriously about getting the RSV-2CE to replace my RSV-CE, but I guess the changes were small enough, as well as some such as chalice in place of cup a little undesirable to me, that I didn’t get around to it. I was just asking because I wanted to know if there were any other changes for the better in the quality of the translation itself.

I believe there are changes in a number of the more obscure verses that can only be translated using conjectural emendations, in which case, the Nova Vulgata was used as basis, in accordance with Liturgiam Authenticam.

You can see this by comparing Psalm 110 in your original RSV-CE, the RSV-2CE, and the Nova Vulgata (since you know Latin). You will notice a difference in verse 3. In the first edition of the RSV-CE, it reads “Your people will offer themselves freely…”, while the RSV-2CE reads, “Yours is dominion”. Compare with the NV:

Ps 110:3 "Tecum principatus in die virtutis tuae,
in splendoribus sanctis,
ex utero ante luciferum genui te.

You’ll notice that the RSV-2CE is closer to the NV. This is because in the Hebrew, Psalm 110:3 is a troublesome, obscure verse which can have several possible renderings. The RSV-2CE complied with LA and adopted the New Vulgate renderings.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

The Holy Spirit inspired Catholics to write the New Testament.

Was the Holy Spirit showing bias towards Catholicism?

Was the Holy Spirit wrong for not taking into account the future sensitivities of Protestants?

To be sure the original words that the Holy Spirit inspired the original writers to write is what we’re after when it comes to accuracy.

In cases of doubt should we trust the conclusions of biblical scholars who are not the magisterium of the Catholic Church and are sensitive to the sensitivities of Protestants or should we trust the “bias” of almost 2,000 years of the Catholic magisterium’s take on the bible?

Does that carry more weight than a biblical scholar saying this or that is so because either–this is the oldest manuscript we have so it must be accurate–OR this rendering is more accurate because it doesn’t show “Catholic bias”?

I have no problem with Catholic bias.

Evidently God didn’t either because He willed that the Catholic Church would write the New Testament of the bible, determine what was the entire bible Old Testament and New Testament, and also authoritatively interpret the bible.

If God is biased is it wrong for scholarship of the bible to also be Catholic biased?

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

I believe you will find the Johannine Comma in the Clementine Vulgate; it is not, however, in the Nova Vulgata.

And, as you may know, the KJV translators borrowed from the original (1609) D-R, which, when revised by Bp. Challoner circa 1750, in turn borrowed renderings from the KJV.

Yep. I was just too lazy to write that all out.

 

[porthos11]

The Holy Spirit inspired Catholics to write the New Testament.

Was the Holy Spirit showing bias towards Catholicism?

Was the Holy Spirit wrong for not taking into account the future sensitivities of Protestants?

To be sure the original words that the Holy Spirit inspired the original writers to write is what we’re after when it comes to accuracy.

In cases of doubt should we trust the conclusions of biblical scholars who are not the magisterium of the Catholic Church and are sensitive to the sensitivities of Protestants or should we trust the “bias” of almost 2,000 years of the Catholic magisterium’s take on the bible?

Does that carry more weight than a biblical scholar saying this or that is so because either–this is the oldest manuscript we have so it must be accurate–OR this rendering is more accurate because it doesn’t show “Catholic bias”?

I have no problem with Catholic bias.

Evidently God didn’t either because He willed that the Catholic Church would write the New Testament of the bible, determine what was the entire bible Old Testament and New Testament, and also authoritatively interpret the bible.

If God is biased is it wrong for scholarship of the bible to also be Catholic biased?

These thoughts in fact paralleled those of the RSV-CE committee when revising the RSV for Catholic use in 1966. The principle they followed was that give equal possibilities of obscure passages in the best manuscripts, those favoring Catholic doctrine were selected. That explains the RSV-CE changes. The 2006 RSV-2CE took it even further and applied the same principles to the Old Testament, using both LA and the NV as basis. So in fact, more Catholic “bias” has now crept into the RSV with the latest edition.

For me, in translation, textual witness comes first, including context. Second does doctrine come in, and only as a toss-up between equally plausible translations of any given passage.

I can live with Catholic bias, but I would prefer not to have any bias as far as possible. But the line is crossed when the bias, Catholic or otherwise becomes unfaithful to the original languages, as per the examples cited in the NIV and New World Translation.

 

[Michael_C]

I had a New American bible for years. I read it three times. Recently I came across a translation that I found to be a reach. I have also heard people I repsect such as Patrick Madrid point out that some of the foot notes are problematic.

I also own a Douey-Rheims. I found this difficult to read. My wife bought me a beautiful leatherbound RSV 2CE, the one that shows Jesus on the cover surrounded by the four symbols of the gospels. It doesn’t even say Holy Bible. I love it. It’s very well made and I find most of the apologists I listen to use it.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Sometimes it’s hard to know what should be translated. Say most all the earliest texts translate one way but the oldest text translates another and BOTH rederings are equally possible. Which should you go with?

I have no problem with footnotes and alternate renderings.

I would say in a case like that if a translator went with either the majority original language text because he thought the oldest one might be an anomaly or with the one single oldest text because even though it was different if seemed to fit the context better–either way would be OK if both seemed to fit the passage.

I’m just one of those people who in a case like that wouldn’t mind if the more Catholic rendering–if in fact there was such a thing was used.

I don’t like all the Latin names in the Douay either–I wouldn’t mind seeing an updated Douay with English names–a little less archaic language–and even more conformity with the Novus Vulgata where there were diametrically opposed renderings.

How does the Confraternity New Testament compare with the RSV or the NRSV?

It might not come from the original languages but it is closer to the Greek than the Vulgate and doesn’t have problematic inclusive language.

Is there much difference betwen it and the RSV-CE?

 

[bkovacs]

One huge problem that I see with the RSV-CE, is that it is not used in the Roman Liturgy. The USCCB, is a liberal group, and prefers liberal translations like the NAB, vs RSV-CE or Douay-Rheims, for the liturgical texts. The NAB is a joke in my opinion, due to it being a feminist translation, but the great USCCB, still insists on using it for their liturgical books. And refuses to switch to the RSV-CE, or any other. Surprised they don’t use the Good News Bible for their liturgical books. Even the Catholic Book Publishing Company refuses to use the RSV-CE, over the NAB for their St. Joseph’s series of Bibles. This is really sad. In the Orthodox Church we use the KJV w/Deutercanonical Books, as well as both the RSV w/Deutercanonical Books and the NKJV in our liturgies. All of of these translations are NOT gender inclusive. Also the full Orthodox Study Bible, which will include the entire canon of scripture, from the Septuagint (all Deutercanonicals), will be released around Pascha 2008. And it will also not be gender-inclusive (liberal). You would all do best to petition your USCCB to use the RSV-CE 2nd Edition, for use in the liturgy. And get rid of the NAB!.

 

[Manfred]

One huge problem that I see with the RSV-CE, is that it is not used in the Roman Liturgy. The USCCB, is a liberal group, and prefers liberal translations like the NAB, vs RSV-CE or Douay-Rheims, for the liturgical texts. The NAB is a joke in my opinion, due to it being a feminist translation, but the great USCCB, still insists on using it for their liturgical books. And refuses to switch to the RSV-CE, or any other. Surprised they don’t use the Good News Bible for their liturgical books. Even the Catholic Book Publishing Company refuses to use the RSV-CE, over the NAB for their St. Joseph’s series of Bibles. This is really sad. In the Orthodox Church we use the KJV w/Deutercanonical Books, as well as both the RSV w/Deutercanonical Books and the NKJV in our liturgies. All of of these translations are NOT gender inclusive. Also the full Orthodox Study Bible, which will include the entire canon of scripture, from the Septuagint (all Deutercanonicals), will be released around Pascha 2008. And it will also not be gender-inclusive (liberal). You would all do best to petition your USCCB to use the RSV-CE 2nd Edition, for use in the liturgy. And get rid of the NAB!.

At one time the RSV-CE was one of three versions permitted for use in the liturgy in the US; the other two being the Jerusalem Bible (1966, non-inclusive) and the 1970 (non-inclusive) NAB. When the USCCB finally obtained the Holy See’s approval- after intervention from the Vatican to “guide” them to purge excessive inclusive language - for its new Lectionary based on the Revised NAB (1986), all the other versions were prohibited from use.

To my knowledge, Mother Angelica’s televised conventual Mass at EWTN was one of the very few places that used the Jerusalem Bible.

And as far as the RSV-CE’s being used in the US - well, I must have missed that.

Anyone?

 

[victus]

… a beautiful leatherbound RSV 2CE, the one that shows Jesus on the cover surrounded by the four symbols of the gospels. It doesn’t even say Holy Bible. I love it. It’s very well made and I find most of the apologists I listen to use it.

It is a very beautiful bible indeed…I have the same one also, that I love and cherish. The leatherbound RSV-2CE is the perfect example of how a bible should look, feel, and smell(you know…the leather, of course).

 

[ni8_shadow]

I have the red hardbound 2CE. VERY nice. I can finally read in the margins!!!

 

[bkovacs]

At one time the RSV-CE was one of three versions permitted for use in the liturgy in the US; the other two being the Jerusalem Bible (1966, non-inclusive) and the 1970 (non-inclusive) NAB. When the USCCB finally obtained the Holy See’s approval- after intervention from the Vatican to “guide” them to purge excessive inclusive language - for its new Lectionary based on the Revised NAB (1986), all the other versions were prohibited from use.

To my knowledge, Mother Angelica’s televised conventual Mass at EWTN was one of the very few places that used the Jerusalem Bible.

And as far as the RSV-CE’s being used in the US - well, I must have missed that.

Anyone?

Yeh! the Holy See’s intervention!. The revised NAB translation used in the lectionary is not the same version (gender-inclusive), distributed to Roman Catholics in their NAB bibles. Hence a joke!, for a translation. You need to petition the USCCB!!. What the people, who own the NAB, read at home is not what they hear from the revised NAB in the lectionary on Sunday’s.