RSVCE or NRSVCE?

[ni8_shadow]

I bought th eRSVCE just to have the “…full of grace” translation in it…however when I was a confirmation teacher, they gave us the NRSVCE. Which is better for personal reading and prayer etc?

I want as close to a literal translation as possible without going incoherent.

 

[cialovesyou]

Major difference you will notice is the inclusion language in the NRSV…eg.‘man’ becomes ‘human’ etc.
Having said that, the result is it obscures the reference to “Son of Man” in Dan.ch7.
I use the RSV-CE like yourself. It is quite clear for me, and I dont really get annoyed by the whole “exclusive language” issue.
The best bible to have is the one you will read.
You have made a good choice, it is a respected translation. Over time you might get another translation for the purposes of comparison.

 

[jozef]

Does anyone know why the Ignatius RSV 2CE bible does not have an Imprimatur? Is it necessary or does what the publisher have good enough: “With Ecclesiastical approval from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.”

Thank you!

 

[mkarzon]

Not sure why no imprimatur, but I believe that the “New American Bible with Revised New Testament and Psalms” was specifically disallowed for use in mass in the United States by the USCCB (someone please correct me if I’m wrong on this). One of the major differences in this “revised” version from the plain NAB is use of inclusive language.

I personally tend to shy away of translations of scripture with the word “New” in the title.

 

[DallasCatholic]

Does anyone know why the Ignatius RSV 2CE bible does not have an Imprimatur? Is it necessary or does what the publisher have good enough: “With Ecclesiastical approval from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.”

Thank you!

Imprimaturs are not required for Bibles (afaik). See:
jimmyakin.org/2005/12/a_reader_writes_2.html

The Imprimatur does not mean what it once did. I have this Bible and love it.

 

[jozef]

Thank you for the info, and link, DallasCatholic, however, I would feel more comfortable if a well know theologian or religious gave their reassurance that a Imprimatur is not necessary for the bible in question.

 

[DallasCatholic]

Thank you for the info, and link, DallasCatholic, however, I would feel more comfortable if a well know theologian or religious gave their reassurance that a Imprimatur is not necessary for the bible in question.

Jimmy Akin is a well known apologist…and I believe he is the Director of Apologetics for Catholic Answers.com. The Ignatius RSVCE 2nd edition does carry the Ecclesiastical approval of the USCCB as well as being revised according to the Liturgiam Authenticam. Since it is not a “new” translation but merely a revision of the previous translation it does not need an Imprimatur. Typically an Imprimatur is given by one Bishop, the Ignatius RSVCE 2E has the approval of the entire United States Council of Catholic Bishops…that’s good enough for me.

 

[jozef]

Thanks again. This is what I found at the vatican site:

"Guidelines for Interconfessional Cooperation in Translating The Bible, The New revised Edition Rome, 1987

2.8. IMPRINT AND IMPRIMATUR

An interconfessional edition of the Scriptures normally bears the imprint of the Bible Society and the imprimatur of the appropriate Roman Catholic ecclesiastical authority. The most appropriate form for such an edition published by the Bible Societies would be for the Bible Society imprint to occur on the title page and the imprimatur of the appropriate Roman Catholic authority to occur on the back of the title page, this being the normal procedure for books properly authorized by the Roman Catholic Church. In some circumstances it may be wise to consider a preface including a joint recommendation by ecclesiastical authorities instead of a formal nihil obstat and imprimatur."

I’m not sure but this may be the answer. I’ll still wait to hear from a couple people though.

 

[DallasCatholic]

Thanks again. This is what I found at the vatican site:

"Guidelines for Interconfessional Cooperation in Translating The Bible, The New revised Edition Rome, 1987

2.8. IMPRINT AND IMPRIMATUR

An interconfessional edition of the Scriptures normally bears the imprint of the Bible Society and the imprimatur of the appropriate Roman Catholic ecclesiastical authority. The most appropriate form for such an edition published by the Bible Societies would be for the Bible Society imprint to occur on the title page and the imprimatur of the appropriate Roman Catholic authority to occur on the back of the title page, this being the normal procedure for books properly authorized by the Roman Catholic Church. In some circumstances it may be wise to consider a preface including a joint recommendation by ecclesiastical authorities instead of a formal nihil obstat and imprimatur."

I’m not sure but this may be the answer. I’ll still wait to hear from a couple people though.

I think I mentioned earlier that the Ignatius Bible is not a new translation but a revision of a previously accepted translation, it is not an interconfessional version so it does not need an Imprimatur. In place of the Impimatur the Ignatius Bible has the ecclesiastical approval of the USCCB (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops). On the last page of the Introduction it says:
“In conclusion, a tribute of thanks must be paid to the Catholic bishops who have approved this edition and to the American Standard Bible Committee…”

Since it is a revision the Imprimatur from the RSV 1st CE is still in effect. The Ecclesiastical approval of the USCCB is sufficient in this case.

 

[jozef]

Thank you Dallas. You did mention it, however, here is what’s said at the link you provided:
“No implication is given, however, that the work has been endorsed by those who have granted the ecclesiastical approval or that they agree with the content, opinions or statements expressed in the work.”
I can’t seem to get or find a straight answer to this. Perhaps there isn’t one and I should move on. Thank you again!

 

[MTD]

I bought th eRSVCE just to have the “…full of grace” translation in it…however when I was a confirmation teacher, they gave us the NRSVCE. Which is better for personal reading and prayer etc?

The RSV-CE is better; you can toss the NRSV-CE, in my opinion. Anyway, here are some replies from Fr. John Echert of the EWTN Scripture forum concerning the NRSV-CE:

Catechism bible quotations
NRSV Bible
Confused about RSV and NRSV

---

On the topic of imprimaturs being required for Bibles:

From the Code of Canon Law:

Can. 825 §1. Books of the sacred scriptures cannot be published unless the Apostolic See or the conference of bishops has approved them. For the publication of their translations into the vernacular, it is also required that they be approved by the same authority and provided with necessary and sufficient annotations.

§2. With the permission of the conference of bishops, Catholic members of the Christian faithful in collaboration with separated brothers and sisters can prepare and publish translations of the sacred scriptures provided with appropriate annotations.

Can. 829 The approval or permission to publish some work is valid for the original text but not for new editions or translations of the same.

Maria

 

[DallasCatholic]

Thank you Dallas. You did mention it, however, here is what’s said at the link you provided:
“No implication is given, however, that the work has been endorsed by those who have granted the ecclesiastical approval or that they agree with the content, opinions or statements expressed in the work.”
I can’t seem to get or find a straight answer to this. Perhaps there isn’t one and I should move on. Thank you again!

Okay, here you go:
insightscoop.typepad.com/2004/2006/02/the_new_ignatiu.html

If you read down into the comments you will see that Ignatius Press says that the Imprimatur from the 1st addition still applies since the 2nd edition is an editorial revision.

 

[MTD]

If you read down into the comments you will see that Ignatius Press says that the Imprimatur from the 1st addition still applies since the 2nd edition is an editorial revision.

That’s what Ignatius Press was told by the USCCB; however, it’s not correct according to canon 829. I asked the canon law expert at the EWTN Canon Law forum about it; he confirmed that an imprimatur does not apply to revisions, but he also said that since Ignatius Press tried to get the necessary approval for their revision but through no fault of theirs was refused because the USCCB didn’t think it was necessary, you can be confident the RSV-2CE fulfills the requirements for approval.

For your reference, here is the question I asked: Ecclesiastical Approval of the RSV-2CE Bible.

Maria

 

[Manfred]

Not sure why no imprimatur, but I believe that the “New American Bible with Revised New Testament and Psalms” was specifically disallowed for use in mass in the United States by the USCCB (someone please correct me if I’m wrong on this). One of the major differences in this “revised” version from the plain NAB is use of inclusive language.

The NAB Revised Psalms are NOT allowed in the Liturgy, but we must thank ROME, not the USCCB for this, for, if the latter had their way, we would be using them, inclusive language and all.

The NAB Revised NT, unfortunately, did make get approval for use in the Lectionary for Mass, BUT only after several changes were made by ROME to purge inclusive language from certain passages. IMHO, the Rev. NT should also have been rejected, and continued use of the RSV-CE (despite its need for corrections) allowed.

 

[Brendan]

If it means anything, the Lectionary approved for Trinidad was based on the RSV-CE2. It is currently the only English lectionary that was aprroved without modifications.

 

[Jaypeeto3]

On the whole, I’d have to say that I really like the
New Revised Standard Version (Catholic Edition) in spite of it’s use of inclusive language (though not for God, thank goodness). It reads easily and I think it is beautifully done.

Still, I cringe whenever I read Luke’s gospel in ANY translation that has the angel Gabriel saying to Mary merely,
"Greetings, Favored One ! "

It’s HAIL, Full of Grace! Period.

Jaypeeto3 (aka Jaypeeto4)

 

[tizzidale]

What about the New Jerusalem Bible? I’m considering buying one.

 

[ni8_shadow]

My friend is in the RCIA or whatever it is called and they gave him a NAB version…should I give him my extra RSVCE or is the NAB ok?

 

[MTD]

My friend is in the RCIA or whatever it is called and they gave him a NAB version…should I give him my extra RSVCE or is the NAB ok?

Give him your extra RSV-CE; it would be an act of true charity on your part. (The theological definition of charity: willing to another his proper good. )

Maria

 

[Manfred]

What about the New Jerusalem Bible? I’m considering buying one.

I’ve owned one since 1987, but rarely use it today.

I was impressed by the fact that it has lengthy, comprehensive book introductions; chapter sub-headings; tons of footnotes with archeological, historical, geograpgical, linguistic, sociological, theological material; extensive cross-references; maps; index of theological topics, names, places.

What annoyed me were its innovative, non-traditional renderings of many familiar passages, its less-than-conservative stance in its intros and footnotes, and its “mild” inclusive language. I say “mild” because it doesn’t go the lengths of the RNAB or NRSV with use of IL for references to Divine Persons of the Trinity. IMHO, this would’ve been a better choice for an IL lectionary than either the RNAB or NRSV.

Disclaimer: I’m only stating my preference for the NJB when the choices are the NJB, the RNAB, or the NRSV.