RSVCE or NRSVCE?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ni8_shadow
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
After much thought, and not being fully satisfied with any anwer I received about the lack of Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat in the Ignatius RSV 2CE bible, I decided to return it. I decided to go with the Douay-Rheims bible. It fits my needs and is what I should have gone with in the first place. Thanks to all for your (name removed by moderator)ut and recommendations!
 
jozef said:
After much thought, and not being fully satisfied with any anwer I received about the lack of Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat in the Ignatius RSV 2CE bible, I decided to return it. I decided to go with the Douay-Rheims bible. It fits my needs and is what I should have gone with in the first place. Thanks to all for your (name removed by moderator)ut and recommendations!
Click to expand...
For your information, I might note that according to the current Code of Canon Law, an imprimatur is not sufficient approval for a Bible. An imprimatur is the approval of only one bishop, but the code calls for approval by the conference of bishops or by the Holy See. Thus a Bible published since 1983 needs to have more than an imprimatur.

The reason the Douay-Rheims and the RSV-CE are fine even though they don’t have the approval of the conference of bishops or the Holy See is because they were originally published under the previous Code of Canon Law, which did not require that.

Anyway, I second your choice of the D-R. I use it too. 😃

Maria
 
whoa whao…so the RSV 2nd CE is no good? I was at amazon and there was one reviewer who said they changed some “archaic” language for a more modern read. Does this mean it has the inclusive stuff in it?
 
ni8_shadow said:
whoa whao…so the RSV 2nd CE is no good? I was at amazon and there was one reviewer who said they changed some “archaic” language for a more modern read. Does this mean it has the inclusive stuff in it?
Click to expand...
No, it doesn’t. The archaic language changed was stuff such as thee/thou. From the description at the Ignatius Press website:

“A completely new design and typeset edition of the popular Ignatius Revised Standard Version-Catholic Edition Bible, with minor revisions to some of the archaic language used in the first edition. This revised version is a contemporary English translation without dumbing-down the text. This second edition of the RSV doesn’t put the biblical text through a filter to make it acceptable to current tastes and prejudices, and it retains the beauty of the RSV language that has made it such a joy to read and reflect on the Word of God.”

Maria
 
jozef said:
After much thought, and not being fully satisfied with any anwer I received about the lack of Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat in the Ignatius RSV 2CE bible, I decided to return it. I decided to go with the Douay-Rheims bible. It fits my needs and is what I should have gone with in the first place. Thanks to all for your (name removed by moderator)ut and recommendations!
Click to expand...
I think that was a mistake. The RSV-2CE is easily one of the finest and safest modern Catholic Bibles you can get today.

Bibles under the 1983 Code of Canon Law require approval by the Holy See or Episcopal Conference, no longer Imprimaturs, which are required for textbooks, recommended for others.

The RSV-2CE does have Episcopal approval from the USCCB, in compliance with CIC Can. 825 sec. 1.

In fact, I find it safer that ecclestiastical approval is the requirement rather than an imprimatur, because in that case, it isn’t really just the opinion of one bishop. Besides, the imprimatur doesn’t guarantee quality or even superiority. One only needs to look at Pilarczyk’s imprimatur for the 1991 NAB Psalms and the NRSV for definite examples.
 
Now how would you know if it’s a mistake for me? Feel free to read whatever you want to and quote whatever you want. Like I said, I moved on and am happy with my decision.
 
The facts are that any version of the RSV is just Catholic Polishing of a Protestant version. It is farther away from the Vulgate which Pope Pius XII said was free from error in faith and morals.

The Council of Trent declared that the Latin Vulgate could be used in disputations.

No Catholic authority has ever said that the RSV–derived by a majority of Protestants from the Authorized King James Version for the most part–oh yes they change a few things and act like they’ve gone back to the original languages and produced an accurate translation–this version has never been held by any Ecumenical Council to be good for anything.

Now I’m not going to aregue that the current Challoner Douay Rheims is equivalent to the Latin Vulgate or the Nova Vulgata.

I won’t claim that it has no errors.

I will say this though–it’s closer to the Vulgate than any other English version out there so it is By definition closer to accurate than any English Version out there!

I get so tired of Ecumenical type Catholics who extol the RSV which is a Protestant Version.

Why do they do that? Because the Jerusalem Bible and the New Jerusalem Bible and the NAB are all bad versions and the Confraternity Version is no longer available.

Why should Catholics have to continue to Polish the RSV which is a Protestant Version or settle for the NAB which is a joke?

After a million times of trying to get as much inclusive language as possible in the NAB–when the holy see finally rules that the text is minimally acceptable are you going to tell me that that is a great version?

Why can’t Catholic scholars some where in the world go back to the original languages–refer to the Vulgate and the Nova Vulgata and produce a decent Catholic Version of the Bible?

Now I of course would say that the RSV-CE is the best Protestant based Catholic Bible out there.

But I will always see and tell others what it is–Protestant!

Say what you will–the Douay Rheims is more Catholic–not perfect but more Catholic.

I trust a Real Catholic Version over a Catholic Polished Protestant Version any day!
 
Jerry-Jet said:
The facts are that any version of the RSV is just Catholic Polishing of a Protestant version. It is farther away from the Vulgate which Pope Pius XII said was free from error in faith and morals.

The Council of Trent declared that the Latin Vulgate could be used in disputations.

No Catholic authority has ever said that the RSV–derived by a majority of Protestants from the Authorized King James Version for the most part–oh yes they change a few things and act like they’ve gone back to the original languages and produced an accurate translation–this version has never been held by any Ecumenical Council to be good for anything.

Now I’m not going to aregue that the current Challoner Douay Rheims is equivalent to the Latin Vulgate or the Nova Vulgata.

I won’t claim that it has no errors.

I will say this though–it’s closer to the Vulgate than any other English version out there so it is By definition closer to accurate than any English Version out there!

I get so tired of Ecumenical type Catholics who extol the RSV which is a Protestant Version.

Why do they do that? Because the Jerusalem Bible and the New Jerusalem Bible and the NAB are all bad versions and the Confraternity Version is no longer available.

Why should Catholics have to continue to Polish the RSV which is a Protestant Version or settle for the NAB which is a joke?

Why can’t Catholic scholars some where in the world go back to the original languages–refer to the Vulgate and produce a decent Catholic Version of the Bible?

Now I of course would say that the RSV-CE is the best Protestant based Catholic Bible out there.

But I will always see and tell others what it is–Protestant!

Say what you will–the Douay Rheims is more Catholic–not perfect but more Catholic.

I trust a Real Catholic Version over a Catholic Polished Protestant Version any day!
Click to expand...
Let’s not go through this again, please?
 
No let’s not go through justifying a Protestant version of the Bible no matter how many times Catholics minimally Polish it.

You can pretend that it is an accurate version of the Bible–if it is does it Match the Nova Vulgata in accuracy?

Go ask Pope Benedict XVI if he thinks that Any version of the RSV is more accurate than the Nova Vulgata.

Case Closed!

P.S. Why not an English Version of the Nova Vulgata? It might not be perfect either but it would be way more accurate than the Protestant produced RSV!
 
Jerry-Jet said:
No let’s not go through justifying a Protestant version of the Bible no matter how many times Catholics minimally Polish it.

You can pretend that it is an accurate version of the Bible–if it is does it Match the Nova Vulgata in accuracy?

Go ask Pope Benedict XVI if he thinks that Any version of the RSV is more accurate than the Nova Vulgata.

Case Closed!

P.S. Why not an English Version of the Nova Vulgata? It might not be perfect either but it would be way more accurate than the Protestant produced RSV!
Click to expand...
Do you have a problem respecting other Catholics’ opinions and views? Every time someone brings up the virtues of the RSV, all we get from you are angry tirades on many threads now.

Rarely, if ever do balanced Catholics trash the Vulgate or DR. But many, many respectable and orthodox Catholics use the RSV. The Catechism uses the RSV. But you throw around “Protestant” like an epithet, and label “ecumenical Catholics” who may have preferences different from yours, as if we were the most evil people in the world. While no one is bashing the DR, knowing its place in Biblical scholarship, you seem to always make it a point to attach evil motives to everyone else.

You’re a poor witness for those who share your views. You lack respect.
 
I don’t respect versions of the bible that are produced by an overwhelming majority of Protestants not because of any hatred for Protestants but just for the simple back that their theological biases wind up permeating the text!

I guess what it would really take to prove the point would be to list EVERY verse in the RSV that differed from the Vulgate and why it really matterd that the Catholic understanding of the original writers intent was not only superior but why in some cases it made a real doctrinal difference.

What gets me is people who do know better and do know that there are real substantive doctrinal differences between the Catholic understanding of how the Bible should be translated and what the translators produced act as if–Oh it doesn’t make any difference–and then they proeed to tell Catholics who might not know beter to “go ahead and use the RSV–it’s the best thing out there”.

That isn’t honest and it doesn’t serve a Catholic who doesn’t know any better–in fact a Catholic that doesn’t know any better might easily absorb the doctrinal Protestant biases that are inherrent in the RSV!

Now I don’t object to Catholics using it at all–in fact in the area of apologetics–since most Protestant versions of the Bible are similiar to it–if you quote from it at least the protestants think you’re quoting from the “real” Bible and are more apt to listen to your arguments.

And yes–in some instances the RSV is more accurate than the Ddouay Rheims.

That doesn’t mean it is not Protestant–that’s the truth!

I don’t use Protestant as a perjorative–I’m just stating what the RSV is!

The reason I don’t trust many Ecumenical types who recommend the RSV isn’t because Ecumenism is bad–no Ecumenism is good–it’s because most of those people who wax poetic over the RSV seem to go absolutely quiet when the proposition of Catholic scholars using the original languages–taking the Nova Vulgata into consideration–and producing a Decent Catholic Version of the Bible is suggested!

It’s as if they want Catholics to stick with the Protestant RSV and Never want an accurate Catholic Version to be produced.

I’m not saying all Catholics who like the RSV are that way–I’m just saying that some of the more informed Catholics that do know the RSV’s errors are that way!

In any event most people will make their own decisions on what version of theBible to use–but periodically they will hear from me that the RSV is not the perfect little thing that some will have them believe.

No Version of the bible is perfect–and it’s just my opinion–but I will always voice the opinion with No Apology and that is with all its errors a Catholic who wants accuracy in the Bible can do better with a Catholic Version such as the Douay Rheims than a minimally polished Protestant version such as the RSV.

The wise catholic will read many versions. Once he does and does know better I believe the chances are good that he’ll never recommend the RSV in any of its Catholic Editions as the best!

Any who don’t agree with me I will with them have to agree to disagree and wish them peace!
 
This isn’t about respecting the RSV. This is about respecting other posters here who don’t agree with you.
Jerry-Jet said:
I don’t respect versions of the bible that are produced by an overwhelming majority of Protestants not because of any hatred for Protestants but just for the simple back that their theological biases wind up permeating the text!

Any who don’t agree with me I will with them have to agree to disagree and wish them peace!
Click to expand...
Then let it show in your posts and your tone.
 
Jerry-Jet said:
I don’t respect versions of the bible that are produced by an overwhelming majority of Protestants not because of any hatred for Protestants but just for the simple back that their theological biases wind up permeating the text!

I guess what it would really take to prove the point would be to list EVERY verse in the RSV that differed from the Vulgate and why it really matterd that the Catholic understanding of the original writers intent was not only superior but why in some cases it made a real doctrinal difference.

What gets me is people who do know better and do know that there are real substantive doctrinal differences between the Catholic understanding of how the Bible should be translated and what the translators produced act as if–Oh it doesn’t make any difference–and then they proeed to tell Catholics who might not know beter to “go ahead and use the RSV–it’s the best thing out there”.

That isn’t honest and it doesn’t serve a Catholic who doesn’t know any better–in fact a Catholic that doesn’t know any better might easily absorb the doctrinal Protestant biases that are inherrent in the RSV!

Now I don’t object to Catholics using it at all–in fact in the area of apologetics–since most Protestant versions of the Bible are similiar to it–if you quote from it at least the protestants think you’re quoting from the “real” Bible and are more apt to listen to your arguments.

And yes–in some instances the RSV is more accurate than the Ddouay Rheims.

That doesn’t mean it is not Protestant–that’s the truth!

I don’t use Protestant as a perjorative–I’m just stating what the RSV is!

The reason I don’t trust many Ecumenical types who recommend the RSV isn’t because Ecumenism is bad–no Ecumenism is good–it’s because most of those people who wax poetic over the RSV seem to go absolutely quiet when the proposition of Catholic scholars using the original languages–taking the Nova Vulgata into consideration–and producing a Decent Catholic Version of the Bible is suggested!

It’s as if they want Catholics to stick with the Protestant RSV and Never want an accurate Catholic Version to be produced.

I’m not saying all Catholics who like the RSV are that way–I’m just saying that some of the more informed Catholics that do know the RSV’s errors are that way!

In any event most people will make their own decisions on what version of theBible to use–but periodically they will hear from me that the RSV is not the perfect little thing that some will have them believe.

No Version of the bible is perfect–and it’s just my opinion–but I will always voice the opinion with No Apology and that is with all its errors a Catholic who wants accuracy in the Bible can do better with a Catholic Version such as the Douay Rheims than a minimally polished Protestant version such as the RSV.

The wise catholic will read many versions. Once he does and does know better I believe the chances are good that he’ll never recommend the RSV in any of its Catholic Editions as the best!

Any who don’t agree with me I will with them have to agree to disagree and wish them peace!
Click to expand...
Your point would be better made by showing just a few examples of textual differences that are not doctrinally correct. Never having read any of your other posts I was stunned by what I percieved as a hateful attack on anyone who likes the RSV. After the second post, I was hoping to see something other than unsupported opinon…but I have seen nothing from you to support your opinion. Maybe you have explained this in another thread…if so then include a link to the other thread instead of just raving. I also do not like the way you casually lump people together, as if anyone who likes the RSV must be ignorant or somehow wrong.

Personally I started out with a DR version and, after much consideration my daily reading Bible is the Ignatius RSV 2CE. Since the USCCB has given Ecclesiastical approval for this Bible I am wondering what information you have that would contradict the USCCB? You may not be aware of it but from your postings you come across, at least to me, in a very self-righteous manner. I’ll just leave you with 1 Corinthians Chapter 10 verse 12:

DR:
Wherefore he that thinketh himself to stand, let him take heed lest he fall.

peace.
 
This isn’t about respecting Bible versions. This is about your disrespect towards your fellow posters, which you clearly do not have.
Jerry-Jet said:
I don’t respect versions of the bible that are produced by an overwhelming majority of Protestants not because of any hatred for Protestants but just for the simple back that their theological biases wind up permeating the text!
Click to expand...
 
Jerry-Jet said:
And yes–in some instances the RSV is more accurate than the Douay Rheims.

No Version of the bible is perfect–and it’s just my opinion–but I will always voice the opinion with No Apology and that is with all its errors a Catholic who wants accuracy in the Bible can do better with a Catholic Version such as the Douay Rheims than a minimally polished Protestant version such as the RSV.
Click to expand...
I’m curious what your take is on two issues given your mindset. First, there are verses in the DR that do not appear in the LV, most notably in the deuterocanonical books, like Sirach 1:31-32 (DRBO.org). Second, I’m personally baffled over 1 Cor 15:51b. Here are six translations (the RSV is not the RSV-2CE, sorry):

(RSV) We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
(NAB) We shall not all fall asleep, but we will all be changed,
(KJV) We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
(DR) We shall all indeed rise again: but we shall not all be changed.
(LV) omnes quidem resurgemus sed non omnes inmutabimur
(BNV) Non omnes quidem dormiemus, sed omnes immutabimur,

Note the location of the negative. Church Father writings attest to varying forms of this verse:

Letter To Minervius and Alexander (Saint Jerome)
“we shall not all sleep but we shall all be changed,” 1 Cor. xv. 51 … Jerome prefers the reading “we shall all sleep but we shall not all be changed”.

On the Resurrection of the Flesh, Chapter XLII (Tertullian)
“We shall all indeed rise again (though we shall not all undergo the transformation) in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump”—for none shall experience this change but those only who shall be found in the flesh.

A Treatise on Faith and the Creed, Chapter 6 (Saint Augustine)
This is the change concerning which the apostle likewise speaks thus: “We shall all rise, but we shall not all be changed.”

City of God, Book XX, Chapter 20 (Saint Augustine)
“We shall all rise,” or, as other mss. read, “We shall all sleep.”

Against Clesus, Book V, Chapter XVII (Origen)
It is with a secret kind of wisdom that it was said by the apostle of Jesus: “We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump; for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.”

A Commentary on the Apostles’ Creed, Section 43 (Rufinus)
And afterways he adds, “Behold I shew you a mystery: We shall all rise indeed, but we shall not all be changed;” or as other copies read, “We shall all sleep, indeed but we shall not all be changed.

Homily XI (Saint John Chrysostom)
“For we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed” (1 Cor. xv. 51.), and shall all share not only in the Resurrection, but in incorruption. Some indeed to honor, but others as a means of punishment.

Homily XLII, 3 (Saint John Chrysostom)
“We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed.” He means as follows: “we shall not all die, ‘but we shall all be changed,’” even those who die not. For they too are mortal.

On the Making of Man, Chapter XXII, 6 (Saint Gregory of Nyssa)
“Behold, I show you a mystery; we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump.”

Of God and His Creatures, Book IV (Of God in His Revelation), Chapter LXXXIX (Saint Thomas Aquinas)
This is the meaning of what the Apostle says, that we shall all rise again, but we shall not all be changed (1 Cor. xv, 51): for the good alone shall be changed to glory, and the bodies of the wicked shall rise without glory.

See, there are sound exegeses for the varying translations (or mistranslations)… but which is true to what Saint Paul wrote?
 
In the Douay Rheims Bible in 2 Corinthians chapter 2 verse 10 Paul forgives the incestuous Corinthian:

“And to whom you have pardoned any thing, I also. For, what I have pardoned any thing, for your sakes have I done it in the person of Christ.”

This is Biblical scriptural proof of absolution–Paul as a priest acting In persona Christi.

The king James Version also says 'In the person of Christ".

Later on the Protestants realized the significance of the verse and translated it as “In the presence of Christ” so they could argue that Paul was not granting the man absolution for his sins!

It apparently got by the King James Translators!

If the Catholic Church cannot translate “Persona” correctly how can they argue that priests do in fact act In Persona Christi when they hear confessions?

So see folks it Does matter whether you believe the RSV or the Douay Rheims.

Protestants translate the Bible so Paul doesn’t grant absolution.

Catholics translate the Bible so Paul does grant absolution.

The real question is who do you believe…St. Jerome and the Catholic Church or the Protestant translators of the RSV?
 
Jerry-Jet said:
The real question is who do you believe…St. Jerome and the Catholic Church or the Protestant translators of the RSV?
Click to expand...
I believe whatever the Greek says, which, fortunately, I can read without letting my Latin understandings cloud the Greek context within which St. Paul was writing. I can easily reconcile both renderings without going ballistic over the differences.

Look, it’s clear you like the DRV. I don’t like the DRV for several reasons. I like the RSV for several reasons. I know the strengths and weaknesses of both. No one imposes the RSV on you; don’t impose the DRV on us.

What I don’t like is the way you impose your opinion on others in uncharitable, arrogant, and disrespectful manner towards those who don’t take your side.
 
Jaypeeto3 said:
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)
Click to expand...
Please tell me you also cringe when the prophet is addressed as “Mortal” instead of “Son of man”. Another NRSV innovation.
 
Jaypeeto3 said:
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)
Click to expand...
Please tell me you also cringe when the prophet is addressed as “Mortal” instead of “Son of man”. Another NRSV innovation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top