RSVCE or NRSVCE?

[DallasCatholic]

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?

Now we are getting somewhere. Thanks for that documentation. However that is just one citing, where before you claimed:

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 wouldn’t call that permeating the text. I will grant you that this one instance is, for me at least, a very important difference in the translation. Do you have any translation notes or references on why “in the person of Christ” is a better translation of the original Greek then “In the presence of Christ”? Understand that I am asking this to have some ground to stand on when I am debating protestants. Simply showing that Catholic translators use “person” will not hold any water with protestants as they will just claim this is an instance of Catholics translating the Bible to support Catholic theology.

thanks.

 

[DallasCatholic]

When I bought my DR Bible I took it to my wife’s Baptist church in order to read the verses that her Pastor would reference during the service. On one occasion, the Pastor was preaching from 1 Corinthians 13:13. This is where I first noted a difference in translations, although it was a small difference it meant alot to my understanding of the scripture. The RSV 2CE:
So faith, hope, love abide, these three: but the greatest of these is love.

DR:
And now there remain faith, hope, and charity, these three: but the greatest of these is charity.

To me charity (love of your fellow man) is a far more precise word than love. Sorry for hijacking this thread…

 

[japhy]

RSV 2CE: So faith, hope, love abide, these three: but the greatest of these is love.

DR: And now there remain faith, hope, and charity, these three: but the greatest of these is charity.

To me charity (love of your fellow man) is a far more precise word than love.

But “charity” only makes sense when you know its definition is the theological virtue defined as love directed first toward God but also toward oneself and one’s neighbors as objects of God’s love, which is usually not what comes to mind when one hears “charity”. The Greek word used in 1 Cor 13:13 is agape, which is translated into Latin as caritas, whence “charity”. Again, proper catechesis is the solution.

 

[DallasCatholic]

But “charity” only makes sense when you know its definition is the theological virtue defined as love directed first toward God but also toward oneself and one’s neighbors as objects of God’s love, which is usually not what comes to mind when one hears “charity”. The Greek word used in 1 Cor 13:13 is agape, which is translated into Latin as caritas, whence “charity”. Again, proper catechesis is the solution.

Ummm, that was my point. Charity is a much more appropriate translation than love. I love brisket tacos and I love my wife and I love the Cowboys. Same word 3 different meanings or at least 3 different nuances.

BTW, you don’t need to go to New Advent to find the definition of charity…I just used my good old dictionary.

From merriamwebster.com:
charity

Main Entry: char·i·ty
Pronunciation: \ˈcher-ə-tē, ˈcha-rə-\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
Etymology: Middle English charite, from Anglo-French charité, from Late Latin caritat-, caritas Christian love, from Latin, dearness, from carus dear; akin to Old Irish carae friend, Sanskrit kāma love
Date: 13th century
1: benevolent goodwill toward or love of humanity

 

[Jerry-Jet]

The greek word prosopon is translated as Person in Matthew 27:24 by the King James version: "When Pilate saw that he could not prevail nothing, but rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person(Prosopon) see ye to it.

Now Jesus was not a presence but a Person.

If the same Greek word “Prosopon” is translated by the Protestants who authored the King James Version BOTH in 2 Corinthians 2:10 and in Matthew 27:24 as Person then why is it that the RSV does every gymnastic feat it can to avoid using the word Person?

The answer is obvious: to avoid admitting that Paul acted In Personna Christi in 2 Corinthians.

So not only is the RSV Inaccurate in one verse–it compounds it in another.

DallasCatholic: When engagging in apologetics with Protestants ask them if consistency is important in translating the bible–and show them where the King James Version is consistent in translating Prosopon as Person.

Then ask them if Paul did forgive the incestuous man as it says in 2 Corinthians 2:10 “In The Person(Prosopon) of Christ” if they can indeed see that there is biblical Proof for confession!

You wouldn’t be able to do that with the RSV because it does all it can to avoid translating persona as person.

One last question: how many textual inaccuracies that entail major points of Catholic Doctrine does it take to render the RSV unworthy of being a person’s primary bible?

 

[rpp]

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 guess that works for you. But I cannot read greek or Latin. I have enough trouble with English!

I will say I like the writing style of the DR. I do like some of the rederings in the RSV-CE.

But you know, I must admire the KJV.

I really dislike the NAB.

I will watch this debate with keen interest.

Please this is very informtive. Just don’t let it get personal?

 

[Jerry-Jet]

For Porthos and others out there that may feel that I’ve been uncharitable this is where I’m coming from:

I am a new convert to the Catholic faith. My father was a Methodist minister and I was brought up and taught that the RSV was the best translation and the other Protestant ones were “Mickey Mouse”.

When I learned the truth of the Catholic faith I learned that much I had been taught as a Protestant was in error.

So when I Protest too much about the RSV it is because I don’t want to go back to error.

Now to be sure other Catholics who have been brought up in the Catholic faith–properly catechized and firmly grounded in the Fullness of Truth can read the RSV and when the translation doesn’t exactly match Catholic doctrine it doesn’t bother them because they know their faith.

I’m drawn to the Douay Rheims–but more than that to the Latin Vulgate to LEARN more of the Catholic faith.

So please forgive me for condemning the RSV that I had loved as a Protestant child and young adult so vociferiously and in a personal way.

I have no animosity to those Catholics who use it–in fact to know God with all my mind it is imperative that I consult it and many other translations.

I do wonder though for new converts to the Catholic faith or to Catholics who weren’t properly catechized if the RSV in a small number of verses is problematic?

I will say this: the Second Catholic edition is better than the original RSV of the early 1950s.

My hope and prayer is that one day we will see a third edition of it.

What frustrates me most is that we don’t have a Good and Accurate Catholic version of the bible that draws on the ancient languages–compares that to the witness of the Nova Vulgata and ancient Vulgate and conforms with Liturgium Authenticum and Matches the Liturgy of the church–without inclusive language and also passse muster and is endorsed by the Holy See!

Now that would be a great bible!

Until then you just have to read a bunch of translations–take a little of truth from this one and a little truth from that one–and that’s how you know exactly what the Bible says and when you compare all of that to the Catechism and the dogma and doctrine ofe Catholic Church–then you have an idea of what the bible is truely saying.

The value in learning about the controversies of translation between Catholic and Protestant versions of the Bible is that you better learn your own faith.

If you take the RSV-CE and the Douay Rheims Challoner Haydock Bibles and also the Confraternity Bible and read all three you basically get what the Bible is trying to convey for the most part.

So don’t think that I’m just raining on the RSV or the NRSV’s parade–I’m just trying to point out to everyone that the RSV isn’t the greatest thing since sliced bread–the Douay and the Confaternity aren’t perfect either and I
don’t know Latin but some Catholics who do say the Nova Vulgata isn’t perfect either.

The main thing though is even though all our translations of the bible may not be perfect–God is perfect–and if we read His word and seek out His will for us—He will reveal it!

To all who I have offend here peace!

Forgive my insecurity in my knoweledge of the Fullness of Truth which resides in the Catholic Faith but always take everything with a grain of salt!

That includes the RSV and the NRSV.

Not a Douay lover–

just wary of anything that is not 100% Catholic,

Jerry-Jet

 

[porthos11]

The DR isn’t as “consistent.”

Matthew 11:10 - prosopon=face
Matthew 18:10 - prosopon=face
Acts 3:19-20 - prosopon=presence
Acts 5:41 - prosopon=presence
Hebrews 9:24 - prosopon=presence

If they are follow the argument here, they should be only translated as “person” and nothing else. But clearly, the DR is wise enough to recognize context and render appropriately.

The RSV translators had no evil motives using “presence” rather than “person” in 2 Cor 2:10. Both renderings are accurate and the context allows for both. It may not be what Latin Catholics prefer but it is nevertheless a correct translation. Multiple renderings of difficult verses yield great insight.

“Presence” here fits the context just as well, or even better than “person”.

So what if “presence” doesn’t support “in persona Christi” directly? It doesn’t contradict it; and it sure doesn’t conflict with John 20:22ff.

A little search through an interlinear would have yielded several examples of the “inconsistency” even present in the DRV.

And a bit of research into the Greek concept of “prosopon” (which is much broader than the English “person”) would have spared us a lot of grief.

Yes, I know: St. Jerome and the Catholic Church etc. etc. (1) St. Jerome wasn’t perfect and even did lousy translation work; (2) The Church has never ruled on the proper translation of this verse.

We derive our Doctrine from Scripture and not vice-versa.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Porthos: do you believe that Paul forgave the man in the person of Christ or in the presence of Christ?

If you want to talk about context it is quite clear that Paul had retained the sin of the incestuous man in 1 Corinthians 5:3 when he said “I indeed, absent in body, but present in spirit, have already judged, as though I were present, him that hath so done”. And in verse 13–“For them that are without, God will judge. Put away the evil one from among yourselves.”

That’s Paul in his office as a bishop and apostle telling the Corinthian church to put away the man. If that isn’t Retaining the man’s sin—what is?

Remember the Corinthian church was said by Paul to be “puffed up” and not mourning by Paul in verse 2 and admonished by Paul for not Removing him form the church.

In 2 Corinthians 2:10 Paul uses the word pardoned 3 times!

Now it doesn’t take an exegetical genius to see that Paul is forgiving the man in the person of Christ rather than in the presence of Christ.

Why? Because if it was only in the presence of Christ that would be telling the Corinthians nothing–Christ is infinite and can be present anywhere.

The Corinthian church knew that Paul had retained the man’s sin.

When Paul said he forgave the man in the person of Christ–the Corinthian church knew that Paul had acted with the authority given to the disciples that Jesus had breathed on and had Loosed the man from the sin that was once retained.

The Corinthians weren’t the Protestants who translated the RSV. They knew what loosing and retention of sin was.

They didn’t come from a mindset that would allow for Jesus to forgive the man in Christ’s presence–any other person of the Corinthian church could have done the same.

For Paul to mention it in a letter to that church under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit made it more than just a mere forgiving of a christian by Paul that could have been anybody at the Corinthian church which Would also be the case at any of the Protestant churches that the RSV translators attend.

No! The loosing of the man’s retained sin by Paul in his capacity as bishop and priest would be in the Person of Christ-the same person not presence that breathed on the disiples and gave them the power to forgive and retain sin!

So no the Protestant RSV is wrong!

And if anyone believes that I do not know what I am talking about–go to any Catholic commentary on the bible and see if it regards this incident as Paul loosing a retained sin and granting the incestuous Corinthian man absolution.

As far as I know the sacraments of the Catholic Church are very important and these passages in Corinthians have been used by the Catholic Church over hundreds of years to buttress the Catholic Church’s teaching of confession and absolution–no they’re not the whole story and yes it is the magisterium of the Catholic Church that teaches the full deposit of the faith but don’t tell me that the magisterium hasn’t used these verses over the centuries in it’s teachings concerning confession.

And no the Catholic Church hasn’t Defined how this verse should be translated–but that is the case with most verses of the bible.

I believe and the Catholic Church has taught that Paul did forgive the man “In the person” of Christ.

The fact that in other contexts that prosopon can be translated differently or the fact that in some cases that the Douay Rheims is similiarily inconsistent in some of its textual renderings does not change that fact!

The Protestant RSV is wrong and it is wrong on a doctrine that is vital to the faith–namely Confession!

That doesn’t mean that Catholics should not use the RSV if that is their choice–it does mean that they should take anything it translates with a grain of salt because if the RSV can be wrong on a verse about a doctrine that is important to the faith–then it must never be swallowed at face value.

In the final analysis we may never know the true motives of the RSV translators–but we can know in some instances that their final product–while it can be argued as possibly correct–does not conform to Catholicsm when viewed in the light of day!

 

[porthos11]

Porthos: do you believe that Paul forgave the man in the person of Christ or in the presence of Christ?

What I believe is irrelevant to the translation. I accept both as valid and accurate for the purposes of translation.

That said, I believe Paul forgave in the person of Christ and personally, I would rather have the verse rendered that way.

That’s Paul in his office as a bishop and apostle telling the Corinthian church to put away the man. If that isn’t Retaining the man’s sin—what is?

You are correct here.

Now it doesn’t take an exegetical genius to see that Paul is forgiving the man in the person of Christ rather than in the presence of Christ.

It’s easy if you are a Latin. It’s not that obvious if you are a Greek.

They didn’t come from a mindset that would allow for Jesus to forgive the man in Christ’s presence–any other person of the Corinthian church could have done the same.

I’m skeptical of this claim. The notion of “in persona Christi” came to development in the medieval Latin West, not the Greek East (I’m posting a query in the Eastern forum to confirm). In fact, the Greeks would most probably have thought of “in his face” first when they read this passage. It still points to authority, but the Greeks were not sticklers for technicalities like we Latins are. So I’m not certain that the Greeks had the same “in persona Christi” notion we do under the Vulgate’s influence.

No! The loosing of the man’s retained sin by Paul in his capacity as bishop and priest would be in the Person of Christ-the same person not presence that breathed on the disiples and gave them the power to forgive and retain sin!

So no the Protestant RSV is wrong!

I can turn the argument around too. The verse just as easily supports Paul calling on Christ to witness to what he is doing, since the context strongly points to a long-distance forgiveness, which can’t be done in Confession.

I’m not saying that “in the person of” is wrong. What I’m saying is that “in the presence of” can also be right.

As far as I know the sacraments of the Catholic Church are very important and these passages in Corinthians have been used by the Catholic Church over hundreds of years to buttress the Catholic Church’s teaching of confession and absolution–no they’re not the whole story and yes it is the magisterium of the Catholic Church that teaches the full deposit of the faith but don’t tell me that the magisterium hasn’t used these verses over the centuries in it’s teachings concerning confession.

Yes, by going to the Greek, not the English.

All this is true, and yet that doesn’t prevent modern scholarship from making changes based on better understandings. In fact, some of the Fathers used mistranslated verses to bolster their otherwise orthodox teachings (e.g. supersubstantialem instead of quotidianum in the Lord’s Prayer).

This verse isn’t one of them, however, and in fact, when I teach about Confession, I cite this verse from the King James, not the RSV.

And no the Catholic Church hasn’t Defined how this verse should be translated–but that is the case with most verses of the bible.

I believe and the Catholic Church has taught that Paul did forgive the man “In the person” of Christ.

So do I.

The fact that in other contexts that prosopon can be translated differently or the fact that in some cases that the Douay Rheims is similiarily inconsistent in some of its textual renderings does not change that fact!

But it does water down your polemic earlier in this thread that the word has one and only one rendering, which is clearly false. Your argument was based on consistency.

The Protestant RSV is wrong and it is wrong on a doctrine that is vital to the faith–namely Confession!

No it isn’t because it doesn’t contradict the dogma, and doesn’t conflict with John 20:22ff, which is indeed very clear. Have you read John 20 from the RSV? Beautiful rendering. The problem is that rendering 2 Cor 2:10 as “presence” instead of “person” doesn’t directly lend itself to support absolution in persona Christi (but still does indirectly). But not supporting is not the same as denial of Confession. It’s inconvenient, and for Catholics, annoying, but one can never make the accusation of inaccuracy on linguistic grounds.

BTW, the Jerusalem Bible is a pure Catholic translation, and also uses “presence” in this verse.

 

[DallasCatholic]

The greek word prosopon is translated as Person in Matthew 27:24 by the King James version: "When Pilate saw that he could not prevail nothing, but rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person(Prosopon) see ye to it.

Now Jesus was not a presence but a Person.

If the same Greek word “Prosopon” is translated by the Protestants who authored the King James Version BOTH in 2 Corinthians 2:10 and in Matthew 27:24 as Person then why is it that the RSV does every gymnastic feat it can to avoid using the word Person?

The answer is obvious: to avoid admitting that Paul acted In Personna Christi in 2 Corinthians.

So not only is the RSV Inaccurate in one verse–it compounds it in another.

DallasCatholic: When engagging in apologetics with Protestants ask them if consistency is important in translating the bible–and show them where the King James Version is consistent in translating Prosopon as Person.

Then ask them if Paul did forgive the incestuous man as it says in 2 Corinthians 2:10 “In The Person(Prosopon) of Christ” if they can indeed see that there is biblical Proof for confession!

You wouldn’t be able to do that with the RSV because it does all it can to avoid translating persona as person.

One last question: how many textual inaccuracies that entail major points of Catholic Doctrine does it take to render the RSV unworthy of being a person’s primary bible?

Jerry-Jet,
First of all thank you for your post explaining where you are coming from in this conversation. Apology accepted. Now after reading your response I went home where we have 6 protestant Bibles; KJV, Zondervan NIV, NIV, NASB and NKJV. Only in the KJV was Matthew 27:24 rendered as “person”. In all of the other versions, including my DR and RSV 2CE the verse was rendered as “man” as in “this man’s blood” or the “the blood of this man”. So the argument wouldn’t work with any of the protestants that I know because none of them use the original KJV. Most use the Zondervan NIV or the NAB.

I appreciate your zeal, and I thank you for your insights. I am glad that you give a grudging approval to the RSV 2CE especially since the United States Council of Catholic Bishops have granted their Ecclesiastical approval to it.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

DallasCatholic: why do you think that the KJV rendered Matthew 27:24 as person?

Even the Douay Rheims Challoner says "Just Man’.

for the record I want to declare here right now that I think the Protestant KJV in this one instance might be more accurate than the Douay!

that’s not to say that prosopon should always be rendered person–just that if the Greek word prosopon is there–then why should it be changed to man?

This is a case where it isn’t person versus presence but person versus man.

How much leeway and how far away should we stray from the Greek and still be accurate?

It is ironic that I am arguing for person versus man.

Does that make me a proponent of inclusive language?

Maybe all those translations including the Douay that you cited are right!

When you find yourself laughing at yourself then you know you aren’t the greatest biblical authority in the world!

 

[Randy_Carson]

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.

Porthos-

I don’t have a dog in this fight, so don’t shoot me!

What I would like to know from your perspective is which of the translations is most faithful to the original languages and which is most faithful to the Catholic faith?

Is there one version that comes out ahead on both scores?

I’m only secondarily interested in readability…I get concerned when apparent Protestant bias creeps into the NIV causing me to miss the support the bible has for the doctrines we believe. I’ve started another thread on this topic, btw.

What is your take on the above?

 

[porthos11]

Porthos-

I don’t have a dog in this fight, so don’t shoot me!

What I would like to know from your perspective is which of the translations is most faithful to the original languages and which is most faithful to the Catholic faith?

Is there one version that comes out ahead on both scores?

Personally, that would be the RSV-2CE from Ignatius Press (NOT the original Protestant RSV). The Oxford Compact RSV’s also have some improvements based on the 1971 RSV New Testament.

But if you want Catholicity, perhaps for devotional reasons, the DRV still comes out ahead. It is, however, no longer suitable for serious study by itself, and I feel it doesn’t serve well for apologetics purposes.

I’m only secondarily interested in readability…I get concerned when apparent Protestant bias creeps into the NIV causing me to miss the support the bible has for the doctrines we believe. I’ve started another thread on this topic, btw.

What is your take on the above?

For readability, you may also want to get the original 1966 Jerusalem Bible, now in a Reader’s Edition. Note though that it’s on the far dynamic side of the translation spectrum, and may sound strange in some familiar passages.

 

[porthos11]

that’s not to say that prosopon should always be rendered person–just that if the Greek word prosopon is there–then why should it be changed to man?

This is a case where it isn’t person versus presence but person versus man.

How much leeway and how far away should we stray from the Greek and still be accurate?

It is ironic that I am arguing for person versus man.

Does that make me a proponent of inclusive language?

No, it doesn’t. And the context here demands that “person” be used. Now before modernistic (not modern) English, man was a synonym of (human) person, so man also fits the context here. But person in this verse also fits just right without any problems.

It would just be weird for Pilate to say "I am innocent of the blood of this face (“face” is the primary translation of “prosopon”).

As an aside, here’s one rendering I don’t like in the RSV and RSV-CE. Luke 1:34: “How [shall | can] this be, *since I have no husband?” *This isn’t really wildly inaccurate, but it departs a bit too far from the Greek, which literally says “I do not know (a) [man | husband].” For me, this is a heavier problem than 2 Cor 2:10, and the NAB does a better job here. “Know” is a Hebrew euphemism for sexual intercourse, and is lost in the RSV translation, and the current rendering doesn’t properly reflect the Jewish betrothal system at that time.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

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.

I have the RSV-CE (Ignatius Bible) as well as the Jerusalem Bible, and a Douai Bible on my PC for cross-reference. I highly recommend these three Bibles to be a part of any orthodox Catholic’s library.

Most Bibles with “New” prefixed to their name have inclusive language and one should be wary. One should even be wary of the NAB which is sanctioned by the USCCB but not approved by Rome.

 

[MTD]

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?

Can you tell us more exactly why you believe the RSV-2CE is an improvement over the RSV-CE?

Maria

 

[japhy]

Can you tell us more exactly why you believe the RSV-2CE is an improvement over the RSV-CE?

I don’t presume to answer for porthos11, but the RSV-2CE made a set of adjustments to the translation, opting for particularly Catholic interpretations, such as “full of grace” in Luke 1 and “virgin” in Isaiah 7.

 

[porthos11]

I don’t presume to answer for porthos11, but the RSV-2CE made a set of adjustments to the translation, opting for particularly Catholic interpretations, such as “full of grace” in Luke 1 and “virgin” in Isaiah 7.

Yes, basically. I also like the removal of the archaic language (not that archaic language was bad; I just prefer modern English).

I also like the fact that “gates of Hades” and “powers of death” text and notes of Matthew 16 have been swapped in a manner similar to Isaiah 7:14. Other changes like “steadfast love” and “mercy” or “chalice” and “cup” I feel were unnecessary but I can live with them (a reading of Dives in Misericordia easily lays that to rest).

The rendering of the Our Father in Matthew also matches that used in the US Liturgy virtually word-for-word. Other places have been cleaned up from archaic language even when not addressed to God (e.g. thither–> there).

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

 

[porthos11]

Yes, basically. I also like the removal of the archaic language (not that archaic language was bad; I just prefer modern English).

I also like the fact that “gates of Hades” and “powers of death” text and notes of Matthew 16 have been swapped in a manner similar to Isaiah 7:14. Other changes like “steadfast love” and “mercy” or “chalice” and “cup” I feel were unnecessary but I can live with them (a reading of Dives in Misericordia easily lays that to rest).

The rendering of the Our Father in Matthew also matches that used in the US Liturgy virtually word-for-word. Other places have been cleaned up from archaic language even when not addressed to God (e.g. thither–> there). Note, however, that these are highly personal and preferential opinions and in no way serve as an imposition of any kind.