So, the RSV-CE is a Protestant Bible?

[tobinatorstark]

I really wish someone would explain to me how the religious affiliation of the translators matters more than the job they did translating. Being Catholic is no guarantee that they will do a good job. If you don’t believe me, take a look at the NAB. On the other hand, the RSV-CE was translated by Protestants for the most part and the Vatican uses it in the English versions of its documents. I also find the ESV to be very accurate although translated entirely by Protestants.

Gary

always look for an imprimatur, Nihil Obstat or approval from a Bishop’s committee. To my knowledge the ESV isn’t approved by the Church. If my memory serves me correct then should not indulge in reading the ESV. I do agree that the NAB is terrible and many on this site find the NAB terrible. It was translated by both Catholics and Protestants. The RSV-CE on the other hand, the original RSV (non Catholic) was translated entirely by Protestants. The RSV-CE was revised by Catholics under concordances of Church officials. It is indeed an accurate Bible, but in no way is it more accurate than the Douay-Rheims, Confraternity or Ronald Knox Bible. It is however the most recent accurate Bible.

 

[tobinatorstark]

But at least the NIV, NKJV, and to some extent the NASB and ESV use “non-inclusive” language, which is what the Holy See calls for. Unlike the NAB, NRSV, and NJB. If it wasn’t for the Deutercanonicals, than I would use the NIV any day over the NAB, NJB, or NRSV.

But the NIV also omits other verses besides the 7 deuterocanonical books and Esther and Daniel. Look for Matthew 18:11. It isn’t in there. It has been relegated to a footnote. I refuse to use the NIV. As much as a poor translation as the NAB is nothing in Christianity is worse than the NAB. I don’t consider Jehovah Witness Christian and the NWT is ultimately not a Bible as it claims.

 

[bkovacs]

The latest version of the NIV uses inclusive language. That particular translation also happens to be an anti-Catholic hack job. I would never consider using it and I have no problem with Protestant translations in general.

The NJB uses very limited inclusive language. (Like using ‘humanity’ for ‘mankind.’) I dislike the inclusive stuff but it is probably the most readable Catholic translation available today. It is certainly nowhere near as bad as the NAB or NRSV.

Gary

I realize that the TNIV is inclusive. But the NIV is still being produced, you won’t find many TNIV on the shelf. Thanks in part to the Evangelicals who started an uproar. They need to remove as much inclusive language as they can. The Jerusalem was way better than the New Jerusalem. JRR Tolkein had nothing to do with the NJB. Only the Jerusalem. And by the way, the NJB only comes in hardback. Why not a nice leather edition. They also replaced the NJB with the CTS Bible. Which is the size of a Missal. Do we get free magnifying glasses when we buy it?.

 

[bkovacs]

But the NIV also omits other verses besides the 7 deuterocanonical books and Esther and Daniel. Look for Matthew 18:11. It isn’t in there. It has been relegated to a footnote. I refuse to use the NIV. As much as a poor translation as the NAB is nothing in Christianity is worse than the NAB. I don’t consider Jehovah Witness Christian and the NWT is ultimately not a Bible as it claims.

Ok you got a valid point on the NIV and the missing passages. But the NKJV does include those missing passages. As well as the NASB. The NKJV is used by the Orthodox Church. Their new Orthodox Study Bible has all the deutercanonicals and is the NKJV. And it’s non-inclusive.

 

[bkovacs]

But the NIV also omits other verses besides the 7 deuterocanonical books and Esther and Daniel. Look for Matthew 18:11. It isn’t in there. It has been relegated to a footnote. I refuse to use the NIV. As much as a poor translation as the NAB is nothing in Christianity is worse than the NAB. I don’t consider Jehovah Witness Christian and the NWT is ultimately not a Bible as it claims.

The NAB also regulates Mathew 18:11 to a footnote as well.

 

[juliamajor]

When the Vatican issues a new document in English -RSV is used. Benedict 16’s books translated uses RSV and the Catechism uses RSV.
As I said before it is only one of many translations I use. Scholars in general don’t use one translation but many-MT,LXX Latin, Hebrew, Aramaic Targums, Syriac- basically anything that they can get their little hands on that well help them achieve the best possible text.

 

[garysibio]

This totally ignores the spiritual reality of grace and its influence on the actions of mankind. The stark template you have provided here is not actually real.

Are you saying that grace is only available to Catholics?

Are you saying that the Vatican is in error for using the RSV-CE in its documents and allowing it to be used in the liturgy? It was translated by Protestants with a few changes made by Catholics which now appear in the non-Catholic version.

Are you saying that the NAB is a good translation or, at least, better than the RVS-CE by virtue of it having been translated by Catholics?

Gary

 

[garysibio]

I realize that the TNIV is inclusive. But the NIV is still being produced, you won’t find many TNIV on the shelf. Thanks in part to the Evangelicals who started an uproar. They need to remove as much inclusive language as they can. The Jerusalem was way better than the New Jerusalem. JRR Tolkein had nothing to do with the NJB. Only the Jerusalem. And by the way, the NJB only comes in hardback. Why not a nice leather edition. They also replaced the NJB with the CTS Bible. Which is the size of a Missal. Do we get free magnifying glasses when we buy it?.

I wasn’t aware that the NIV was still being produced. I had heard that was a lot of complaining about the newer version.

Not knowing Greek or Hebrew I have to rely on the opinions of those who do but, and I am speaking of the text of Scripture here, not any additional material such as footnotes, of those who know their way around the original languages, I have never heard anyone say that the JB is more accurate then the NJB. Normally I would find its use of inclusive language to be a hindrance but, as I have pointed out before, there isn’t that much of it and nowhere where it makes any difference to the meaning.

I know that Tolkien was one of the translators of the JB but so what? Just because he wrote “Lord of the Rings” doesn’t give him any special status. The JB is also guilty of one of my big bugaboos - using “happy” instead of “blessed” in the beatitudes.

The CTS Bible did not replace the NJB. It was just a version of the JB with the Psalms replaced by the version used in the liturgy in Great Britain and all occurrences of “Yahweh” changed to “Lord.” The NJB is still in print and available in a variety of bindings. There is even a pocket-sized edition available.

Gary

 

[tobinatorstark]

I wasn’t aware that the NIV was still being produced. I had heard that was a lot of complaining about the newer version.

Not knowing Greek or Hebrew I have to rely on the opinions of those who do but, and I am speaking of the text of Scripture here, not any additional material such as footnotes, of those who know their way around the original languages, I have never heard anyone say that the JB is more accurate then the NJB. Normally I would find its use of inclusive language to be a hindrance but, as I have pointed out before, there isn’t that much of it and nowhere where it makes any difference to the meaning.

I know that Tolkien was one of the translators of the JB but so what? Just because he wrote “Lord of the Rings” doesn’t give him any special status. The JB is also guilty of one of my big bugaboos - using “happy” instead of “blessed” in the beatitudes.

The CTS Bible did not replace the NJB. It was just a version of the JB with the Psalms replaced by the version used in the liturgy in Great Britain and all occurrences of “Yahweh” changed to “Lord.” The NJB is still in print and available in a variety of bindings. There is even a pocket-sized edition available.

Gary

I agree with you 100%

 

[CalCatholic]

I use the RSV - 2CE all the time. I do not have a problem with it. Just because it has protestant origins doesn’t mean it’s a bad translation. The early church fathers took pagan things and christianized them. Does this mean that we should though those things out because of there pagan origins? Of course not. In the same way, the RSV is not a bad translation because of its protestant origins.

Nathan

I agree, the Vatican obviously agrees, since ‘The Catechism of the Catholic Church’ uses the RSV/NRSV translation for it’s English speaking countries. The NRSV was also used because the Catechism does not use the ‘thees and thous’ in its text, so they had to mix the NRSV in with the RSV to eliminate them. The RSV 2CE was not out yet, otherwise I believe they would have used that translation in its entirety (since they had a say in its changes from the RSV CE). The verses of the NRSV used by the Vatican were the non-inclusive verses.

 

[tobinatorstark]

The NAB also regulates Mathew 18:11 to a footnote as well.

Indeed you are right. It is no wander I gave up on the New American Bible because the lack of Spirituality in favor of the Douay-Rheims. The RSV-CE isn’t as bad as I thought it was. I was too ignorant about the RSV-CE as Mccorm45 and prothos11 can tell you. They know that hadn’t given the RSV-CE a fair shot. Still it is hard to bring myself to read the NAB at any given time. As mentioned earlier, I prefer the Douay over any translation, but I am now just starting to see the faults of the NAB

 

[Shin]

I agree, the Vatican obviously agrees, since ‘The Catechism of the Catholic Church’ uses the RSV/NRSV translation for it’s English speaking countries. The NRSV was also used because the Catechism does not use the ‘thees and thous’ in its text, so they had to mix the NRSV in with the RSV to eliminate them. The RSV 2CE was not out yet, otherwise I believe they would have used that translation in its entirety (since they had a say in its changes from the RSV CE). The verses of the NRSV used by the Vatican were the non-inclusive verses.

Yes, there was quite a few years delay in issuing the CCC because of translation details such as attempts to use inclusive language, one among many proponents of it the famous or infamous Cardinal Bernard Law.

One would not expect the CCC to survive this battle entirely unscathed, anymore than the liturgy did ICEL.

 

[Jehuty_X]

The NAB also regulates Mathew 18:11 to a footnote as well.

// not only the new american bible, but also the new jerusalem bible (both castillian and english versions), the revised standard version and the new revised standard version as well…

 

[David_Zampino]

When the Vatican issues a new document in English -RSV is used. Benedict 16’s books translated uses RSV and the Catechism uses RSV.
As I said before it is only one of many translations I use. Scholars in general don’t use one translation but many-MT,LXX Latin, Hebrew, Aramaic Targums, Syriac- basically anything that they can get their little hands on that well help them achieve the best possible text.

You make an excellent point here! I’ve got literally dozens, including Bibles with 8 different translations on facing pages for comparative study purposes.

Right now, I’m using three different Bibles for a class I’m teaching on the Minor Prophets.

1. I use the Ignatius RSV 2nd Catholic Edition for much of the reading.
2. I use the Aramaic Bible, which is a Jewish Targum (including rabbinic commentary embedded in the text) for showing my class a particular Jewish point of view.
3. I use the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, which uses the traditional RSV text, along with commentaries by the Church Fathers for showing my class how the Early Church used Scripture.

All are useful; all are valuable.

(As an aside, neither the rabbis nor the Early Church Fathers embraced the hyper-literalism one sees too often today!)

Blessings,

 

[mullenpm]

I feel I will be bringing everyone down to earth here but I have no idea what most of the initials of the various translations/ publications of the Bible being noted here mean; but, I am very grateful for this thread.

I have three Bibles (two of which I use all the time).

One is the Saint Joseph Edition of the New American Bible which I bought in 1992; another is the pocket New Testament and Psalms (RSV.SCE) published by Ignatius Press.

After reading the posts on this thread I looked at these two Bibles and find that what Jerry-Jet said about 2 Corinthians and Matthew 18:11 is true in both these books. I found that upsetting on a certain level.

So, I looked at my oldest Bible purchased in November of 1953 (Catholic Family Edition of the Holy Bible). It says that the first eight books and the Book of Psalms from the Old Testament and the entire New Testament are in the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine Text and the remaining books are in the Challoner-Douay text.

I haven’t used this book in years because it was water damaged many years ago but from here on in it will be the Bible I will go to first.

I love my pocket NT and carry it with me to church all the time and I will most likely still do that. I was going to buy the pocket Douay book but the print is much too small to read (at least for me).:ehh:

What is the opinion of everyone here about The Navarre Bible? I have bought some of the study guides and I find them very helpful.

Anyway, I must thank all posters on this thread for a most important learning experience and I am wondering how anyone would learn about the issues noted here. Where does the information come from?:harp:

 

[CalCatholic]

I feel I will be bringing everyone down to earth here but I have no idea what most of the initials of the various translations/ publications of the Bible being noted here mean; but, I am very grateful for this thread.

I have three Bibles (two of which I use all the time).

One is the Saint Joseph Edition of the New American Bible which I bought in 1992; another is the pocket New Testament and Psalms (RSV.SCE) published by Ignatius Press.

After reading the posts on this thread I looked at these two Bibles and find that what Jerry-Jet said about 2 Corinthians and Matthew 18:11 is true in both these books. I found that upsetting on a certain level.

So, I looked at my oldest Bible purchased in November of 1953 (Catholic Family Edition of the Holy Bible). It says that the first eight books and the Book of Psalms from the Old Testament and the entire New Testament are in the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine Text and the remaining books are in the Challoner-Douay text.

I haven’t used this book in years because it was water damaged many years ago but from here on in it will be the Bible I will go to first.

I love my pocket NT and carry it with me to church all the time and I will most likely still do that. I was going to buy the pocket Douay book but the print is much too small to read (at least for me).:ehh:

What is the opinion of everyone here about The Navarre Bible? I have bought some of the study guides and I find them very helpful.

Anyway, I must thank all posters on this thread for a most important learning experience and I am wondering how anyone would learn about the issues noted here. Where does the information come from?:harp:

I love the Navarre series, it took me over a year to collect all the hardcover books but it was well worth it!

 

[tobinatorstark]

I feel I will be bringing everyone down to earth here but I have no idea what most of the initials of the various translations/ publications of the Bible being noted here mean; but, I am very grateful for this thread.

I have three Bibles (two of which I use all the time).

One is the Saint Joseph Edition of the New American Bible which I bought in 1992; another is the pocket New Testament and Psalms (RSV.SCE) published by Ignatius Press.

After reading the posts on this thread I looked at these two Bibles and find that what Jerry-Jet said about 2 Corinthians and Matthew 18:11 is true in both these books. I found that upsetting on a certain level.

So, I looked at my oldest Bible purchased in November of 1953 (Catholic Family Edition of the Holy Bible). It says that the first eight books and the Book of Psalms from the Old Testament and the entire New Testament are in the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine Text and the remaining books are in the Challoner-Douay text.

I haven’t used this book in years because it was water damaged many years ago but from here on in it will be the Bible I will go to first.

I love my pocket NT and carry it with me to church all the time and I will most likely still do that. I was going to buy the pocket Douay book but the print is much too small to read (at least for me).:ehh:

What is the opinion of everyone here about The Navarre Bible? I have bought some of the study guides and I find them very helpful.

Anyway, I must thank all posters on this thread for a most important learning experience and I am wondering how anyone would learn about the issues noted here. Where does the information come from?:harp:

The navarre is good, but the series is expensive. I stick to my Douay-Rheims. It is the most accurate

 

[NHInsider]

I stick to my Douay-Rheims. It is the most accurate

Only in the opinion of those who think the Vulgate is more accurate than the Greek. [ducking but not running]

 

[Manfred]

Anyway, I must thank all posters on this thread for a most important learning experience and I am wondering how anyone would learn about the issues noted here. Where does the information come from?:harp:

The “info” we share comes from many sources; among them: access to, and familiarity with, a particular version; comments from credible sources such as the late Fr John Neuhaus; familiarity on the part of some posters with the original biblical languages and/or Latin; comments and reviews from a few Protestant sites as well (bible-researcher.com)’ other threads in these forums; Adoremus Bulletin (adoremus.org).

After a while you’ll get the hang of it and will be able to pontificate as well as most of us think we do.

 

[David_Zampino]

I love the Navarre series, it took me over a year to collect all the hardcover books but it was well worth it!

I love the Navarre series as well. I have all the volumes and have used them in teaching as well. (Specifically the NT Gospels and Acts hardcover volume).

The Scripture text is the RSV and the New Latin Vulgate; the commentary is solid expository (not exegetical) commentary.

The series is well worth acquiring – even if it takes time.