Love that “local solution”!
And it’s true that the RSV is used by both Protestants and Catholics (not to forget our Orthodox brethren, though I think they also use the New King James version “officially”). Still, the RSV isn’t all that popular among Evangelical Protestants, who typically use the KJV, NKJV, NIV and more recently the ESV (which is, itself, a revision of the RSV. Whew!)
My personal fantasy Bible would be constructed along the following lines:
- Take the original RSV-CE as the base text.
- Restore all the passages from the Vulgate that are in the D-R, but not the RSV (The ending of Tobit 6 is a glaring example)
- Retain Hebrew words (Amen, Raca) and make the other changes recommended by Liturgiam Authenticam.
- Add cross-references and marginal references in the vein of the Jerusalem Bible(s).
- Retain “thee” and “thou” as far as the original RSV retains them, but do not try to “archaize” the text any further.
- Use the New Testament to translate the Old. If the NT favours a particular reading, retain it.
- Add orthodox notes as well as aids to historical and archaeological settings.
- Name the finished product the “Catholic Standard Version”, and start using it in all English-speaking countries. No more NAB or NRSV, except for private reading and study.
(Now you know why I’m not on the Pontifical Biblical Commission
)
I’ve been working on a project similar to that, but starting with the KJV as a base text (as, as all must admit, it’s a far more beautiful translation than the DRC), and correcting from the DRC/Clementina Vulgata (and Nova Vulgata for the Deuterocanon, according to
LA), from the Byzantine type-text and Rahlf’s Septuagint (so, I suppose, even after all my whining, I am using an “eclectic text” - just not a mainstream one) and modernizing the text (I’m actually doing two in parallel - one KJV-style, one Confraternity or NKJV-style - as I appreciate the additional precision given by having singular and plural second-person pronouns), but as of yet (due to lack of manpower, it being a three-man project: we still need a scholar of Hebrew to give the OT a once-over to have any shot at imprimatur) no cross-references or annotation, but I dubbed it it the “Corrected Catholic Version”. In six months, I’ve completed John, Luke-Acts, Genesis, and the first 6 chapters of Exodus (the OT from the Septuagint).
Whereas starting from the RSV-(2)CE or ESV w/ “Apocrypha”, as you mention, would probably be a more efficient way of doing it, and easier - just restore that which was removed through text-critical tinkering, and go through the NT’s quotations of the OT and use its textual basis (whether MT, LXX, or lost) for the original OT passages. Why didn’t I think of that?
There is no translation that is quite as thoroughly rotten as the NRSV, not even the NWT, IMO. The original NAB gives it a run for its money; the NABRE is a good deal better, but still not acceptable, although certain passages are rendered well. The NAB/RE both have decent New Testaments (the 1986 one); the NRSV has about the single worst NT I’ve ever read in all areas of doctrinal import (besides the NWT, the “Inclusive Bible”, and “Good as New: A Radical Retelling”, which is
by far the worst, so much that I would say the latter is the word of Satan, not of God, such as Paul’s vice lists, although it’s definitely good if you’re a liberal and want to feel that your pet sins weren’t condemned by St Paul), not to mention the contorted and dishonest readings generated by the PC gender language. I believe many on the translation committee (including Bruce Metzger) nearly disowned the translation, as it was the “stylistic committee” that ended up introducing the most heinous errors, under what I have to believe was the leadership of not a Biblical scholar, but likely a pomo cultural anthropologist, sociologist, gender theorist, or English lit major.
It has the same problems in Genesis, in the Psalms, etc. as the NAB does, except magnified. The notes aren’t as bad, but that’s because there aren’t any. The translators - or whoever gave the books their final form - were definitely operating under the same politically-correct, excruciatingly skeptical higher-critical philosophy for the 70-86-91 NAB and the 89 NRSV.
The Bible should not be molded to fit society and the latest fashion or scholarly fad; society and fashion should be molded to fit the Bible. Here, the translators of the KJV and DRC and NASB understood, whereas those of the NRSV and NAB-91, and to a lesser extent, the NAB-2011, did not.
, and the RSV-CE is used in the English translation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Another huge advantage of the RSV-CE is that it’s available in a large print edition. However, since the OP wanted to stick to one version, I recommended the RSV-2CE.
In my parish, we get treated to whatever “version” the celebrant happens to favour - NRSV, RSV, NJB and sometimes even the Christian Community Bible.