P
Pwrlftr
Guest
What makes the RSV-CE a Catholic edition other than it includes the deuterocanonicals?
- Status
J
JeanneH
Guest
Hi,
If you have a copy of the RSV-CE look in the back of the book. It tells you where the CE has changed some words. They tell you what the RSV has and what they have changed in the CE version. At least mind has it.
Jeanne
If you have a copy of the RSV-CE look in the back of the book. It tells you where the CE has changed some words. They tell you what the RSV has and what they have changed in the CE version. At least mind has it.
Jeanne
T
tobinatorstark
Guest
they changed some words to fit the Catholic Doctrine. I find it no more than a modified Protestant version that is Catholicized and I wouldn’t recommend getting a copy
C
Cajetan
Guest
Some modifications limited to the New Testament. Otherwise, a bishop’s imprimatur!
I think it is important to note that non-Catholic scholars are capable of producing good translations of Scripture. Just because the translation team behind the RSV was mostly made up of Protestants does not necessarily make the RSV a distinctively “Protestant” translation.
Ultimately, what makes a Bible a Catholic Bible is the imprimatur. Unless Rome says otherwise after publication, such Bibles are to be considered officially authorized by the Catholic Church – at least authorized for Catholics to use for their private reading – such is the power and authority of bishops in this regard. I respect that authority, take it seriously. When a bishop grants his imprimatur, regardless of who did the translation, I consider it a Catholic Bible. (This is not to say that I always consider it to be a good Catholic Bible or a Catholic Bible that should be used.)
I think it is important to note that non-Catholic scholars are capable of producing good translations of Scripture. Just because the translation team behind the RSV was mostly made up of Protestants does not necessarily make the RSV a distinctively “Protestant” translation.
Ultimately, what makes a Bible a Catholic Bible is the imprimatur. Unless Rome says otherwise after publication, such Bibles are to be considered officially authorized by the Catholic Church – at least authorized for Catholics to use for their private reading – such is the power and authority of bishops in this regard. I respect that authority, take it seriously. When a bishop grants his imprimatur, regardless of who did the translation, I consider it a Catholic Bible. (This is not to say that I always consider it to be a good Catholic Bible or a Catholic Bible that should be used.)
Not since 1983. After 1983, what makes a Catholic Bible is the approval of the Holy See or the Episcopal Conference.
M
Manfred
Guest
My 1985 New Jerusalem Bible has the Imprimatur of (the late) Basil Cardinal Hume; no indication of approval by either the Holy See or an episcopal conference.
Yet I still regard it as a Catholic Bible.
T
tobinatorstark
Guest
also my NAB has more than one imprimature. It has one for the 1970 OT one for the 1986 NT and one for 1991 Psalms as well as Nihil Obstats for 1970 OT and 1986 NT.
Chalk it up to ignorance, since 1985 is only two years since '83, but technically, if neither the Holy See nor the Conference approved it, then it’s in violation of Canon Law. But again, we can cut them some slack, given the time frame.
M
Mattjolley
Guest
The most appalling job of ‘Catholicising’ (Is that really a word?!) a bible can be found in the NRSV.
Now here is a case where they simply slapped the deuterocanonical books in there and called it ‘Catholic’ on the cover.
No attention was given to the gross over-use of inclusive language that the NRSV is famous for, and this was not edited or changed in any way to fit in with the tradition of the Catholic Church. I’d wager half the passages that are rendered in a way that could undermine the Catholic faith are still intact too.
Plus I love the way the editor, Henry Wansbrough, a Benedictine of all people, practically moans in the introduction about how its such a shame people in the Catholic Church still have reservations about the NRSV because of something like inclusive language. This man needs to have a think about what he believes. There’s a good reason Church documents and Lectionaries don’t use the NRSV (You Poor, Poor, Candians!) and that reason is inclusive language.
Don’t get me wrong, the NRSV can be an outstanding Bible, to the casual reader. I had to use it for a course a few years back and found it quite readable, but, as a practiscing catholic, I cannot bring myself to read it! Had the editors took the time to change passages, such as Luke 1:28and Isaiah 7:14, and to replace the inclusive language, you might find the NRSV would have been much more popular among Catholics.
Now here is a case where they simply slapped the deuterocanonical books in there and called it ‘Catholic’ on the cover.
No attention was given to the gross over-use of inclusive language that the NRSV is famous for, and this was not edited or changed in any way to fit in with the tradition of the Catholic Church. I’d wager half the passages that are rendered in a way that could undermine the Catholic faith are still intact too.
Plus I love the way the editor, Henry Wansbrough, a Benedictine of all people, practically moans in the introduction about how its such a shame people in the Catholic Church still have reservations about the NRSV because of something like inclusive language. This man needs to have a think about what he believes. There’s a good reason Church documents and Lectionaries don’t use the NRSV (You Poor, Poor, Candians!) and that reason is inclusive language.
Don’t get me wrong, the NRSV can be an outstanding Bible, to the casual reader. I had to use it for a course a few years back and found it quite readable, but, as a practiscing catholic, I cannot bring myself to read it! Had the editors took the time to change passages, such as Luke 1:28and Isaiah 7:14, and to replace the inclusive language, you might find the NRSV would have been much more popular among Catholics.
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
Which words?
M
Manfred
Guest
In 1992, our diocesan newspaper printed a blurb reporting that the NRSV had been approved by the US bishops for liturgical use. I almost choked with rage. These same bishops turned their backs on the NJB with its much-restrained inclusive language, but went out of their way, it seemed, to embrace the NRSV. Thanks be to God that Rome put a stop to that, but only after the latter allowed the Canadian hierarchy to publish their NRSV-based lectionary. To this day, I cannot grasp what draws Catholics to the NRSV.
I am now among the ranks of those who’d very much like to see a Catholic edition of the ESV when this translation publishes the deutero-canonical books. But I also want some editing as was done to the earlier RSV; I won’t be taken in by a mere label that states “Catholic Edition”.
T
tobinatorstark
Guest
They changed Luke 1:28 and Isaiah 7:14 I think off hand. Anyhow I don’t agree with trying to catholicize a protestant version. It is just not good enough for me. I want to read a true Catholic Bible. That is why I stick with the Douay-Rheims. The Latin Vulgate is a true Catholic Bible and and so is its counterpart the Douay-Rheims. Of course there are more true Catholic Bibles than those 2 but I just cannot accept the RSV-CE no matter how hard I try. BTW I am excited about getting the Vulgate for Christmas
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
Every linguistic analysis of those verses that I’ve read affirms the RSV-CE to be an authentic translation of the Greek. The staff at Catholic Answers very much recommends the RSV-CE. Of course, there is no perfect translation.
T
tobinatorstark
Guest
I know that the staff at Catholic Answers recommend it the RSV-CE. I personally can’t stand the RSV-CE and I feel it is a waste of time and money to buy it for myself. As stated before I know the JB and NAB aren’t the best Bibles in the bunch although I do like the JB a lot more than the NAB, I tend to stick to true Catholic Bibles and not some Protestant originated version made Catholic. It just doesn’t agree with me to well. There is no perfect translation in copy errors in such, but the Latin Vulgate is free of Moral and doctrinal error though. I wish there were more Bibles based of the Clementine Vulgate.
J
Jehuty_X
Guest
// how sure are you that it’s free from moral and doctrinal error?
// what for?
T
tobinatorstark
Guest
Because the Clementine follows suite of the editions of the Vulgate before that, of that which was declared free of moral and doctrinal error. Also said in The Council of Trent and Divino Afflante Spiritu that one shouldn’t dare reject the Latin Vulgate. Personally I find the Nova Vulgata a tad on the loose side, kinda comparable to the RSV-CE. The Clementine Vulgate and the Douay-Rheims are in more concordance with the structure of mass, like how the Gloria and the Nicene Creed and the Confiteror are worded. It is doctrinally sound.
J
Jehuty_X
Guest
// i have to read on the council of trent and divino afflante spiritu…seems to have interesting stuff…
// so that’s why you prefer translations from the vulgate then…
// hmmm…what would happen if i did reject the vulgate??? :ehh:
T
tobinatorstark
Guest
I have yet to read all of the documents from the Council of Trent. That particular Council interest me. I am post Vatican II and grew up with it being into effect. I want to see where we have been in the past. The Council of Trent reaffirmed basically everything that the Church has stood for. Divino Afflante Spiritu does encourage the translations to based on “original” manuscripts, but also give respect to those based on the Vulgate and the Vulgate itself. Catholic English translations were based on the Vulgate from 1582 when the Rheims NT was completed and one from the “original” manuscripts was in the 1960’s. If these English translations based on the Vulgate were acceptable for 400 years why quit basing some off of it. In the same regards why should they stop making ones based of the original manuscripts like the RSV-CE is? I think we need Bibles based on the Vulgate and we need Bibles based on “original” manuscripts. I get more personally from those based on the Vulgate. I think you will draw you conclusion to your last answer by reading Divino Afflante Spiritu and documents from the Council of Trent. Also keep in mind these aren’t the only documents and council that one should be familiar with// i have to read on the council of trent and divino afflante spiritu…seems to have interesting stuff…
// so that’s why you prefer translations from the vulgate then…
// hmmm…what would happen if i did reject the vulgate??? :ehh:
- Status