Where did the footnotes in the RSV-2CE come from?

[Russ_of_Tokyo]

I love the text of the RSV-2CE but I’m finding some of the footnotes a bit of a surprise. I’m talking about the ones signified by an asterisk, and which offer explanations or interpretations of the text.

For example in Revelation 13:18 the footnote states, “The letters of Nero’s name plus the title Caesar, given their numerical meaning in Hebrew and added together, make 666”. This makes it appear as if the meaning of 666 has been settled. Another is in in Daniel 9:24-27 where the footnote says that we can hardly take the seventy weeks of years as an exact historical period. I’m coming across such commentary footnotes practically every time I read the Bible.

Whether or not these footnotes are correct I don’t know, but I know there are opposing opinions which make just as much sense, and there are several footnotes here which seem to clarify the meaning of prophecies which may not yet be fulfilled (eg., 666). I wish they confined the footnotes to things that are not subject to debate such as alternate readings and clarification of difficult words.

I love this Bible and will just have to take the footnotes with a grain of salt, and consult a few commentaries when they make bold statements.

So my question (finally, after the rant) is, does anyone know who wrote these footnotes? Are they in the original Protestant RSV or just this RSV-2CE?

 

[Fidelis]

Here is what the Wikipedia entry on the RSV-CE says about it;

The RSV-CE [published in 1965-66] was based on the 1962 printing of the Protestant RSV… The editors of the Catholic Edition [the Catholic Biblical Association of Great Britain] made no changes to the Old Testament text; all they did was include the seven Deuterocanonical works in their traditional Catholic order. At the end of each testament, an appendix of explanatory and interpretive notes was added.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revised_Standard_Version_Catholic_Edition

In the Ignatius edition, between the Foreword and the Introduction at the front of the Bible, it says the editors were Dom Bernard Orchard (who was a highly regarded Catholic biblical scholar) and Reverend R.C. Fuller, who was also a Catholic Professor of Sacred Scripture (they also both collaborated on the highly regarded Catholic Commentary On Sacred Scripture which, I have heard, is now back in print.

As far as the value of the footnotes for the RSVCE go, it seems apparent that the editors were at pains to keep them to a minimum, not wanting to make this a “study Bible” but just addressing some commonly difficult passages with a minimalist approach. That is to say, conversely, they never intended it to do two things: [1] to address all sides of interpretative approaches to all of Scripture and [2] to give a definitive-- “official Catholic”-- interpretation to the verses or passages they did address. It may sound like they are putting forth a definitive interpretation, but that is just the style of Biblical commentary–it mostly reflects the view of the scholars that wrote that particularly commentary–this is true for any commentary you might read, a good thing to keep in mind.

(As you know, the Church herself has defined very, very few Scripture passages with an “official” interpretation. So unless the commentary strongly implies or states right out “this is what the Church says about this passage” keep the above in mind)

My own approach (if I refer to the footnotes at all) is to consider what they have to say and if they all helpful and satisfying, all well and good; if they are not, then I disregard them and look for other references.

Hope that helps.

 

[Russ_of_Tokyo]

Thank you, Fidelis, that answers my question. My 2006 Ignatius Bible RSV-2CE only has an introduction (to the 1966 edition) and it does not give the names of the editors, so your information was valuable. I assume the footnotes remain unchanged in this second edition. Since the footnotes appear in the Deuterocanonical books and make reference to the Catholic Church, they are clearly not from the original Protestant RSV. I noticed that after I had posted my question.

 

[JRRTFAN]

Thank you, Fidelis, that answers my question. My 2006 Ignatius Bible RSV-2CE only has an introduction (to the 1966 edition) and it does not give the names of the editors, so your information was valuable. I assume the footnotes remain unchanged in this second edition. Since the footnotes appear in the Deuterocanonical books and make reference to the Catholic Church, they are clearly not from the original Protestant RSV. I noticed that after I had posted my question.

I have both the CE and 2CE. The footnotes you refer to are only in 2CE and that version is one generation past the one edited by Dom Bernard Orchard. The language in 2CE has been updated in the “thees and thous” and is the ONLY English language Bible in conformance with Liturgiam Authenticam.

 

[Fidelis]

I have both the CE and 2CE. The footnotes you refer to are only in 2CE and that version is one generation past the one edited by Dom Bernard Orchard. The language in 2CE has been updated in the “thees and thous” and is the ONLY English language Bible in conformance with Liturgiam Authenticam.

They do appear in the Ignatius RSV-CE (the first edition with the blue cover, which I’m holding in my hand right now). As I mentioned, Dom Bernard Orchard is affirmed as the editor of this edition between the foreword and the introduction. The notes in question (referred to by the OP in the first post) are also in this first edition: the note in question for Daniel appears on page 1002 of the Old Testament, and the note in question on the Book of Revelation is on page 248 of the New Testament.

 

[Sheeniac]

Russ,

Many of the footnotes in other versions of the Bible (NAB, etc) are along the lines of literary criticism, which is in vogue with academics. I’ve found that the 2CE has more of a theological approach.

I have both the NT Study version and the version with the OT/NT. I’m in a diocesan 4 yr Scripture class and they teach the NAB/lit crit approach. While insightful, it does require many assumptions and a completely different perspective. I believe there are weaknesses to this approach that are swept under the rug.

So, when you look at other commentaries, be aware.

 

[Manfred]

They do appear in the Ignatius RSV-CE (the first edition with the blue cover, which I’m holding in my hand right now). As I mentioned, Dom Bernard Orchard is affirmed as the editor of this edition between the foreword and the introduction. The notes in question (referred to by the OP in the first post) are also in this first edition: the note in question for Daniel appears on page 1002 of the Old Testament, and the note in question on the Book of Revelation is on page 248 of the New Testament.

At least the original RSV-CE names the two scholars, unlike, it would seem, the RSV-2CE.

Can anyone tell me why the RSV-2CE did not fix Luke 1:34, where Mary asks, “How can this be…?” My understanding is it should read - as it does in the 1971 RSV NT, “How shall this be…?”

And, please, don’t anyone bother to tell me the (R)NAB also uses “can”; that is not at all a reasonable justification for legitimizing the auxiliary verb “can”, as opposed to “shall”, in this place.

 

[ajcstr]

So the question I have is, since the RSV is more or less a Protestant translation, do the footnotes in the Catholic Edition reflect this or do they reflect Catholic interpretations?

PS - I am just asking, not in any way trying to be negative about the translation.

 

[Manfred]

So the question I have is, since the RSV is more or less a Protestant translation, do the footnotes in the Catholic Edition reflect this or do they reflect Catholic interpretations?

PS - I am just asking, not in any way trying to be negative about the translation.

Please see the excellent response to your question in Fidelis’ post above (I believe it’s #2 in this thread).

 

[JM3]

At least the original RSV-CE names the two scholars, unlike, it would seem, the RSV-2CE.

Can anyone tell me why the RSV-2CE did not fix Luke 1:34, where Mary asks, “How can this be…?” My understanding is it should read - as it does in the 1971 RSV NT, “How shall this be…?”

And, please, don’t anyone bother to tell me the (R)NAB also uses “can”; that is not at all a reasonable justification for legitimizing the auxiliary verb “can”, as opposed to “shall”, in this place.

The note in the RSV-2CE for Luke 1:34 reads - ‘alternate reading is How will this be.’

 

[Manfred]

The note in the RSV-2CE for Luke 1:34 reads - ‘alternate reading is How will this be.’

Thank you for pointing this out. I don’t own an RSC-2CE, and therefore, don’t have one I can readily consult.

Then it should have been promoted to the text, and the “can” relegated to the footnotes.