Why not use the RSV-CE for Mass instead of the NAB?

[garysibio]

Here are two observations regarding the NRSV noted by Michael Marlowe at bible-researcher.com:J.J.M. Roberts, a member of the NRSV translation committee, allows that the “inclusivity” of the NRSV makes it well-suited “for liturgical public reading,” but he points out that this advantage has come at a real price. After discussing the loss of particularity, emphasis, concreteness, and vividness in two passages of the Old Testament (Psalms 1 and 41), he gives the following comment on “brothers and sisters” as a translation for adelphoi in the New Testament:

It is likely that Paul was using the Greek term “brothers” in an inclusive sense … Nonetheless, Paul did not highlight a concern for inclusivity by using the compound expression “brothers and sisters.” To articulate this concern in translation by expressing what Paul left unexpressed is to impose a twentieth century, western cultural agenda on a first century text. Such anachronistic glosses make sociological or cultural appraisal of the world of the original text more difficult and cast doubts on the reliability of such a translation for serious historical work.
​

As hinted at by the above statement, the perception of a need for inclusive language is symptomatic of a larger liberal bias. This is made even more explicit here:Robert Jewett, professor of New Testament at Garrett-Northwestern Theological Seminary is himself a liberal, and a supporter of the feminist cause, but he insists upon the obligation of liberal scholars to behave honestly in translating the Bible. Regarding the NRSV he says: “We’re facing, with the NRSV, liberal dishonesty in spades. The modern liberated perspective which imposes itself on the text is about as dishonest as you can be. All the way through the NRSV, implying that Paul has all these liberated concepts and so forth like the current politically correct person in an Ivy League school: I mean that’s just ridiculous. Here you have the imposition of liberal prejudice on the biblical text with the ridiculous assumption that our modern liberal views were Paul’s.” Against the specious arguments offered by apologists for these politically correct alterations, Jewett declares that a gender-neutral translation that claims to be accurate is “almost as bad as Stalin’s revisions of world history in which every 10 years he’d change all the history textbooks.” These remarks were published in WORLD magazine, vol. 16, no. 6 (Feb. 13, 1998).

Very interesting. Thanks for posting it.

It must be a rather pathetic translation if even the liberals are complaining it’s too liberal.

Gary

 

[Spiller]

No, because when you look at the translation, compare it to the original languages and compare it to other translations, it falls short. You don’t have to rely on the opinions of others although some of the articles which have been published will give you a good place to start looking. You also do not need to speak Greek or Hebrew. I don’t. There are plenty of sites on the Web that are helpful. I recommend the Blue Letter Bible which is very helpful in looking at the original languages.

Gary

It’s certainly DIFFERENT than the RSVCE but I’m not so sure it “falls short.” In fact I rather doubt the Holy See would approve a version of the Bible that “falls short.”

The NAB is no where near my favorite translation of the Bible but it more than gets the job done.

 

[puzzleannie]

I

At least the Spanish lectionary (the one we use in the United States comes from Mexico) isn’t terrible.

there is not Spanish lectionary in the US. most dioceses use the one from Mexico, but that is problematic in dioceses where the majority of Hispanics are not of Mexican extraction. Still waiting for a US Spanish Lectionary. there are at least 3 versions of missals and missalettes used in here, and none of them agree in scripture translations (gospels are the worst), but at least only 1 is inclusive language.

I also cannot for the life of me understand why, if the bishops hold the copyright on the NAB, they cannot publish a bible that agrees with the lectionary. what am I missing? The only reason we purchase the NAB for parish use is that it is supposed to correspond most closely with the lectionary, but then you compare the actual bible to the missalette, and lo, differences, esp. the psalms.

my own personal standard applied to various translations esp. OT:
imagine it being read aloud by James Earl Jones, if it doesn’t sound bibilical when he reads, it doesn’t pass my test.

 

[porthos11]

I assume that the Oxford University Press and the Ignatius Edition are the same? How different is the Ignatius Second Catholic Edition compared to the first? thanks,

Yes and no. Ignatius also rebrands the Oxford edition as the “Ignatius Bible Reader’s Edition” but the two are basically identical. They are the 1st edition RSV-CE retypeset and rebound. It’s much easier then the original RSV (currently marketed as the “blue” Ignatius Bible).

The Second Catholic Edition is basically the RSV-CE with minor changes incorporated, such as the removal of most archaic words, and the revision of certain obscure passages to harmonize with the Nova Vulgata. The changes were recommended by the CDW for the Ignatius RSV Lectionary and backported into the RSV-IE Bible.

And although there was much complaining about the claim on the other thread, the RSV Second Catholic edition is the only Bible in print that meets the requirements of Liturgiam Authenticam to the CDW’s satisfaction.

 

[garysibio]

It’s certainly DIFFERENT than the RSVCE but I’m not so sure it “falls short.” In fact I rather doubt the Holy See would approve a version of the Bible that “falls short.”

The NAB is no where near my favorite translation of the Bible but it more than gets the job done.

I think these links, which someone else provided but I don’t remember who, will explain what I meant by “falls short” and why I think it does.

adoremus.org/0306BibleTranslations.html
merecomments.typepad.com/merecomments/2007/07/bible-babble-re.html

Gary

 

[Cranch]

Yes and no. Ignatius also rebrands the Oxford edition as the “Ignatius Bible Reader’s Edition” but the two are basically identical. They are the 1st edition RSV-CE retypeset and rebound. It’s much easier then the original RSV (currently marketed as the “blue” Ignatius Bible).

Was that a typo? The “blue” Ignatius Bible is not the “original RSV.” It is the RSV-CE, 1st edition. And it is different from the Oxford RSV-CE. Which means the Ignatius Bible-Reader’s Edition, being an Oxford RSV-CE by another name, is different from the blue Ignatius Bible.

Here is what CAF member rocketrob received in 2006 from Ignatius in answer to his related query on this subject:“The Compact Bibles* and our forthcoming Readers’ Edition Bible, are the Oxford University Press edition of the RSV-CE. We do not know the history of this version or why it might differ from the Ignatius Bible, which was based on the version published by Thomas Nelson. Presumably, the people at OUP obtained permission to change a few words, just as we did.”

• I don’t know if this refers to Oxford’s Compact Edition or Ignatius’ Compact Edition which is smaller than their Reader’s Edition. I’m guessing the Ignatius Compact is again a copy of the Oxford, even though their web site description calls it a version of the Ignatius Bible, meaning the blue RSV-CE. :hypno:

 

[porthos11]

Was that a typo? The “blue” Ignatius Bible is not the “original RSV.” It is the RSV-CE, 1st edition.

You know what I mean.

And it is different from the Oxford RSV-CE. Which means the Ignatius Bible-Reader’s Edition, being an Oxford RSV-CE by another name, is different from the blue Ignatius Bible.

Nope, except for a very few words. The Reader’s Edition is virtually identical to the original RSV-CE with new typesetting.

 

[Cranch]

Was that a typo? The “blue” Ignatius Bible is not the “original RSV.” It is the RSV-CE, 1st edition.

You know what I mean.

I sort of did, but it’s possible someone else might have been confused.

And it is different from the Oxford RSV-CE. Which means the Ignatius Bible-Reader’s Edition, being an Oxford RSV-CE by another name, is different from the blue Ignatius Bible.

Nope, except for a very few words. The Reader’s Edition is virtually identical to the original RSV-CE with new typesetting.

I know you’ve seen this comparison table. It shows SOME of the variation between the Oxford RSV-CE (which you’ve already noted is the same as the Ignatius Reader’s Ed.) and the original Ignatius RSV-CE. Starting with the fact that the Ignatius is based on the 1959 RSV and the Oxford is based on the 1971 RSV. Obviously, all Catholic RSVs are similar. After all, the 1971 RSV revised the New Testament only. But it seems to me the fact that they do differ is what makes the Ignatius/Oxford question interesting because I’m not sure they were ever meant to.

 

[porthos11]

I sort of did, but it’s possible someone else might have been confused.

I know you’ve seen this comparison table. It shows SOME of the variation between the Oxford RSV-CE (which you’ve already noted is the same as the Ignatius Reader’s Ed.) and the original Ignatius RSV-CE. Starting with the fact that the Ignatius is based on the 1959 RSV and the Oxford is based on the 1971 RSV. Obviously, all Catholic RSVs are similar. After all, the 1971 RSV revised the New Testament only. But it seems to me the fact that they do differ is what makes the Ignatius/Oxford question interesting because I’m not sure they were ever meant to.

Not the Reader’s Edition. You may be talking about the compacts, which do resemble the 1971. The Reader’s Edition appears to go back to the 1966 CE with very minor variation.

 

[Cranch]

Not the Reader’s Edition. You may be talking about the compacts, which do resemble the 1971. The Reader’s Edition appears to go back to the 1966 CE with very minor variation.

What am I missing here? AFAIK, all Oxford RSV-CEs are based off the 1971 RSV. You have already said:

Ignatius also rebrands the Oxford edition as the “Ignatius Bible Reader’s Edition” but the two are basically identical.

In 2006 someone from Ignatius said:

"The Compact Bibles and our forthcoming Readers’ Edition Bible, are the Oxford University Press edition of the RSV-CE.

Color me confused!

 

[Bible_Reader]

It is a long and treacherous story, but . . .

The RSV-CE was prepared from the 1962 printing of the RSV. There were a small number of changes to the New Testament, and a number of notes added. You can find the list of changes here.

In 1971, the RSV New Testament was released in a second edition, incorporating many of the changes already made in the RSV-CE.

When Oxford began publishing its compact RSV-CEs (under Oxford’s imprint, the Ignatius imprint, and the Scepter imprint) it did not have an electronic copy of the RSV-CE. Oxford used the list of changes to the New Testament. Unfortunately, instead of using a 1962 base, it used the RSV second edition 1971 base for its changes. As a result, the early Oxfords incorporate some 1971 revisions (none of which appear to be theologically significant.) This creates a concern for some, because a few of the 1971 revisions are not covered under the 1966 imprimatur granted to the RSV-CE.

Oxford has been trying to clean up this mess in later printings (such as the printing of the Reader’s Edition).

 

[porthos11]

What am I missing here? AFAIK, all Oxford RSV-CEs are based off the 1971 RSV. You have already said:

Compacts, yes. Readers (i.e. full-sized), no. The Reader’s Edition goes back to the 1966. Check it out sometime.

 

[consumedconvert]

I have heard it said that whoever translated the NAB seems to have had a “tin ear,” whereas the RSV-CE 2nd Ed. is rather supurbly worded.

Also, in a word, I’m boondoggled over all the fuss you hear some places about “Protestant translations,” a term which is sometimes used against the translations that employed Protestant translators (Like the RSV-CV 2nd Ed.). To which I reply, whatever. A scholar is a scholar, no matter how Protestant; and it must be admitted, they have some very fine scholars, and Biblical scholars in larger numbers than we have (for the rather obvious reason that the Bible’s “it” for them). As long as you have an amittedly Catholic scholar in the editing room somewhere keeping watch over things, I see no reason why a translation by an ecumenical translation team can’t be truly deemed “Catholic.”

CC

 

[garysibio]

I have heard it said that whoever translated the NAB seems to have had a “tin ear,” whereas the RSV-CE 2nd Ed. is rather supurbly worded.

Also, in a word, I’m boondoggled over all the fuss you hear some places about “Protestant translations,” a term which is sometimes used against the translations that employed Protestant translators (Like the RSV-CV 2nd Ed.). To which I reply, whatever. A scholar is a scholar, no matter how Protestant; and it must be admitted, they have some very fine scholars, and Biblical scholars in larger numbers than we have (for the rather obvious reason that the Bible’s “it” for them). As long as you have an amittedly Catholic scholar in the editing room somewhere keeping watch over things, I see no reason why a translation by an ecumenical translation team can’t be truly deemed “Catholic.”

CC

I’m not one to have a big problem using translations done by Protestants but some of them, the NIV and the Amplified Bible in particular, have a very anti-Catholic bias that makes them unacceptible.

Gary

 

[consumedconvert]

I’m not one to have a big problem using translations done by Protestants but some of them, the NIV and the Amplified Bible in particular, have a very anti-Catholic bias that makes them unacceptible.

Gary

Agreed. I too wouldn’t spend much time studying an unapproved translation, because translations meant for Protestants will have their biases built into the translation, although there are relatively few of those “problem areas” and in most translations anyway the translators are simply doing the best they can, but still translating things according to a Protestant hermaneutic. All told, however, there are some amazing works of Protestant Biblical scholarship. The NET Bible comes to mind. Something like sixty thousand footnotes. Not what I’d use as my primary Bible, but if I had a textual question…

JR