Thanks to guest blogger Jonny for this post.
Fine Tuning For
The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible
I am just one of certainly many who deeply appreciate the
Ignatius Catholic Study Bible. As a
convert from Protestantism, the ICSB provided me with detailed, faithfully
Catholic notes to help me understand the Scriptures that had been interpreted to
me incorrectly in various ways by many people.
The ICSB and study questions also provided the resource for a group of
Catholic men at my parish to have an excellent Catholic Bible study (as the
priests are much to busy to lead every small group.) The RSV-2CE was the most universally
acceptable translation for this diverse group.
Cradle Catholics of various ages, Protestant converts, and
Traditionalists could find common ground in acceptance of this translation. Also, the ICSB notes and study questions
complemented and enhanced my RCIA experience, the homilies, and many other
things included in my search for a deep understanding of what the Catholic
Church believes. I would later find the
Haydock Bible, the older Catechisms, writings of Saints, and other resources,
but the ICSB remains for me in regular use as an excellent modern commentary on
Sacred Scripture. I look forward to the
release of the entire Bible.
Despite my appreciation of the ICSB, and my excitement
about the forthcoming edition containing the entire Bible, I do have some
qualms with the RSV-2CE translation that I would like to see changed before the
entire Bible is released in the next couple of years. These range from simple stylistic details
that are pet peeves, to things that conflict with the dictates of Liturgiam
Authenticam and things that are detrimental to the Christolgical continuity of
the Bible as a whole. I will list them
below in order of appearance.
1. Gen 12:3. Go
with the alternate reading “in you all the families of the earth shall be
blessed.” That is the interpretation quoted
by St. Paul in Gal 3:8, used in the CCC #59 & 2676, and also in the D-R,
KJV, ESV, and NRSV.
2. Gen 12:7, 13:15 & 16, 17:19, etc. “Descendants” is not a bad translation… until
you get to Galatians 3:16 in the NT and find out the word was meant to remain
ambiguous as being singular or plural as in the Hebrew and Greek words for “seed.” I personally like the traditional, literal
translation “seed,” and it shows continuity from Gen. 3:15 which also has “seed,”
but the NRSV and the ESV’s use of the word “offspring” is acceptable as well. Why purposely translate a Christological
reference out of the OT? One is
especially referred to the Genesis/Galatians passages in the NABRE to see an
even worse example of preserving the continuity of the Testaments.
3. Gen 22:1, 7, 11, 46:2, Ex 3:4, Is 6:8, 52:6, 65:1, Heb
2:13. “Here am I?!” How about “Here I am!” This also is not intended to be an exhaustive
list, and one should note the more natural English was used in most instances
in the D-R and KJV, and was brought back in the NRSV and ESV 2011.
4. Genesis 37:3, 23, 32.
Joseph’s “Long robe with sleeves.”
Take a cue from the ESV and go with the traditional rendering everyone wants
to hear: “a coat of many colors.” When
the Hebrew is obscure, the traditional rendering is a good choice, especially
when supported by the Vulgate and the Greek.
5. Ps. 16:10. “For
you do not give me up to Sheol, or let your godly one see the Pit.” Ignatius Press, thank you for Is. 7:14, but
can we see the NT quotation harmonized here as well? For “You will not let your Holy One see
corruption,” see Acts 13:35 and also Ps. 16 in the Revised Grail that will be
eventually incorporated into the NAB, LOTH, and Mass.
6. Ps. 109:8. “May
another seize his goods” would be better translated to conform to its quotation
in the NT, Acts 1:20. See the D-R, KJV,
Revised Grail Psalms, NABRE, ESV, etc.
7. Micah 5:2.
Prophecy of the Son of God coming in the flesh, “whose origin is from of
old, from ancient days.” The reality of
the Son’s eternity is better rendered in the D-R, KJV, and the ESV. The RSV revisers would have better left alone
the Revised Version’s “goings forth
are from of old, from everlasting.”
8. Unless I am
reading “Liturgiam Authenitcam” #23 incorrectly, I think we should seeing
“Amen” instead of “Truly,” and “Alleluia” instead of “Hallelujah” throughout
the NT. Other than this, the RSV-2CE
seems to follow LA fairly well, although I think a hyper-literal translation
with a rich Catholic flavor (based on the “classics” like the D-R and KJV) is
really what LA is calling for. I think
that if Ignatius followed the suggestions in this post the RSV-2CE would be
closer to the mark.
9. Matt. 5:32.
“Except on the ground of unchastity…”
I have heard this, like the NIV’s “marital unfaithfulness,”
misinterpreted to mean that divorce is permissible if one of the spouses
cheats. The traditional and more literal
“fornication” would be better here to convey the meaning of the situation (that
is quite different from adultery.) The
note in the RSV-CE helps explain the text, but ultimately the Biblical text
itself is most crucial in apologetics.
10. Luke 1:34.
Mary’s “How can this be, since I have no husband?” The first part, “How can this be” contradicts
many major translations including D-R, KJV, RSV 1971, NAB, NRSV, ESV that include
the traditional rendering “How shall this be.”
It also suggests a contradiction to Catholic doctrine that states that
the miraculous conception happened later at Mary’s acceptance (“be it done to
me according to thy word.” See CCC 494.)
The last part in the RSV’s “since I have no husband” is even more
erroneous. It even states in the ICSB
notes that Mary’s “betrothal to Joseph was already a legally binding marriage.”
Newer interpretations, such as the ESV and NRSV’s “How will this be, since I am
a virgin” also fall short in meaning, because the last thing a virgin maiden
engaged to be married would wonder about is how she might be getting
pregnant! It is a firm Catholic dogma that Mary was a
perpetual virgin (CCC 499), so she was not, obviously, intending to consummate
her marriage to Joseph. Only the
traditional, literal translation “since I don’t know man” really captures the
meaning. This is traditionally a widely
used verse for apologetics and catechesis regarding the Blessed Virgin Mary and
the miraculous conception of Jesus.
Don’t include a note that explains why this is a poor translation…
change the translation!
11. 1 Cor. 7:25, 28, 36, 37, 38. The Greek actually has “virgin,” not
“unmarried,” “girl,” or “betrothed.” I
think especially in the last 3 instances listed the interpretation is
detrimental to the meaning of the text and encourages someone to interfere with
a couple who are already engaged to married.
To Ignatius Press:
I get the impression from what I have read from Ignatius Press about the
RSV-2CE that the intention was to do as light of a revision as possible,
primarily removing archaic language, to make it liturgically acceptable. Therefore, the RSV-CE 1 & 2 would still
be relatively compatible. Given the
extent of the changes at this point, I personally don’t see that to be the
case. My advice is to go through the
entire Bible again without worrying about changing the RSV-CE so much, and make
any additional minor improvements, especially in the sour spots mentioned
above. Some of these readings are reasons
that Protestants and Catholics turned their noses up to the RSV long ago. You have done so much good to the RSV-CE so
far, why not go the rest of the way, and dispense, for the most part, with the
RSV-CE 1 & 2 and focus on getting the ICSB released in various
editions? The ICSB would make an
excellent Family Bible to read from as the rest of the family followed along in
their own smaller ICSB personal editions in various colors (including pink….) I would also strongly recommend a fresh
imprimatur and an at least an introduction by Scott Hahn, but lo, these are
subjects due their own post altogether.
To the Catholic Bibles blog
readers: What are your suggestions? Are there other things you think need to be
changed in the RSV-2CE? Are any of my
suggestions better left alone? If you
agree with my statements, please respond with support, and perhaps the good
people of Ignatius Press will see this post and consider fine tuning the ICSB
before it is released. To me, it looks
like the ICSB will be the best Catholic Study Bible in modern english for years
to come, but I would much rather say it is “excellent” in its own right, than to
say it is the simply the “best one available!”
