The Holy Bible: Revised Standard Version, Second Catholic Edition

by Anonymous

A newly designed and typeset edition of the popular Ignatius Revised Standard Version-Catholic Edition Bible. This contemporary English translation revises archaic language of the first edition, but avoids dumbing-down the text. It retains the beauty of the RSV language that makes the Ignatius Bible such a joy to read. Now the only contemporary Catholic Bible translation in standard English is even more beautiful in word and design!

Features:
• Completely re-designed and newly typeset: Wider margins and improved line spacing for comfortable reading.
• The RSV, second Catholic edition is the only Bible translation that uses standard (non-feminist) English and is in conformity with the Church's translation guidelines found in the Vatican document, Liturgiam Authenticam
• Nine reference maps in color:

1. The Nations of Genesis Chapter 10

2. The Exodus from Egypt

3. The Conquest of Canaan

4. The Kingdom Years

5. Jerusalem - From David to Christ

6. Palestine in Christ's Time

7. Paul's First and Second Journeys

8. Paul's Third and Fourth Journeys

9. The Holy Land in Modern Times.
• Approximate dimensions: 6" x 9".

Genres: Religion, Catholic, Reference, Theology, Faith, Christian, Nonfiction

1096 pages, Leather Bound

First published January 1, 1966

About the author

Books can be attributed to "Anonymous" for several reasons:

* They are officially published under that name
* They are traditional stories not attributed to a specific author
* They are religious texts not generally attributed to a specific author

Books whose authorship is merely uncertain should be attributed to Unknown.

See also: Anonymous

Reviews

[booklady · Rating 5 out of 5]

We did it! Dear husband and I took our pastor's challenge to ‘read the Bible and the Catechism in a year’. We began on the 4th of February last year and we followed this guide a handy little fold-out which you mark off as you go. We would read a couple chapters from the Old Testament, something from the Wisdom literature, followed by the New Testament and several paragraphs from the Catechism each night. In the beginning we doubled up in hopes of doing it in a 1/2 year. It ended up we missed more days than we read for various reasons, but the important thing is we did NOT quit! Yay!

We think we are gonna do a Bible study next.

[Ryan · Rating 5 out of 5]

After studying all 73 books in 4 years of Biblical School, two primary conclusions:

1. There is no possible way dozens of human authors could weave together this love story in such intricate fashion, over the course of 1,500 years, without inspiration from God. The connections, with Jesus Christ as the climax, are endless.

2. This is a profoundly Catholic book. To separate it from the Church founded by Jesus Christ Himself is to cut off its life. And to accept this book but not the Church that produced it is also, quite ironically, to contradict the book itself.

May Christendom reunite. St. Jerome, pray for us!

[7jane · Rating 4 out of 5]

RSV, second Catholic Edition, with a 1966 introduction and a bunch of maps at the end. Unlike some other Catholic Bibles I've read, this one doesn't have Prayer Of Manasseh. In OT each book has a small introduction. Some notes throughout, standard middle-of-the-road Catholic opinions.

Like with other Bible read-throughs, each time brings some new realizations (like the fact Adam & Eve didn't get the chance to taste the fruit (if there was any) of the Tree Of Life - which would've given them immortality). The pages were bigger than on other Bible I've read, so I got more to read with daily 5-page reading. The name lists still feel long in OT, but I can find some names funny (Muppim and Huppim strike again!). There's "Ben-Hur" in 1.Kings 4:8 (thinking of that book, which was a dnf for me). I thought about what Job wasn't mentioned to have lost: his house, his lands, his non-children relatives... And of course there are doubled stories: Adam's creation, Daniel in lions' den...
There was a lot of previously-overlooked things I found, and that was great.

In NT I realised there was the untold tale of Peter meeting Jesus alone, after Jesus r0se from his death and met women, but before the disciples as a group (Paul knew about this, and also about James's later alone meeting of Jesus - but he doesn't mention women seeing Jesus first). And I increasingly feel critical towards Paul about some of his opinions (maybe later very early addings but still), and think there might've been some remaining Phariseeisms in there. I would've liked to know more about other apostles beyond what is shown in Acts, but since Luke was such a follower of Paul, we get what we get, which holds still good information though.

My faves, currently:
of OT: Ruth, Tobit, Judith, Esther (the one without addings though), Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Song Of Solomon, Jeremiah, Lamentations
of NT: Mark, Luke, Hebrews, Revelation (Apocalypse)

Each Bible is its own experience, some give more, some less, but it's always interesting. This one was big in size compared to some others I've read, but the text flowed good. Time to start another version :)

[Toni · Rating 5 out of 5]

I read along with Fr. Mike Schmitz and the Bible in a Year podcast from Ascension press. It was great. I'm going to start again today. 🙂

[Mir · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was the edition of the Bible used by my theology professor in college. It seems to strike a good balance between being pretty accurate translation and still reasonably well-written, and it has good footnotes, especially for things like cross-references between books of the Bible and possible alternate connotations of words.

[Orchid · Rating 5 out of 5]

Why yes, yes I did read the ENTIRE Bible this year.

[Noah Calcagno · Rating 5 out of 5]

Really enjoyed this translation. Very readable.

[Dina (ReviewTime) · Rating 5 out of 5]

To view the photos at their full size click on "see full album". Then move your mouse over the photo, your mouse pointer will look like a little magnifiglass, then click the photo. The photos at their full size are pretty detailed. These photos were taken the date I published this article. I've owned this Bible for almost a year, and it still looks brand new. I've been using this Bible several times a week, along with my Chronological Study Bible for study. I'm impressed that this tiny Bible has held up so well.

About the binding & cover
The cover is made from Bonded Leather, Bonded leather is tiny bits of leather reformed to make one sold sheet of leather. Bonded leather doesn't last as long as Genuine Leather. But does certainly out last paperbacks, & has a nice leathery feel. This is a travel size Bible, as you can see from the photos there is a zipper along the sides to protect the pages from getting bent, or torn. This makes carrying the Bible in my purse a lot easier. I also like that the publisher added a Miraculous Medal for a zipper pull (Very Cute Idea)

Whats in side?
The text size isn't too small, please note that this is in comparison to other small travel Bibles. The paper is thin, I wouldn't recommend using high lighters in this Bible. I use Crayola color pencils they have a smother edge & don't rip the pages. I am kind of disappointed that there isn't any subject headers for each chapter, like in many Bibles. But there are spaces in between each subject so you could write you own titles if you have a small hand writing.

In the front of this Bible you'll find

1. Table contents
2. Tables explaining the weights & measures of the Bible
3. Places to write family records/history
4. A page explaining the abbreviations that you'll find at the bottom of some pages.
5. The Imprimatur, which show that the Catholic Church approves this translation.
6. An introduction the RSV-CE
7. The Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation Dei Verum 18 nov 1965.


In the back you'll find

1. Appendix 1 explanatory notes for the New testament. (The Old Testament Appendix is placed at the end of the Old Testament)
2. Appendix 2 list the changes in the RSV the New testament for the Catholic Edition
3. The Last three pages are of Catholic Prayers and Devotions (I really love this Idea)


About this Translation.
The Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition is widely used by conservative Catholic scholars and theologians, and is accepted as one of the most accurate and literary Bible translations suitable for Catholic use. This translation uses some archaic language. This translation does not use gender-inclusive language. The Revised Standard Version stands within the tradition of the Authorized King James Version, which was updated in 1885 in the UK as the Revised Version, with an American edition known as the American Standard Version published in 1901. The latter version was revised in 1952, and known as the Revised Standard Version. The National Council of Churches, publishers of the Protestant RSV Bible, made arrangements with the Catholic Biblical Association of Great Britain to print a Catholic RSV Bible. In 1965, the RSV-CE New Testament was published and in 1966, the full RSV-CE Bible. The editors of the Catholic Edition made no changes to the Old Testament text; all they did was include the seven Deuterocanonical works (also known the Apocrypha) in their traditional Catholic order. There are certain passages in the New Testament that were changed to fall inline with the Latin Vulgate. For a full list of these changes check Appendix 1 in the back of the Bible.

[Fr. Peter Mottola · Rating 4 out of 5]

This translation of the Bible, possibly the best "contemporary" translation of the Bible in English, has been critiqued more thoroughly and eloquently by others than I could even attempt to do, and so I will share only my general impression. While generally a respectable scholarly accomplishment, the RSV has some famous lapses. For example, reflecting the squeamishness of the mid-20th-century, Our Lady's question following the angel's announcement that she, a virgin, was to give birth, is: "How can this be, since I have no husband?" (Mt 1:34) Of course many women without husbands have given birth, and this is no great mystery. The English of the RSV hardly captures <<ανδρα ου γινωσκω>> as does the King James' "I know not a man" or the Douay-Rheims' "I know not man". Elsewhere, the translation simply errs on the side of caution, producing a somewhat 'wooden' English when a more idiomatic translation might seem insufficiently Holy.
Ultimately, my judgment on the whole project of modern translations is that of John Senior: "For cultural purposes, there are only two English Bibles: for the Protestants the King James Version and for Catholics the Douay-Rheims. Both are literary masterpieces as none other even remotely is. Since spiritual mysteries can only be communicated through poetry, whatever more modern versions may gain in accuracy is nothing compared to what is lost."
The RSV attempts to "update" the 1611 translation into contemporary English while maintaining the KJV's general structure and "feel," and while it is on the whole successful at doing so, I am not convinced that such a project can have lasting value.
So as not to merely set my own position against a straw man, I will quote what is probably the best concise defense of vernacular translation ever given, the introduction written by C.S. Lewis to the work "Letters to Young Churches: A Translation of the New Testament Epistles" by J. B. Phillips (1947). Lewis argues: "The truth is that if we are to have translation at all we must have periodical re-translation. There is no such thing as translating a book into another language once and for all, for a language is a changing thing. If your son is to have clothes it is no good buying him a suit once and for all: he will grow out of it and have to be re-clothed." The meaning of certain English words has certainly changed since the early seventeenth or late sixteenth century. Reading the KJV or DR unaided is a challenging task even for the relatively well-educated. But the lesson I draw from the 20th century is that the multiplicity of Bible translations, each trying desperately to pass itself off as "the best" English translation (or, whose Publishers propose it so in order to line their pockets with filthy lucre), has produced great division amongst faithful readers of Holy Scripture, and wholly unnecessary arguments between them about which translation to use. Let us stick to the old standards for communal reading, and use modern English translations only for private devotions or aid in study.
Msgr. Ronald Knox (whose 1949 translation of Holy Writ has inexplicably become popular in recent years with Catholics who wish to set themselves apart from their Protestant friends) explored with a little more specificity Lewis' notion that "we must have periodical re-translation". In his essay "Thoughts on Bible Translation," Knox opined, "anybody who tries to do a new translation of the Bible in these days should aim at producing something which will not, in fifty or a hundred years’ time, be 'dated.' In a word, what you want is neither sixteenth-century English nor twentieth-century English, but timeless English. Whether you can get it, is another question."
Having looked briefly at two great thinkers who champion modern translations, I will return to my central question about the RSV, asking this question using a phrase of Knox: is the Revised Standard Version "timeless English"? My answer to this question is: No, it is very much a product of its times. The original RSV New Testament was published in 1946. It was revised (the Revised Revised Standard Version?) in 1971, and subsequently the RSV splintered into several popular translations based upon it: the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) in 1989, the English Standard Version (ESV) in 2001, and the Revised Standard Version Second Catholic Edition (RSV2CE) in 2006 (itself an updated first Catholic edition, published in 1966). Now, comparing these dates to Knox's fear that a translation might become dated "in fifty or a hundred years’ time," one might question the success of the project! The RSV tried to achieve "timeless English" by sticking closely to the structure of the King James, but just a few decades after its the publication of the first edition, the "thees and thous" were removed, reflecting changing tastes and very significantly shifting the register of the language used. If the RSV was ever an attempt to be "neither sixteenth-century English nor twentieth-century English," it must be said that it didn't even survive the twentieth-century unscathed! Furthermore, one of the great tragedies of our times is reflected in its history: the NRSV and ESV revisions of the RSV are liberal and conservative editions, respectively. And so even this one lone translation becomes a source of division within Christianity. How sad that Christians have no common text from which to read.
The English language changes, and therefore no translation will ever accomplish definitively the task of making plain the meaning of the ancient languages. Can one reach back through the millennia and bring into the present moment the sense of words written in those languages that once proclaimed the crucified Christ as King of the Jews? If one tries to do so, one must periodically revise one's work, simply because the 'present moment' is present for only a moment.
Given this, I would propose that we revisit the image given by Lewis: "If your son is to have clothes it is no good buying him a suit once and for all: he will grow out of it and have to be re-clothed." Maybe our search for the "best" English translation is not a search for the one that meets the needs of the here and now. Maybe the "definitive" English translation is a piece of clothing that can be one unchanging size and yet fit for its purpose, and even handed down through the generations: not a suit, but a baptismal garment. The Douay-Rheims is the gown worn by your infant grandfather, which if God be so good you might live to see outfit your great-grandson. It is everyone's beginning, the first dress in which one is clothed, and out of which one grows only after maturation. That is to say, once one has been awed by the majesty of the Word as presented in all its ancient splendor, perhaps one might be moved to explore the details of the Scripture, reading multiple translations so as to better arrive at the sense of this or that passage. But for many, entering into the wider exploration of these details is something they will leave to others of a more academic persuasion. The many will be content with this simple baptismal garment, content indeed to remain like little children as Our Lord commanded, fulfilling by their prayerful meditation on the venerable version of Scripture the admonition they received at their baptism: "Take this robe and keep it spotless until you arrive at the judgment seat of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you may be rewarded with everlasting life."

[Tony Laplume · Rating 5 out of 5]

Read through the Bible for the very first time, did a thoroughly scholarly approach insofar as I took notes on all the aspects that interested me beyond a strictly religious matter (results not to be regurgitated here). (Although I did plenty of note-taking on all the ways the Old Testament parallels the New Testament, too.) Suffice to say, very interesting results. Along the way I discovered some truly good reading hidden within this massive collection that most people probably would never even consider discovering (including the fact that considerable stretches read like a Jewish Game of Thrones) even if they actually read it, given their approach is to take all of it not for a reading experience but something that must be taken deadly solemnly, so that most of what it contains completely escapes them. Reading it, by the way, also completely explains what the differences are between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (which is basically old-school Judaism), all well before leaving the Old Testament. I'm also convinced that reading the Bible thoroughly is enough to change even a religious person's perspective. If it shakes your faith, hopefully in a good way. It's not as easy to interpret as perhaps many thousands of years have suggested, but by the end of it, hopefully you see that it still makes sense, in ways you probably never previously imagined. As far as my new interpretation goes, the start of it begins with Adam, who is traditionally considered based on scripture to be the first person ever. But what if he were simply the very first person ever in contact with God?

[Anthony Ventrello · Rating 5 out of 5]

What can more can be said that hasn't already been said? It's the Bible! The greatest and the best-selling book of all-time? My spiritual guide book for all paths in life!

Unlike the Protestant Bible, this one has some extra books! The Book of Tobit is totally awesome! It's too bad the protestants are missing out! But then again, we Catholics have a lot of stuff they don't have: the blessed Virgin Mary, the Saints, etc. etc. You almost feel sorry for them. Almost.

[Ron · Rating 5 out of 5]

Read the Revised Standard Version of the Bible (yes, the whole thing) when I was about thirteen. Had read parts of the New Testament previously and, like many of my generation, grew up hearing Bible stories everywhere. Remember being impressed by the huge flow of history found in the first half of the Old Testament. Didn't realize that Genesis to Esther was one continuous narrative.

A very good read.

[Thomas GOSSE · Rating 5 out of 5]

In my opinion the original RSV is the best English translation of the bible available. This version has all the deuterocanonical books accepted by Catholics (but not all those accepted by the Orthodox Church.) Isaiah 7:14 is accurately translated according to the Septuagint: "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."

[Becky · Rating 5 out of 5]

It took me longer than a year to finish the bible. There were some books that I didn't understand, some that were difficult to finish, and some that I kept going back to over and over again. I learned that I loved Psalms and Sirach and that I should probably take a class to understand St. Paul's writings. My appreciation for the Old Testament is so great after this read. Was it St. Jerome who said "Ignorance of Scripture is Ignorance of God"?

[zaK young · Rating 5 out of 5]

blood, sex, lust, avarice, prostitution, greed, masturbation, talking donkeys, walking on water, death, destruction, dismay, dismemberment, hatred, love, resurrection of the dead, life everlasting

[Lisa]

I hope it's OK to read the Catholic Edition even if you're not Catholic. It has study notes!

[Rachel Thooft · Rating 5 out of 5]

Well, what can I say? It's the Bible and this is absolutely the best version out there for Catholics by far! Read this one! Not the NAB! Endorsed by Mother Angelica, too!

[Lamsouth · Rating 5 out of 5]

I like this interpretation more than the New American Bible. It is a little more elegant in its wording as the NAB is simple and basic.

[Yan Ran]

Read the Book of Genesis for a literature module

[Jean-Pierre Vidrine · Rating 4 out of 5]

As one who is of the faith, it is more than a little strange to be critiquing the Bible. But, man of faith that I am, I am with all things myth and Bible a strict non-literalist. Indeed, I consider the latter no different than the former. This critique will mostly be about the annotations of this particular edition.
While the translators and scholars are good about pointing out how words and phrases can differ in some translations, and are good here and there at noting when the ascribed author of a book is probably not really its writer, I do feel that they could have/should have gone farther in pointing out the non-historicity of certain key texts.
Yes, it is pointed out that the Genesis is "not to present a scientific picture but to teach religious truth," which is fine. I am not a creationist and never want to be associated with them. However, with Exodus and the Gospels, nothing is stated to dismiss views of these stories as history. Not only has archeological evidence completely blown apart the idea of the story of Moses as fact, but there is ample evidence that the story of Jesus as written is the result of myth-making.
Perhaps I expect too much from pious individuals who, probably unconsciously, hold onto that much of a literalist view of the text.
The scholars also do not go far enough in explaining/dismissing so many parts that constitute arbitrary rules born of an earlier less enlightened time. Again, perhaps I expect too much.
I will likely read the Bible again, but I will stick with those parts that are mythical: the Genesis, the Exodus, and the Gospels. And I will read them for what they are: myths.

[Steven R. McEvoy · Rating 5 out of 5]

I recently received two bibles to review. This one is The Bible in a premium leather edition. And a New Testament, which looks the same except blue leather instead of green. The first thing I noticed was that they were almost the exact same size. The difference is the paper. The New Testament has much thicker paper. The paper in this one is not the onion paper think you get with many modern bibles. It is about halfway between that super thin and the heavy grade found in the New Testament. They are both single column design. With wide margins with lots of space for notes and thoughts to be written. This New Testament is a wonderful edition for reading. It has no footnotes and minimal endnotes.

The book is well put together. And should last for years. My youngest daughter loves it and wants her own copy. I started reading both editions when they arrived. This one in Genesis and the NT one in Matthew. I have read the RSV version before and was one of three we could quote from academically when I did my Religious Studies Degree with a focus on Roman Catholic Thought.

To be honest this is a good bible for just reading. My son likes the look of both the Lather and softcover editions. The cover of the softcover really appeals to him. I like the heft and feel of the Leather edition. It is a great non-study bible option.

Read the review on my blog Book Reviews and More.

Note: This book is part of a series of reviews: 2020 Catholic Reading Plan!

[Luis Dizon · Rating 5 out of 5]

I have many years of analyzing and comparing different translations of the Bible, so I'm pretty good at telling when a translation is a good translation and when it's not. Generally speaking, I look for three things:

1) Formal equivalence in translation philosophy (sticks to the wording and syntax of the original Hebrew and Greek; avoids paraphrasing)
2) Avoidance of gender-neutral language (e.g. keep "man" as "man," not change it to "humanity" or "people", as in Psalm 8:4)
3) Avoidance of anti-supernatural biases in translation (the old RSV was guilty of this when it translated "almah" in Isaiah 7:14 as "young woman." Thankfully the RSV2CE fixed this and changed it back to "virgin")

In all these three criteria, I found that the RSV2CE consistently performed best out of all the contemporary Catholic edition translations. It also helps that some stellar Catholic bible scholars such as Dr. Scott Hahn and Fr. Mitch Pacwa use and endorse it. For these reasons it is my preferred translation for bible study purposes.

[Jimmy · Rating 1 out of 5]

This is supposed to be a Catholic version of the Bible, but I found several problems with this, such as mistranslating what the Bible actually says. The booklet Which Bible Should You Read? goes into more detail about the various (serious) problems this translation has. For example, it mistranslates Genesis 3:15 as "he shall bruise your head and you shall bruise his heel", when the pronoun should be "she/her". It also leaves out thirteen verses of Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) chapter 24. The explanatory notes for the first two chapters of Genesis make it sound like this passage is compatible with Darwinian evolution. The notes for chapter 6 all but call Noah's flood a myth ("The writer may be using an old story or myth . . ." and "It is, in places, remarkably similar to other Flood stories from the ancient New East").

[Eric Williams · Rating 2 out of 5]

On the one hand, this version has major problems. First of all, the original translation was made by heretics, who most likely don't agree with the Catholic Church on any issue. Second, while trying to create a common translation is (I suppose) a worthy endeavor, the Church already has a common Bible, the Vulgate.

However, to give this edition its due, there are several features which I do like over the Douay-Rheims Bible. For example, it puts Esther 10:4 to 16:24 back in their original places in the Septuagint text. Also, it uses Arabic numbers rather than Roman numerals for chapter numbers. The language was updated to modern English and modern punctuation (quotation marks for quotes! individual verses no longer divided into separate paragraphs!).

[Jim · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Revised Standard Version is an excellent translation. It combines the classic structures of the King James Version, phrases and elements that have become part of the fabric of our lives and history, with a modern clarity, and removes archaisms. I set out to read through it in one year, and it's not far off to say that it's been life-changing for me. A small example -- until going through it in its totality, I didn't really have a feeling for the prophetic voice. What's more, it's kind of addicting. I've made scripture a habit now, and this was a solid edition to start with.

[Adam · Rating 5 out of 5]

Generally regarded by scholars around the world to be one of the most accurate translatios of the Bible into English. Some editions (such as the NRSV) even include those books found in the Orthodox and Eastern Scripture Canons, making it ideal for students of theology and history. The language is highly static and therefore more difficult to read smoothly. The best choice for Seminary classes and more advanced Biblical scholarship.

[Meri · Rating 5 out of 5]

Grateful for this time and amazing audio apps that accompanied me in journey through the Bible. I recommend Fr. Mike Schmitz Bible in a Year podcast for those looking to get started. There are so many beautiful translations of the Word. I enjoyed the simplicity of the Ignatian Bible: Revised Standard Edition and the commentary of the Great Adventure Bible.

[Danielle · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is the Holy Book, a must read for every breathing human. The incredible thing about it is that you can read the same paragraph over and over and you will gain a different or deeper insight every time. Beware this book could turn you around 180*

[Jessica · Rating 5 out of 5]

I just finished reading through the NT again so now I'm starting at the beginning, the very beginning; Genesis and am going to read through the OT again.

[Tim · Rating 5 out of 5]

Man does not live by bread alone...