Well, if you have been a regular reader of Marc’s blog, you might wonder where this “update” might come from, since there is no prior post concerning this topic. Well, I have been reading through the Book of Sirach this month with the complete Ignatius Catholic Study Bible close by. As I was reading, I kept noticing the various places that the RSV-2CE followed the Vulgate by adding additional verses not found in the Greek. And I asked myself: “I wonder if any one had ever blogged about that?” So, I did what any reasonable person would do and initiated a google search. And guess what I discovered dear reader? I, myself, had indeed blogged about it back in 2011 on my old blog. You can read the post here along with the many wonderful comments.
Now, one of the questions that we considered back in 2011 was whether or not the completed ICSB would address the lack of textual notes indicating in the RSV-2CE where they parted from the Greek (of the original RSV-CE) to follow the Vulgate. We were a bit critical, at the time, that Ignatius Press did not alert the reader to these issues in the textual notes of the standard RSV-2CE. I am happy to say (although I am sure many are you are aware since you may have already purchased the one volume version of Sirach or the full study Bible) that indeed the commentary does indicate where the RSV-2CE follows the Vulgate rendering. There is also a helpful comment made about the literary background of Sirach in the ICSB introduction, page 1068: “Adding to the complexity of the situation, the New Vulgate, upon which the RSV2CE is largely based, sometimes diverges from the Clementine Vulgate in order to follow the Greek text more clearly (e.g. 3:10, 24).” Problem solved! Well done Ignatius Press.
Thank you to Marc for allowing me to contribute to Catholic Bible Talk so that I can happily bring “closure” to some of my more ancient blog posts.
I chuckle (and cry) a little whenever I celebrate the votive Mass of “Mary Mother of Fairest love,” because that title isn’t in any non-Vulgate main text of Sirach 24 – including the proper lectionary reading for that Mass!
I’d love to know just how “largely based” the RSV2CE is on the Nova Vulgata. To what extent, and in what ways, did the Latin Church’s standard biblical text influence, guide, and shape the RSV2CE?
I personally haven’t found the RSV-2CE to be largely based on the New Vulgate (NV). I have looked into this quite a bit and have not found a whole lot of difference between the RSV-CE, which is not based on the NV (considering the NV wasn’t even in existence at the time), and the RSV-2CE. There were some word changes and other textual changes, but the vast majority of the changes were simply updating archaic language. There are a number of blog posts on this site showing many of those changes.
A colleague and I did a comparative study of all the textual variants in Matthew and Mark (148 in all) in order to see what degree of correlation various translations have with the NV. We found that of all the Catholic edition translations we studied (RSV-2CE, ESV-CE, NCB, NABRE, NRSV-CE, and the DR-Challoner), the RSV-2-CE and the DR-C had the least degree of agreement with the NV. Even the NASB, the GNT, and the RSV 1971 update had a greater degree of agreement with the NV than the RSV-2CE.
So I am likewise curious about what the ICSB is referring to when they say the RSV-2CE is largely based on the NV.
Cory,
The quote about the NV was from the introduction of Sirach, so I don’t think it is meant to represent the entire RSV-2CE text.
It’s about the textual variances for Sirach, not the whole 2ce. The “long” version of Sirach found in the Vulgate plays a huge part in the liturgical patrimony of the Latin Church, and the 2ce brought a handful of those longer readings back into the main text – for liturgical purposes, I presume.
Thank you, that’s exactly the kind of clarification I was looking for.
I think you guys are right that they are referring just to Sirach with that statement. It’s disappointing to me that they didn’t do likewise and follow the NV for Tobit as well, which follows a different manuscript tradition than the RSV-2CE. It kind of flies in the face of Ignatius Press’ claim that “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”. After all, paragraph 37 of Liturgiam Authenticam states: “If the biblical translation from which the Lectionary is composed exhibits readings that differ from those set forth in the Latin liturgical text, it should be borne in mind that the Nova Vulgata Editio is the point of reference as regards the delineation of the canonical text. Thus, in the translation of the deuterocanonical books and wherever else there may exist varying manuscript traditions, the liturgical translation must be prepared in accordance with the same manuscript tradition that the Nova Vulgata has followed. If a previously prepared translation reflects a choice that departs from that which is found in the Nova Vulgata Editio as regards the underlying textual tradition, the order of verses, or similar factors, the discrepancy needs to be remedied in the preparation of any Lectionary so that conformity with the Latin liturgical text may be maintained.”
If you are going to follow the NV manuscript tradition with Sirach, why not do it with Tobit as well, especially if you are making claims to be in conformity with Liturgiam Authenticam? And why would you not follow the New Testament manuscript tradition of the NV as well, as I highlighted above that it doesn’t?
I love Ignatius Press, the RSV-2CE, The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible, and the Didache Bible, but this is a bit of a head scratcher for me.
Cory, I’d be curious to know what translation your colleague found had the highest degree of agreement with the New Vulgate? Or was perhaps what the top two translations might have been, as I imagine it may have been difficult to determine a definitive #1 MOST AGREEMENT in an exercise such as this. I’m just fascinated by this concept.
Hi John. Here are our results for Matthew and Mark. Out of 148 variants (84 for CSV, NABRE, and NASB202 because Mark is in process for those), here is the percent agreement with the NV:
CSV – 94%
NABRE – 89%
NRSV – 87%
NCB – 86%
NASB2020 – 82%
GNT – 80%
ESV-CE – 80%
NRSVue – 79%
RSV-2CE – 73%
DR-Challoner – 60%
NKJV – 45%
FYI: Here is an update on the RNJB lectionary.
https://www.catholicbishops.ie/2025/07/25/lectionary-group-from-australia-ireland-and-new-zealand-meet-in-maynooth/
The news release notes that “a working group, of women and men, from the three conferences with expertise in both Scripture and Liturgy, meet online each month to consider the submitted comments and revise the text as necessary.”
I don’t know if these revisions are simply those you would find in any attempts to prepare a lectionary, such as incipits. Or if these would represent more substantial changes/translation choices.
You’re always welcome, Timothy! And I’m glad I’m not the only one who forgets about posts I made several years ago. I was looking back through some old posts on this blog a few weeks ago and thought, “huh, I totally forgot I posted that!”