Comparison of RSV and ESV

  • Thread starter Thread starter Elzee
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Elzee:
Has anyone seen this comparison of the RSV and ESV? Any thoughts? I’m trying to decide between buying a new RSV-CE bible or New American Bible. Thank you!

bible-researcher.com/esv.html
Click to expand...
Buy the RSV-CE! It is more accurate, the translation is beautiful, and it doesn’t have the footnotes that borderline on heresy like the NAB does. It does not use “inclusive language” like the NAB does. It also seems to be used a lot by people of EWTN fame (Fr. Pacwa, Fr. Groeschel, etc, etc, etc,) so it must be good!
 
Anima Christi:
Buy the RSV-CE! It is more accurate, the translation is beautiful, and it doesn’t have the footnotes that borderline on heresy like the NAB does. It does not use “inclusive language” like the NAB does. It also seems to be used a lot by people of EWTN fame (Fr. Pacwa, Fr. Groeschel, etc, etc, etc,) so it must be good!
Click to expand...
Okay-

I’m assuming the only difference between the RSV and the RSV-CE is the deuterocanonical books, correct?

Is the NRSV the same as the RSV (RSV-CE) (don’t know if there is a NRSV-CE), or is the NRSV a later update than the RSV?

Why does it seem like so many evangelicals do not like the RSV (or NRSV), saying they are ‘liberal biased’? A baptist pastor in town recently wrote an article with the same accusation. He liked the new American Bible and the New King James.
 
40.png
Elzee:
Has anyone seen this comparison of the RSV and ESV? Any thoughts? I’m trying to decide between buying a new RSV-CE bible or New American Bible. Thank you!

bible-researcher.com/esv.html
Click to expand...

After reading the article, it seems to me that this is another example of making the Bible say what you want it to say. It seems to be the ever-present argument of literal translation. The article freely admits that in some areas the ESV is a literal word-for-word translation, but in other areas, it uses the “what he really meant was…” translation. Which is why we have a Church to interpret for us, thank God.
Not being a biblical scholar, that’s about as far as I can go. Just my gut feeling. I would say that if Frs. Groeschel and Pacwa like the RSV-CE, who am I to argue, but then that would sound too much like, “if’n it was good enuf fer my granpappy, it’s good enuf fer me!” Which is what I’ve heard about the KJV for decades. 😃
Nianka​

Pray the Rosary daily… yeah, you! :gopray:
 
40.png
Elzee:
Okay-

I’m assuming the only difference between the RSV and the RSV-CE is the deuterocanonical books, correct?

Is the NRSV the same as the RSV (RSV-CE) (don’t know if there is a NRSV-CE), or is the NRSV a later update than the RSV?

Why does it seem like so many evangelicals do not like the RSV (or NRSV), saying they are ‘liberal biased’? A baptist pastor in town recently wrote an article with the same accusation. He liked the new American Bible and the New King James.
Click to expand...
No, there are a few other minor differences. For example, in the RSV-CE the angel Gabriel addresses Mary, “Hail, full of grace!” rather than “Hail, highly favored!”
Yes, the NRSV is an update of the RSV. It uses “inclusive language.” The RSV uses thees and thous when addressing God, such as in the Psalms, and the NRSV doesn’t. The RSV was originally translated by liberal Protestant scholars and it shows in certain places, the most well-known is in Isaiah 7:14 which reads, “Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bare a son” instead of "Behold, a virgin shall conceive . . . " The Hebrew word “almah” actually does mean young woman. Pretty much, some of the messianic references in the Old Testament are obscured by the translation. To evangelicals, who believe in the Bible only, this presents a problem. To Catholics, who are guided by the tradition of Holy Mother Church, it doesn’t.
 
I’ve got both and there is no doubt the RSVCE pales against the ESV because the ESV is so much newer. It is a better translation. Read both versions side by side, few would say the RSV is more impressive after this exercise.

However, all this makes me wish is that the ESV had been produced by Catholics because it contains a lot of evangelical Protestant bias. It remains a Protestant bible.

Let’s get this right, you’re Catholic and you might chose a Protestant Bible??? This is not right. Do you think faithful Catholics when the Donatists or the Montanists were about would even think about getting a bible produced by heretics and schismatics. Of course not.

I think the choice of which bible to choose is quite easy for an American Catholic: the NAB.

It’s used in the U.S. Church in the liturgy, it’s a beautiful scholarly theologically outstanding bible. Sorry guys, its notes aren’t ‘heretical’ they reflect modern biblical scholarship in the academic world. It’s intellectual, it’s not fundamentalist, it’s not heretical.

It is the version of the bible published on the official Vatican website:
vatican.va/archive/index.htm
Why chose anything else, go with the U.S. Bishops and the Vatican. The choice is easy.
I recommend the New Catholic Answer Bible as it has fantastic Apologetics inserts and you can take it around with you for Apologetics/evangelistic work. I use the St. Joseph Edition with Giant Print for my main reading at home.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top