How liberal is the NRSV?

[swampboy]

I have been looking for yet another translation…I want the accuracy of the RSV but something with a little more modern scholarship, yet loyalty to Church teachings and traditions (e.g., virgin vs. young woman, full of grace, etc.). I would also like something that has decent cross-references, notes and a user-friendly layout. The RSV-2CE is probably the best there is in terms of this, but it seems as if many people like the NRSV for it’s use of different manuscripts. However, all of the bible translations that have come out since the 60s seem to be questionable regarding notes and style so I stick with the RSV or Confraternity, with the latter being my new favorite due to it’s accuracy and faithfulness to Church teachings…but it is still difficult to read like the DR. THe RSV is pretty good, but something about it turns me away…it doesn’t read smooth and I hear that it doesn’t always reference the NT in the OT and vice versa.

So…unfortunately there aren’t many Catholic translations to choose from, with most of those that are “acceptable” being poorly translated or accompanied by terrible notes, or lacking decent reference helps. I noticed that the NRSV has numerous layouts and formats and is supposed to represent modern scholarship. Most do not seem to have any notes or references, but there are many different layouts to choose from. However, I hear that it is exxtremely liberal and questionable in spots. Is this true? Any thoughts?

 

[mccorm45]

Of course all of this depends on what you define as liberal. Does it use inclusive language? Yes, it uses horizontal inclusive language, but not vertical. It also indicates, via textual notes which are manditory for all NRSV editions, where it does. On the scale of translation theory it is on the literal/formal equivalence end, being slightly less literal than the original RSV or ESV. The OT, while being based on the MT, does use more of an ecclectic text referring to the LXX and DSS quite frequently.

The NRSV is also used in many academic circles, which may or may not increase your view of it’s liberal leanings.

 

[swampboy]

Hi mccorm–I knew you would chime in! I check out your blog daily and know you are a fan of the NRSV. Why do you think that there are so many people (i.e. traditionalists)against the NRSV? Have you found any decent versions with x-refs? The NRSV interests me in some ways because it is newer and is favored among some Protestants, so there ought to be some decent ones being published with good features (leather, maps, notes, etc.). I have checked it out online a little but I like reading from a book so I haven’t checked it out carefully…how does it compare with the RSV stylistically? Does it flow nicely? Accuracy? Are there decent helps?

Thanks in advance.

 

[mccorm45]

Swampboy,

thanks for stopping by the blog. Lots of questions, I will do
my best to answer them.

My favorite version of the NRSV is: christianbook.com/nrsv-reference-apocrypha-french-morocco-leather/9780521681315/pd/81316?item_code=WW&netp_id=431753&event=ESRCN&view=details

it’s a bit pricey, but it has solid crossreferences, maps, and a handy glossary. It also comes in a decent premium leather edition. Of course harpercollins is continually putting out new editions of the NRSV, so we shall see what is published in the future.

Let me just say that it is true that, even with it’s warts, I do like the NRSV. I think it reads really well, particularly on the OT which can be difficult reading at times. I think the RSV-2CE is a fine translation as well, but it remains a fifty year old translation, even with it’s tinkering. One thing that I like about the NRSV is that it is honest about what it is. It followed it’s translation guidelines and any textual issues, in the area of textual variants or inclusive language, are clearly marked I’m the textual notes, which are an integral part of the translation. I also like the fact that it does not slavishly stick to the Mesoretic text in the OT, but often will use the LXX or dead sea scrolls. But hey, that is just me. A couple other things that attracts me to the NRSV are the many scholarly study tools, like interlinears, study bibles, scholarly works, commentaries, and dictionaries which are keyed into the NRSV.

I don’t want to come off as an NRSV apologist, but I am simply willing to accept it for it’s strengths and weaknesses. While i use the RSV and NAB often in various circumstances, I also like the flexibility of the NRSV which I feel can be used in most circumstances areas of ministry work that I do.

Why isn’t it recommended more? Well certainly some people are immediately scared off by it’s use of inclusive language. That’s fine. Some are simply not that familiar with it, particularly since it was only a few years ago that the NRSV became more accessable in Catholic editions thanks to HarperCollins.

 

[Bookcat]

I use mostly the RSV…which I understand is used for the various documents in English from the Pope and the curia including in part in the Catechism …but it is good to look at the others as well…including NRSV

here is EWTN’s take on them:

ewtn.com/expert/expertfaqframe.asp?source=/vexperts/conference.htm

 

[Canto]

The inclusive language kills the NRSV for me - poetically and Christologically. It could have been something good but alas.

PSALM 81:14-16

**NASB **he has loved Me, therefore I will deliver him;
I will set him {securely} on high, because he has known My name.
He will call upon Me, and I will answer him;
I will be with him in trouble;
I will rescue him and honor him.
With a long life I will satisfy him
And let him see My salvation.

NRSV **Those **who love me, I will deliver;
I will protect those who know my name.
When they call to me, I will answer them;
I will be with them in trouble,
I will rescue them and honour them.
With long life I will satisfy them,
and show them my salvation.

Daniel 7:13 used at Mass this past Advent

I kept looking in the night visions,
And behold, with the clouds of heaven
One like a **Son of Man **was coming,
And He came up to the Ancient of Days
And was presented before Him.

As I watched in the night visions,
I saw one like a human being
coming with the clouds of heaven.
And he came to the Ancient One
and was presented before him.

Hebrews 2:6-8 quoting Psalm 8

But one has testified somewhere, saying,
"WHAT IS MAN, THAT YOU REMEMBER HIM?
OR THE SON OF MAN, THAT YOU ARE CONCERNED ABOUT HIM?
“YOU HAVE MADE HIM FOR A LITTLE WHILE LOWER THAN THE ANGELS;
YOU HAVE CROWNED HIM WITH GLORY AND HONOR,
AND HAVE APPOINTED HIM OVER THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS;
YOU HAVE PUT ALL THINGS IN SUBJECTION UNDER HIS FEET.”

But someone has testified somewhere,
‘What are **human beings **that you are mindful of them,
or mortals, that you care for them?
You have made them for a little while lower than the angels;
you have crowned them with glory and honour,
subjecting all things under their feet.’

 

[swampboy]

The inclusive language kills the NRSV for me - poetically and Christologically. It could have been something good but alas.

PSALM 81:14-16

**NASB **he has loved Me, therefore I will deliver him;
I will set him {securely} on high, because he has known My name.
He will call upon Me, and I will answer him;
I will be with him in trouble;
I will rescue him and honor him.
With a long life I will satisfy him
And let him see My salvation.

NRSV **Those **who love me, I will deliver;
I will protect those who know my name.
When they call to me, I will answer them;
I will be with them in trouble,
I will rescue them and honour them.
With long life I will satisfy them,
and show them my salvation.

Daniel 7:13 used at Mass this past Advent

I kept looking in the night visions,
And behold, with the clouds of heaven
One like a **Son of Man **was coming,
And He came up to the Ancient of Days
And was presented before Him.

As I watched in the night visions,
I saw one like a human being
coming with the clouds of heaven.
And he came to the Ancient One
and was presented before him.

Hebrews 2:6-8 quoting Psalm 8

But one has testified somewhere, saying,
"WHAT IS MAN, THAT YOU REMEMBER HIM?
OR THE SON OF MAN, THAT YOU ARE CONCERNED ABOUT HIM?
“YOU HAVE MADE HIM FOR A LITTLE WHILE LOWER THAN THE ANGELS;
YOU HAVE CROWNED HIM WITH GLORY AND HONOR,
AND HAVE APPOINTED HIM OVER THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS;
YOU HAVE PUT ALL THINGS IN SUBJECTION UNDER HIS FEET.”

But someone has testified somewhere,
‘What are human beings that you are mindful of them,
or mortals, that you care for them?
You have made them for a little while lower than the angels;
you have crowned them with glory and honour,
subjecting all things under their feet.’

yeah, I have to agree that the inclusive languasge that you quoted is a little over the top. I don’t know why that is necessary…do the footnotes clarify the usage?

 

[mccorm45]

yeah, I have to agree that the inclusive languasge that you quoted is a little over the top. I don’t know why that is necessary…do the footnotes clarify the usage?

In all cases, except the first, the textual notes indicate the literal translation in the Greek and Aramaic. The textual notes are integral to the overall translation.

 

[swampboy]

In all cases, except the first, the textual notes indicate the literal translation in the Greek and Aramaic. The textual notes are integral to the overall translation.

I guess one has to ask why the translators would choose to convey the message one way when it apparently should be translated as they indicate in footnotes…why not just say it that way in the first place?? The Jerusalem Bible does that as well…

Does the NRSV read so well that it is worth putting up with those issues?

 

[KShaft]

It seems to me that there is an abundance of bias that influences modern day translations. This not only goes for a protestant vs. a Catholic outlook, but a liberal vs conservative bias. Now back in 1610ish, this really wasnt near as much as a factor as it is now. Both parties wanted to not screw with the Word of the Lord and revered it. In fact the KJV borrowed from the Douay-Rheims version initially but Bishop Chanoller in revising the DR Bible, referenced the KJV later in in the 1700s (im to lazy to look it up even though my DR is within my reach with a slide of my chair…). So on this level the P-C differences are negligable except for the fact of the missing deuterocanonical at least on the literal translation.

Nowadays, people will get away with whatever loose translation they can to foreword their degenerate agenda. I.E. they could care less about the Word and its integrity. With the RSV, if you look at some of the Old Testament passages specifically on Messianic Prophecies, they dont match up to the New. This was done intentionally, and it was not literal but they did it anyway. The NRSV is even worse and includes the gender neutral neutering of every one and everything (save the Deity thank the Lord) in sight. The PC police are on the loose. Then you have the Jerusalem and NAB bibles which are very good and decent respectively. However, in both editions they have these chapter introductions (which I have seen in the JBRE and only have heard of in the NAB) that pretty much undermine what is being said in the book. Wonderful. Despite the wonderful translation of my JB, the chapter intros put me in such a bad humor so as to not to even want to read the book. “This was probably wrong…yes this was incorrect over here.” Very faithless, like he was trying to undermine what was being said and reduce it to a fairy tale. This was the intro to Daniel. Now keep in mind the Lord Christ himself called Daniel a prophet. If I had seen this before purchasing, I would have not done so. The NJB is much worse and has the idiotic gender neutral iterations. Have you noticed the trend of this being nearly all of the Catholic translations? WTF over.

Also, when it comes to the Catholic translations we dont get good executions either. Now I have a Tan DR bible and it is nice but not great. This is the 1989 version. I also have the St.Benedict press DR Genuine Leather version and it is about as nice a translation of a DR that you can get nowadays. In fact except for the glaring exception of
mccorm45’s NRSV from cambridge, thats as nice as it gets for any Catholic translation. The Oxford RSV and NRSV are bonded leather, but the type face and paper may be superior, but I dont know because I have not handled one. Though my DR is nice, it isnt a Cambridge goatskin reference or a Allan Highland goatskin Reference. Not even close. Id love a JB or DR made by Cambridge or Allan, and so would a lot of guys here but that just aint happening as of yet. Without an atheist writing the intros that is…

Id suggest a JB its a very good translation and if your not a complete imbecile its not at all hard to read. Just ignore the intros.

 

[swampboy]

It seems to me that there is an abundance of bias that influences modern day translations. This not only goes for a protestant vs. a Catholic outlook, but a liberal vs conservative bias. Now back in 1610ish, this really wasnt near as much as a factor as it is now. Both parties wanted to not screw with the Word of the Lord and revered it. In fact the KJV borrowed from the Douay-Rheims version initially but Bishop Chanoller in revising the DR Bible, referenced the KJV later in in the 1700s (im to lazy to look it up even though my DR is within my reach with a slide of my chair…). So on this level the P-C differences are negligable except for the fact of the missing deuterocanonical at least on the literal translation.

Nowadays, people will get away with whatever loose translation they can to foreword their degenerate agenda. I.E. they could care less about the Word and its integrity. With the RSV, if you look at some of the Old Testament passages specifically on Messianic Prophecies, they dont match up to the New. This was done intentionally, and it was not literal but they did it anyway. The NRSV is even worse and includes the gender neutral neutering of every one and everything (save the Deity thank the Lord) in sight. The PC police are on the loose. Then you have the Jerusalem and NAB bibles which are very good and decent respectively. However, in both editions they have these chapter introductions (which I have seen in the JBRE and only have heard of in the NAB) that pretty much undermine what is being said in the book. Wonderful. Despite the wonderful translation of my JB, the chapter intros put me in such a bad humor so as to not to even want to read the book. “This was probably wrong…yes this was incorrect over here.” Very faithless, like he was trying to undermine what was being said and reduce it to a fairy tale. This was the intro to Daniel. Now keep in mind the Lord Christ himself called Daniel a prophet. If I had seen this before purchasing, I would have not done so. The NJB is much worse and has the idiotic gender neutral iterations. Have you noticed the trend of this being nearly all of the Catholic translations? WTF over.

Also, when it comes to the Catholic translations we dont get good executions either. Now I have a Tan DR bible and it is nice but not great. This is the 1989 version. I also have the St.Benedict press DR Genuine Leather version and it is about as nice a translation of a DR that you can get nowadays. In fact except for the glaring exception of
mccorm45’s NRSV from cambridge, thats as nice as it gets for any Catholic translation. The Oxford RSV and NRSV are bonded leather, but the type face and paper may be superior, but I dont know because I have not handled one. Though my DR is nice, it isnt a Cambridge goatskin reference or a Allan Highland goatskin Reference. Not even close. Id love a JB or DR made by Cambridge or Allan, and so would a lot of guys here but that just aint happening as of yet. Without an atheist writing the intros that is…

Id suggest a JB its a very good translation and if your not a complete imbecile its not at all hard to read. Just ignore the intros.

I agree with you 100%…the more modern bible translations, particularly those done after the 60s are full of “liberalisms”. I have the 1966 JB which is pretty good…I just can’t get beyond the non-traditional voicing of many familiar passages. I don’t find the intros to the 66 JB to be as troubling as the NJB which outright anger me (as do the NAB intros and notes). I really wish I could use the JB as my main bible but I am not sure it is trustworthy enough. The RSV is decent but as you say there are supposedly issues in the OT prophecies of the NT. Have you checked out the Confraternity? It is nice but still difficult to read like the DR, although with more modern english Honestly I am not happy with the available Catholic bibles… I still like my old NASB and the ESV whcih offer so many options and nice formats.

 

[Ignatius]

The inclusive language kills the NRSV for me - poetically and Christologically. It could have been something good but alas.

PSALM 81:14-16

**NASB **he has loved Me, therefore I will deliver him;
I will set him {securely} on high, because he has known My name.
He will call upon Me, and I will answer him;
I will be with him in trouble;
I will rescue him and honor him.
With a long life I will satisfy him
And let him see My salvation.

NRSV **Those **who love me, I will deliver;
I will protect those who know my name.
When they call to me, I will answer them;
I will be with them in trouble,
I will rescue them and honour them.
With long life I will satisfy them,
and show them my salvation.

Daniel 7:13 used at Mass this past Advent

I kept looking in the night visions,
And behold, with the clouds of heaven
One like a **Son of Man **was coming,
And He came up to the Ancient of Days
And was presented before Him.

As I watched in the night visions,
I saw one like a human being
coming with the clouds of heaven.
And he came to the Ancient One
and was presented before him.

Hebrews 2:6-8 quoting Psalm 8

But one has testified somewhere, saying,
"WHAT IS MAN, THAT YOU REMEMBER HIM?
OR THE SON OF MAN, THAT YOU ARE CONCERNED ABOUT HIM?
“YOU HAVE MADE HIM FOR A LITTLE WHILE LOWER THAN THE ANGELS;
YOU HAVE CROWNED HIM WITH GLORY AND HONOR,
AND HAVE APPOINTED HIM OVER THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS;
YOU HAVE PUT ALL THINGS IN SUBJECTION UNDER HIS FEET.”

But someone has testified somewhere,
‘What are human beings that you are mindful of them,
or mortals, that you care for them?
You have made them for a little while lower than the angels;
you have crowned them with glory and honour,
subjecting all things under their feet.’

Yes, the clear Christological references are completely obliterated in the NRSV. They lose the subtle and prophetic meaning. On e simply can’t tell that they refer to Christ who repeatedly refers to Himself as SON OF MAN. That is exactly the problem with translations driven by an agenda to make it gender neutral. The focus must be on preserving as much as possible of the original language because of the richness and depth of the original Scripture language.
When people are driven by side agendas rather than conveying the word of God completely they lose proper focus which can only lead to corruption that is sure to lose the authentic meaning in all of the profundity and magnificant richness of the original.