New Revised Standard Version

  • Thread starter Thread starter garysibio
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

garysibio

Guest
Other than the use of inclusive language, are there any other problems that would make using this translation a bad idea?

PS. I’m talking about the Catholic edition, of course.
 
garysibio said:
Other than the use of inclusive language, are there any other problems that would make using this translation a bad idea?

PS. I’m talking about the Catholic edition, of course.
Click to expand...
I find the NRSV to be a much overlooked translation. I actually prefer it in a number ways to some of the more popular Catholic editions.
  1. Many of the inclusive language issues are indicated by a textual note that tells you that literal Greek or Hebrew. None of the inclusive language is vertical, meaning referring to God.
  2. Those same textual notes give you alternate renderings from the different manuscripts, which is a fantastic aid for study.
  3. It utilizes all the most recent textual discoveries, including the Dead Sea Scrolls
  4. In comparison with the other editions, it by far has the most study aids, like study bibles, dictionaries, interlinears and the such, keyed to it.
  5. It comes in some really nice editions, see the Cambridge NRSV Reference Edition with Apocrypha
  6. It is the Bible used for the Saint John’s Bible
  7. Along with the RSV, it is the one used for the Catechism of the Catholic Church in English
 
mccorm45 said:
I find the NRSV to be a much overlooked translation. I actually prefer it in a number ways to some of the more popular Catholic editions.
  1. Many of the inclusive language issues are indicated by a textual note that tells you that literal Greek or Hebrew. None of the inclusive language is vertical, meaning referring to God.
  2. Those same textual notes give you alternate renderings from the different manuscripts, which is a fantastic aid for study.
  3. It utilizes all the most recent textual discoveries, including the Dead Sea Scrolls
  4. In comparison with the other editions, it by far has the most study aids, like study bibles, dictionaries, interlinears and the such, keyed to it.
  5. It comes in some really nice editions, see the Cambridge NRSV Reference Edition with Apocrypha
  6. It is the Bible used for the Saint John’s Bible
  7. Along with the RSV, it is the one used for the Catechism of the Catholic Church in English
Click to expand...
Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut.
 
Are there editions that have the deuterocanonical books intermingled with the protocanonical books or are they all included separately?
 
garysibio said:
Are there editions that have the deuterocanonical books intermingled with the protocanonical books or are they all included separately?
Click to expand...
There are Catholic editions available. I presume they include the DCs in the normal order.
 
garysibio said:
Other than the use of inclusive language, are there any other problems that would make using this translation a bad idea?

PS. I’m talking about the Catholic edition, of course.
Click to expand...
No. It is a great translation.
The Catholic Edition, for unknown reasons, is available only in Anglicized Edition.
 
I didn’t think the Harper edition of the NRSV CE was Anglicized.

Although the gender-sensitive approach is not used when referring to God, I find the constant use of it in other areas to be distracting and an obstacle to study. In many cases, it’s more clunky than the NIV 2011’s decision to use plural forms (them, they) where a singular is found in the Hebrew or Greek (him, he).

Too bad, because as a previous poster pointed out, it is for some reason more widely supported than other Catholic versions and is available in a nice, slim package from Harper. Also, Harper makes Catholic versions with a concordance! A rare feature in Catholic Bibles. 😦

In my opinion, the oft-bashed NABRE gets it right here; it uses a gender-neutral term (brethren or friends) when the Greek clearly refers to fellow believers or associates but retains the correct gender where the Greek clearly indicates it.
 
I find the feminist project of inclusive language (of any sort) in Scripture ill-advised and a disservice to scholarship and style.

And Jesus said to them, “Follow me and I will make you fish for people.” —Mark 1:17, NRSV
 
Cranch said:
I find the feminist project of inclusive language (of any sort) in Scripture ill-advised and a disservice to scholarship and style.

And Jesus said to them, “Follow me and I will make you fish for people.” —Mark 1:17, NRSV
Click to expand...
That’s definitely sometimes the case. Unfortunately your example is really poor. It’s sometimes helpful to distinguish between ἀνθρωπος (= man in the old fashioned sense, i.e. human being/s, people) and ἀνηρ (= man/husband in the sex-specific sense, i.e. a male). For the same reason, one often ought to distinguish clearly between אָדָם (Adam = human) in Hebrew and אִישׁ (iysh = man, husband). “Fishers of men” sounds good, but there are good scholarly reasons to render it “fishers of people/fishers of human beings”.

I’d be tempted to compromise and have “fishers of mankind”, but that avoids gender-neutral language at the expense of strict grammatical accuracy; you lose the sense of a group of individual human beings implied by the genitive plural.
 
Novocastrian said:
That’s definitely sometimes the case. Unfortunately your example is really poor. It’s sometimes helpful to distinguish between ἀνθρωπος (= man in the old fashioned sense, i.e. human being/s, people) and ἀνηρ (= man/husband in the sex-specific sense, i.e. a male). For the same reason, one often ought to distinguish clearly between אָדָם (Adam = human) in Hebrew and אִישׁ (iysh = man, husband). “Fishers of men” sounds good, but there are good scholarly reasons to render it “fishers of people/fishers of human beings”.

I’d be tempted to compromise and have “fishers of mankind”, but that avoids gender-neutral language at the expense of strict grammatical accuracy; you lose the sense of a group of individual human beings implied by the genitive plural.
Click to expand...
I would agree. That’s why I find the approach of the NAB translators to be more accurate and less political.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top