NRSV bible

[JeanneH]

Hi,
Does any one have any pros or cons about this bible? The New Oxford Annotated Bible 3rd edition. with the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books.

Happy Easter and thanks
Jeanne

 

[hellopeople]

Hi,
Does any one have any pros or cons about this bible? The New Oxford Annotated Bible 3rd edition. with the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books.

Happy Easter and thanks
Jeanne

I think I might have this exact one. It is red, isn’t it? I don’t see any problem with it. I think it is a good translation. I like the footnotes and introductions to the books as well.

 

[Nicea325]

Hi,
Does any one have any pros or cons about this bible? The New Oxford Annotated Bible 3rd edition. with the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books.

Happy Easter and thanks
Jeanne

I find it okay,but others may their have issues with it. Remember there is no such thing as the ‘best’ Bible out there. The best Bible is the one you will read.

 

[mccorm45]

Hi,
Does any one have any pros or cons about this bible? The New Oxford Annotated Bible 3rd edition. with the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books.

Happy Easter and thanks
Jeanne

The fourth edition of the New Oxford Annotated Bible has just been released, which I think, so far by my reading, is a nice upgrade. Keep in mind that the commentary, as well as the NRSV, is done by an ecumenical group of scholars.

catholicbibles.blogspot.com/2010/03/first-look-noab-fourth-edition.html

 

[JeanneH]

Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut. And yes the cover is red.
Jeanne

 

[hellopeople]

Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut. And yes the cover is red.
Jeanne

Yeah, mine says augmented third version, I don’t know what that means though.

 

[CalCatholic]

Yeah, mine says augmented third version, I don’t know what that means though.

There is a brand new fourth edition out now, but I like the font size and style better in your third edition (my personal opinion).

 

[bauerice]

The NRSV has editions put out by Harper that have Imprimatur given by both the US Catholic Bishops and the Canadian Bishops.It is also the version used by Canadian Church (with minor tweeks) for Mass readings.
The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books is the Bible used in most colleges and seminaries, with the exception of conservative seminaries.
On a more personal note. I like the version but, find it kind of dry.

 

[centurionguard]

The Catholic NRSV Bible would be my absolute last choice option when considering buying a bible. As someone already pointed out in this thread many Catholics do have issues with the NRSV translation. Why Catholic bishops choose a politically correct inclusive language translation is beyond my comprehension. Thanks of course to the botch ups of the I.C.E.L.

To each their own I suppose. Personally I’ll stick with my favorite Catholic Douay Rheims version. Second & Third choice would go to the Catholic New American and Catholic Jerusalem bible translations. The Catholic Navarre (“RSV”) is a fairly nice bible. catholiccompany.com/catholic-books/1111192/Navarre-Bible-New-Testament-Study-Edition/

 

[JeanneH]

The Catholic NRSV Bible would be my absolute last choice option when considering buying a bible. As someone already pointed out in this thread many Catholics do have issues with the NRSV translation. Why Catholic bishops choose a politically correct inclusive language translation is beyond my comprehension. Thanks of course to the botch ups of the I.C.E.L.

To each their own I suppose. Personally I’ll stick with my favorite Catholic Douay Rheims version. Second & Third choice would go to the Catholic New American and Catholic Jerusalem bible translations. The Catholic Navarre (“RSV”) is a fairly nice bible. catholiccompany.com/catholic-books/1111192/Navarre-Bible-New-Testament-Study-Edition/

Yes, my favorite bibles are the DR with Haydock commentary and the 1966 JB. I use the NAB (which I don’t like) because they use this for bible study. I don’t put much trust in the conference of bishops.

 

[Jesus_123]

+Mother Angelica of worldwide EWTN fame loved and used the . . . **1966 Jerusalem Bible ** (a paraphrase not a word for word translation) . . . in her teaching . . . but frequently sounded serious warnings about the . . . loss of Sacred Truth (Holy Thoughts of God) . . . via the unholy use of . . . “inclusive language” . . . incorporated into ALL this Bible’s versions thereafter . . .

:bible1: The Holy Bible (Douay Rheims Version [Douai-Rheims], Revised by Bishop Richard Challoner) is a wonderful translation . . . it was first translated . . . word for word . . . from the Latin Vulgate, the Catholic Church’s Official Bible. Bishop Challoner’s edition phrases it to make it more reader-friendly. It was the only English Catholic Bible for over 300 years and has been greatly blessed of God as such. The original Latin translation is largely the result of the **Holy Spirit’s **inspiration and annointing of the labors of the blessed St. Jerome . . . and some of the manuscripts **St. Jerome **used are no longer in existence.

Pope Pius XII stated that the
Holy :bible1: Bible
Latin Vulgate Translation
was **
“free from any error whatsoever in matters of faith and morals.”**
With **St. Jerome **. . . **who as well as being a SAINT is a HOLY DOCTOR of the Catholic Church . . . and . . . ** the Vicar of Christ’s declaration of support . . . vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_30091943_divino-afflante-spiritu_en.html . . . you can’t go wrong with this Bible . . .

Below are comments from the **Eternal Word Television Network’s ** ewtn.com website . . . which also contain some examples of the Holy See’s gravely serious definitive and corrective point of view on some Biblical translations on the market today.

:bible1: Douai-Rheims [Douay-Rheims]. The original Catholic Bible in English, pre-dating the King James Version (1611). It was translated from the Latin Vulgate, the Church’s official Scripture text, by English Catholics in exile on the continent. The NT [New Testament] was completed and published in 1582 when the English College (the seminary for English Catholics) was located at Rheims. The Old Testament was published in 1610 when the College was located at Douai.​

**The renown teaching priest Father John Corapi ** endorses and highly recommends the **ORIGINAL Revised Standard Version-Catholic Edition ** of Sacred :bible1: Scripture as his favored modern English translation . . . please note that this is the ORIGINAL RSV-CE.

:bible1: Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition (RSV-CE).Considered the best combination of literal (formal equivalence translation) and literary by many orthodox Catholic scholars. Published today by Ignatius Press (Ignatius Bible) and Scepter Press …**​

The enemy of souls most unholy spirit has used the grave and disordered error of “inclusive language” (stripping God the Holy Spirit’s designated use of masculine and feminine words from text re God and mankind and neutering them) to make serious inroads in corrupting that which the **God the Holy Spirit **has entrusted to Christ’s Most Holy Apostolic Roman Catholic Church . . . when/if purchasing a Revised Standard Version-Catholic Edition be very careful not to request the NEW RSV-CE . . . which is being heavily promoted nowadays and contains real errors . . . the NAB version has a similar problem . . .

New Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition (1989). An adaptation for Catholic use of the NRSV of the National Council of the Churches of Christ. Although used in the American edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, it was rejected for liturgical use by the Holy See owing to inclusive language … ******​

**NAB with Revised Psalms and Revised New Testament (1991) [also a paraphrase not a word for word translation]. It was **due to the use of vertical inclusive language **(re: God and Christ) and some uses of horizontal inclusive language (re: human beings), that the Holy See rejected this text as the basis of a revised Lectionary for the United States. This is the version of the NAB currently on sale in the United States. ******
​

. . . all for Jesus+
St. Jerome please pray for us+
thank You Lord for Thy Wonderful Holy Word+​

 

[brianmichael]

hey, does anyone know how to get the Deuterocanonicals on the Oremus browser? for the life of me i can’t do it, and Simon hasn’t placed them in the chapter-by-chapter section

 

[hellopeople]

OK, this is stupid, but what is “inclusive language.” Does this mean that when it says “brothers” in Greek it will say “brothers and sisters” in the translation? Is that what they mean? Also, is the church for or against this inclusive language?

 

[hellopeople]

Also, can I just throw out there that any translation done from the vulgate is not going to be as good as a translation done from the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Why translate a translation when you can translate the original? Even IF the Vulgate conveyed all the messages needed for salvation well enough, there are going to be some discrepancies between the original and a translation of the vulgate. If someone wants to see what I mean, they should try to translate the vulgate back into the original language and see how different it becomes.

 

[JeanneH]

+Mother Angelica of worldwide EWTN fame loved and used the . . . 1966 Jerusalem Bible (a paraphrase not a word for word translation) . . . in her teaching . . . but frequently sounded serious warnings about the . . . loss of Sacred Truth (Holy Thoughts of God) . . . via the unholy use of . . . “inclusive language” . . . incorporated into ALL this Bible’s versions thereafter . . .

The 1966 JB is NOT a paraphrase. I don’t know where you got it from that it is a paraphrase. In the front of my bible it says that it is translated from the ancient texts.

"
.

 

[JeanneH]

OK, this is stupid, but what is “inclusive language.” Does this mean that when it says “brothers” in Greek it will say “brothers and sisters” in the translation? Is that what they mean? Also, is the church for or against this inclusive language?

It means that in a verse where it says “man” in will use the word “person”

 

[Jesus_123]

+Inclusive language . . . is a powerful and extraordinarily pervasive movement of the promotion of the presumptious … “sin of ommission” . . . in the deliberate distortion of God’s truths of creation in this our day and age . . . which movement has been conceived and spurred on by feminists, gay rights activists and so called “political correctness” gurus . . . who’s well organized proponents agressively promote, cater and pander to these disordered groups and their gravely disordered ideas which oppose sound Catholic/Christian/Biblical teachings of God’s truth and reality . . . and which has powerfully made huge inroads among both protestants and Catholics by instituting, pursuing and attempting changes in not only Sacred Scripture :bible1: Biblical texts . . . but also whole Christian hymnals of sacred music which have come down to us through the ages have been rewritten . . . and Christian writings such as creeds, prayers, poetry, etc., have all been rewritten by changing these holy documents and hymns into using what is called “inclusive language” . . . which language strips the masculine and feminine realities from truth and attempts to neuter language and ignore the beautiful extraordinary mystery created by our Wonderful Lord of the masculine and the feminine and the holy created purpose and beautiful complimentarity and creative harmony of the masculine and feminine working together throughout God’s creation . . . below is a quote from the EWTN website in regard to this grave danger to our Holy Catholic Christian Faith . . .

. . . :coffeeread: . . .
Inclusive Language

The common practice of English historically has been to use male nouns and pronouns (man, mankind, he) when referring collectively to human beings, regardless of sex. In recent decades some feminists have claimed that this is offensive to them, as it represents a “patriarchal worldview” in which men are superior to women. Through their media influence they have effectively ended such use in publishing, academia, television and movies, as well as in common speech. Within the Church, through the well-oiled machinery of dissent, the rejection of such “non-inclusive” language has been applied to the use of male terms in connection with God.

Whether in the secular arena or in the Church, almost no resistance has been offered to this** forced **development of language, and few are even aware of what is at stake, seeing it only as a matter of fairness to women. Thankfully, the Holy See has resisted the tide and clearly drawn the lines between what is an acceptable use of inclusive language and what is unacceptable. Acceptable use would include those collective expressions for human beings which today a speaker or author would be expected to use, such as “ladies and gentleman” or “brothers and sisters”. It is unlikely that any one would use “brothers” or “brethren” for a mixed audience today. Thus, there is nothing wrong in principle to this kind of horizontal inclusive language.

What is unacceptable to the Magisterium, however, is the use of inclusive language in collective terms for human beings which have an anthropological significance, or, in terms for God or Christ (vertical inclusive language). The collective term man, for example, is both a philosophically and theologically appropriate term for the human race. Just as there is a certain precedence within the Trinity, by which the Father is God, the Son is God by generation and the Holy Spirit is God by spiration, Sacred Scripture reveals that an image of this Trinity of equal Persons in God is reflected in the creation of woman from man. Adam (which means man) is a man, Eve is a man (since she shares his nature), and each of their descendants is a man. This expresses equality, NOT inequality, as feminists claim. Whatever injustices men have perpetrated on women through the millennia, Adam’s sin is the cause, not God and His wise created design.

So, human nature is called man or mankind, and each human person is a man, just as the divine nature is called God and all Three Persons are God. (The sexual distinction is expressed as male and female, though man and woman also does so. Even these contain implicitly the evidence of the origins of woman from man in the economy of creation.)

The problem with vertical inclusive language with respect to Christ is similar. Destined to be the New Adam Christ is prophetically anticipated in certain Hebrew texts which play on the word adam as both the name for the human race and the name of the first member of that race. A good example, which can be a test of a text to see if it has objectionable inclusive language, is Psalm 1. It should read “Happy the man who follows not the counsel of the wicked” (or similar). Inclusive language versions will replace “man” with “one” or “mortal” or some variation.** The Holy See has rejected this as contradicting the messianic references to Christ implicit in the text, where man refers not only to David the author of the psalm, but back to Adam (the man) and forward to Christ (Son of David and Son of Man)**.

. . . all for Jesus+
. . . St. Michael the Archangel+
. . .** guard and protect all that is holy and true**+
:angel1:​

 

[Jesus_123]

. . . :coffeeread: . . .
NORMS FOR THE TRANSLATION
OF BIBLICAL TEXTS
FOR USE IN THE LITURGY

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 1995

[In 1995 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued “secret norms” to the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (of the United States) to guide their revision of the Lectionary used at Mass. Prior to this time the Congregation had rejected two versions of Scripture (the New Revised Standard Version and the Revised New American Bible) for use in the Liturgy, owing to the unacceptable use of inclusive language. These norms remained “secret,” even from most bishops, until just prior to the June 1997 meeting of the bishops’ conference. This meeting approved, by subsequent mail ballot, a version of the Lectionary agreed upon by a working committee of Vatican officials and US bishops in March 1997. This Lectionary conforms to the previously issued Norms. Having been approved by the entire Conference it will now be sent to Rome for final confirmation.]

1. The Church must always seek to convey accurately in translation the texts she has inherited from the biblical, liturgical, and patristic tradition and instruct the faithful in their proper meaning.

1. The first principle with respect to biblical texts is that of fidelity, maximum possible fidelity to the words of the text. Biblical translations should be faithful to the original language and to the internal truth of the inspired text, in such a way as to respect the language used by the human author in order to be understood by his intended reader. Every concept in the original text should be translated in its context. Above all, translations must be faithful to the sense of Sacred Scripture understood as a unity and totality, which finds its center in Christ, the Son of God incarnate (cf. “Dei Verbum” III and IV), as confessed in the Creeds of the Church.

1. The translation of Scripture should faithfully reflect the Word of God in the original human languages. It must be listened to in its time-conditioned, at times even inelegant mode of human expression without “correction” or “improvement” in service of modern sensitivities.
   a) In liturgical translations or readings where the text is very uncertain or in which the meaning is very much disputed, the translation should be made with due regard to the Neo-Vulgate.
   b) If explanations are deemed to be pastorally necessary or appropriate, they should be given in editorial notes, commentaries, homilies, etc.

4/l. The natural gender of “personae” in the Bible, including the human author of various texts where evident, must not be changed insofar as this is possible in the receptor language.

4/2. The grammatical gender of God, pagan deities, and angels according to the original texts must not be changed insofar as this is possible in the receptor language.

4/3. In fidelity to the inspired Word of God, the traditional biblical usage for naming the persons of the Trinity as Father, Son and Holy Spirit is to be retained.

4/4. Similarly, in keeping with the Church’s tradition, the feminine and neuter pronouns are not to be used to refer to the person of the Holy Spirit.

4/5. There shall be no systematic substitution of the masculine pronoun or possessive adjective to refer to God in correspondence to the original text.

4/6. Kinship terms that are clearly gender specific, as indicated by the context, should be respected in translation.

1. Grammatical number and person of the original texts ordinarily should be maintained.

6/1. Translation should strive to preserve the connotations as well as the denotations of words or expressions in the original and thus not preclude possible layers of meaning.

6/2. For example, where the New Testament or the Church’s tradition have interpreted certain texts of the Old Testament in a Christological fashion, special care should be observed in the translation of these texts so that a Christological meaning is not precluded.

6/3. Thus, the word “man” in English should as a rule translate 'adam and anthropos (ανθρωποσ), since there is no one synonym which effectively conveys the play between the individual, the collectivity and the unity of the human family so important, for example, to expression of Christian doctrine and anthropology.

[Adoremus Bulletin, III, No. 5, July/August 1997]

:compcoff: ** Link: **ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFNORMS.HTM

 

[Mattjolley]

when/if purchasing a Revised Standard Version-Catholic Edition be very careful not to request the NEW RSV-CE . . . which is being heavily promoted nowadays and contains real errors . . . the NAB version has a similar problem . . .

What sort of ‘real errors’ does the RSV 2nd Catholic Edition have? Ignatius claims it was prepared according to Liturgiam Authenticam and doesn’t contain inclusive language. In fact, the lack of inclusive language strikes me as it’s biggest selling point. I don’t see any issue with this Bible, there are far worse. The RSV-CE and RSV-2CE are both fine versions of the Bible, and quite conservative compared to the shocking NRSV. It’s amazing, if the NRSV had non inclusive language, it would probably be hailed as one of our finest translations. Such a shame they got it wrong

EDIT: Whoops, totally mis-read your post, I see you mean the NRSV when you say New RSV. Sorry!

 

[CalCatholic]

The Jerusalem Bible is a more ‘dynamic’ translation than the NAB, but it is not a paraphrase.