Nrsv-ce & Nrsva

  • Thread starter Thread starter jblake
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jblake

Guest
All:

Are there any textual differences between the NRSV-CE and NRSVA, other than the presence of the books that Catholicism does not consider to be canonical?

xan

jonathon
 
jblake said:
All:

Are there any textual differences between the NRSV-CE and NRSVA, other than the presence of the books that Catholicism does not consider to be canonical?

xan

jonathon
Click to expand...
I assume you mean the NRSV with the Deuterocanicals added at the end or the middle instead of where they are supposed to be when you say NRSVA.

So to answer your question, no there is not a difference in the actual text that I know of. But if you are looking at getting one of these translations, I wouldn’t recommend it unless you can stand to read the inclusive language.
 
AngelRose81;:
But if you are looking at getting one of these translations, I wouldn’t recommend it unless you can stand to read the inclusive language.
Click to expand...
I’ve got the NRSVA. I saw an NRSV-CE at a local bookshop, and was wondering whether there were any textual differences, like there are when one compares the RSVA with RSV-CE.

xan

jonathon
 
jblake said:
I’ve got the NRSVA. I saw an NRSV-CE at a local bookshop, and was wondering whether there were any textual differences, like there are when one compares the RSVA with RSV-CE.

xan

jonathon
Click to expand...
Not for the NRSV. The differences are that the NRSV with Apocrypha “sandwiches” the Deuterocanonicals between the Old and New Testaments, and renders Daniel and Esther in the “standard” (i.e. Protestant way) with their additions relegated to separate sections.

The Catholic edition arranges the books a-la Vulgate order and incorporates the Greek additions to Daniel and Esther in their respective books.

(NB. I’m a bit uncertain about Esther. Maybe one can confirm what I just said).
 
porthos11;:
(NB. I’m a bit uncertain about Esther. Maybe one can confirm what I just said).
Click to expand...
My NRSVA contains both Esther, and GreekEsther.

xan

jonathon
 
jblake said:
My NRSVA contains both Esther, and GreekEsther.

xan

jonathon
Click to expand...
Yeah, that’s what I thought. In the Catholic Edition, there would be only one Esther, with the Greek-only sections inserted into the proper place in the narrative.

Ditto Daniel. I assume you have separate books for the Song of the Three Young Men, Susanna, and Bel & the Dragon?
 
porthos11;:
Ditto Daniel. I assume you have separate books for the Song of the Three Young Men, Susanna, and Bel & the Dragon?
Click to expand...
Yes.

xan

jonathon
 
Esther in the NRSV is translated twice – once from the Hebrew, and once from the Greek. In some other translations, only the *additions *from the Greek are translated – but in the NRSV, there are two complete translations.

Happy Reading!
 
Porthos: if all inclusive language was removed from the NRSV do you think that it would be superior to every edition of the RSV?
 
In the Latin tradition, following upon the what St Jerome did, the book of Esther is translated from the Hebrew and the additional passages in the Greek text are translated from the Greek and inserted into the relevant portions in the Hebrew. This is how Catholic editions of the OT does it, including the NAB, NJB, Nova Vulgata, RSV-CE and NRSV-CE.

However, the NRSV-CE omitted adding one verse from the Greek text into its Hebrew text: the verse between Esther 4:8 and Esther 4:9:
“ Memor, inquit, dierum humilitatis tuae, quando nutrita sis in manu mea, quia Aman secundus a rege locutus est contra nos in mortem. Et tu, invoca Dominum et loquere regi pro nobis et libera nos de morte ”.
Click to expand...
All the other Catholic editions of the OT has that additional verse.

This is kind of interesting situation: the NRSV-CE adds the Greek text to the original Hebrew but omitted one verse in the process. The NRSV with Apocrypha contains 2 books of Esther, neither of which “traditional”: the Hebrew text is incomplete, while the protocanonical portions of the Greek book of Esther are not translated from the Hebrew.
 
I was informed by Prof L Bechtel (who was one of the translators involved) that when the NRSV was first published a Roman Catholic Cardinal insisted that if they wanted to sell the Bible to Catholics a passage in Isaiah would need to be changed. This was done for the NRSV-CE.

However, she is adamant (as were the other translators) that the Hebrew could not possibly be translated in the way the Cardinal insisted it was. So, she argues, Catholics have a ‘defective’ translation - at least for that part of Isaiah. Sorry, I don’t have the particular reference. Doh! Still if someone had both versions they could read them in parallel.

The Cardinal in question? A certain Bernard Ratzinger.

I have no reason to believe she was ‘lying’ to me. Why would she? Nevertheless, if anyone knows the particular passage, I’d be very grateful to know what it is.
 
I believe the NRSV-CE omits those books that are in the Eastern Orthodox canon but not in the Roman Catholic canon, namely (using the NRSV names): 1 & 2 Esdras, Prayer of Mannasseh, Psalm 151, 3 & 4 Maccabees. (Note that what is called 1 & 2 Esdras in the Douai translation is called Ezra and Nehemiah in the NRSV.)

For those interested in the Septuagint studies but lacking Greek, I can recommend the New English Translation of the Septuagint.
 
Frankk said:
I was informed by Prof L Bechtel (who was one of the translators involved) that when the NRSV was first published a Roman Catholic Cardinal insisted that if they wanted to sell the Bible to Catholics a passage in Isaiah would need to be changed. This was done for the NRSV-CE.

However, she is adamant (as were the other translators) that the Hebrew could not possibly be translated in the way the Cardinal insisted it was. So, she argues, Catholics have a ‘defective’ translation - at least for that part of Isaiah. Sorry, I don’t have the particular reference. Doh! Still if someone had both versions they could read them in parallel.

The Cardinal in question? A certain Bernard Ratzinger.

I have no reason to believe she was ‘lying’ to me. Why would she? Nevertheless, if anyone knows the particular passage, I’d be very grateful to know what it is.
Click to expand...
Who’s Bernard Ratzinger?
 
The 2nd Edition of the NRSV-CE has been “revised according to Liturgiam Authenticam.” (From the title page)

So, for example, “highly favoured one” now reads “full of grace.” I think, but am not sure, that the inclusive language has been removed, in the places where it was a bad translation.

This is the version that the Vatican uses when citing in English.

Ah, don’t you wish that we all learned Greek and Hebrew in school? And Latin, too?

Non nobis, Domine…

Ruthie
 
Ruthie said:
The 2nd Edition of the NRSV-CE has been “revised according to Liturgiam Authenticam.” (From the title page)

So, for example, “highly favoured one” now reads “full of grace.” I think, but am not sure, that the inclusive language has been removed, in the places where it was a bad translation.

This is the version that the Vatican uses when citing in English.

Ah, don’t you wish that we all learned Greek and Hebrew in school? And Latin, too?

Non nobis, Domine…

Ruthie
Click to expand...
Ruthie,

Actually that is not the NRSV-CE, but the RSV-CE that was updated: ignatius.com/ViewProduct.aspx?SID=1&Product_ID=2765&SKU=IB2-P&ReturnURL=search.aspx%3f%3fSID%3d1%26SearchCriteria%3dBible

Now, the NRSV has recently been approved by Rome for Liturgical use in Canada, but I haven’t heard of any changes that were made to the text.
 
Ruthie said:
The 2nd Edition of the NRSV-CE has been “revised according to Liturgiam Authenticam.” (From the title page)

So, for example, “highly favoured one” now reads “full of grace.”
Click to expand...
Firstly, my sincere apologies for causing chaos and mayhem. I should have written ‘Joseph Ratzinger’ Doh! A very serious ‘senior moment’ indeed!! :confused:

Anyway, it’s odd that ‘full of grace’ has been reintroduced. The Greek word is kexapitwmenay [sorry I haven’t got a Greek font]. When Erasmus was retranslating the NT from the original Greek [because the Vulgate had some big problems with the accuracy of its translation] he was scathing that the words of the angel could not possibly be translated as ‘Hail, O one that is full of grace’. He argued it could be translated as ‘Hail, O one that has found grace’ or ‘Hail, O favoured one’

The RSV Greek/English Interlinear NT uses ‘favoured one’. It seems a return to ‘full of grace’ is a backward step.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top