NRSV with apocrypha vs NRSV Catholic edition

  • Thread starter Thread starter rotlex
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

rotlex

Guest
As the subject says. As I have read, and own the DR, RSV-CE and NAB bibles, I am wondering about the NRSV. Specifically, what might be different, other than book order on the OT, between the NRSV-CE and the NRSV “protestant” edition with the apocrypha?

I’m wondering this, as I have found a very nice deal, on a gorgeous Cambridge edition, that I would love to own. Yes, I’ve been looking for this level of quality in a Catholic bible for a very long time, and have yet to find anything that comes close to this. I’ve also read, and have been subscribed to numerous threads on these forums on this very subject. 🙂

Anyway, again, other than the order of the OT books, would there be any difference in the NRSV versions? I’m thinking, if not, since it includes the apocrypha, what is the real difference? Am I missing something here?

Thanks
 
The Catholic order is one of the big differences, second would be the book of Daniel. In the Catholic edition the book is complete, in the non-Catholic edition a non complete version of Daniel is in the normal position (in the prophets), and the other parts; The Prayer of Azariah, Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon (which are included in the Catholic Daniel) are placed separately in the Apocrypha. Also when the different parts of Daniel are broken up, the verse numbering changes from the complete Catholic book. There are also extra books (that are in the Orthodox canon) that are included in the Apocrypha that are not included in the Catholic edition. Those are the big differences. It is nice to have the Bible in the Catholic order but there are some nicer quality Bibles offered in the ecumenical versions of the NRSV, like the Cambridge version.
 
Harper puts out a nice NRSV-CE edition. It is square so it feels kind of funny at first.
 
+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+​
 
Thanks for all the info here folks. I use the DR for my daily reading, and have for a very long time. The whole reason I was even looking at the NRSV was the quality of the Cambridge physical book itself. I REALLY wish there was a Catholic Bible publisher that made Bibles like this. I own a number of editions from Saint Benedict Press, Ignatius etc, and none come even close to Cambridge.

Anyway, thanks, but as I currently do NOT own a protestant bible, I really was just wondering if the NRSV-CE or the NRSV with Apocrypha were the same thing, just in different order. (Or would there be differences in the text as well)?
 
Not sure…but I believe the NRSV w/Apocrypha contains some of those books which the Orthodox use but Catholics do not.
 
The NRSV Apocrypha contains:
  • The Catholic Deuterocanon (including a complete translation of Greek Esther, not merely “the additions to Esther”).
  • The Catholic Apocrypha (books that are included in an appendix to the Sixto-Clementine Vulgate, namely, the two additional books of Esdras and the Prayer of Maasseh).
  • Other works that are held sacred by Orthodox churches (Psalm 151, 3 Maccabees, and 4 Maccabees).
I recommend the NRSV Apocrypha because most Catholic Bibles do not print the Catholic Apocrypha, despite their inclusion in the Vulgate appendix.
 
Bible_Reader said:
The NRSV Apocrypha contains:
  • The Catholic Deuterocanon (including a complete translation of Greek Esther, not merely “the additions to Esther”).
  • The Catholic Apocrypha (books that are included in an appendix to the Sixto-Clementine Vulgate, namely, the two additional books of Esdras and the Prayer of Maasseh).
  • Other works that are held sacred by Orthodox churches (Psalm 151, 3 Maccabees, and 4 Maccabees).
I recommend the NRSV Apocrypha because most Catholic Bibles do not print the Catholic Apocrypha, despite their inclusion in the Vulgate appendix.
Click to expand...
I have an Oxford Annotated Study Bible (NRSV-with Apocrypha) that includes all the Orthodox texts as well. Another interesting Bible I have is the 50th Anniv RSV with Apocryha, which has the same Orthodox books. I kick myself every time I see it, it’s a genuine leather, very nicely bound, edition I got on Amazon close out for 9 bucks. I should have bought 10 of them for gifts. Problem is, it is without cross references and I find that a hindrance in Bible reading.
 
rotlex said:
As the subject says. As I have read, and own the DR, RSV-CE and NAB bibles, I am wondering about the NRSV. Specifically, what might be different, other than book order on the OT, between the NRSV-CE and the NRSV “protestant” edition with the apocrypha?

I’m wondering this, as I have found a very nice deal, on a gorgeous Cambridge edition, that I would love to own. Yes, I’ve been looking for this level of quality in a Catholic bible for a very long time, and have yet to find anything that comes close to this. I’ve also read, and have been subscribed to numerous threads on these forums on this very subject. 🙂

Anyway, again, other than the order of the OT books, would there be any difference in the NRSV versions? I’m thinking, if not, since it includes the apocrypha, what is the real difference? Am I missing something here?

Thanks
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t use the NRSV at all. It has problematic vertical gender neutral, inclusive lanage that does not comform to the original languages. Use the RSV instead.
 
Bible_Reader said:
The NRSV Apocrypha contains:
  • The Catholic Deuterocanon (including a complete translation of Greek Esther, not merely “the additions to Esther”).
  • The Catholic Apocrypha (books that are included in an appendix to the Sixto-Clementine Vulgate, namely, the two additional books of Esdras and the Prayer of Maasseh).
  • Other works that are held sacred by Orthodox churches (Psalm 151, 3 Maccabees, and 4 Maccabees).
I recommend the NRSV Apocrypha because most Catholic Bibles do not print the Catholic Apocrypha, despite their inclusion in the Vulgate appendix.
Click to expand...
// so the text of the nrsv apocrypha is the same as the protestant and catholic edition?
 
Jehuty_X said:
// so the text of the nrsv apocrypha is the same as the protestant and catholic edition?
Click to expand...
Well, I haven’t seen a named “Protestant edition” NRSV – there is a NRSV without “apocrypha”, though.

The Catholic edition only has the Catholic Deuterocanonical books, not the broader selection, and only has Greek Esther, not Hebrew Esther.

The Ecumenical edition has the maximal set of Deuterocanonical/Apocryphal books, though.
 
Wanted to follow up on this, and say thanks for the replies in this thread. In my quest to determine if I could deal with the inclusive language in this translation, I have pretty much determined I cannot. I’ve spent quite a bit of time doing on line comparisons of different passages, mainly between my two primary reading Bibles, the DR and the RSV-CE, and I think I’ll pass entirely on the NRSV. It’s just too over the top to me with the language.

Now, with that said, I originally started this thread as I found a nice deal on a Cambridge NRSV with Apocrypha. Well, looks like Cambridge will be releasing a KJV WITH Apocrypha in early June. This might fill my “need” for a very high quality Bible, and stay as close to a DR as I can, LOL. I know, seems a bit obsessive to buy a protestant translation just for the physical aspect of the book itself but I’m a bit obsessive on certain things myself. 🙂
 
Bible_Reader said:
Well, I haven’t seen a named “Protestant edition” NRSV – there is a NRSV without “apocrypha”, though.

The Catholic edition only has the Catholic Deuterocanonical books, not the broader selection, and only has Greek Esther, not Hebrew Esther.

The Ecumenical edition has the maximal set of Deuterocanonical/Apocryphal books, though.
Click to expand...
// sorry…it’s the standard edition… :o

// so, it’s just the order of books then that is different in the standard edition and catholic edition?
 
If you are insisting on buying a Cambridge KJV with Apocrypha, then at least I would buy the New Cambridge Paragraph version which will have a single column paragraph format and modernized spelling and punctuation – rather than the Cameo edition you have your eye on. I own the Cameo version (it was released and then recalled) and it is nice, but the New Cambridge Paragraph sounds nicer.

It’s US release date is June, from what I’ve heard from Cambridge, but it is still listed as unknown at the US Amazon site.

I do think that a NRSV is quite helpful, and even though you’ve decided not to get one, I will still recommend to anyone reading this thread in the future this as a pretty good edition (and a small fraction of the price of the Cambridge Cameo.) Just last week it was on sale at Amazon for $17.49.
 
Bible_Reader said:
If you are insisting on buying a Cambridge KJV with Apocrypha, then at least I would buy the New Cambridge Paragraph version which will have a single column paragraph format and modernized spelling and punctuation – rather than the Cameo edition you have your eye on. I own the Cameo version (it was released and then recalled) and it is nice, but the New Cambridge Paragraph sounds nicer.

It’s US release date is June, from what I’ve heard from Cambridge, but it is still listed as unknown at the US Amazon site.

I do think that a NRSV is quite helpful, and even though you’ve decided not to get one, I will still recommend to anyone reading this thread in the future this as a pretty good edition (and a small fraction of the price of the Cambridge Cameo.) Just last week it was on sale at Amazon for $17.49.
Click to expand...
the NRSV has very problematic vertical gender neutral, inclusive language that does not comform to the original languages. I would not use it at all. Use the RSV instead.
 
Ignatius said:
the NRSV has very problematic vertical gender neutral, inclusive language that does not comform to the original languages. I would not use it at all. Use the RSV instead.
Click to expand...
The NRSV uses horizontal inclusive language primarily, with very little vertical. God is always referred to as ‘He’.
 
So since my last post, I’ve been spending quite a bit of time on line actually reading the NRSV. I am now again considering ordering the Cambridge NRSV Reference Edition with Apocrypha. Why? Well, after spending much time actually reading the NRSV, I’m finding I REALLY like the translation. I don’t care for the inclusive language, but everything else about it I’m really enjoying. It is very readable, at least in my opinion, and flows very, very nicely. (I’m coming from quite a few years of reading and studying with the DR and the RSV-CE).

The fact that I really like the Cambridge quality, is moving me more toward it as well. Now, considering how much I have been enjoying the translation reading it on line, if I can just get over the inclusive language barrier, I just may order it. 🙂
 
rotlex said:
So since my last post, I’ve been spending quite a bit of time on line actually reading the NRSV. I am now again considering ordering the Cambridge NRSV Reference Edition with Apocrypha. Why? Well, after spending much time actually reading the NRSV, I’m finding I REALLY like the translation. I don’t care for the inclusive language, but everything else about it I’m really enjoying. It is very readable, at least in my opinion, and flows very, very nicely. (I’m coming from quite a few years of reading and studying with the DR and the RSV-CE).

The fact that I really like the Cambridge quality, is moving me more toward it as well. Now, considering how much I have been enjoying the translation reading it on line, if I can just get over the inclusive language barrier, I just may order it. 🙂
Click to expand...
I would just mention that while I tend to use the RSV more, I do think the NRSV reads better. One of my favorite Bible editions that I own is the Cambridge one you have mentioned. It is a fine edition, in premium leather, a helpful glossary, lots of crossreferences, and a nice collection of maps. One thing to keep in mind, via the inclusive language, is that the NRSV notes make it clear when inclusive language is used. In many ways, the notes are an essential part of the translation.
 
mccorm45 said:
I would just mention that while I tend to use the RSV more, I do think the NRSV reads better. One of my favorite Bible editions that I own is the Cambridge one you have mentioned. It is a fine edition, in premium leather, a helpful glossary, lots of crossreferences, and a nice collection of maps. One thing to keep in mind, via the inclusive language, is that the NRSV notes make it clear when inclusive language is used. In many ways, the notes are an essential part of the translation.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the heads up on the notes. It’s the one thing I have not looked at with it. That makes it even a bit more tempting to pick it up.

Oh, as a side note, I just realized you are the writer\keeper of my favorite Bible blog. 🙂 (It is one of the first places I came across mention of the edition I am looking at - thanks for that review)!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top