C
Ciaran_Butler
Guest
What is the difference between the RSV (Revised Standard Edition) Bible and the NRSV (New Revised Standard Edition) Bible?
Which of the two would you recommend?
Which of the two would you recommend?
- Status
R
Ron_Conte
Guest
I recommend that RSV Catholic Edition over the NRSV; the latter takes too many liberties with the translations, and has inclusive language, in contradition to Vatican Norms for Bible translation.
C
Ciaran_Butler
Guest
Thanks Ron for your time! 
It’s good to know the difference between the various different bible translations that are out there today.
It’s good to know the difference between the various different bible translations that are out there today.
T
tobinatorstark
Guest
I too would recommend the RSV-CE over the NRSV for the same reasons that Ron mentioned above. However I cannot say that I would recommend either of those Bibles in general
R
RosaryGirl_777
Guest
Another difference is that the RSV-CE uses thee,thy & thou type language in places were God is talking to man or man is talking to God. It also uses similar language in some other places too. The NRSV-CE doesn’t or so I’ve been told use older language (But I don’t own a copy of the NRSV-CE I’m just going by what I’m been told) I’ve heard that the NRSV-CE has inclusive language . I don’t think the RSV-CE has inclusive language but I’m not 100% sure on that. I like the RSV-CE & recommend the RSV-CE.
C
Cajetan
Guest
Since you are Catholic, Ciaran, I recommend first of all that you get the ‘Catholic Edition’ (with imprimatur) of whichever Bible version you choose, the RSV or NRSV.
Between the RSV:CE and NRSV:CE, however, I recommend the former over the latter for the reasons Ron gave.
Between the RSV:CE and NRSV:CE, however, I recommend the former over the latter for the reasons Ron gave.
M
Manfred
Guest
And if I may add my two-cents’ worth: there are TWO RSV-CE’s; the original, and, IMHO, the better of the two, is dated 1965-66; the RSV-2CE is from 2002 or later.
The former retains the thee/thou/thine pronouns for man’s addressing God, particularly in prayer; the former does not, to its detriment, I feel. The RSV-2CE is a work-in-progress: it made a weak attempt to conform to Liturgiam Authenticam, but failed to go far enough.
The NRSV-CE does not deserve the “CE” designation. Nothing in it was changed to make it more “Catholic”.
R
Ron_Conte
Guest
The NRSV translators had in mind to translate words and pronouns accurately, and not to distort the meaning of words to comply with a politically correct ideas on inclusiveness. But after the translation work was completed, a separate editorial committee altered the text to insert inclusive language where it was not called for by the text.
Every translation has some inclusive language, i.e. some words that refer to human persons generally, without specifying gender, such as ‘someone’ or ‘they’ or ‘all’. But in another sense, inclusive language is language that is not called for by the source text, but is added to comply with modern ideas of what the text should have said (but in fact does not say), e.g. when Paul addresses, in his letters, the brothers of a particular church, it is altered to say ‘brothers and sisters’. Then there is the worse technique of altering words refering to God, so that the words are no longer masculine.
Every translation has some inclusive language, i.e. some words that refer to human persons generally, without specifying gender, such as ‘someone’ or ‘they’ or ‘all’. But in another sense, inclusive language is language that is not called for by the source text, but is added to comply with modern ideas of what the text should have said (but in fact does not say), e.g. when Paul addresses, in his letters, the brothers of a particular church, it is altered to say ‘brothers and sisters’. Then there is the worse technique of altering words refering to God, so that the words are no longer masculine.
M
Manfred
Guest
A pox on those “editorial committees”!!
If I were a member of a translation team that had its work “refined” by someone on an editorial committee, I think I would then disassociate myself from that translation.
Of course, as you well know, some translation teams themselves start off with the intent of inclusivising their translation; they don’t need an editorial committee to screw things up, as they’ve already done so themselves.
I still find it hard to fathom that the original translation team does not have final approval of what’s actually published.
A blessed Christmas to one and all.
B
Bookcat
Guest
RSV CE!!! Hands down
C
CalCatholic
Guest
I would go with the RSV-2CE, because it gets rid of the ‘thees and thous’ (of course unless you like them) and has made some minor changes to the RSV-CE, which (per Ignatius Press), were at the sugestion of the Vatican. The RSV-2CE as the RSV-CE, does not use inclusive language
B
Bookcat
Guest
The other minor changes that are mentioned here as “at the suggestion of the Vatican” – were due to a document on the LITURGY. So it is VERY IMPORTANT to note that the Church uses the RSV --without it being the 2CE-- for the English translations of Official documents… so it is very important to remember that the Reg RSV CE (as opposed to the Ignatius 2CE) is not considered in ANY negative light. Basically the reason Ignatius made the changes that came from Vatican document on the Liturgy is so their their second edition could be used in the LECTIONARY that they were planning to publish (and have published). It was NOT due to anything defective in the RSV CE (in fact the still publish the original one --along with Scepter). This is just to make sure no one thinks that the RSV CE is “replaced” by the RSVCE2 or that it is not conforming to the Vatican’s wishes. The changes from the Vatican were directed at Liturgical Texts – not Bibles per se…
Just a clearifcation…of course I use them all …
- Status