RSV-CE vs. NRSV-CE?

[AngelRose81]

I’ve got both and was just wondering what is the biggest difference in the two? I know that the NRSV has more inclusive language, I think and I know that many Catholics prefer the RSV to the NRSV or an other translation, but I guess I was wondering why. I like both of them. Care to share some insight?

 

[Epistemes]

The NRSV is the translation preferred by a majority of Biblical scholars because of the meticulous research headed by renowned Biblical scholar and textual critic Bruce Metzger. You can read about it here:

bible-researcher.com/nrsv.html

It is claimed that the NRSV is more true to the intended meanings of the original languages than any other translation before it. While I’m sure this can be disputed, in my own studies with it I have found it to be more exact in many more areas - but it still retains elements of the RSV, hence why the NRSV is not an entirely new translation but merely another revision based on a previous text. Many of the RSV are, therefore, still intact.

The interesting thing about the NRSV, according to the link above, is that the inclusive language was not intended by some of the scholars translating and publishing the text - but it worked it’s way in there, regardless.

 

[AngelRose81]

The NRSV is the translation preferred by a majority of Biblical scholars because of the meticulous research headed by renowned Biblical scholar and textual critic Bruce Metzger. You can read about it here:

bible-researcher.com/nrsv.html

It is claimed that the NRSV is more true to the intended meanings of the original languages than any other translation before it. While I’m sure this can be disputed, in my own studies with it I have found it to be more exact in many more areas - but it still retains elements of the RSV, hence why the NRSV is not an entirely new translation but merely another revision based on a previous text. Many of the RSV are, therefore, still intact.

The interesting thing about the NRSV, according to the link above, is that the inclusive language was not intended by some of the scholars translating and publishing the text - but it worked it’s way in there, regardless.

Thanks for the info. I never knew that.

 

[Manfred]

The interesting thing about the NRSV…is that the inclusive language was not intended by some of the scholars translating and publishing the text - but it worked it’s way in there, regardless.

A similar claim was made for the 1970 NAB; to wit, after the original group of translators were finished, a group of “editors” took over and introduced changes of their own, and then the work was published; the original team did not get to see these editorial changes.

Assuming this really was the situation with the NAB, perhaps the NRSV translators should’ve taken precautions to prevent bastardization of their own work.

 

[Epistemes]

Apparently - and I don’t know if this is entirely true - but the committee which decided on the form, etc. of the NRSV translation wanted to be even more liberal with the gender-inclusive language, going so far as to actually use inclusive language for most, if not all, instances of God, thereby blurring God’s Fatherhood. Metzger won the committee over by telling them that such an idea was far from a good idea.

 

[Manfred]

Apparently - and I don’t know if this is entirely true - but the committee which decided on the form, etc. of the NRSV translation wanted to be even more liberal with the gender-inclusive language, going so far as to actually use inclusive language for most, if not all, instances of God, thereby blurring God’s Fatherhood. Metzger won the committee over by telling them that such an idea was far from a good idea.

Of the three widely available inclusive-language versions used by Catholics, I rank them this way, from least offensive (top) to most (bottom):

1. New Jerusalem Bible (1985)
2. NAB w/Revised NT and Psalms (1991)
3. NRSV (1989).

 

[Epistemes]

Of the three widely available inclusive-language versions used by Catholics, I rank them this way, from least offensive (top) to most (bottom):

1. New Jerusalem Bible (1985)
2. NAB w/Revised NT and Psalms (1991)
3. NRSV (1989).

I would probably have to agree with you, though I sometimes feel the NAB comes awfully close to the NRSV.

Here’s my question, though:

Why is the NRSV preferred by so many scholars?

The answer, of course, is due to its superb translation of the original languages - which even exceeds that of the RSV. The only problem with the NRSV is its liberal usage of inclusive language.

I mention this only by way of comparison with the NAB and the JB: neither of which are the best translations, and both use inclusive language - which sort of seems like a double whammy.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

I would probably have to agree with you, though I sometimes feel the NAB comes awfully close to the NRSV.

Here’s my question, though:

Why is the NRSV preferred by so many scholars?

The answer, of course, is due to its superb translation of the original languages - which even exceeds that of the RSV. The only problem with the NRSV is its liberal usage of inclusive language.

I mention this only by way of comparison with the NAB and the JB: neither of which are the best translations, and both use inclusive language - which sort of seems like a double whammy.

Epistemes:

A slight correction - The original Jerusalem Bible didn’t use Inclusive Language. It was the original translation from 1966 that Mother Angelica from EWTN favors. Most of the people I’ve talked to feel that it’s one of the better Dynamic Equivalence Translations (and many tend to rate it even with or better than the original NAB, which I had when I was younger). The New Jerusalem Bible, which is largely a revision of the original JB, is the version that uses inclusive language.

The NRSV should be a good translation - It’s a revision of the RSV. It’s the insistance on using inclusive language even when doing so destroys the meanings of the scriptural passages that drives me nuts and makes the NRSV next to worthless. I bought one when I came back to the Lord because of my fond memories of the original RSV which I had lost. Man! Was that a mistake!

Regarding “Scholars”, I can only suggest that you ask how many of these “Scholars” who prefer the NSRV agree with Humanae Vitae, Evangelium Vitae, or any of the other of the Church’s teachings on human sexuality. Or, How many of them support the Church traditional teaching on the all-male Sacerdotal priesthood versus supporting the “Ordination” of women to the “ministerial priesthood”.

It seems to me that inclusive language such as that in the NRSV makes it a little easier to disagree with those dogmas of the Church and to support cause contrary to them.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[porthos11]

I mention this only by way of comparison with the NAB and the JB: neither of which are the best translations, and both use inclusive language - which sort of seems like a double whammy.

The JB uses no inclusive language, the NJB does but from what I hear, to a more tolerable and moderate degree.

The original 1970 NAB also used no inclusive language, but the 1986 NT had some, but not to an annoying degree. The 1991 NAB Psalms’ use of inclusive language is unforgivable.

 

[kell0618]

I’ve got both and was just wondering what is the biggest difference in the two? I know that the NRSV has more inclusive language, I think and I know that many Catholics prefer the RSV to the NRSV or an other translation, but I guess I was wondering why. I like both of them. Care to share some insight?

Not sure if I’m missing something, but I have the RSV-CE 2nd Edition. This is the newest from Ignatius. It does not have inclusive language.

 

[Manfred]

The JB uses no inclusive language, the NJB does but from what I hear, to a more tolerable and moderate degree.

The original 1970 NAB also used no inclusive language, but the 1986 NT had some, but not to an annoying degree. The 1991 NAB Psalms’ use of inclusive language is unforgivable.

Work on what would be published as the NJB of 1985 likely began soon after the 2nd edition of the French appeared in 1973, my point being that inclusive language wasn’t really the high-priority agenda item it would become by the time work on the NRSV and the NAB revised NT and Psalms was undertaken. It would appear that the more recent the translation, the more was inclusive language introduced with reckless abandon. When the rest of the NAB OT is fully inclusivized, it will either be at the bottom of my list or, at best, tied with the NRSV.

 

[kell0618]

Not sure if I’m missing something, but I have the RSV-CE 2nd Edition. This is the newest from Ignatius. It does not have inclusive language.

The description on Amazon:

A completely new typeset and designed edition of the popular Ignatius Revised Standard Version Bible, with minor revisions to some of the archaic language used in the first edition. This revised version is a contemporary English translation without dumbing-down the text. This second edition of the RSV doesn’t put the biblical text through a filter to make it acceptable to current tastes and prejudices, and it retains the beauty of the RSV language that has made it such a joy to read and reflect on the Word of God. Now the only Catholic Bible in standard English is even more beautiful in word and design!

Please note that the second edition, described above, is not the same old RSV.

 

[porthos11]

Not sure if I’m missing something, but I have the RSV-CE 2nd Edition. This is the newest from Ignatius. It does not have inclusive language.

What you have is an updated version of the RSV, not the NRSV. I believe it to be the finest Catholic translation available today.

 

[kell0618]

What you have is an updated version of the RSV, not the NRSV. I believe it to be the finest Catholic translation available today.

I agree. I’m just thinking, perhaps others don’t know there is the second edition available by the way they stack their preferences. I LOVE the RSV-CE II.

Thanks!

Kelly

 

[AngelRose81]

Thanks for your comments. I think I decided I do like the RSV much better after comparing the two.

One additional question though, would it be terribly bad to use an RSV that has the deuterocanical (sp?) books in the middle and not in their proper order. I assume the translation and possibly the footnotes are the same. Am I correct?

I just happen to have one of these already from when I was a Protestant and I really liked the feel of it and the size of it.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Just for the record I want to say that both the RSV and the NRSV have scriptural renderings that are at odds with Catholic Doctrine.

It never ceases to amaze me how any amount of accuracy that is gained in scriptures that do not have a direct bearing on Catholic Doctrine should outweigh the witness of the Vulgate on those scriptures where Catholic Doctrine does come into play.

The RSV and NRSV will be Protestant until the end of time.

Why is it that so many Catholic readers prefer Protestant doctrine reflected in their renderings?

P.S. Tell all the people who push this agenda that I will never leave.

Also tell them that if the changes in the Catholic editions really went far enough you probably wouldn’t hear them touting them here.

 

[porthos11]

Thanks for your comments. I think I decided I do like the RSV much better after comparing the two.

One additional question though, would it be terribly bad to use an RSV that has the deuterocanical (sp?) books in the middle and not in their proper order. I assume the translation and possibly the footnotes are the same. Am I correct?

It won’t be a big problem. I believe you have a Common Bible edition from Oxford, with the Deuterocanonicals and Apocrypha sandwiched in between. That’s all right; the order of books in the Bible is tradition, not Tradition. If I’m right, it uses the 1971 New Testamant, a significant improvement over the original 1946 New Testament, and it closely matches the 1966 CE New Testament.

That said, a few passages may be different from the Catholic Edition. Most probably, you will see the angel’s address to Mary as “O favored one” instead of “full of grace.”

 

[Manfred]

would it be terribly bad to use an RSV that has the deuterocanical (sp?) books in the middle and not in their proper order. I assume the translation and possibly the footnotes are the same. Am I correct?

I just happen to have one of these already from when I was a Protestant and I really liked the feel of it and the size of it.

It’s possible you may be referring to The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha, which also has the Deuterocanonicals and the 2nd ed. (1971) NT, although in my copy the DCs are after the NT not between the OT and NT. The study notes in this bible, while not patently offensive to Catholic doctrine, do little to bolster it, either. Some of the renderings in the NT were adopted from the RSV-CE. See the link below for a good comparison of the RSV-CE NT and the RSV 2nd ed. NT. (The latter should NOT be confused with the RSV 2nd CATHOLIC ed.)

umsis.miami.edu/~medmunds/ScepterChangesC.htm

 

[LordHaveMercy]

Besides the inclusive language junk, the NRSV is great. I couldn’t find a NRSV-CE that i liked, but i have my protestant version, and I really like the way it flows and the history of how they translated it is great.

Just an interesting fact, but the NRSV also has a Jewish Edition that is (becoming) very popular.

Say what you want, but I think that the Scriptures should be translated by skilled and unpartial linguists (if that’s the word) and not nessesarily people with an agenda (that includes both those who do inclusive language and those who want certain doctrines emphasized more than the original scripture said)

 

[porthos11]

Say what you want, but I think that the Scriptures should be translated by skilled and unpartial linguists (if that’s the word) and not nessesarily people with an agenda (that includes both those who do inclusive language and those who want certain doctrines emphasized more than the original scripture said)

This has always been my principle. Language accuracy first, before anything else.

Only if the translators need to make a decision and linguistic evidence is evenly balanced in either direction should doctrine then be the deciding factor. For Catholics scholarship, according to Divino Afflante Spiritu, the highest authority is to be given to the critical editions of the original languages with due reference to other ancient sources, and any toss-ups for split decisions are to be resolved according to the Nova Vulgata, according to Liturgiam Authenticam.