RSV comapred to NRSV

  • Thread starter Thread starter TimothyH
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

TimothyH

Guest
What’s the difference?

I have a fine RSV, leather bound and zippered, ribbons, etc., which is my daily reader. It goes everywhere with me. Lately I have been eyeing a moroccan leather bound NRSV.

How do the translations compare? I don’t want to spend the money if the translations are almost identical.

-Tim-
 
All the “New” versions (exception: NAB) use inclusive language to a greater or lesser extent.
 
TimothyH said:
What’s the difference?

I have a fine RSV, leather bound and zippered, ribbons, etc., which is my daily reader. It goes everywhere with me. Lately I have been eyeing a moroccan leather bound NRSV.

How do the translations compare? I don’t want to spend the money if the translations are almost identical.

-Tim-
Click to expand...
It’s basically an RSV-CE with inclusive language.

The inclusive language is fairly intrusive in many places, but if you’re not too bothered by that sort of thing (I’m not, really - I prefer traditional language, but that’s just my personality!), then it’s a fairly good translation.

It preserves “he” in Genesis 3:15, unlike the NJB (it) and the NAB-RE (they).

It uses “offspring” instead of “descendents” in the Genesis passages that St. Paul uses in the Epistle to the Galatians.

It preserves the most “Messianic” translation of Psalm 45.

However, it has “highly favoured” in Luke 1. 😦

In short, if you’re a completist and want it for study and private reading, it’s all right. If you want to use it for apologetics, that’s a more difficult proposition. 😉
 
RPRPsych said:
It’s basically an RSV-CE with inclusive language.

The inclusive language is fairly intrusive in many places, but if you’re not too bothered by that sort of thing (I’m not, really - I prefer traditional language, but that’s just my personality!), then it’s a fairly good translation.

It preserves “he” in Genesis 3:15, unlike the NJB (it) and the NAB-RE (they).

It uses “offspring” instead of “descendents” in the Genesis passages that St. Paul uses in the Epistle to the Galatians.

It preserves the most “Messianic” translation of Psalm 45.

However, it has “highly favoured” in Luke 1. 😦

In short, if you’re a completist and want it for study and private reading, it’s all right. If you want to use it for apologetics, that’s a more difficult proposition. 😉
Click to expand...
I was considering it because it is used in at least some of the Sacra Pagina commentaries. I saw enough differences between my daily reader RSV-CE and the text in the Sacra Pagina that it piqued my interest. Based on what you are telling me though, I don’t think I’m going to spend $100 for this Bible.

I’ll probably invest in a Douah-Reims instead. I’ve been eyeing one of those too.

-Tim-
 
Luigi_Daniele said:
All the “New” versions (exception: NAB) use inclusive language to a greater or lesser extent.
Click to expand...
Matthew 16:13 from the NAB at the USCCB website: When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?”

Point of fact is that Jesus never said “people” in this context. This text is politically corrected, as is seemingly the case with all “New” translations.
 
TimothyH said:
I was considering it because it is used in at least some of the Sacra Pagina commentaries. I saw enough differences between my daily reader RSV-CE and the text in the Sacra Pagina that it piqued my interest. Based on what you are telling me though, I don’t think I’m going to spend $100 for this Bible.

I’ll probably invest in a Douah-Reims instead. I’ve been eyeing one of those too.

-Tim-
Click to expand...
Go to eBay and have a look (and a bit of patience). I located a very good 1914 copyright D-R for $10 plus postage. The approbation of James Cardinal Gibbons is reason alone to have a copy. What a bio!

Also found a 1953 Confraternity bible (1941-1969) in excellent for $10+. This is a little-known but greatly usable translation. I alternate between it and the D-R.

I actually wish that the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine had been allowed to finish the updating of the D-R that their translation began. It is what a lot of us are asking for today.
 
po18guy said:
Matthew 16:13 from the NAB at the USCCB website: When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?”

Point of fact is that Jesus never said “people” in this context. This text is politically corrected, as is seemingly the case with all “New” translations.
Click to expand...
hoi anthropoi = " the people"
 
TimothyH said:
What’s the difference?

I have a fine RSV, leather bound and zippered, ribbons, etc., which is my daily reader. It goes everywhere with me. Lately I have been eyeing a moroccan leather bound NRSV.

How do the translations compare? I don’t want to spend the money if the translations are almost identical.

-Tim-
Click to expand...
There is quite a bit of difference due to the inclusive language used by the NRSV. Also the RSV-CE uses some archaic language (‘thees and thous’, etc.) that the NRSV has eliminated.
Here is a little example:

Psalm 1:1
RSV-CE; ‘Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked,’

NRSV; ‘Happy are those who do not follow the advise of the wicked,’

Psam 10:1
RSV-CE; 'Why dost thou stand afar off, O LORD? Why dost thou hide thyself in times of trouble?

NRSV; 'Why, O LORD, do you stand far off? Why do you hide yourself in times of trouble?
 
Dave_Noonan said:
hoi anthropoi = " the people"
Click to expand...
It’s that old Greek vs. Latin thing again! Well, I’ll have to find another egregious example from the NAB then!

16 13 And Jesus came into the quarters of Cesarea Philippi: and he asked his disciples, saying: Whom do men say that the Son of man is?

venit autem Iesus in partes Caesareae Philippi et interrogabat discipulos suos dicens quem dicunt homines esse Filium hominis

I wonder what it was in Aramaic?
 
po18guy said:
It’s that old Greek vs. Latin thing again! Well, I’ll have to find another egregious example from the NAB then!

16 13 And Jesus came into the quarters of Cesarea Philippi: and he asked his disciples, saying: Whom do men say that the Son of man is?

venit autem Iesus in partes Caesareae Philippi et interrogabat discipulos suos dicens quem dicunt homines esse Filium hominis

I wonder what it was in Aramaic?
Click to expand...
I’m sure there are plenty of egregious examples in the NAB, it’s just that this is not a good example.

How about Psalm 1; Hebrew is ish (man), Greek (LXX) aner (man), NRSV is “Happy are those…”

This is a far better example of translation that is clearly utilizing inclusive language.
 
Dave_Noonan said:
I’m sure there are plenty of egregious examples in the NAB, it’s just that this is not a good example.

How about Psalm 1; Hebrew is ish (man), Greek (LXX) aner (man), NRSV is “Happy are those…”

This is a far better example of translation that is clearly utilizing inclusive language.
Click to expand...
For a “Christian”, you certainly know a bit about the NAB - enough to know its squishiness, anyway! I cannot believe that a Church which has 1 billion+ members and the greatest theological resources on earth cannot seem to produce anything better than scriptural mediocrity in modern American English. 😦 Thus, I alternate between a 1914 D-R and a 1953 Confraternity bible. Still looking for a KJV w/Deuterocanon to add to the collection…

What was the topic again??? :o
 
Dave_Noonan said:
I’m sure there are plenty of egregious examples in the NAB, it’s just that this is not a good example.

How about Psalm 1; Hebrew is ish (man), Greek (LXX) aner (man), NRSV is “Happy are those…”

This is a far better example of translation that is clearly utilizing inclusive language.
Click to expand...
I believe the original question was the RSV vs NRSV (CE edition)? Now you just threw in the NAB. The NAB of Psalm 1 is
Blessed is the man who does not walk
Click to expand...
Not being a Scripture scholar, I am satisfied with the latest NAB edition. It is more readable to me than the RSV-CE. It seems to correspond more to the ancient texts. Use of the word “Blessed” rather than “happy” is a good example.
 
CalCatholic said:
There is quite a bit of difference due to the inclusive language used by the NRSV. Also the RSV-CE uses some archaic language (‘thees and thous’, etc.) that the NRSV has eliminated.
Here is a little example:

Psalm 1:1
RSV-CE; ‘Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked,’

NRSV; ‘Happy are those who do not follow the advise of the wicked,’

Psam 10:1
RSV-CE; 'Why dost thou stand afar off, O LORD? Why dost thou hide thyself in times of trouble?

NRSV; 'Why, O LORD, do you stand far off? Why do you hide yourself in times of trouble?
Click to expand...
I noticed that the RSV-CE lapses into “thees and thous” whenever a Biblical character goes into prayer but maintains a more modern prose when in the narrative.

-Tim-
 
po18guy said:
For a “Christian”, you certainly know a bit about the NAB - enough to know its squishiness, anyway! I cannot believe that a Church which has 1 billion+ members and the greatest theological resources on earth cannot seem to produce anything better than scriptural mediocrity in modern American English. 😦 Thus, I alternate between a 1914 D-R and a 1953 Confraternity bible. Still looking for a KJV w/Deuterocanon to add to the collection…

What was the topic again??? :o
Click to expand...
Yes… NRSV vs RSV. I think it has been answered.

Your recommendations on the Confraternaty Bible have been noted with great interest. I know little about it.

I saw the St. Benedict Press DR Bible in my Church gift shop a few months ago. If it is still there I think I’ll get it. I wish it came with a zippered binding like my Oxford RSV-CE thinline.

-Tim-
 
TimothyH said:
Yes… NRSV vs RSV. I think it has been answered.

Your recommendations on the Confraternaty Bible have been noted with great interest. I know little about it.

I saw the St. Benedict Press DR Bible in my Church gift shop a few months ago. If it is still there I think I’ll get it. I wish it came with a zippered binding like my Oxford RSV-CE thinline.

-Tim-
Click to expand...
You can locate excellent condition Confraternity bibles online for bargain prices. It does have a bit of an “in-between” sense to it, since the updating of the translation was never officially completed, but it remains a very usable bible. To me, it seems more sharply focused than the various “New” bibles.
 
po18… I have to hand it to you. I remember that I do have a Douay OT/Confraternaty NT Bible. :doh2: Thanks for prompting me with the word “Confraternity.” That word bothered me all day until I realized where I had seen it.

I collect old and interesting wooden boxes and found a boxed Bible many years ago in the back room of an antique shop somewhere. I think I paid $8 for it. I look at the box and Bible once in a while or show it to people, but maybe I will read it and pray it now.











-Tim-
 
TimothyH said:
po18… I have to hand it to you. I remember that I do have a Douay OT/Confraternaty NT Bible. :doh2: Thanks for prompting me with the word “Confraternity.” That word bothered me all day until I realized where I had seen it.

I collect old and interesting wooden boxes and found a boxed Bible many years ago in the back room of an antique shop somewhere. I think I paid $8 for it. I look at the box and Bible once in a while or show it to people, but maybe I will read it and pray it now.

-Tim-
Click to expand...
No need to be extravagant and spend the entire $10 that I suggested! 😃

With kudos to Saint Anthony for inspiring the recollection, huh?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top