RSV comapred to NRSV

  • Thread starter Thread starter TimothyH
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sorry I missed this discussion. I have an RSV-2CE that I use for my daily study, and I also have an NRSV as well. I much prefer word-for-word translation even if it is clunkier and inartful. I wish I knew Hebrew and Greek to read the Bible in the original languages.

This said, I do not find the NRSV to be as bad as many of its critics say. Also, there is no reason not to change thous, thees, thys etc into modern English. After all, this is updating the English to reflect modern usage of a word, not really an exercise in dynamic equivalence.

I note however there is some criticism here:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Revised_Standard_Version

I know some Catholics criticise the NRSV for being the fruit of ecumenical scholarship but then so is the RSV. I think Bruce Metzger’s intent was/is an honourable one. Certainly there is no issue of the NRSV having the problems with it that, say, the NIV has, which is popular with evangelicals.
 
KnightIHSV said:
Sorry I missed this discussion. I have an RSV-2CE that I use for my daily study, and I also have an NRSV as well. I much prefer word-for-word translation even if it is clunkier and inartful. I wish I knew Hebrew and Greek to read the Bible in the original languages.

This said, I do not find the NRSV to be as bad as many of its critics say. Also, there is no reason not to change thous, thees, thys etc into modern English. After all, this is updating the English to reflect modern usage of a word, not really an exercise in dynamic equivalence.

I note however there is some criticism here:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Revised_Standard_Version

I know some Catholics criticise the NRSV for being the fruit of ecumenical scholarship but then so is the RSV. I think Bruce Metzger’s intent was/is an honourable one. Certainly there is no issue of the NRSV having the problems with it that, say, the NIV has, which is popular with evangelicals.
Click to expand...
I bought an NIV at a thrift shop - only to claim that I actually had one. I find it to be a very “dumbed-down” translation that is detectably anti-Catholic where it can be. It seems that, at some point, there is a departure from translation and an entry into interpretation.
 
I have the Confraternity Bible. I use the OT for devotional reading together with the 1994 Good News Translation UK-English edition and the 1989 Revised English Bible Apocrypha and for a few parts of versses for study, and the NT occasionally for study.
po18guy said:
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.
TimothyH;9829956:
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.-Tim-
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
There is a version that few might know about, that revises the RSV very slightly, look at: christianforums.com/t7641923-post61566154/#post61566154
TimothyH said:
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-
CalCatholic;9827544:
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...
Click to expand...
KnightIHSV, I agree that the NIV is no good (all of the editions).
 
For some, gender inclusive language is a big deal–a deal breaker you might say. They avoid gender inclusive language like a plague. These folks do almost anything to avoid using a gender-inclusive translation. They like the RSV in all of its packages: RSV, RSV-CE, and ESV.

And others, and I am glad to place myself in this group, look for a translation that uses gender inclusive language, such as the NRSV.
Another difference between the RSV family and the NRSV–besides gender inclusive language–is the fact the RSV basically reflects biblical scholarship of the 1950s. The NRSV, on the other hand, reflects scholarship of the 1989. A lot of manuscripts were found and studied during those forty years.
I also like the margin translation notes in the NRSV much better than what you get in one of the RSV family.

…Scottish Monk
 
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...
Cambridge makes a beautiful KJV Cameo edition with Apocrypha\Deuterocanon that I, as a Catholic, use as my daily reader. While I own many a Catholic Bible, including the DR of course, I still like the KJV as a daily reader. It’s simply a joy to read. The fact that the Cameo is bound in soft calf skin and true Cambridge quality, is a nice bonus. Amazon sells the edition for roughly $115. Can be found here:

amazon.com/Cameo-Reference-Apocrypha-Black-Calfskin/dp/1107608074/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1351622881&sr=8-4&keywords=cambridge+cameo+kjv
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top