So I'm starting to really like the NRSV

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

rotlex

Guest
OK, this is kind of a follow up to my post a while back about the NRSV Catholic vs NRSV with Apocrypha. I was looking at a Cambridge Reference edition NRSV w\Apocrypha and was wondering what the differences were. (Found out the CE vs Apocrypha are no different, other than the order of the books, so I went ahead and ordered the Cambridge).

Anyway, other than falling in love at first smell with the French Moroccan Leather of the Cambridge, :D, I’m really starting the enjoy the NRSV translation. It is my first time reading through it, and praying with it, as I have used the DR and RSV-CE for a very long time now. I was very concerned that the inclusive language of the NRSV would bother me, but I’m finding that with the footnotes, and my familiarity with the text, it is really not bothering me.

What I AM enjoying, is the fluidness of the translation. I am gaining things from it that I guess I never noticed before. Frankly, I think it reads better than any translation I have dealt with, and I may wind up making it my primary for home reading and prayer time.

Anyone feel the same way about this translation, regardless of the inclusive language? All in all, other than in a few places, I think it is overblown, and in some ways, actually makes more sense. (Just personal opinions here, not looking to debate it at all).
 
Steve,
I agree with your assessment. While I still use the RSV more, I have no problem reading from the NRSV, which is enhanced by the textual notes which are essentially a part of the translation itself. They make up for any issues relating to inclusive language. The NRSV, IMHO, reads better , particularly in the OT. So I am quite comfortable using either the RSV or NRSV. The Cambridge edition you mentioned is also one of the nicest Bibles I own. Quality leather binding and the references and glossary/maps are top notch.
 
Congratulations on finding an edition of the Bible that you like a lot. May it lead you to even closer study of Scripture.
 
rotlex said:
OK, this is kind of a follow up to my post a while back about the NRSV Catholic vs NRSV with Apocrypha. I was looking at a Cambridge Reference edition NRSV w\Apocrypha and was wondering what the differences were. (Found out the CE vs Apocrypha are no different, other than the order of the books, so I went ahead and ordered the Cambridge).

Anyway, other than falling in love at first smell with the French Moroccan Leather of the Cambridge, :D, I’m really starting the enjoy the NRSV translation. It is my first time reading through it, and praying with it, as I have used the DR and RSV-CE for a very long time now. I was very concerned that the inclusive language of the NRSV would bother me, but I’m finding that with the footnotes, and my familiarity with the text, it is really not bothering me.

What I AM enjoying, is the fluidness of the translation. I am gaining things from it that I guess I never noticed before. Frankly, I think it reads better than any translation I have dealt with, and I may wind up making it my primary for home reading and prayer time.

Anyone feel the same way about this translation, regardless of the inclusive language? All in all, other than in a few places, I think it is overblown, and in some ways, actually makes more sense. (Just personal opinions here, not looking to debate it at all).
Click to expand...
I don’t mind the “brother and sister” stuff as much as the sanitizing of the “son of man” language in both Ezekiel and Daniel. Especially as to Daniel, it obscures the meaning of Jesus’ application of it to himself. That’s the problem I have with politically correct translating, other than that it reminds me of a scene in Life of Brian: sometimes it obscures the meaning of the text.
 
rotlex,

I own the Cambridge NRSV as well as the 4th NOARSV. Although the NRSV has some “newer” scholarship and translation improvements in SOME areas, I think there is a reason why the Oxford RSV is still going strong and was primary for use in the Catechism by JPII and Benedict’s biography on Jesus (although he also cited the NRSV in some places).
 
Salvatore123 said:
rotlex,

I own the Cambridge NRSV as well as the 4th NOARSV. Although the NRSV has some “newer” scholarship and translation improvements in SOME areas, I think there is a reason why the Oxford RSV is still going strong and was primary for use in the Catechism by JPII and Benedict’s biography on Jesus (although he also cited the NRSV in some places).
Click to expand...
I wondered how long it would take after Rotlex posted that he had found a Bible he really liked, for someone to post that he must be wrong (as if Rotlex couldn’t figure out for himself what he likes in a Bible.)

Do you think JPII personally translated the CCC into English? What role do you think he had over the choice of translations used in the CCC?

Are you aware that the primary translation used in the CCC is the NRSV? (The RSV is used sometimes, but the primary translation is the NRSV.)

Do you think that Benedict wrote his Jesus “biography” in English? Or do you believe it was translated?

Do you think Benedict personally chose the translations used in the two English volumes of his “biography” (as opposed to the publisher/translator)?

If so, why do you think Benedict chose the RSV1971 (not the RSV-CE) for volume 1? The English copyright page doesn’t even mention the RSV-CE at all.

Why do you think Benedict suddenly changed to RSV-2CE in volume 2?

Neither of those translations (RSV1971, RSV-2CE) has an imprimatur. Does that sound like a decision made by Benedict personally?
 
And I wondered how long it would take for you to show up, Bible Reader - not long, I see.

If you are familiar with mccorm45’s bible blog (it is quite good and quite well known), you would see that I did NOT criticize rotlex’s choice in any way.

I even said I owned the bible he chose. I even said that the NRSV has some improvement in some areas.

And I ended by saying that there is a reason why the RSV is still going strong after all these years and newer translations.

I didn’t mention ONE thing about “catholic editions” about either JPII’s or Benedict’s books.

Is it your function or job to now “tail” me with every post I make and then comment on why you think it is somehow wrong or improper or not up to your standards?

If I didn’t CARE about someone else, I would remain silent and not say anything.

Go read the bible blog I mentioned about BOTH the NRSV and the 4th RSV by Oxford and THEN tell me that I am wrong in anything I said . . . :mad:

P.S. I think JPII and Benedict probably had quite a bit of “say” over the translations that were used for their books, considering English is one of the most spoken languages of the entire world and I think they had a pretty good idea that majority buyers of their books would be english readers (which has proven to be the case). And perhaps YOU, Bible Reader, are the one who needs to read a little more closely. The introductions/prefaces to the CCC and the biographies refer to SCRIPTURE REFERENCE MATERIAL - NOT TRANSLATIONS. There IS a difference. I don’t know what particular bible translation was used for the original German edition of Benedict’s biography. I know which ones were used for the english translations and if you think that Benedict, a man who speaks more languages than probably any other pope in history, did not have a say in that translation and its sources, then I think you do a disservice to Bendict’s scholarship and editorial command of his own books.
 
rotlex,

I certainly meant no ill will towards you or your bible purchase. As I thought I made it clear - I own it myself after reading mccorm45’s bible blog about it.

And I mentioned the NOARSV 4th ONLY because mccorm45 did an original review and a recent follow up review - that’s all.

Obviously, you are free to ignore whatever I wrote as soon as you see my name.

Peace
 
Salvatore123 said:
And I wondered how long it would take for you to show up, Bible Reader - not long, I see.

If you are familiar with mccorm45’s bible blog (it is quite good and quite well known), you would see that I did NOT criticize rotlex’s choice in any way.
Click to expand...
Oh, I must have misread this statement: “Although the NRSV has some ‘newer’ scholarship and translation improvements in SOME areas, I think there is a reason why the Oxford RSV is still going strong…” Since your “newer” is not a quote from Rotlex, I assumed it was a contemptuous use of quotation marks. What did you mean by those quotation marks. Why did you write SOME in capital letters. How is this not a criticism of Rotlex’s choice?
Salvatore123 said:
I didn’t mention ONE thing about “catholic editions” about either JPII’s or Benedict’s books.
Click to expand...
You said: “the Oxford RSV … was primary for use in the Catechism by JPII.” Do you have any evidence that JPII used the Oxford RSV (or, as you call it, the 4th Oxford RSV?) in reviewing the Latin CCC? Do you know that even in the English translation, the RSV (much less the “4th Oxford RSV”) is not “primary”?

You said: “the Oxford RSV … was primary for use in … Benedict’s biography on Jesus.” Are you aware that Benedict wrote his books in German, and used a German translation? Are you aware that the publishers chose the translations used in the English translation?

If you are aware of all that, then what did you mean in your quote.
Salvatore123 said:
Is it your function or job to now ‘tail’ me with every post I make and then comment on why you think it is somehow wrong or improper or not up to your standards?
Click to expand...
Absolutely not. I posted a congratulatory note above to Rotlex. I was surprised by your comment above. I would have thought you might want to say to Rotlex that you were happy that he found a translation that he liked.
 
Salvatore123 said:
rotlex,

I certainly meant no ill will towards you or your bible purchase. As I thought I made it clear - I own it myself after reading mccorm45’s bible blog about it.

And I mentioned the NOARSV 4th ONLY because mccorm45 did an original review and a recent follow up review - that’s all.

Obviously, you are free to ignore whatever I wrote as soon as you see my name.

Peace
Click to expand...
The New Oxford Annotated Bible 4th edition also uses the NRSV.
 
Salvatore123 said:
if you think that Benedict, a man who speaks more languages than probably any other pope in history, did not have a say in that translation and its sources, then I think you do a disservice to Bendict’s scholarship and editorial command of his own books.
Click to expand...
Actually, Ignatius press has stated that they chose the translation in the 2nd edition (presumably to promote their in-inhouse translation) and they chose the translator (a different translator than for volume 1). I suppose it is possible that Benedict may have approved these decisions, but I have no evidence that he made them.
 
Salvatore123 said:
And perhaps YOU, Bible Reader, are the one who needs to read a little more closely. The introductions/prefaces to the CCC and the biographies refer to SCRIPTURE REFERENCE MATERIAL - NOT TRANSLATIONS
Click to expand...
Salvatore123 – I recommend that you may want to read the body of the CCC , not just the introductions and prefaces. When you do, you will recognize many quotes from the NRSV.

For Benedict’s works, you can simply refer to the copyright page – as well as the actual quotes from inside the text.

It is obvious that Ignatius promoted the translation that they publish.

But since you think that Benedict had a key role in choosing these translations – why do you think he chose translations without imprimatur?
 
Bible Reader,

I made a typo and you are wrong . . .

I MEANT to reference the New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha Expanded Edition - RSV

Oxford has also published a 4th edition, but it is of the NRSV - not the RSV.

If an RSV translation published by Oxford relied on an NRSV translation published also by Oxford, I think that would defeat the point of having an RSV and an NRSV - would it not?

I own both of those as well, again, based on mccorm45’s bible blog information.

rotlex - sorry your thread was “hijacked” - that was not my intent.
 
Salvatore123 said:
Bible Reader,

I made a typo and you are wrong . . .

I MEANT to reference the New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha Expanded Edition - RSV

Oxford has also published a 4th edition, but it is of the NRSV - not the RSV.

If an RSV translation published by Oxford relied on an NRSV translation published also by Oxford, I think that would defeat the point of having an RSV and an NRSV - would it not?

I own both of those as well, again, based on mccorm45’s bible blog information.

rotlex - sorry your thread was “hijacked” - that was not my intent.
Click to expand...
“If an RSV translation published by Oxford relied on an NRSV translation published also by Oxford, I think that would defeat the point of having an RSV and an NRSV - would it not?”

I cannot make sense of this sentence. Why do you think the RSV, which had its last revision in 1971, was based on the NRSV, which appeared in 1989?
 
Bible Reader,

After this, enough (at least from me). Geez . . .

You said to me: “I cannot make sense of this sentence. Why do you think the RSV, which had its last revision in 1971, was based on the NRSV, which appeared in 1989?”

As you read and interpreted it, it obviously would not make sense . . . 😦

I never said the RSV was based on the NRSV, as that would be impossible unless they were engaged in time travel (and I don’t recall seeing that either in the preface or text).

My ONLY POINT in bringing up the RSV is that another poster has an excellent bible blog about bibles and HE mentioned how the RSV has stood the test of time, EVEN with the publication of the NRSV and other newer translations.

THAT IS ALL!!!
 
Salvatore – I’m sorry, I really can’t understand what you are trying to say. For example, you wrote:

"Go read the bible blog I mentioned about BOTH the NRSV and the 4th RSV by Oxford and THEN tell me that I am wrong in anything I said "

What is this 4th RSV by Oxford you keep on talking about?
 
I SAID I made a typo - the “4th” applies to the NRSV by Oxford - NOT the RSV.

P.S. - You even QUOTED me telling you this:

*"Bible Reader,

I made a typo and you are wrong . . .

I MEANT to reference the New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha Expanded Edition - RSV

Oxford has also published a 4th edition, but it is of the NRSV - not the RSV."*
 
Salvatore123 said:
the “4th” applies to the NRSV by Oxford - NOT the RSV.
Click to expand...
OK, so just to let you know – Cambridge and Oxford are both famous publishing houses connected to UK universities, but they are different. They are about 84 miles away from each other.

Rotlex bought a NRSV from Cambridge, not from Oxford.
 
Wow, didn’t mean to generate such a stir. 😃

Thanks all for the replies though, and the (name removed by moderator)ut! Again, not trying to push any translation on anyone whatsoever, or recommend it myself. I just found it rather interesting how much I’m enjoying reading from the NRSV, when I’m so grounded in the RSV-CE and the DR. I guess I’m not as bad as I thought when it comes to being open to new things. 🙂

Now, about that Cambridge Cameo KJV with Apocrypha that’s being released in about a week… 😉
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top