Why all the hate for the NRSV?

[Tyuiop411]

Just to be clear I’m not trying to insinuate that the people that don’t like the NRSV are biased and hateful. I didn’t like the NRSV for a long time because of it bad rap for inclusive language, but now that i’ve started reading it the NRSV has started to grow on me. It’s language is simpler than the RSV, but still eloquent and dignified (unlike the bland NAB). The translators were honest when ever they made a gender change or added word by adding what the text originally said in a footnote.

Add to all that the fact that it is a very accurate translation, and you have a very good Bible. Which has made me wonder why most people here seem to dislike this translation even more than the dreaded NAB?

 

[ZDHayden]

I don’t quite understand it either. The NRSV-CE (there is a Protestant version, believe it or not) was my first Catholic Bible. I think what drew me to it was that essentially it was a collaborative effort of Catholics and Protestants, and so, coming from a Protestant background, you can see how this was attractive. Personally I prefer it over the New American Bible. However, I will say that by far my favorite translation is the New Jerusalem, but that does not mean I dislike the NRSV-CE. It is a very good translation, but why I switched to the NJB was because the NRSV-CE is not approved for use in the Mass as I understand it, for some reason.

 

[Tyuiop411]

I don’t quite understand it either. The NRSV-CE (there is a Protestant version, believe it or not) was my first Catholic Bible. I think what drew me to it was that essentially it was a collaborative effort of Catholics and Protestants, and so, coming from a Protestant background, you can see how this was attractive. Personally I prefer it over the New American Bible. However, I will say that by far my favorite translation is the New Jerusalem, but that does not mean I dislike the NRSV-CE. It is a very good translation, but why I switched to the NJB was because the NRSV-CE is not approved for use in the Mass as I understand it, for some reason.

I believe it wasn’t approved for Mass because of it’s “excessive” use of inclusive language. Still i would much rather have a NRSV-CE based lectionary instead of the NAB based lectionary we have now. I also have a soft spot for the Jerusalem bible (original), and in my mind it would be the perfect translation if it didn’t use Yahweh instead of Lord and happy instead of blessed.

 

[SunnaB16]

I believe it wasn’t approved for Mass because of it’s “excessive” use of inclusive language. Still i would much rather have a NRSV-CE based lectionary instead of the NAB based lectionary we have now. I also have a soft spot for the Jerusalem bible (original), and in my mind it would be the perfect translation if it didn’t use Yahweh instead of Lord and happy instead of blessed.

The Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition (RSV-CE) is better than any of those three; free of “inclusive language”, and very dignified: eg “Behold…”, “I thank Thee, Father…”. Not perfect, but a good all-rounder.
Anyway, it`s a good idea to have more than one translation.

A lot of Traditionalist types would have nothing but the Douay Rheims: awkward, archaic language! The included commentaries would be trustworthy, though. That`s more than can be said for the great majority, if not all, of the others.

 

[bauerice]

I don’t hate the NRSV-CE. I just get bored with it. I am not one of those deep Bible study types. I trust the Church for interpetation. I read for inspiration and prayers. I find it dry. I’m not the DR type either. I am a JB fan as well as the NLT-Catholic reference edition (I know not Church approved but it has all the books).

 

[twinc]

The Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition (RSV-CE) is better than any of those three; free of “inclusive language”, and very dignified: eg “Behold…”, “I thank Thee, Father…”. Not perfect, but a good all-rounder.
Anyway, it`s a good idea to have more than one translation.

A lot of Traditionalist types would have nothing but the Douay Rheims: awkward, archaic language! The included commentaries would be trustworthy, though. That`s more than can be said for the great majority, if not all, of the others.

okay then check your preferred translations and ask was it God or the translators who did not know how many legs insects have - twinc

 

[puzzleannie]

when I post that I prefer this or that translation, and give my reasons, and then state my reasons why another translation is not my first choice, that does not translate to “hate”

 

[SunnaB16]

okay then check your preferred translations and ask was it God or the translators who did not know how many legs insects have - twinc

Er…
Could you expand on that?

 

[crazzeto]

I don’t quite understand it either. The NRSV-CE (there is a Protestant version, believe it or not) was my first Catholic Bible. I think what drew me to it was that essentially it was a collaborative effort of Catholics and Protestants, and so, coming from a Protestant background, you can see how this was attractive. Personally I prefer it over the New American Bible. However, I will say that by far my favorite translation is the New Jerusalem, but that does not mean I dislike the NRSV-CE. It is a very good translation, but why I switched to the NJB was because the NRSV-CE is not approved for use in the Mass as I understand it, for some reason.

The only bible used durring the mass is a specific liturgial version of the NAB, at least here in the states. I wouldnt’ be supprised if Canada was exactly the same as the USA. You can read any bible translation you want in mass, but if you want something that will closely match what is being read from the ambo you need a NAB. Even then, there are slight difference between the nab at the ambo and yours.

 

[awatkins69]

I like the New King James Version.

 

[Lead_Me_Home]

I also have a soft spot for the Jerusalem bible (original), and in my mind it would be the perfect translation if it didn’t use Yahweh instead of Lord and happy instead of blessed.

Yahweh is the original Hebrew word for Lord. It is the most accurate word that can be used, opposed to the mistranslation “Jehova.”

I have not read the RSV-CE, but I have just started reading the NAB. I have been raised protestant, so most of my experiences and memories of scripture are from the KJV and Guideon. I like the older language of translations like the KJV, Darby, possibly the RSV & JB, but for study purposes I am falling in love with the NAB.

 

[mccorm45]

I think the NRSV is overall a fine Bible. While it is slightly less literal than the RSV, due often to the inclusive language issue, I find it to be both very readable and accurate. In a way, it fits nicely between the RSV and NAB. Here are some of my other thoughts about it:

The NRSV was completed by an ecumenical group of scholars, consisting of Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox. Overall, it is slightly less literal than the RSV, but it remains essentially literal and is quite good for both study and prayer. Personally, I find reading this Bible much more enjoyable than the RSV. In particular, the OT is well done and reads very smoothly. For many, the NRSV is the scholarly standard. Many will find this edition as the one required for university or seminary courses. One of its great advantages is that it uses the most up-to-date scholarship on recently discovered manuscripts, like the Dead Sea Scrolls. The NRSV is most notable for its use of inclusive language. While many fall in two camps on this issue, either finding it appropriate or heretical, I think it can be done in a way that is both faithful to the original text as well as to contemporary English usage. For the most part, I think the NRSV does an OK job. However, there are times when their attempt to be inclusive can be a bit questionable, most notably 1 Timothy 3:2 and Hebrews 2: 6-8. Fortunately, the NRSV committee provided textual notes with the translation to show when changes have been made.
The NRSV comes in various editions, published by Oxford University Press and HarperCollins. HarperCollins, in particular, has recently begun publishing new editions of the NRSV-CE in new attractive editions. It would be great to see this continued. Perhaps an NRSV-CE study Bible would be a great addition as well. Zondervan also publishes a wonderful NRSV-CE Catholic Womens Devotional Bible. It would be great to see an Catholic Men’s edition too!
The greatest strenght of the NRSV is that there are a lot of study tools available. There are various interlinears, dictionaries, Bible Maps, concordances, comparative translations, and a host of commentaries based off of it. And since the NRSV is a decendent of the RSV, the older RSV tools can be used with it as well. Also, one notices that a number of important Biblical scholars, both Catholic and Protestant, use the NRSV for their base translation.

 

[Mattjolley]

I also have a soft spot for the Jerusalem bible (original), and in my mind it would be the perfect translation if it didn’t use Yahweh instead of Lord and happy instead of blessed.

Have you seen the ‘CTS New Catholic Bible’?

Its the Original Jerusalem text, but with ‘Lord’ instead of ‘Yahweh’, and it uses the Grail Psalms. Because of these changes it matches the UK Mass texts word for word.

Comes with an index of readings for all Sundays and Weekdays of the year, too!

Probably the ‘perfect’ edition of the original JB if there’s such a thing

PM me with your email address if you’d like the .pdf brochure.

Matt

 

[centurionguard]

Every person has their own personal preference to Catholic Bibles.
For me it has always been the official Catholic Douay Rheims Bible.
I see many new Catholics today who have critical bias towards it and call it archaic and outdated due to old linguistic English terminology. I certainly don’t have a problem with Old English. I rather love it. But perhaps one of my biggest reasons I love the Douay Rheims is the moment one appreciates and reads the opening Preface: drbo.org/preface.htm

In Canada the biblical NRSV translations came into effect in 1992 for use in both the Lectionary and Sacramentary. It has only been recent in the last few months that Catholics in Canada have seen the new RSV being used in Catholic Parishes.

I have never liked the Catholic NRSV translation. Is it strictly personal bias. I really don’t believe it is. The Catholicized N.R.S.V. (“Inclusive Language”) Bible is nothing more than a Anglocized Ecumenical Bible shared by most Protestanized sects. In fact; a Catholic can purchase a NRSV King James Version with the exception of a few omitted books and read identical word for word passages whereby the human race is no longer called “man.” Man was the majestic noble name which God gave us humans at the beginning of creation, the greater and wonderful name “man”, is no longer our name in the Bible.
Feminist pressure has infiltrated high ranks in the Catholic Church including the ICEL (“International Commission on English Liturgy”) and renamed the human race. We are now called “humankind” instead of the name “man” that God gave us.

One of the best arguments against the use of Inclusive Language Bibles that I have read is here: Entitled

What’s Wrong With Gender Neutral Bible Translations

helpmewithbiblestudy.org/5Bible/TransWhatsWrongGenderNeutralBible_Grudem.aspx

 

[twinc]

Er…
Could you expand on that?

see Leviticus 11:20-23 in other bibles other than Douay - twinc

 

[crazzeto]

see Leviticus 11:20-23 in other bibles other than Douay - twinc

I do see many which specifically insert the text “insects”.

 

[Beachcomber]

Yes, there is an NRSV Protestant edition of the Bible. When I was pretty much away from the Church, I used that one. It’s dignified, crisp and clean. The inclusive language sometimes is a little ‘clunky’ but overall, it’s really quite nice. I was a really pleased to discover that there is a Catholic Edition, and this is the one I use now.

 

[JRRTFAN]

I don’t quite understand it either. The NRSV-CE (there is a Protestant version, believe it or not) was my first Catholic Bible. I think what drew me to it was that essentially it was a collaborative effort of Catholics and Protestants, and so, coming from a Protestant background, you can see how this was attractive. Personally I prefer it over the New American Bible. However, I will say that by far my favorite translation is the New Jerusalem, but that does not mean I dislike the NRSV-CE. It is a very good translation, but why I switched to the NJB was because the NRSV-CE is not approved for use in the Mass as I understand it, for some reason.

The NJB is not approved for Mass either, ZD, The original Jerusalem Bible of 1966 is the approved version, the NJB is not.

 

[centurionguard]

To reiterate from my last post ("I never have cared for the Catholic N.R.S.V. Bible or Church Lectionary approved by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Here’s two strong articles that speak of the Vatican being against the feminist inspired, (“Inclusive Language”) NRSV biblical translations.

Article #1.

(“Vatican says ‘no’ to NRSV translation - ‘Inclusive language’ Setback”)

: ad2000.com.au/articles/1995/feb1995p14_791.html

Article #2.

(“Why Vatican rejected ‘inclusive’ New Revised Standard Version Bible”)

: ad2000.com.au/articles/1995/jun1995p11_859.html

Then in my own country Canada, the “CCCB” Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops remained disobedient towards the the Pope and the Holy See from 1992 until 2007 using the dis-approved NRSV translation across Canada.
See: 2007

NRSV Bible gets Vatican recognition

: catholicregister.org/international/nrsv-bible-gets-vatican-recognition.pdf

Bad enough that the Canadian Bishops were sinfully disobedient against the Vatican.
How is it the CCCB were able to lobby their cause in the “15” years of sinful disobedience, disavowed from using NRSV Lectionary translations and still get approval? Where was the Magisterium Watchdog in those fifteen years?

I’m glad the U.S. Catholic Conference of Bishops stood their ground.

 

[Greg57]

I think the NRSV is overall a fine Bible. While it is slightly less literal than the RSV, due often to the inclusive language issue, I find it to be both very readable and accurate.

I like my nouns the old-fashioned way: God is God, Father is Father, men are men, mankind is mankind… I see no reason to change gender to suit a contemporary ‘fad’.