Soliciting Opinions on the NRSV as a Translation

[Beezer]

Good evening,

This month Cambridge published new editions of the NRSV. At this point I'm not sure if it's a revised version of the translation or just new binding options. I guess for this post that's neither here nor there; however, seeing some of the excitement generated by these new releases it made me wonder whether anyone on the PB uses the NRSV as their primary (or even secondary) translation and what folks generally think about it. To my knowledge the Cambridge NRSV edition is the only translation available with the Apocrypha included as an option.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Are they actually now available?

https://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2018/01/plan-to-review-and-revise-new-revised.html

 

[Jake]

The ESV and NRSV share as their ancestor the old RSV. The ESV attempted to "fix" the RSV's treatment of Paul and many of its liberal tendencies (such as using "young woman" in Isaiah 7:14 where "virgin" was in older translations). The NRSV kept in line the same generally philosophy of the RSV, but also introduced more gender neutralness (the ESV went in this direction, but more carefully) and was more radical in its use of variant readings and removing texts that are suspect. In my opinion, the NRSV also dumbs down the text somewhat and isn't a great translation literarily, but this is subjective. The ESV retains more traditional language (like behold, and more familiar renderings of texts like the Lord's Prayer).

There are many versions of the Apocrypha available if you want that. Though they are hard to find, you can find versions of Reformational Bibles that include it like the KJV and the Geneva Bible. There is also an edition of the ESV that includes the Apocrypha (Oxford University Press), though the ESV translation work is a separate updating the RSV text from the ESV translation committee. There is also the New English Bible/Revised English Bible which excel literarily, but have some of the same problems as the NRSV otherwise with a combination of less literalness. There are also many other translations, such as Catholic Bibles.

 

[JimmyH]

Though the information is somewhat dated now, here is a review of the NRSV by Michael Marlowe. I'm not sure how accurate, but it is something to take into consideration;
http://www.bible-researcher.com/nrsv.html
The New Cambridge Paragraph Bible, an update of the AV also has the optional edition containing the Apocrypha

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

I once attended a couple of evensong services at Christ's Church Cathedral, Oxford where the NRSV was read. I have to say that the readings were excellent. One older brother at church thinks that, stylistically, it is one of the great translations. I do own a rather nice Cambridge edition of it, but, for reasons mentioned above, I doubt that it is one of the more reliable translations available.

 

[Beezer]

The last thing I need is another Bible, so I'm not tempted in any way to buy a new one. I own an old Oxford RSV that includes the Apocrypha, so the inclusion in this new NRSV isn't a draw; however, the fact it contains it is still noteworthy in the world of modern Bible publishing. However, considering it is meant to be an ecumenical translation with a large Catholic, Orthodox, and Anglican following (so I hear) I guess including the Apocrypha would be a must.

I can't recall ever seeing anyone with a NRSV at church and none of the theology books I own use it when citing scripture, so my exposure to it is minimal which is what kind of drove the OP. Guess that might have more to do with not running in mainstream liberal church circles.

At any rate...if anyone on the PB does use it I'd love to hear about it!

 

[RamistThomist]

It's mostly hideous, though they sometimes get things right (often use the language of "invoking"). I am wondering when they will give God a sex change.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

NRSV (in particular the Oxford Annotated Bible) seems to be a favorite within academic circles where ecumenical courses like "Introduction to Religion" are offered.

I own one, but rarely consult it nowadays.

As an aside, one of my interesting collectible Bibles is this one (an ASV translation from the Critical Text):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos_International_Study_Bible

https://www.amazon.com/Logos-International-Study-Bible-Concordance/dp/B000EGI1RY

It is essentially a variation of this one:
https://www.amazon.com/Reference-Containing-Testaments-Renderings-References/dp/B000U3YTGS/ref=oosr

Very hard to find these for sale and when they are, they will often be costly.

 

[ZackF]

Again 'The Apocrypha' is a label that means different things to different people. Among Protestants The Apocrypha is usually thought to be the books Roman Catholics refer to as 'deuterocanonical.' Eastern Orthodox include more books with the Russian Orthodox holding to the largest number. For example the RCC would hold 'enoch' to be apocryphal where the Russian Orthodox would not.


edit: incorrect example twice. been too long since I studied this

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Does anyone know why Michael Horton uses the NRSV in his four-volume series, Covenant and Eschatology et al?

 

[TheOldCourse]

Does anyone know why Michael Horton uses the NRSV in his four-volume series, Covenant and Eschatology et al?

Just venturing a guess, but a major thrust of the series was engaging with modern academic theology and the NRSV's prevalence in those circles may have prompted its use where he thought it sufficiently faithful to the underlying text as a sort of lingua franca. I'm not sure that I've come across him using it in other publications.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

I think that is a very well educated guess, Chris. It definitely seems to make sense.

 

[brendanchatt]

The ESV and NRSV share as their ancestor the old RSV. The ESV attempted to "fix" the RSV's treatment of Paul and many of its liberal tendencies (such as using "young woman" in Isaiah 7:14 where "virgin" was in older translations). The NRSV kept in line the same generally philosophy of the RSV, but also introduced more gender neutralness (the ESV went in this direction, but more carefully) and was more radical in its use of variant readings and removing texts that are suspect. In my opinion, the NRSV also dumbs down the text somewhat and isn't a great translation literarily, but this is subjective. The ESV retains more traditional language (like behold, and more familiar renderings of texts like the Lord's Prayer).

There are many versions of the Apocrypha available if you want that. Though they are hard to find, you can find versions of Reformational Bibles that include it like the KJV and the Geneva Bible. There is also an edition of the ESV that includes the Apocrypha (Oxford University Press), though the ESV translation work is a separate updating the RSV text from the ESV translation committee. There is also the New English Bible/Revised English Bible which excel literarily, but have some of the same problems as the NRSV otherwise with a combination of less literalness. There are also many other translations, such as Catholic Bibles.

Always great with denominations and translations. That a lot, again, Jake!

 

[Dachaser]

Good evening,

This month Cambridge published new editions of the NRSV. At this point I'm not sure if it's a revised version of the translation or just new binding options. I guess for this post that's neither here nor there; however, seeing some of the excitement generated by these new releases it made me wonder whether anyone on the PB uses the NRSV as their primary (or even secondary) translation and what folks generally think about it. To my knowledge the Cambridge NRSV edition is the only translation available with the Apocrypha included as an option.

The NRSV is the favorite translation among Christian liberals and European believers, as evidenced by the fact that my own pastor was required to use only that version while quoting Bible references while doing his theis in NT Theology PhD degree.
It would be similar to the Niv translation, as it adopted more of a freer than a formal approach to translation, and much more into gender renderings then the more conservative Esv went into while translating.

 

[RamistThomist]

Out of fairness I will say this: they surprisingly do a good job of capturing the supernatural worldview of the ancient Israelites. They will see the divine council as the council of the elohim, and not just regular dudes.

Of course, they think the Israelites were silly for believing in angels, demons, raphaim, etc.

 

[Dachaser]

Out of fairness I will say this: they surprisingly do a good job of capturing the supernatural worldview of the ancient Israelites. They will see the divine council as the council of the elohim, and not just regular dudes.

Of course, they think the Israelites were silly for believing in angels, demons, raphaim, etc.

The liberal version of the Rsv tradition, with the conservative version being the esv.

 

[RamistThomist]

The liberal version of the Rsv tradition, with the conservative version being the esv.

I know that. That's not what I was saying. The NRSV doesn't shy away from things like the divine council (can't remember how the RSV translates it). More conservative, translations--more so with study bibles--shy away from these issues because semitic views of angels and spirits don't always fit with our categories.

 

[Dachaser]

I know that. That's not what I was saying. The NRSV doesn't shy away from things like the divine council (can't remember how the RSV translates it). More conservative, translations--more so with study bibles--shy away from these issues because semitic views of angels and spirits don't always fit with our categories.

How would the Jewish ideas of Angels differ though from the New testament viewpoint?

 

[RamistThomist]

How would the Jewish ideas of Angels differ though from the New testament viewpoint?

to the degree that the Jewish ideas are OT ones, they are the same as the NT. To the degree that they are Talmudic, they are opposed.

 

[Dachaser]

to the degree that the Jewish ideas are OT ones, they are the same as the NT. To the degree that they are Talmudic, they are opposed.

what would be some of those weird one held in the Talmud?

 

[RamistThomist]

what would be some of those weird one held in the Talmud?

It is somewhat anachronistic on my part to speak of the Talmud, since it wouldn't actually be codified in Babylon until centuries later. There it became the sort of sex magick that one sees today in some Jewish sects. At the same time, though, many Jewish communities mixed with Hellenistic cults and developed into some sort of proto-gnostic angel worship.

The easiest way to describe it is seeing a myriad of hypostases emanating from the Father.

 

[JimmyH]

what would be some of those weird one held in the Talmud?

Thanks to my friend google here is enough to keep you busy for some time. The Talmudic portion being downpage, but there is much of interest throughout the page on the Jewish viewpoint throughout history. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/angels-and-angelology-2