<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Not suited for serious Bible study
Review: I am writing as a Roman Catholic lay person who loves the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible. It is my "first string bible." The New Revised Standard Version of the Holy Bible is no doubt the best modern translation. It continues the tradition of the Revised Standard Version of accuracy and literary quality. Because it continues the tradition of the King James, American Standard Version and the venerable Revised Standard Version, it maintains the language and phraseology that most English speaking people in the west have grown accustomed to, such as the "the Lord is my Shepherd, I shall not want." The Canadian Bishops had wanted it to be used as in the new Canadian lectionary, and some Americans parishes began using it as well. It true that the Vatican rejected it for lectionary use, primarily because of inclusive language. However, it is not completely true that the NRSV is rejected by the Catholic Church. Bishop Daniel Pilarzick of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops has granted it his imprimatur, and so have the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops. And the Official Catechism of Roman Catholic Church adapted bible verses from the NRSV as well as the RSV. The Catechism uses the NRSV spelling for books of the bible. Our Orthodox friends have also had some controversy surrounding the NRSV. The former Greek Orthodox Bishop Iakovos recommended it heartily to the Orthodox, but some of the other Orthodox clergy in the US have firmly rejected the NRSV. It is very important to note that the inclusive language employed by the NRSV never refers to the Trinity, and is never used in a passage that refers to a person or persons of one gender or another. It is only used when it is clear that the text is talking about people of both genders. When Jesus says, "whatever you do to the least of my brothers," he is not saying that we should only feed and clothe males. I think with all due respect, that some people over react to the inclusive language issue. The Catholic Biblical Association of America has a web page that delves into the controversies surrounding the use of inclusive language and the bible. I still enjoy reading the original RSV, and I have a lectionary based on the RSV from which I will probably read this years Mass readings with. But my travel and work Bible is the NRSV. The NRSV retains all of the greatness of the RSV tradition. It is a very literal translation, yet I would say it is as easy to read as the NIV. It is a highly suitable choice and I recommend it to every Christian.
Rating: 
Summary: NRSV excellent choice for Catholics and other Christians
Review: I am writing as a Roman Catholic lay person who loves the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible. It is my "first string bible." The New Revised Standard Version of the Holy Bible is no doubt the best modern translation. It continues the tradition of the Revised Standard Version of accuracy and literary quality. Because it continues the tradition of the King James, American Standard Version and the venerable Revised Standard Version, it maintains the language and phraseology that most English speaking people in the west have grown accustomed to, such as the "the Lord is my Shepherd, I shall not want." The Canadian Bishops had wanted it to be used as in the new Canadian lectionary, and some Americans parishes began using it as well. It true that the Vatican rejected it for lectionary use, primarily because of inclusive language. However, it is not completely true that the NRSV is rejected by the Catholic Church. Bishop Daniel Pilarzick of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops has granted it his imprimatur, and so have the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops. And the Official Catechism of Roman Catholic Church adapted bible verses from the NRSV as well as the RSV. The Catechism uses the NRSV spelling for books of the bible. Our Orthodox friends have also had some controversy surrounding the NRSV. The former Greek Orthodox Bishop Iakovos recommended it heartily to the Orthodox, but some of the other Orthodox clergy in the US have firmly rejected the NRSV. It is very important to note that the inclusive language employed by the NRSV never refers to the Trinity, and is never used in a passage that refers to a person or persons of one gender or another. It is only used when it is clear that the text is talking about people of both genders. When Jesus says, "whatever you do to the least of my brothers," he is not saying that we should only feed and clothe males. I think with all due respect, that some people over react to the inclusive language issue. The Catholic Biblical Association of America has a web page that delves into the controversies surrounding the use of inclusive language and the bible. I still enjoy reading the original RSV, and I have a lectionary based on the RSV from which I will probably read this years Mass readings with. But my travel and work Bible is the NRSV. The NRSV retains all of the greatness of the RSV tradition. It is a very literal translation, yet I would say it is as easy to read as the NIV. It is a highly suitable choice and I recommend it to every Christian.
Rating:
Summary: Faithful translation to the original
Review: This version of the Sacred Scriptures is not approved by the Church because of it's use of "inclusive" language. You would be better off if you ordered a Revised Standard Edition or New American Bible (Catholic Ed) for personal study.
Rating:
Summary: Not suited for serious Bible study
Review: Whatever the value of inclusive language for pastoral reasons, it is a serious impediment to serious Bible study. Let me illustrate. Psalm 1 "Blessed is the man..." has been interpreted in the Christian tradition as a reference to Christ. The Hebrew, the Septuagint and the Vulgate all use singular words that connote a male rather than a generic person: ish, aner, vir. While a reference to the coming Messiah is not the surface meaning of the text, it is consistent with Old Testament interpretation by the New Testament writers and is explicitly employed by the Church Fathers.The NRSV uses the generic plural pronoun and in doing so distances the reader from this interpretation. This practice also vitiates the poetic contrast between the lone righteous individual and the many sinners. Psalm 1 is but one of many examples. "Inclusive" language - especially as employed by the NRSV - compromises the integrity of the text (which after all is God's Word) to humor feminist sensibilities. The Catholic version of the (old) RSV is probably the best overall Bible for serious study supplemented by the New Jerusalem.
Rating:
Summary: Faithful translation to the original
Review: While not approved for LITURGICAL USE by the Catholic Church, this version IS approved for scholarly study. It is imbecillic to assume that this is merely an attempt at inclusive language. This translation is, in fact, the most faithful to the original Hebrew and Greek.
<< 1 >>
|
