So, are you able to pick out which of the following translations of 1 Corinthians 6:13-15;17-20 is the NABRE, NRSV, or RSV? Which do you prefer and why? Remember, no cheating!
"The body is not for immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord is for the body; God raised the Lord and will also raise us by his power. Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? But whoever is joined to the Lord becomes one Spirit with him. Avoid immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the immoral person sins against his own body. Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you have been purchased at a price. Therefore glorify God in your body."
"The body is not meant for immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. And God raised the Lord and will also raise us up by his power. Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? But he who is united to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. Shun immorality. Every other sin which a man commits is outside the body; but the immoral man sins against his own body. Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God? You are not your own; you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body."
"The body is meant not for fornication but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. And God raised the Lord and will also raise us by his power. Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? But anyone united to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. Shun fornication! Every sin that a person commits is outside the body; but the fornicator sins against the body itself. Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you were bought with a price; therefore glorify God in your body."
NABRE
ReplyDeleteRSV
NSRV
The third.
ReplyDeleteI also like the second and the first, as I think "immorality" works better in English, and allows for a more varied application, but only by the way of quasi-eisegesis, as "fornication" is more accurate in translating the Greek.
In any case, the only semi-substantial difference between the translations are "fornication" v. "immorality". It's not a passage that's contentious or can be translated many ways: I would wager it's rendered acceptably in pretty much every translation from the NASB to the NRSV in existence.
By the way, one of my favorite verses, which was one of the first that made me look at the Ransom Theory (in its modern formulation of Aulen) in a new light, which I now subscribe to (or, on alternate days, Christus Victor), as opposed to Anselmian Satisfaction, which seems inadequate to me, and just a bit of logical hair-splitting away from penal substitution (although I do realize the majority of the Western Church holds satisfaction, and that it it is completely orthodox).
PS Those are the NABRE and the NRSV, aren't they? I guess they do have some redeeming qualities after all (albeit there's no language to neuter in that passage).
I am a native spanish speaker, so I wouldn't dare say what translation is best. But I'd like to say that in spanish, "immorality" (inmoralidad) and "fornication" (fornicación) are not equivalent. Fornication has a clear connotation of sexual sin, while immorality can be anything, like drunkness, or doing drugs. I'm not sure if this is also the case in english.
ReplyDelete(I guess the word being translated here is "porneia". So we should agree first on what the speakers of koiné greek understood by "porneia". From what I have read on the subject, "fornication" seems to be a pretty accurate translation of it).
Regards.
NABRE
ReplyDeleteRSV
NRSV
I like the first verse (slightly) better than the second verse but they are very close. The RSV is almost always easy to pick out because of the lack of gender inclusive language.
NABRE
ReplyDeleteNRSV
RSV
I prefer RSV, it's more literal; you learn more precisely what the heck is meant by "immorality" as given in NABRE and NRSV.
-Mike D.
1st NABRE - because it uses the less imperative "Avoid" and because
ReplyDelete2nd RSV - because it and #3 use "Shun" and because of the use of the pronoun "he"
3rd NRSV - by elimination because of the three only it uses the more literal "fornication"
Yes, I did this without looking at either my bibles or the preceding comments. Now, I'm off to check.
P.S. I just received my NRSV Notetakers with 'Apocrypha' and the NRSV Go-Anywhere Thinline Bible Catholic Edition. I had planned to keep only one but now...oy.
Owen,
ReplyDeleteYes you are correct. You show the main reasons why as well.
As for our NRSV's, those both are fine editions, each in their own way. BTW, I am under the impression that HarperOne is working on an NRSV Reference Bible. Hopefully they will be releasing info this year.
Timothy,
ReplyDeleteThis is a good opportunity to thank you for your blog and for the helpful commnets of a number of the folk who follow you. If you are a stat checker and noticed a spike in hits and searches such as NRSV, RSV, Wide Margin, coming from Windsor, Ontario especially in the past few weeks, that will be me, no doubt.
I've read your blog off an on for some time but a lot recently as I was looking for what doesn't exist, namely an RSVCE (1st or 2nd) wide-margin. The Ignatius RSVCE2E of a few years back claimed a widER margin as did Ignatius Study Bible (NT) but neither are what I would call remotely wide.
I was moving toward the ESV/Apoc wide margin but as a convert pastor & former ESV reader I was well aware of the particular & pointed Evangelical Protestant bias (and was I surprised to learn elsewhere that it's being adopted for Liturgy Down Under).
As we Canadians have an adapted NRSV for Liturgy I was interested to read your posts on that translation. I admit, I had been an RSVCE/RSVCE2E snob. My wife has read the NRSV daily for two years now. A very good friend of mine, a convert and former minister like myself but who lives in the USA and is very involved in ecumenical work swears by the NRSV. I put bias aside and began reading it online and all that I could read about it. I must admit, the inclusive language is not bothering me apart from a few instances. "Greetings" slays me even more than "favored one" but overall, I am fast growing to love this translation.
I would have favoUred these editions in the Anglicised version, of course.
Oh, and,
ReplyDeleteOn the "HarperOne is working on an NRSV Reference Bible" ... I'm inclined to go with the 4th Ed Oxford NOAB NRSV/Apoc....at least it's more different from what I have now as compared to a 'Reference' bible so I have a better chance justifying it to the Love of my life ;-)
Wow, I thought for sure the RSV would have "fornication". I may just have to read the NRSV more often. I like these spot checks.
ReplyDelete-Mike D.
Timothy,
ReplyDeleteare you aware of any online (or other) source that compares changes between the NRSV Standard and the NRSV Anglicized?
Owen,
ReplyDeleteI am not. The only info I am aware of is the preface to anglicized editions which mentions generally the differences.
Thanks. Yes, I've read that into in the hardback edition Believe it or not I was going to totally geek out one day soon and note the changes from the Anglicised to my new NRSV (Standard) CE. I guess I'll just have to do it over time, or maybe not ;)
ReplyDelete