RSV vs. NRSV: Your Thoughts!

It has been a while, but soon I do plan to return to my examination of the RSV vs. NRSV series. Class and ministry work as taken up a lot of my time recently. However, before I return to the RSV vs. NRSV debate, I would like to hear some of your thoughts about these two translations, in relation to each other. The reason I am doing this is to try and cover any angles that I may be missing before I begin my analysis of them.

I think we all can agree that there are merits to both translations; but what do you like and dislike about the two? Your comments can focus on the translations themselves or other important factors like resource materials, reception in Church and academia, liturgical use, etc...

RSV vs. NRSV 1A

It is now time to begin comparing and contrasting the RSV and NRSV. This will be done in four parts: 1) A four part look at the translations themselves; 2) A survey of the different editions that each translation currently comes in; 3) An analysis of the support materials available for each translation; 4) Miscellaneous considerations.

For this post, I will briefly examine the original texts behind each translation. (I have used Philip W. Comfort's Essential Guide to Bible Versions for textual info in this post.)

RSV
For the Old Testament, the RSV followed pretty closely to the Masoretic Text. The Old Testament was translated during a time when Dead Sea Scroll understanding was still in its infancy. However, the RSV translators were able to use some of the newest discoveries from Qumran. In particular, the "Isaiah Scroll" provided some alternate renderings to the MT.

The New Testament translators relied on the 17th edition of the Nestle text published in 1941. They did, however, feel free to deviate from the Nestle text and at times followed a more eclectic method. The newly discovered Chester Beatty Papyri was utilized in some cases. The RSV translation committee completed an additional revision of the New Testament in 1971, but this is not included in the RSV-CE.

The translators provided textual notes at the bottom of each page, indicating when there was some ambiguity in the translation or a possible alternate rendering. For its time, the RSV was the most modern English Bible translation, utilizing the most up-to-date manuscript discoveries.

NRSV
Bruce Metzger, chair of the RSV revision committee, indicated in the preface to the NRSV that one of the main reasons for the NRSV was the discovery of older textual manuscripts. In particular, the continued discovery of more scrolls in Qumran shed greater light on even more books of the Old Testament. While the translators based their translation on the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (1977; ed. sec. emendata, 1983), it departed often when the Qumran scrolls suggested doing so. Therefore, the Old Testament translators followed an eclectic text. The book that saw the most deviation from the Masoretic Text was 1 and 2 Samuel. In particular, the first few chapters of 1 Samuel relied heavily on the Dead Sea Scroll discoveries. It should be noted that the translators also used,more than in the RSV, early Greek, Latin, and Syriac texts.

For the New Testament, translators followed the text of Nestle-Aland 26th edition/UBS 3rd edition, of which Bruce Metzger was a leading member. Translators decided to go with a number of new renderings, like the adoption of "Jesus Barabbas" as the rebel in in Matthew 27:16.

The textual notes for the NRSV are even better than in the RSV. The only Bible that rivals the NRSV is the NET Bible. Having these notes, including literal renderings not used in the main text, add considerably to the value and usefulness of the NRSV. It also displays a sense of honesty from the translators in that they are not trying to "hide anything" in a particular translation.

Final Comments:
I am always in favor of using the most up-to-date textual discoveries. In that sense, I am not a Douay-Rheims-only (cousin of the KJV-only contingent) adherent. I believe that the Lord has given us a brain in order that we may use it to discover the most accurate renderings of the Holy Scriptures. Therefore, I think, particularly in the Old Testament, an eclectic text is the best. It is quite clear, then, that the NRSV has a clear advantage over the RSV in regards to textual basis.

RSV vs NRSV Prologue III

Before getting to specific issues regarding the translations themselves, I think it would be helpful to examine the origins of the specifically Catholic editions of the RSV/NRSV.


The Revised Standard Version was a revision of the American Standard Version of 1901. The Old Testament was published in 1952, followed by the New Testament in 1946. (A revised NT would appear in 1971.) Seeing the merits of this translation, while also being spurred on by the encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu of Pope Pius XII in 1943, the Catholic Biblical Association of Great Britain gained approval from the RSV Translation Committee to produce a specifically Catholic edition of the RSV. Many of those who were involved in this process recognized that this was an important step in the improving ecumenical relations of that time. The two principal editors of the Catholic edition were Dom Bernard Orchard, OSB and Reverend R.C. Fuller. Orchard was the main editor of A Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture published in 1951. Although this one-volume commentary is now out of print, it was in many places the standard until the New Jerome Biblical Commentary. I happen to own a copy and have found it to be quite helpful even today.


Orchard and Fuller took great care in the editing of the RSV. In the introduction to the RSV-CE, they note: "In the present edition the aim has not been to improve the translation as such. No doubt there are many places where a different rendering might have been chosen on critical grounds. This has been avoided. But there are other places where, the critical evidence being evenly balanced, considerations of Catholic tradition have favored a particular rendering or the inclusion of a passage omitted by the RSV translators." In the Old Testament nothing was changed, except for the inclusion of the Deuterocanonical books and additions to Esther and Daniel. Not even the controversial passage in Isaiah 7:14 was altered, although this has been done recently in the RSV-2CE. The main changes came in the New Testament. For a list of all the changes, see the RSV-CE site on wikipedia. The most notable change comes in the story of the Annunciation in Luke 1:27, where the editors adopted the traditional Catholic translation of "Full of Grace" instead of "O Favored One". Also, whenever "brothers" is used in the RSV, the editors translated it as "brethren". There are also some minor changes and additions as well. In the end, the RSV-CE became the scholarly translation for English speaking Catholics. To this day, it remains the most literal version available and is still very popular in seminaries as well as with many converts to Catholicism. It, along with the NRSV, was the basis for Biblical translations in the English edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The RSV-CE received an Imprimatur from Bishop Gordon Joseph of St. Andrews and Edinburgh in 1966.


The New Revised Standard Version was published in 1989 by the National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA. A Catholic edition was later published in 1991, with Imprimaturs from Bishop Pilarczyk, president of USCCB at the time, and the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops. While the original RSV-CE had particular changes made to it, the NRSV-CE contained no changes from the original translation. Part of this must be due to the greater inclusion of Catholic biblical scholars on the RSV Translation Committee. The preface to the NRSV-CE was written by Alexander A. Di Lellam OFM, a Biblical studies professor at Catholic University of America and member of the RSV Translation Committee. Most of his preface highlights the ecumenical dimension of the RSV Committee and the various textual decisions that were made in light of newly discovered manuscripts. In particular, decisions were made in regards to which edition, Greek or Hebrew, of books like Sirach and Tobit were used. Recently, mostly due to HarperCollins, the NRSV has gained more popularity in Catholic circles. It can be seen more and more as the base translation for various Catholic scholarly works. Interestingly enough, most of the NRSV-CE's that have been published recently here in the USA have been the Anglicized text.

Update:
If you are interested in seeing the various changes between the RSV, RSV-CE, and the RSV-2CE, this site has it all listed.

RSV vs. NRSV Prologue II

Before I begin analyzing the Catholic Editions of the RSV and NRSV, I did want to make some additional preliminary thoughts:

1) In the previous post I mentioned that I would only be looking at the RSV and NRSV. Through my own study and work in ministry, I have found that they are the most useful to me. This is not to say that the NAB or NJB are not good Bible translations. While I do have some issues with the NAB and NJB, they both can be good for the average Catholic. However, the NAB seems to be in need of constant revision (which is being done for the OT currently) and there is suppose to be a new edition of the NJB in the works.

2) One may ask why I am going to review the original RSV-CE and not the RSV-2CE that has been published by Ignatius Press. While I do own the RSV-2CE, I am not comfortable using it because Ignatius Press has been too vague about the alterations made to the text (outside of the archaic language) and the committee (or person) who made the changes. I am also, at this time, unsure of whether or not the RSV-2CE will stand the test of time. It is only being produced by a small Catholic publishing house, while the others have or had multiple publishers.

3) When looking at these two translations, it will be coming from the perspective of a man who works in full-time ministry to young adults and college students, as well as a graduate student in theology. While the translation, itself, will be the main issue, other issue like reference tools/helps, available editions, and use in prayer/liturgy will also be important.

4) I am aware of the NRSV Anglicized text, which seems to be the standard edition that has been produced in all of the newer HarperColllins NRSV Bibles. Since the differences are not that big between the two, I will not be making any reference to it.

5) Finally, I would like to point out a few reference works that I will be using during this process:
Fee and Strauss How to Choose a Translation for All Its Worth, 2007.
Kraus Choosing a Bible For Worship, Teaching, Study, Preaching, and Prayer, 2006.
Comfort Essential Guide to Bible Versions, 2000.
Metzger The Bible in Translation, 2001.
McReynolds Word Study Greek-English NT, 1999.

RSV vs. NRSV Prologue

Well, I have been oscillating alot lately on which Catholic translation to make my primary Bible: 1) RSV-CE or 2) NRSV-CE. There are pros and cons to each of the translations, and I am well aware that neither of them are perfect. I think I am at the point now where I can intelligently blog about them, since I have used them each quite a bit over the past 4 years in both study and prayer. So, before I begin this series on the RSV/NRSV, I wanted to see if there were any suggestions on how I can do this most effectively. All comments are welcome!