Customer Reviews

The NRSV Bible: Catholic Edition

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

The NRSV (and NRSV Catholic Edition) is a good literal translation, much like the RSV, although it uses inclusive language when refering to human beings in many instances. Sometimes, this inclusive language is truer to the literal Greek or Hebrew than non-inclusive translations, such as when "anthropos" is correctly translated as "person" rather than "man", which would be "aner" in Greek. In other instances, "brothers" is translated as "brothers and sisters", but there is a footnote indicating what the literal translation from the Greek should be. However, context of a word should really dictate how it is to be translated, rather than one's ideology for or against inclusive language.
The previous reviewer, R. P. Poletti, makes a few bad recommendations in his review. For example, he recommends the Douay-Rheims and King James Versions, but they are not reliable translations for study, because they are based on incorrect/inaccurate manuscripts, often rely on other translations, and use language that is no longer used or understood by the average English-speaking reader. The NIV, while very similar to the RSV, is nonetheless a poor choice, because in many instances translation choices are made for ideological or sectarian reasons. For example, "paradosis" is correctly translated as "tradition", but only when tradition is spoken of negatively; when "paradosis", "tradition", is spoken of favorably, the translators insert "teaching", an entirely different word in Greek. There is obviously a sectarian bias against tradition in the translation. Contrary to what R. P. Poletti, states, the NIV was translated by/for Evangelical Christians, not Anglican and American Lutherans. I was surprised to see the reviewer recommend the NAB, approved by the USCCB for liturgical proclamation, because the NAB also uses some inclusive language.
For personal study, of course it would be best to go back to the Hebrew and Greek. If one is using the Bible in translation, I don't think any one translation is sufficient. Rely rather on multiple translation, and make your own comparisons: RSV and NAB are probably the best literal translations (but NOT perfect), I would also use NRSV, NJB, REB.
Incidentally, God did not write the Bible, God inspired the writers of the Bible to faithfully convey the message intended.

The Catholic Church has approved this translation for personal study by the faithful. The Church originally shyed away from approving this translation for the Liturgy because of "gender neutral / inclusive" language, but the truth is that The New American Bible has been revised for liturgical use so that the readings at Mass are not from the text available in Bibles for laity anyway. The current unavailable to readers version of the NAB used at Mass has just as much "gender inclusive" language in it as the NRSV does. If you don't like the NRSV translation because it is politically correct, the "official" American Church's Bible translation is really almost exactly the same.

The old RSV is more austere and difficult to read (all those "thou"s and "dost"s) and this Ye Olde Tymes feel is rather pointless as the original texts did not use a formal means of address from man to God anyway. Also, the RSV has numerous significant translation errors left over from the KJV (e.g. Psalm 22) that were finally corrected in the NRSV. Though the RSV, KJV, and DR may be more "masculine" and "formal", they are also less accurate texts, and far harder going for study groups and personal devotional reading for the average layperson.

All in all, I like the NRSV for Catholic study. As always, we supplement our study with good commentaries and the Catechism, but starting with an accurate and accessible translation is a good first step, and I think the NRSV does that well, far better than the NAB or RSV.

As an undergraduate student studying theology at a Catholic institution, the NRSV is the most commonly used translation. The translation tries to stick to the meaning of the word, not necessarily the most word-for-word translation; this allows for a much easier read than many versions because you can actually get to the meaning of the passages without having to question, "What was the original Greek," and "How do English linguistics interfere with the Scripture." The majority of that work has already been done by translators. The gender-inclusive language also helps modern readers understand that the masculine exclusive language was what was necessary to relate to the people in the era in which it was written, not a symbol of male superiority.

I was surprised to see that a few readers said that the Vatican does not approve of this translation. It has an imprimatur, which is precisely the mark of something that HAS been approved.

If you purchase this edition alone I recommend a good commentary (perhaps the Collegeville Bible Commentary). If you want an edition for more academic purposes the Oxford Annotated NRSV with the Apocrypha offers exceptional footnotes and research articles within the binding.

I would like to add to the reviews which - correctly - state that the NRSV is a perfectly acceptable bible for Catholics to use for personal study. In fact, the NRSV New Testament is a quite literal translation from the Greek. (I cannot speak for the OT since I don't know Hebrew) Only those who know little about the original languages would discredit the NRSV.
As for the RSV Ignatius Bible being a Catholic Bible, that, too, is an interesting misconception. The RSV is/was a widely used Protestant Bible. It only "became" a Catholic Bible when the apocryphal books were added to it for sale to Catholics as a backlash against the NRSV.

Although the NRSV of the Bible has been "disallowed" for liturgical and catechetical use - far from a "condemnation"! - in the Roman Catholic Church, it is still used widely by faithful Catholic lay persons and scholars. This translation stands as the best (relatively new!) rendering of the Hebrew and Greek texts - second only to the RSV.

I find this a wonderfully peaceful read which I enjoy daily. It's in terms anyone can understand..recommend highly.

Contrary to what has been implied about the RSV, upon which the Ignatius Bible is based, an Oecumenical edition of the RSV appeared in 1965, entitled Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha. According to memory, this edition bore the imprimatur of Richard Cardinal Cushing. Generally speaking, it received a warm welcome from a plurality of conservative RCs and OEs, not to mention an enthusiastic reception from ACs. Therefore, in respect of today's New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha, both RSV and NRSV editions have taken their cue from an edition published nearly forty-five years past.

With regard to the Church Universal of Jesus Christ, it needs saying that such an institution, considered as it is divinely founded, should have not only the prerogative of teaching historical Christian dogma, but also the sage responsibility of choosing which translation/s of Holy Writ to serve as a springboard for catechetical teaching and liturgical standards. According to Dei Verbum, a document of Vatican Council II, Holy Church recognizes that God Thrice-Holy is the primary author of Sacred Scripture; while inspired human beings are the secondary instruments. For reasons theological, prelates of Holy Church---both Roman Catholic and Orthodox Eastern---have expressed serious misgivings about the thrust of "gender inclusive" language employed in today's NRSV. Certainly, these distinguished gentlemen have the right to their sage opinions.

More than a few women, or so it does seem, have been alienated from the reading of Sacred Scripture, due to an indirect influence of radical periti, those dissident theologians who are experts in deconstruction of sacred tradition. Thomas Sheehan spilled the beans some 25-years ago, when he essayed to demonstrate the prevalence of such radical periti among Roman Catholic theological faculties in America. Sad to say, how comparatively few are the modern RC theologians who regularly emphasize an incontestable fact: the Holy Spirit is beyond human categories of sexuality. Indeed, several women of religion have been officially declared Doctors of the Church Universal of Jesus Christ.

Faith is a divine gift, not ever a product of human cleverness. Both men and women would be well-advised to remember this fact of life. Would anyone care to deny, nearly a quarter-century after publication of Report on the Faith [The Ratzinger Report], that the past 45-years have proved a crucible for devout Roman Catholics, globally? The wine isn't merely fortified, ladies and gentlemen; it's truly sour grapes for many a conservative RC, who perceive that a modern crisis has been touted by radicals as being little else than a successful day-trip on the road to authentic reform. Only uninformed and frivolous individuals would try to express this dilemma as a modern rendition of the Road to Emmaus.

How often have Divine Liturgy and Sacred Scripture been subjected to deconstructive theories by the latest peritus on the lamb? Until recently, the classical Latin Mass had been forced to underground status, despite 1750 years of sacred tradition enveloping it; and the vintage Douai-Reims Bible of Bishop Challoner had been tossed into the dustbin of patriarchal history. It seemed nearly everybody was racing to read the "new and improved," as if the exalted company of Saints Ambrose and Jerome was a corporate body of the worst sort of Neanderthals.

Perhaps nowhere else did this urge to embrace "new and improved" express itself so vividly in the religious world as in the case of English translations of Holy Scripture. English-speaking Protestants have ready access to at least a dozen translations of modern origin, while Roman Catholics of the English tongue can lay claim to at least half that number. If it is quite true that English Christians need a fresh translation every half-century or so, then no one need fear for resources.

Among the half-dozen or more translations that RCs may use for private study [New American Bible, Jerusalem Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, RSV Catholic-edition, RSV Second Catholic-edition, NRSV Catholic-edition], the rumor mill has it that Ignatius Press will finally make room for Ronald A. Knox's translation of the Latin Vulgate, which has been out-of-print for many years. Monsignor Knox would have been keen to declare, or so I think, that RCs are a people of hope, rather than a gathering of the ungifted.

Concerning the NRSV, in particular, although the Vatican prefers an RSV Catholic-edition for liturgical purposes, there is no condemnation for Roman Catholics preferring the NRSV Catholic-edition for private study. For that matter, any RC may read "unapproved" translations of Holy Scripture for the sake of serious study, if said Bibles do not sport a critical apparatus continually roasting the holy Faith of millennia. Thus if one wanted a Bible grounded in a translation from extant Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek manuscripts, yet sensitive to the needs of women, the NRSV Catholic-edition does recommend itself to the modern reader.

I am very pleased with this NRSV Bible:Catholic Edition. It is compact and the words (print) are easy to read. I like it better than the American Standard version Catholic Edition. I recommend this one for easy scriptural reading.

I consider myself very conseravative theologically, unlike some of the reviewers of this product (NRSV Catholic Edition). Nonetheless, I think the NRSV Catholic Edition is a beautiful, elegant, and accurate translation of the bible, especially for devotional reading. I use it
everyday and I love it. For deeper "study," I use the Haydock Douay
and the Revised Standard Version 2nd Catholic Edition published by Ignatius, which has eliminated the "thees, thous, and thys" of the RSV.
But for devotional reading, the New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition ought to be in every Catholic's library. It is excellent.

This Bible is the one presented to our catechumenates who are preparing to inter the Church through Baptism, Confirmation and Eucharist.