OP-ed on the NRSVue

Maybe a recommended. I did pick up the recently released book After Jesus, Before Christianity, from the review.  It promises to be another logic-grinding opus, but should read.

https://www.amazon.com/After-Jesus-Before-Christianity-Exploration/dp/0063062151 

One reviewer thought it would revise world history ... not easy to do, after the fact. Ok, semantics. I'm still on my second reading of Frederiksen, and plan a third reading.

If Logos picks up NRSVue, it'd be good in a TC, if mainly to highlight translation choices.

MJ. Smith said:

Kiyah said:

This reads more like an extended ad than a review.

Given the author that in itself is very interesting. Are you familiar with the Logos resource Taussig, Hal, and John Dominic Crossan Hal Taussig. A New New Testament: A Bible for the Twenty-First Century Combining Traditional and Newly Discovered Texts. New York, NY: Mariner Books, 2013.?

I'm more responding to what the author wrote than who he is. It's the style of the op-ed and what he chose to say. I was hoping someone would do an actual review. Maybe ad was a strong word, but it does read more like promotional material. He didn't give any additional examples above what was already released in the promotional materials. Maybe he himself wasn't intending to write an ad but it reads more like something that's meant to generate buzz for the NRSVue than actually give us an idea of the nature and quality of the revisions.

I've already looked through what they released in terms of sample changes (they didn't provide very many). I was hoping someone had actually gotten a hold of the whole thing and would give more insight than what we've already seen. He didn't say anything here beyond what they've already said about the reasoning for the more sensitive language.

Not necessarily looking for a full scholarly review (yet) but just more insight and samples of what was changed and someone's thoughtful, critical opinion of those changes. What he wrote here doesn't even require him to have looked at the full text, he only needed the same samples the rest of us already received.

DMB said:

Not sure why you'd not expect a full scholarly review ... maybe being nice. But a major translation update? Luckily you can get the Kindle or Apple version .... Aug 2, 2022!

I am eventually expecting one, just not in the LA Times. But I was still hoping for more than this. It's standard industry practice now for newspapers to sell "ad" space in the OP-ED section where companies can include what is essentially a product promotion that reads like an OP-ED. Whether this was intended or not, that's what it reads like. This sounds like something the publisher (Friendship Press) asked him to write, and that solely based on the promotional materials they've already released.

I don't want to download their app and buy the thing in a format that I will never use, and they haven't made it available anywhere else yet, so I was hoping for more insight than this. Oh well, I'll continue to wait.

Kiyah, I hope I wasn't unusually confusing. I was agreeing with you ... such a major translation and release demands scholarly reviews. I know this sounds awful, but after the NIV experience, and I guess now, the NRSV, there seems to be Simon Magus working at the helm of the translation business.

MJ. Smith said:

Kathleen Marie said:

Has the NRSV been the "go-to English Bible for students and scholars"?

The easiest way to check this is to check which Bibles scholarly monographs reference. I have come to the conclusion that the Evangelicals and similar organization have their go-to Bible which changes with a greater frequency than the ACELO-Mainstream Protestants' (ACELO=Anglican-Catholic-Eastern Orthodox-Lutheran-Oriental Orthodox) go-to Bible which appears to be the ecumenical canon NRSV. While there are some conservatives who cling to the RSV, in it's heyday it competed against the ESV and JB so I doubt it was more widely used. In my library it is RSV 813 vs. NRSV 1,114

I just keep thinking that I don't know what I don't know. The more I am learning, the more I learn that there is still to learn.

I had no idea the translation was that popular. Even looking at scholarly monographs, the lists of recommended scholarly monographs that I have been directed to never quote the NRSV. The NRSV was just dismissed by people that I was looking to as authorities. It was compared to the short-lived Zondervan translation that preceded the current NIV. With certain professors, I am not sure that I would be allowed to use the NRSV in a situation where it seemed to contradict other translations.

My new Wisdom Commentaries quote the NRSV and that was the first time I ever really looked at the NRSV translation as an important part of my studies. Even my recent Anglican and Catholic studies have directed me to the RSV2E and the ESVCE, and the RSVCE and NABRE. The place I saw it pop up most was the 1979 BCP people and that was the prayer book that I studied the least. I think my African Study Bible uses a special NLT with more books; I am not sure if that is even an official version.

I am obviously still not looking widely enough, even though I am trying to look wider. I still don't know what I don't know.

Thank you!

MJ. Smith said:

Oops, I meant NEB not ESV ...

That saves me some research and misunderstanding. I was confused. Thanks so much for clarifying!

MJ. Smith said:

The mainline Protestant churches (also called mainstream Protestant^[1] and sometimes oldline Protestant)^[2][3][4] are a group of Protestant denominations in the United States that contrast in history and practice with evangelical, fundamentalist, and charismatic Protestant denominations. . .

We cross posted as you added this. Absolutely NOT what I was thinking!

What are the numbers of mainline vs non-mainline?

Kathleen Marie said:

We cross posted as you added this. Absolutely NOT what I was thinking!

What are the numbers of mainline vs non-mainline?

Never mind, I see the answer is right there! Sorry!

Ken McGuire said:

NRSV has probably been the standard translation used in secular educational institutions in the USA. In addition, it has been the standard translation for mainline protestants.

This. It's a fairly solid translation good for such work as long as you're aware of its quirks (mostly footnoted, and all translations have quirks). For study I've often used it alongside the ESV; the difference between the two is very often a matter of taste. The NRSV also probably has the widest canon of the major translations.

Ken McGuire said:

Part of this was just how old the RSV OT was - it hadn't been revised since the 1950's, while the RSV NT had been revised in 1970...

The RSV also falls into the uncanny valley of mid-century translations that use "Thou" for God but "you" for human beings. I find that so distracting as to be almost unreadable.

One of the callings of ministry is to explain the ancient world context not polish it over. This kind of translation seeks to pretend it doesn't exist in the text but it does. Something about that in the proclamation of truth only makes it harder to proclaim.

MJ. Smith said:

I see the translation as trying to represent the ancient world more closely by undermining our modern expectations e.g. since the modern world thinks in terms of sin and wealth, this tries to think in the less modern Western terms of purity and honor. 

One bright Sunday morning, our pastor was explaining why church leaders need to be guys ... pointing to Jesus' 12 ... all guys! I asked him if he was jewish? Not arguing gender, but rather, which ancient world do we select, this week.

I look forward to the conversations that will take place as this version comes to market. I think some of the conversations will be a bit different than those for other translations.

I am interested to listen to the goals of this translation.

When we judge one translation by the goals of another translation, it will appear deficient to a translation written to accomplish that set of goals.

I have been surprised at how few Bibles are available in giant print with the catholic canon. I wonder how far away we are from this version being available to giant print. Or if that is even planned.

DMB said:

Maybe a recommended. I did pick up the recently released book After Jesus, Before Christianity, from the review.  It promises to be another logic-grinding opus, but should read.

https://www.amazon.com/After-Jesus-Before-Christianity-Exploration/dp/0063062151 

Well, just for the Logosian record, Amazon kindly refunded my investment, after I got 13% in.  A reviewer did warn, they don't footnote their sources. It would have been interesting ... but not.

Ok, back to NRSVue (reminds me of TV-Vue).  I still think the translation will be great in Text Compare .... perks my curiousness up.

Basically, a KJV-only teacher stated his conservative concerns with the RSV. He grounded his objections even in the fact that upon his coming to Christ, he studied heavily and used heavily the RSV, until common KJV-only propaganda sucked him in. It was a terrible time in this class. Perhaps I first laid eyes on an NRSV as a junior high school student after having the other teacher the last semester. Like many students, it was required that I have an NRSV Oxford Annotated Bible. Does anyone believe the NRSV comes from the KJV?

Yes both of the above.

MJ. Smith said:

You mean like this? NRSV New Revised Standard Version - Liturgy or like this?

Having been in school at the time the NRSV and NA27 came out, I would like to pick a minor nit. The NRSV was published before NA27 came out, so it could not have been based upon the final version of NA27.

That said, Bruce Metzger was involved with NRSV, and I cannot believe that he would not have heard from Kurt and Barbara Aland about their plans for NA27, and the same basic Greek text is shared between NA26, NA27, UBS3 and UBS4, but the actual Greek text used was UBS3 with information for UBS4 also...