Talk:New Revised Standard Version

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Bible Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Christianity Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

See the question under this heading on Talk:Modern English Bible translations. I'd like to see some discussion of the relative merits of various translations. Personally I consider the NRSV to be the best translation of all that I've tried, but that's my POV. --Singkong2005 12:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I like its elegant language, not changing the meaning of the original text, but making it much more accessable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.93.21.65 (talk • contribs) 11:50, June 13, 2006 (UTC)

It's very much the skeptic's Bible, since it makes no effort to smooth out contradictions in the text. :-) Evercat (talk) 01:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I changed a claim that liturgical use in the RC Church requires higher standards. This is a POV statement since it implies that Catholic translations are better. Some people would say they are worse, ie the virgin/young woman thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.235.73.206 (talk) 13:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to factualize this better. I eliminated all references to Orthodox approval since I cannot find any evidence thereof. One translator in the project doesn't count.Mangoe 11:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak to the issue of the Orthodox Churches approval or disapproval, but the somewhat blanket suggestion that it was rejected by Conversative circles isn't completely correct. A good example would be the Paleo-Orthodoxic ministry Renovaré, which uses it as the standard for their commentaries, books, etc.

The KJV-only crowd, naturally, rejected it. Beyond that, it seems to me that the reception has been quite mixed.

I think the section deserves some attention, but would defer to someone with more sources.

The Greek "adelphoi" does not include "brothers and sisters". It primarily means brothers, but in a few cases can also mean all those with a common interest, all the faithful of a location, as well as all those of a particular nationality (both of which obviously include males and females). The translation as "brothers and sisters" is more a clarification of perceived intent than an accurate translation issue. -JSM 24.18.66.149 04:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the approval section is says that the NRSV has an imprimatur (free of moral and doctrinal error) but then adds that liturgical translations need to be in line with Catholic teaching so the Canadian version is adapted. This seems to imply (though not the intent) that before the Canadian edit it had error. Perhaps the article should state that while Catholics are free to read it, it is not approved for use in the Liturgy. Then it can note that the Canadian Bishops heavily edited the text with the Congregation for Divine Worship so that an adapted version could be used in the liturgy. Ozca 15:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is just something I picked up and thought it could be useful and was wondering if I should add it. Under the controversy section, it talks about the virgin debate. I have read that the reason it reads "young woman" is because the Hebrew language lacked a word for virgin and that almah referred to a young woman who was not married, but old enough to be married, therefore virgin would be an accurate (though not literal) translation as unmarried women were usually virgins back then. Emperor001 (talk) 20:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hebrew does have a word for virgin: "bethulah." It's the word used most of the time when the Law refers to a virgin (e.g., Deuteronomy 22:23). "Almah" just means young woman; it's the feminine form of "'Elem", young man. Of course every father hoped that his "'almah" daughter was a virgin, but that's not what the word referred to. Pleonic (talk) 20:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does almah mean a specifically unmarried young woman?? Or just any young woman, married or not? If the former, then the most fitting English equivalent would be "maiden"; which, even though it is sometimes used to imply virgin, (and in the past sometimes explicitly to mean such, occasionally even for men) the proper modern definition is "an unmarried young woman." Firejuggler86 (talk) 22:44, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be the only biblical translation with a majority (4 of 7) links in the "External Links" section referring to critical reviews. In fact, looking at most of the other articles about popular translations, I don't see ANY links to critical reviews in other articles on a specific translation (admittedly, I didn't look through all the Bible translation articles).

Just something that seems noteworthy, given that a large segment of Protestant denominations accept the NRSV as a primary or alternate translation. Many of the criticisms are valid from various perspectives, but there are similar criticisms aimed at other recent translations. Why is this the only article where most of the links lead to criticism? 71.192.161.233 (talk) 04:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the links do look to be outside the WP:EL guide and in the opinion nature. I'll see about removing some of them. Thanks for pointing this out. Basileias (talk) 08:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how to word this better at this time so I'm placing it here for later reference and to highlight it to other editors. The problem with the claim about "Traditional Christian interpretation" is it's really a difference in the Masoretic text and the LLX. The NRSV was based on the Masoretic text. Nothing was hidden about that. Also what the reference to the ESV Study Bible and what it says isn't clear so that source really needs verification. Basileias (talk) 08:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The last phrase of Psalm 22:16 is rendered in the NRSV, "My hands and feet have shrivelled". A diversity of possible translations exist: the King James Version and the Septuagint have "They pierced my hands and my feet", the Jerusalem Bible has "They tie me hand and foot", and the Masoretic text has "Like a lion [they are at] my hands and feet". Traditional Christian interpretation views this passage as a foreshadowing of Christ's suffering^[1] and so tradition has favoured "They pierced my hands and my feet".

The text says "A significant quotation of Isaiah in the Gospel of Matthew also translated the word into Greek as "parthenos" (virgin), and English translations of Isaiah prior to the RSV had followed the Greek." This implies that Matthew read Isaiah in Hebrew, and translated 'amah' as 'parthenos'. Isn't it more likely, especially given the totality of scriptural citations in the Gospel, that Matthew read Isaiah in Greek? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 03:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, no. The only Greek translation of the Old Testament at the time was the Septuagint, and though the Septuagint readings are found in the New Testament quotations of the Old, many quotations in the New Testament of the Old are not from the Septuagint. Reference is made to this in The Translators to the Reader, the preface to the King James Bible of 1611. Matthew, being a Jewish publican or taxcollector, a profession which included stenography, was almost certainly able to read Hebrew (he was a Jew), Latin and Greek. If he could not read Hebrew, he would not have been able to render any of the quotations of Hebrew texts differently than the only existing translation, the Septuagint. Since he did render the quotations of the Old Testament differently than the Septuagint, we know he must have had access to the original Hebrew. Honestly, Matthew probably read the Old Testament in both Hebrew and Greek. People back then didn't do much besides attempt to educate themselves and read and write more. People nowadays don't do much besides attempt to entertain themselves and read and write less. It's sad how far we've fallen. 74.195.66.164 (talk) 19:39, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note, there is no evidence, nor even implied indication in the text, that the gospel was written by the publican Matthew. The gospel, like all of the gospels, is officially anonymous, but unlike the authors of Luke and John, who drop hints regarding who they want the reader to presume they are, Matthew does not purport, implicitly or otherwise, to be written by any one particular person, nor does it make any claim, or implication, of being written by an eye witness. The attribution to the publican Matthew was entirely done by third parties. (the rest of your comment is accurate, though; but I would note that the thing about "he shall be a Nazarene" "as it is written" the author seems to have completely made up for apologetic purposes). Firejuggler86 (talk) 22:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to the "To The Reader" article in all NRSVs, the NT was translated from the United Bible Society Greek New Testament version 3 with corrections to be included in version 4. (Not the Nestle-Aland apparatus).

- Neshort (talk) 23:55, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I inserted a POV tag because this section is currently unacceptable. The impression is given that Christian translators have messed up when the their lead for this comes from the LXX. Its also not true that all scholars agree that almah "has nothing to do with virginity." Basileias (talk)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on New Revised Standard Version. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100206062332/http://www.ncccusa.org/newbtu/reader.html to http://www.ncccusa.org/newbtu/reader.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://courses.missouristate.edu/markgiven/rel102/bt.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:03, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-editors,

I have moved, mistake of mine only, the article "New Revised Standard Version" to "Bíblia (Nova versão padrão revisada)", while I was proceeding translation for portuguese.

Please, can anyone undo this mistake move?

Forgive me. This was not vandalism.

Thanks.

Aainitio (talk) 19:03, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't Mark Ward be referred to as an "evangelical writer" instead of a "theologically conservative writer"? I don't think too many conservative Catholics share his views on the Bible, and I doubt most readers are familiar with what kind of a school BJU is. Regardless, I would be grateful if a more experienced editor could judge if Ward's opinion qualifies as relevant at all since he appears to be a relatively minor figure writing mostly (exclusively?) for the general audience (i.e., he's not a biblical scholar). Miyamoto Hachimaro (talk) 14:22, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want to chime in on agreement about the inclusion of this segment. A single writer criticizing the NRSVue for not condemning homosexuality does not to me seem to warrant an entire subsection of "controversy", especially when as mentioned he's not coming from a scholarly background here. 2600:8800:280:33A3:19B7:CAD:8818:819 (talk) 14:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]