New Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition

[BAChristian]

Well just so y'all know, I like my NRSV, so the heck with all y'all...

LOL...

 

[MorphRC]

I luv the DRV its the only one that still supports the Hail mary scripturally all the rest are protestantize junk

 

[BAChristian]

...all the rest are protestantize junk

This is the second time that you've talked negatively about Protestants...rather forcefully at that...

I come from a Protestant background, and although I may see things differently right now, I am pretty thankful for my Protestant upbringing...

I would advise you to watch what you say -- the first time I overlooked your "zealous" attitude because I figure, you're 18, and I remember being 18 and probably saying things before I actually thought about it first...

But now I'm getting annoyed...don't insult other people's beliefs...it ain't right, and IMO, it's not being very Christ-like...

 

[IrishJohan]

Do any of you use the New Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition? Is it much different than the Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition that many Catholic apologists prefer?

Maybe I'm just old-fashioned, but I personally do not like the so-called "inclusive" language in the NRSV. I think if a masculine or feminine pronoun is used by the authors of the Scriptures, particularly when referring to God or an attribute of His, that is precisely what should be used in the translation. I do not see how doing this supposedly denigrates women as the 'inclusive' crowd claims. Just my two cents...

How does this version compare to the New American Bible?

Thank you for your comments.

NAB isn't too bad, but it is sometimes rigidly literal. I personally like the RSVCE.

Pax Christi,
John

 

[IrishJohan]

Morpheus, the New Jerusalem Bible is the best ever

have you checked it out?

Hey did you know that J.R.R. Tolkien did the translation for the Book of Job in the original Jerusalem Bible? I have no idea how faithful a translation it was, but it reads beautifully. Of course, this is one of my favorite books from Scripture anyway but I do like how he did this one...

Btw, you might enjoy this website on Tolkien:

http://www.geocities.com/domachowski/

Pax Christi,
John

 

[geocajun]

To answer the original post, I never liked the NRSV. I like the RSV, except for a few verses that I think were corrected in the Catholic edition. I prefer the English Standard Version, which is a non-Catholic revision of the RSV. The NRSV turned me off because of the inclusive language. There is a revision of the NRSV New Testament called "An Inclusive Version" which says to "baptize in the name of the father-mother, the child and the spirit." "Son of man" is rendered as "the human-one." Gender neutral language is a slippery slope. It starts with the NRSV gender neutral and goes into the heresy of the inclusive version's idea of God the "Father-Mother."

wow! I knew the NRSV was very inclusive, but the other one you mention is just a slap in the face to our theology. Do you have any links which reference this?

 

[geocajun]

Hey did you know that J.R.R. Tolkien did the translation for the Book of Job in the original Jerusalem Bible? I have no idea how faithful a translation it was, but it reads beautifully. Of course, this is one of my favorite books from Scripture anyway but I do like how he did this one...

Btw, you might enjoy this website on Tolkien:

http://www.geocities.com/domachowski/

I understand the JB was an awesome translation, in fact it is Mother Angelica's (EWTN) favortite.
I know Tolkien was supposed to work on the NJB as well, but never did.
Thanks for the link!

 

[geocajun]

I luv the DRV its the only one that still supports the Hail mary scripturally all the rest are protestantize junk

BA is right, and let me also add that you are insulting Catholic scholars as well when you degrade the more modern translations they have produced.

 

[Axion]

Why not? I assume that it is because Protestant bias may find its way in there. I am asking this because for the last few years I've been using the NIV, it has all sorts of notes in it that I do not want to lose if I switch versions. Basically...what should I be looking out for?? (Not including the "Tools for Bible Study" inserts) Thanks

The NIV reads very nicely, keeping the rhythms and wording of older versions, but it is guilty of twisting the meanings of a few passages.

The most notorious NIV twist is that "tradition" is only translated as "tradition" when the NT refers to it negatively. When the NT refers positively to tradition, another word - like "teachings" is substituted.

 

[Axion]

BA is right, and let me also add that you are insulting Catholic scholars as well when you degrade the more modern translations they have produced.

Catholic "scholars" who translate the Greek word kecharitomene as "highly favoured" rather than "full of grace" in Luke 1 are guilty of massaging the text to assuage protestants and liberals.

Charis, the root of kecharitomene (full of grace) is translated as grace virtually wherever it appears in the NT, except when referring to Mary in Luke 1 at the annunciation, where favour is substituted. I can only think that when modern Catholic scholars join protestants in making this change, they do so in a misguided attempt to be "ecumenical".

I note that the Christian Community Bible, another authorised Catholic translation, has returned to using Full of Grace.

 

[thereselittleflower]

There are so many issues to be taken into account when we discuss translations of the scriptures . .

The most important one it seems to me is that it is impossible to translate from one language family to another and still retain all of what was contained in the sense of the original writing in the new translation in a different language family . .

Greek and Hebrew are in a different language family than English . . we have so many translations because no one way of approaching the translations always fully captures what was in the original . .

So we have lateral, dynamic and in between translations.

Other aspects have to be taken into consideration as to what was the objective of the translators, what are their biases, etc . .

I find I achieve a much fuller sense of the passages if I use a variety of translations . . but, the best translation is the one you read! (of course, within certain limits!)

The passage in Luke 1:28 is a VERY GOOD example of how hard it is to translate something from one language family to another . . there is no one translation that completely captures what the word

ketcharitormene

​

actually conveys . .

In my studies about Mary in my journey towards Catholicism, I came across this site . . it helped me quite a bit to understand not only what the Angel Gabriel was actually saying to Mary and ABOUT Mary, but how hard it is for an English translation to convey the fullest sense of what he said without making that word into a paragraph . .just for that word . .


http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Atrium/8410/kecharitomene.html


How many translations try to convey that word does reveal the theological biases behind the translation . .

A program I have called e-sword . . a fantastic FREE program with many translations and capabilities can allow me to compare all the translations I have downloaded . . there are some I do not have because they have not given permission for them to be used free of charge . . but here are the ones I have downloaded so far for that verse - in these translations, only the DRB does it correctly -


Notice how many try to insert personal pronouns or a designation for Mary . . but miss that the word "ketcharitomene" IS the designation for Mary . . this does show, to me, theological bias . . and without in any way attacking Protestantism, show a Protestant mind set being brought to the translations of the scriptures . .

The words "Thou" "One" etc are actually INSERTED into the translation . .they do not appear in relation to the word kecharitomene in the original writings . .
Gabriel calls Mary "kecharitomene" - not Mary, not thou, not you, not one, etc . .

I hope people will read the article linked to above. . it does help to understand not only the problems with translation, and this word in particular, it also helps us to understand why protestants have trouble with the "full of grace" translation as well . .


Peace in Him!

Luk 1:28

(ALT) And having come in, the angel said to her, "Greetings, [one] having been bestowed grace [or, shown kindness]! The Lord [is] with you. _You_ have been blessed among women." [cp. Eph 1:6]

(ASV) And he came in unto her, and said, Hail, thouthat art highly favored, the Lord is with thee.

(BBE) And the angel came in to her and said, Peace be with you, to whom special grace has been given; the Lord is with you.

(CEV) The angel greeted Mary and said, "You are truly blessed! The Lord is with you."

(Darby) And the angel came in to her, and said, Hail, thou favoured one! the Lord is with thee: blessed art *thou* amongst women .

(DRB) And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

(EMTV) And the angel came to her and said, "Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you; blessed are you among women!"

(GB) And the Angel went in vnto her, and said, Haile thou that art freely beloued: the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

(GNB) The angel came to her and said, "Peace be with you! The Lord is with you and has greatly blessed you!"

(HNV) Having come in, the angel said to her, "Rejoice, you highly favored one! The Lord is with you. Blessed are you among women!"

(ISV) The angel came to her and said, "Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you!"

(KJV+) And2532 the3588 angel32 came in1525 unto4314 her,846 and said,2036 Hail,5463 thou that art highly favored,5487 the3588 Lord2962 is with3326 thee:4675 blessed2127 art thou4771 among1722 women.1135

(KJVA) And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

(LITV) And entering, the angel said to her, Hail, one having received grace! The Lord is with you. You are blessed among women!

(YLT) And the messenger having come in unto her, said, `Hail, favoured one, the Lord is with thee; blessed art thou among women;'

 

[geocajun]

Catholic "scholars" who translate the Greek word kecharitomene as "highly favoured" rather than "full of grace" in Luke 1 are guilty of massaging the text to assuage protestants and liberals.

Charis, the root of kecharitomene (full of grace) is translated as grace virtually wherever it appears in the NT, except when referring to Mary in Luke 1 at the annunciation, where favour is substituted. I can only think that when modern Catholic scholars join protestants in making this change, they do so in a misguided attempt to be "ecumenical".

I note that the Christian Community Bible, another authorised Catholic translation, has returned to using Full of Grace.

If you look at the footnotes on the NJB for example, it says the literal translation is not "full of grace either" but rather 'you who have been and remain filled with the divine favour'. The NJB is a dynamic translation though, so it doesn't use the literal text translation.
I think your assumption of the Catholic Scholars intention is wrong.

 

[KennySe]

I enjoyed reading the below link article.
(I found it at the bottom of the article I read that ThereseLittleFlower had put up the link.)


Filled With God's Grace
Pope John Paul II's May 8, 1996, Wednesday Audience
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Atrium/8410/kecharitomene2.html

 

[thereselittleflower]

If you look at the footnotes on the NJB for example, it says the literal translation is not "full of grace either" but rather 'you who have been and remain filled with the divine favour'. The NJB is a dynamic translation though, so it doesn't use the literal text translation.

Yet even this is wrong, and it does not suggest "you who have been" - it does not suggest "you who have" anything. . kecharitomene is not telling us something about Mary, it is telling us WHO she is!!

It is so awkward in the English language as to almost be untranslatable and carry its full meaning . . in fact, no translation carries its full meaning and nuances . .

Once could say "Hail Filled with Grace, Still Full of Grace, Continuing to be Always Full of Grace Forever" Yet that says nothing to us about how she was filled with grace and if it is her own attributes that result in her being graced o (something active done by MAry) or completey done by God . .(something competely passive). . .

So, how do you tranlsate it to convey everythig there is there in that one word used by Gabriel as a title?

"Hail Fully Filled with Grace, Still Full of Grace, Continuing to be Always Full of Grace Forever through no act of your own, through no worth of your own, but Graced by another and continuing to be Graced by another . . ."

So we say "Hail Full of Grace" . . but it doesn't convey by itself all of the above . .


kecharitomene


This is WHO Mary IS - not what she is!


Peace in Him!

 

[geocajun]

therese, might I ask how it is you are more qualified that the Catholic scholars who translate bibles (approved by the Church) on this matter?

 

[Reader Nilus]

The NRSV is prohibited for Liturgical use in the Orthodox Church in America. As a Reader for the Old Testament Lessons my prefered text is the NAB.
Bishop's Pastoral Letter on the New Revised Standard Version
Jeff the Finn

 

[thereselittleflower]

therese, might I ask how it is you are more qualified that the Catholic scholars who translate bibles (approved by the Church) on this matter?

geocajun

I am not . . but what has that to do with understanding the natural limitations of any English translation?

I do disagree with the note in the NJB . . I seriously looked into this verse as I was trying to understand the Catholic belief in regards to Mary, and this verse is central to this understanding.

There is no pronoun there . . perhaps the translators would have done better to transliterate the word since it is used in place of a name . . not try to translate it at all . . .


Peace in Him!

 

[Axion]

therese, might I ask how it is you are more qualified that the Catholic scholars who translate bibles (approved by the Church) on this matter?

A) The Catholic scholars, approved by the Church, who translated the Douai-Rheims the CC Bible and other versions that use Full of Grace (As well as the translators of the Hail Mary) are at least as "well qualified" as those who worked on some of the translations produced since the 1950s.

B) Remember also that the earliest PROTESTANT translators, Wycliffe and Tyndale, used Full of Grace. The King James translators, who based their work on these earlier versions, as well as the Douai Version, altered the word to favour. They had an agenda, based not on translation issues but doctrinal ones: The gratia plena [full of grace] of the Vulgate is too indefinite. It is right if it means "full of grace, which thou hast received"; wrong if it means "full of grace, which thou hast to bestow"

C) When a Greek word is translated Grace throughout the New Testament, but in one instance, (where the change conflicts with traditional Apostolic usage) it gets re-translated as something else, we need to know the justification for this. We certainly need a better reason for this than "trust the modern translators".

 

[geocajun]

"Hail full of grace" is not modern english. That is why it is not used.
What is another word for grace? - favor. Which is also more clear in this context (as the Catholic philologists state). Thus the rendering "you have have been and remain filled with favor"
And "Rejoice" is a better choice of words than simply "Hail" in context as well.

 

[geocajun]

A) The Catholic scholars, approved by the Church, who translated the Douai-Rheims

"Douay Rheims"

the CC Bible and other versions that use Full of Grace (As well as the translators of the Hail Mary) are at least as "well qualified" as those who worked on some of the translations produced since the 1950s.

Are you actually suggesting that in the last 500 years there have been no advancements in exegesis and philology?

B) Remember also that the earliest PROTESTANT translators, Wycliffe and Tyndale, used Full of Grace. The King James translators, who based their work on these earlier versions, as well as the Douai Version, altered the word to favour. They had an agenda, based not on translation issues but doctrinal ones: The gratia plena [full of grace] of the Vulgate is too indefinite. It is right if it means "full of grace, which thou hast received"; wrong if it means "full of grace, which thou hast to bestow"

Were they using the vulgate for the KJV? because the old vulgate is where we find gratia plena, which is mearly a more specific translation, but not the only correct translation.

C) When a Greek word is translated Grace throughout the New Testament, but in one instance, (where the change conflicts with traditional Apostolic usage) it gets re-translated as something else, we need to know the justification for this. We certainly need a better reason for this than "trust the modern translators".

kecharitomene is only used 1 time in scripture that I know of. if you know of any other places, please show me.