www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology What Bible version do you use?

My understanding is that the NRSV is the translation used by the Roman Catholic dioceses in Canada. True? Also, what version is used in the liturgical books of the Eastern Churches?
Is the NRSV really that bad?
Silouan, a sinful and ignorant old monk

My understanding is that the NRSV is the translation used by the Roman Catholic dioceses in Canada. True? Also, what version is used in the liturgical books of the Eastern Churches?
Is the NRSV really that bad?
Silouan, a sinful and ignorant old monk
Sorry about the duplicate message.

[ 01-17-2002: Message edited by: monksilouan ]

The deal with the NRSV is that it has some horizontal inclusive language in it. Where it has the inclusive language, there is a footnote saying what the original Greek says. The thing I dislike about the NRSV the most is its translation of Psalm 50/51. Instead of "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me," it translates as "Indeed, I was born guilty, a sinner when my mother conceived me."

I think the biggest difference is what manuscript family one uses to translate. The King James and NKJ use the Textus Receptus/Byzantine texts, whereas most other translations use the critical text. Our liturgical readings follow the Byzantine texts whereas the critical texts are missing some of our liturgical readings (like the woman caught in adultery-John 8).

The Ruthenians use the New American Bible in their liturgical books.

Monk Silouan,

In America and Canada the New American, Revised Standard Version, and Jerusalem Bibles are all presently permitted to be used as Lectionaries for the Liturgy. However, in America the NAB is the preferred and official version of the Bishop's Conference. In Canada, the RSV has this preference.

However, when the NRSV was published the NRSV Lectionary was rushed through the presses before Rome reviewed it. Rome actually withheld approval from the NRSV for liturgical use, but it still is used illicitly in Canada and in the US.

The NRSV goes beyond horizontal inclusivity into theological error. The most glaring example is Daniel 7:13. Traditoinally it reads: "I saw One like a son of man coming on the clouds of heaven(NAB)." The NRSV reads: "I saw one like a human being coming with the clouds of heaven." The theological deficiency of teh NRSV is obvious. Our Lord clearly used "Son of Man" as one of His messianic titles and this passage in Daniel clearly is refering to him. However, the NRSV in an attempt to be "inclusive" destroys the meaning of the text. While the Church approves of the NRSV for personal use, I cannot recommend it.

Rome also withheld approval for liturgical use from the revised Psalms of the NAB and required changes to the NAB revised New Testament so that it could be used. Once the entire NAB is revised and approved it will be the only Lectionary approved for liturgical use by the Latin Church in the US. I don't now why they are withdrawing Liturgical use approval from the RSV and JB both of which are superior to the NAB. Fortunately this does not effect our Metropolia, and while the NAB is in our published Epistle and Gospel Books we are still free to use the JB and RSV.

In Christ,
Lance, deacon candidate

Although I would be for the use of the RSV because of its acceptability to both Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant Christians, personally I would rather see our jurisdiction stay with familiar sounding translations such as the NAB.

I can see the major error in rendering "son of man" as "human being." I was unaware of this liberty taken in the NRSV and actually can't claim a great familiarity with the RSV language. From my remembrance of biblical courses, "son of man" is interpreted by some as meaning "heavenly man" or "man of heaven." It indicates the idea of one who in some way represents a totality of the human ethos and persona, as in the sum of the intended way that God desires for human beings to be, in a state of perfection - kind of a culmination of the human spirit, in a pristine state. It certainly means much more than simply a human being as such and there has to be a term that expresses the meaning in more detail. Does anyone else have some thoughts on the meaning of the identity of this "son of man" title that Jesus uses for himself in the New Testament?

I know that its meaning, while far more than a mere "human being" also that does not in any sense equate with Christ as "Son of God" or an incarnate deity. To think of "son of man" as the latter would be to totally misconstrue Jesus meaning when using it. Scripture particularities were not my concentration, but I believe that "son of man" had a certain significance in the Hebrew Scriptures, one which Jewish religious writers used frequently. I would be very interested to learn more about this concept, perhaps on a new thread. Lance, your point is very well taken.

Also, I'm happy to know that the KJV originally did contain all of the canonical biblical books. Is there available anywhere a version of it that offers the complete bible as we accept it or has such an edition been relegated into obscurity due to general lack of use by churches that accept all of the deuterocanonical and other books contained in Catholic and Orthodox scriptures? Thanks for everyone's input. Joe

Joe,

You might want to check out the Third Millenium Bible [tmbible.com] . It is basically the KJV with Apocrypha with a few of the really obscure meanings changed. Many Orthodox priests recommend it.

For personal devotion, I alternate between the New English Bible and the RSV. Both have newer revisions, of course, but I prefer my scriptures pre-PC. I also use a New Skete translation of the Psalter, and an NIV NT/Psalter for travel.

I have other translations as well, but for one reason or another I don't choose them for daily reading. The Orthodox Study Bible is in this group - I just don't care for the NKJV translation. However, I'm anxious to see what they've done with the OT when the complete edition comes out.

Peter