Which English Bible translations do not use gender neutral/inclusive language throughout, whether they are Catholic, Protestant, etc.?
The non-inclusive Catholic ones are:
Revised Standard Version (both first and second editions)
New American Bible (the original 1970 edition)
Some inclusive, but not obnoxiously so…
New Jerusalem Bible
New American Bible with revised New Testament (1986-1990)
New American Bible Revised Edition (2011)
Obnoxious amount of inclusive language…
New American Bible 1991-2010 (the psalms are the really inclusive part)
New Revised Standard Version
May scholars disagree about the inclusive language in the NRSV rising to the level of “obnoxious”.
“Rising” or “sinking”?
Well, to be fair, many scholars disagree about a lot of things that shouldn’t be disagreed about regarding the faith.
Just because we have an opinion doesn’t mean we have to give it every time we open our mouth.
You did a great job listing the versions and translations but editorializing ruined your answer.
The fact is that the NRSV is the most widely used Bible in academia and among serious Bible scholars.
I’m sorry. No. I was wrong. It was tvknight415.
But your editorializing stands.
99.0% of the people on these forums think inclusive language is bad but can’t explain why and can’t point to it anywhere in the Bible other than two or three places which everyone else points to.
There is a place for inclusive language and a place for it not to be used. Everything in life isn’t black and white. Inclusive language is not always bad and translating ancient Hebrew and classical Greek is not an exact science.
@InNomineDomini, a humble man admits that a Biblical scholar and theologian teaching graduate level courses probably knows more about the Bible and theology than does an ordinary Christian in the pew. These are probably more open to changing their opinion when presented with real evidence than are knee jerk Catholics who read something on a website or from a 600 year old encyclical and assume it is dogma without knowing the background or the context.
The truth is that the NRSV strikes a nice balance between interpretation and literal translation and uses gender neutrality where appropriate. It is a fine Bible and I have not had a problem reading it cover to cover multiple times just as the RSV-CE, NAB and Knox have not been problems when I read those cover to cover. None of them have turned me into a heretic or caused me to loose faith in God or the Church.
Anyone with an open mind who wants to actually learn about Bible scholarship should read Tim’s (not me) Catholic Bibles Blog. Tim is a real expert who doesn’t get hystrionic and freak out over subjects such as this. catholicbiblesblog.com/
My next Bible will be an Oxford NRSV Annotated with Apocrypha. The scholarship is excellent and it the standard in college level Bible courses.
I have 2 copies of the 1970 NAB. I am holding on them tightly.
Wherever corruption of the meaning takes us.
Please modify my review of 91 NAB and NRSV to “higher amounts of inclusive language” from “obnoxious”. It was late and I was tired, had two kids not staying in their beds, and chose my terminology poorly. Apologies if the term offended-I was simply trying to indicate a much higher degree of inclusive language in those two from the others, and instead demonstrated my ability to fit a size 13 into my mouth.
I wouldn’t worry about it. Nothing wrong with being honest.