RSV vs. NRSV?


#1

I’m doing a Catholic Bible study that primarily uses the NRSV as the primary text. But I’m wondering, are there major differences between the RSV (I already know the differences between RSV and RSV: CE/RSV: 2CE) and NRSV? I thought the NRSV uses gender neutral language; if that’s the case how frequently is it used? Are there any Bible verses that are present in the RSV that are no longer present in the NRSV?

Do the Catholic editions of the NRSV include the Deuterocanonical books in their “proper” places in the OT, and not merely placed in between the OT/NT or at the end of the NT?


#2

My understanding is that the NRSV is gender neutral when the source is gender neutral.

For more information see:
nrsv.net/harper/nrsv-catholic/

You may want to read the following:
staticu.bgcdn.com/versions/NRSV/NRSV-To-the-Reader.pdf

The Bible is actually online so you can view it yourself before purchase:
biblegateway.com/versions/New-Revised-Standard-Version-Catholic-Edition-NRSVCE-Bible/


#3

There are other differences, which is why the CCCB had to make some significant changes to the Canadian Lectionary which was published using the NRSV.


#4

Unfortunately, it’s also gender-neutral when the source is not.


#5

Other than gender neutral language, I don’t see much of a difference (however I haven’t researched this topic in particular, just based on my reading of the two).

As for the proper place of the Deuterocanon, I really would like for it to be at the back of the Bible, as then the New Testament, the part that I read the most, is more in the center of the spine and the binding holds up better with repeated use :).


#6

One of the biggest differences would be found in the textual basis for the OT. The RSV, being older, doesn’t take into account recent archaeological finds like the Dead Sea Scrolls. The NRSV does.

Also, you will notice that the book of Tobit in the RSV is shorter than in the NRSV, or NABRE for that matter. Here is a helpful explanation from the NABRE intro to Tobit:

Written most likely in Aramaic, the original of the book was lost for centuries. Fragments of four Aramaic texts and of one Hebrew text were discovered in Qumran Cave 4 in 1952 and have only recently been published. These Semitic forms of the book are in substantial agreement with the long Greek recension of Tobit found in Codex Sinaiticus, which had been recovered from St. Catherine’s Monastery (Mount Sinai) only in 1844, and in mss. 319 and 910. Two other Greek forms of Tobit have long been known: the short recension, found mainly in the mss. Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, Venetus, and numerous cursive mss.; and an intermediate Greek recension, found in mss. 44, 106, 107. The Book of Tobit has also been known from two Latin versions: the long recension in the Vetus Latina, which is closely related to the long Greek recension and sometimes is even closer to the Aramaic and Hebrew texts than the Greek is; and the short recension in the Vulgate, related to the short Greek recension. The present English translation has been based mainly on Sinaiticus, which is the most complete form of the long Greek recension, despite two lacunae (4:7–19b and 13:6i–10b) and some missing phrases, which make succeeding verses difficult to understand and make it necessary to supplement Sinaiticus from the Vetus Latina or from the short Greek recension.


#7

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.