Nrsv

To my knowledge the "non-denominational" reference is to the translation committee that was comprised of numerous people from across the denominational, and theological gamut. Whereas the HCSB was done by a nearly SBC exclusive body, the NRSV included catholic, protestant, evangelical, mainline, etc.

 

From the National Council of Churches (which owns the NRSV) website:

"-The ecumenical NRSV Bible Translation Committee consists of thirty men and women who are among the top scholars in America today. They come from Protestant denominations, the Roman Catholic church, and the Greek Orthodox Church. The committee also includes a Jewish scholar.

-The RSV was the only major translation in English that included both the standard Protestant canon and the books that are traditionally used by Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christians (the so-called "Apocryphal" or "Deuterocanonical" books). Standing in this tradition, the NRSV is available in three ecumenical formats: a standard edition with or without the Apocrypha, a Roman Catholic Edition, which has the so-called "Apocryphal" or "Deuterocanonical" books in the Roman Catholic canonical order, and The Common Bible, which includes all books that belong to the Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Orthodox canons.

-The NRSV stands out among the many translations available today as the Bible translation that is the most widely "authorized" by the churches. It received the endorsement of thirty-three Protestant churches. It received the imprimatur of the American and Canadian Conferences of Catholic bishops. And it received the blessing of a leader of the Greek Orthodox Church."

 

The ESV is really just an "evangelicalized" Revised Standard Version.
Evangelical ESV purchasers are apparently clueless that ESV royalties are paid to, and prop up, the liberal National Council of Churches.
Christian Century "New funds boost NCC"

 

So the proper word is not so much "nondenominational" -- a negative concept -- as it is "ecumenical" -- a positive concept.

This Baptist does not "despise" the NRSV. It was the pew Bible in the church I served as pastor; it is the pew Bible in the church where I am now a member. And it is the default translation from which I have been teaching and preaching for years.

I had not even thought about the "authorized" item ... the King James Version is also known as the "Authorized Version" because it was commissioned or approved by the Church of England. In the absence, in this country, of an overarching church hierarchy or decision process, it would seem misleading to call any translation "authorized." For Baptists, at any rate, each church or each preacher selects what they will.

 

The NRSV just needs to rid itself of its archaic expressions and it will be fine. My take.

 

This is very interesting and important information.

 

According to the article, "Rather than stringing out royalty checks over the term of the ten-year contract, Crossway negotiated a large advance payment." This was a one time payment, in lieu of a 10 year payment plan. No royalties have been paid since. I wrote to Crossway back in 2004 about this very issue and this is the reply that I received:

Sent: Tue 4/20/2004 2:15 PM

Dear Mr. Sly,

Thank you for your high interest in the Word of God and the ESV in particular.

Heres the notice found on our website under ESV, FAQ:

Does Crossway pay royalties to anyone for use of the ESV text?
No. Crossway owns the rights to the text.

You can find this at www.gnpcb.org/page/esv_faq/.

It is true that Good News Publishers/Crossway Books and Bibles licensed the text of the RSV from the National Council of Churches of Christ (NCCC) for use as a basis for the ESV translation. We have made no attempt to hide this. You can find notice of this reliance in the third paragraph of the ESV Preface.

Good News Publishers/Crossway Books and Bibles purchased the all the rights to the ESV text, and there is not a financial relationship with NCCC. No portion of the proceeds gets sent to the NCC.

SDG!

Grace and Peace,

Marvin Padgett
Vice President, Editorial
Good News Publishers/Crossway Books
1300 Crescent Street
Wheaton, IL 60187
Voice: 630-682-4300
Fax: 630-682-4785

​

Since this email is over 5 years old, the link above doesn't work anymore. The closest I can find to it would be: http://www.esv.org/about/faq.

 

The NRSV would be a great Bible if it would drop most of the inclusive language.

 

My comment is not directed at the NRSV specifically, but it depends on whether the context of the source text was gender inclusive. For example, the NT frequently uses "anthropos" to mean "people", but which many older versions translate as "man" or "men". If the context of the source text is "people", then it would be permissible for a translation to render the word gender neutral in English.

 

My irritation with gender-neutral language comes when the NRSV says "mortals" instead of "men" or "human beings" or "people." Very unnatural ... I don't know anyone who goes around speaking of "mortals".

 

It is much more commonly used than you think.

I googled the word and it came up with nearly 8 million entries.

In the KJV the word "mortal" occurs 6 times.

Job 4:17 -- mortal man
Ro. 6:12 -- mortal body
Ro. 8:11 -- mortal bodies
1 Cor. 15:53 -- this mortal
1 Cor. 15:54 -- this mortal
2 Cor. 4:11 -- mortal flesh

Just yesterday I was going over the meaning of the word with my classes. I also contrasted it with the immortal God.