The RSV

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by mesly, Sep 15, 2003.

  1. mesly

    mesly
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2002
    Messages:
    283
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have become extremely fascinated at how this one version has become the most disdained translation of the 20th century (continuing into the 21st) by fundamentalists. Even to the point of having believers attach their dislike of it to the newly released ESV.

    I found the following article interesting. It gives a bit of background of both the political and religious climate surrounding the time of the release of the RSV.

    Any comments? The entire article can be viewed at: Article
     
  2. Forever settled in heaven

    Forever settled in heaven
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2000
    Messages:
    1,770
    Likes Received:
    0
    i think the article is correct to say that the RSV got hated becos of the political climate of its time, n that now some Fundamentalist scholars have started rehabilitating its reputation.

    here's one such scholar, Dr Drew Conley, in a book review of the Fundamentalist-published From the Mind of God:

    http://www.post1.com/home/amarillo/revFromMind.htm
     
  3. neal4christ

    neal4christ
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2002
    Messages:
    1,815
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks for this post! I have never looked at the RSV before because I was always told and always thought it was the "liberals'" Bible. But after reading this thread, I went out and bought one. And wow, I am enjoying it! I am very conservative, but there is very little I can find "wrong" with the RSV. I have not settled on one default Bible yet because I am just not satisfied with any one in particular. But I must say, I am very impressed with the RSV. I wonder how popular it could have been if it was not vilified as the liberal Bible? But as I thought about it, if someone like of John Piper was comfortable with it, maybe I should check it out. And then your thread just made me :D go out and buy one! I plan on giving it a go for a while.

    In Christ,
    Neal
     
  4. Taufgesinnter

    Taufgesinnter
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,135
    Likes Received:
    0
    I prefer the New RSV, but I'm particularly grateful for the appearance of the RSV if it was responsible for stimulating production of the NASB and NIV.
     
  5. aefting

    aefting
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    874
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don’t remember where I read it but my understanding is that John R. Rice actually advertised the RSV in the Sword of the Lord when the NT portion first appeared. It was only after they published the OT, and the non-Christological treatment of passages such as Isaiah 7:14 came to light, that conservatives reacted to the liberal influence of the translation committee. I think though, as was mentioned earlier, that conservatives have come to realize that the RSV is not as thoroughly liberal as once thought. In fact, it would be possible to remove the objectionable translation elements, while keeping the majority of the good work, and produce a version that conservatives and fundamentalists could embrace – hence the ESV.

    Here is a LINK to an influential 1953 BibSac review of the RSV. It is interesting to see the issues that were raised, especially considering the modern day translation/text debate.

    Andy
     
  6. Forever settled in heaven

    Forever settled in heaven
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2000
    Messages:
    1,770
    Likes Received:
    0
    Piper's use is a good signal.

    not only he, but Millard J. Erickson, too, for his Christian Theology. to me, when someone who fights so hard to defend the christological doctrines chooses to USE the RSV as main Bible in his scriptural citations, it's pretty telling. [​IMG]
     
  7. mesly

    mesly
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2002
    Messages:
    283
    Likes Received:
    0
    Neal, you and I have exchanged private messages regarding our use of the ESV. I am curious as to why you would think that the RSV would be any better than the ESV?

    I happened to pick up one of the 50th anniversary editions of the RSV a few months ago. I have found it interesting when comparing passages between the RSV and the ESV. Overall, it is very much the same and has been an enjoyable study. Since much of it is identical, I started to think about why the RSV is so hated among conservative and fundamental circles. I think that the article that I quoted gives much needed insight into this "hate", which was mostly due to the political and religous climates of the day. It begs the question that if times were different and the RSV was accepted, would we have the NASB? Factors that contribute to the perceived need for a new translation are very interesting to me.

    God bless,
    Michael
     
  8. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    Didn't Wayne Grudem use it for his Systematic Theology?
     
  9. mesly

    mesly
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2002
    Messages:
    283
    Likes Received:
    0
    Andy, this article is very interesting! Really reveals the thoughts of that day in bible translations. The first part of the article is really just a temper-tantrum over the NCC's role in doing the translation. The rest of the article reveals some good criticism of the text.

    I found it funny that some of the very things that they criticized about the RSV actually show up in other versions as well.

    Here is one verse from the NIV (I guess the 20 year difference between the two translations can do wonders to your line of thinking ;) ). The verses referenced are:

    They question the use of the word "body" in the RSV, but as you can see the NIV has it as "body" too.

    Two other verses that they complain about are the SAME in the KJV as it is in the RSV:

    As compared to what was rendered in the ASV:

    Incidently, the NIV is rendered the same as the KJV and the RSV in the use of the word "destroy". They are complaining about the word "destroy" in the RSV.

    And lastly (there are more, but I don't want spoil the entire article [​IMG] ):

    As you can see, the same "error" occurs in the KJV with their favored translation being the ASV.

    I can only conclude that either time has changed the minds of many (i.e. use of the same translations in the NIV) or there was some unfair criticism of the RSV.

    [ September 16, 2003, 12:52 PM: Message edited by: mesly ]
     
  10. Anti-Alexandrian

    Anti-Alexandrian
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    [ September 16, 2003, 10:51 PM: Message edited by: Dr. Bob Griffin ]
     
  11. Terry_Herrington

    Terry_Herrington
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    4,455
    Likes Received:
    1
    Anti-Alexandrian, the previous post is the most intelligent thing you have ever said on this board.
     
  12. Taufgesinnter

    Taufgesinnter
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,135
    Likes Received:
    0
    Based on the timing of your post, I assume you're referring to the moderator-edited version. :D
     
  13. Terry_Herrington

    Terry_Herrington
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    4,455
    Likes Received:
    1

Share This Page

Loading...