# Revised Standard Version



## Justin Williams (Sep 2, 2007)

Hi folks! 

Currently I read from the ESV but I have been wondering about the quality of the Revised Standard Version, which I understand the ESV is based upon.

I believe that the RSV was lead by Dr. Bruce Metzger and so I was curious as to where you folks would rank the RSV as a translation of the texts.

Should I stick with the ESV or should I look into the RSV? 

Blessings,

Justin


----------



## tellville (Sep 2, 2007)

I think most people here would point you towards the KJV. But if it was a choice between these 2 translations, I think by far, most would say the ESV is the way to go. (I would say ESV).


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Sep 3, 2007)

Check out this critique of the RSV: http://www.bible-researcher.com/rsv-bibsac.html

Justin, what do you think of the ESV's readings in Matthew 1:7, 10, where Asaph and Amos replace Asa and Amon in the Lord's genealogy?


----------



## MW (Sep 3, 2007)

I think you're heading in the right direction,
ESV -> RSV -> RV -> AV.
Just don't stop yet.


----------



## Justin Williams (Sep 3, 2007)

I apologize if I am in disagreement with the majority here but I would prefer the topic remain focused on modern translations.

Some here may be convinced that the KJV or AV is the best translation of the manuscripts available yet I have not come to this conclusion nor do I wish this thread to be used for the purpose of proving otherwise.

Blessings,

Justin


----------



## Pilgrim (Sep 3, 2007)

In the words of John Piper, (quoting from memory) "the ESV is the RSV with the theological problems fixed." 

To be very brief, those theological problems include an antisupernatural bias on the part of the translators, particularly related to several prophecies and Messianic Psalms in the OT (most notably Isa. 7:14) as well as eschewing "propitiation" in favor of "expiation" at 1 John 2:2 and elsewhere in the NT. 

The RSV was the product of liberal scholarship in the mid 20th century. It would have probably been far more radical had the translators not been tasked with revising the ASV of 1901 and by extension the AV. (See founding WTS professor O.T. Allis' book on the RSV for his contention that due to the adoption in many places of what would be later termed "dynamic" i.e. less literal readings as well as the acceptance of higher critical theories, the RSV should be considered a new translation and not a mere revision of the RV. If I recall correctly Allis takes no position on the textual issue and respected both the ASV/RV and the AV). But for most evangelicals (we can leave the proper use, definition etc. of evangelical for another thread), it went way too far and was not widely accepted. However it was the bible of choice in "mainline" churches like the UMC, ECUSA, PCUSA, etc. until it was supplanted by the NRSV in the early 1990's. After the widespread rejection of the RSV in the 1950's, many evangelicals were still convinced that something besides the AV was needed, and so the plethora of other modern translations appeared since then, some better and some worse.


----------



## jbergsing (Sep 3, 2007)

The RSV is not a very good translation, however, the ESV is worthy of use. Stick with it!


----------



## AV1611 (Sep 3, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> I think you're heading in the right direction,
> ESV -> RSV -> RV -> AV.
> Just don't stop yet.





Also have a gander of page 13 of this.


----------



## SRoper (Sep 3, 2007)

I liked the RSV a lot, but then the ESV came out.


----------



## Dieter Schneider (Sep 3, 2007)

Am I the only one who believes the NASB to be unsurpassed? Hope this isn't too heretical.


----------



## cwjudyjr (Sep 3, 2007)

*My preferences...*



Dieter Schneider said:


> Am I the only one who believes the NASB to be unsurpassed? Hope this isn't too heretical.




I too like the NASB and the ESV as my preferred versions. I also use the NKJV as well at times. 

Conrad


----------



## KMK (Sep 3, 2007)

cwjudyjr said:


> Dieter Schneider said:
> 
> 
> > Am I the only one who believes the NASB to be unsurpassed? Hope this isn't too heretical.
> ...



Of course the ESV is the best. It is the *standard*!

Oh, wait...

So is the RSV and the NASB and basically any version with an 'S' in the title.


----------



## bookslover (Sep 3, 2007)

Dieter Schneider said:


> Am I the only one who believes the NASB to be unsurpassed? Hope this isn't too heretical.



I used the NASB, primarily because it was the translation the church was using when I got saved in 1980. But, it reads too woodenly. I've seen many folks stumble over it when reading it aloud, even from the pulpit. So, after awhile, I got into the NIV, which reads much more smoothly! But, due to its extremely paraphrastic nature, it reads *too* smoothly. So, when the ESV came out in 2001, I abandoned the NIV, and have stuck with the ESV ever since. It reads smoothly yet is a reliable translation.


----------



## fredtgreco (Sep 3, 2007)

Dieter Schneider said:


> Am I the only one who believes the NASB to be unsurpassed? Hope this isn't too heretical.



It is good I think, and yet wooden it sometimes seems.


----------

