# Reina-Valera 1960



## Pilgrim (Nov 26, 2011)

Yesterday I picked up an inexpensive paperback copy of the Reina-Valera 1960 at Lifeway. (It looks to be a decent edition for a paperback and has the advantage of being "black letter.") My understanding is that this is the most popular Spanish translation by far. 

Bawb's recent thread about Spanish had got me thinking about brushing up on and improving my Spanish knowledge, which has lain dormant for over 15 years. (It never got beyond the book larnin' stage.) I don't know about others, but I find reading to be much easier compared to listening, not to mention speaking in an intelligible way beyond a handful of words or phrases. At this point I find that I can more or less decipher very familiar passages and verses without having to consult other resources, but others are going to present a considerable challenge.

I'm interested to know what departures the 1960 makes from the TR, which is alleged by KJV Onlyists and some others who strongly prefer the KJV. (Nevertheless I see that, while noting some problems, the KJV Store sells it, so it must not be that far off. They don't sell the NKJV.) It appears to have Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11 without comment or brackets. It appears to have the _Comma_ in 1 John 5 too. So I'm thinking that whatever departures it has is relatively minor.

What problem does the Trinitarian Bible Society have with the 1960? I understand that they are working on a revision of an older version of the Reina-Valera. 

Regardless, I've noticed that some prefer the 1909 edition as being "closer to the TR" or KJV from a textual standpoint. Does this version have many archaisms? I wouldn't be surprised to learn that some prefer one of the earlier versions either.

The wiki article refers to the 1960 as being the equivalent of the RSV. I'm guessing this is in a generational sense (with the RSV allegedly being a mid 20th century revision of the KJV) and not in the sense of being influenced by modernist (i.e. liberal) antisupernaturalism, etc. Is my assumption here correct? 

I see that E-Sword has the 1909 Reina-Valera in addition to the 2004 Gomez revision which apparently is more in line with the text underlying the KJV. They also have the Lockman productions LBLA and NBLH, the latter of which is apparently a more colloquial translation. 

My understanding is that the Reina-Valera is a formal equivalent translation. Is the literary style considered to be good, or would some consider it to be "woodenly" literal?


----------



## elnwood (Nov 26, 2011)

I used to read the RVR regularly (alongside English), before I learned Hebrew and Greek

I don't know the answers to all your questions, but I will tell you what I know. The RVR is the King James equivalent, but Spanish has not changed as much as English has, so Spanish speakers have less language issues with the RVR than English speakers with the KJV. The RVR uses the vosotros (familiar 2nd person plural) forms, which is only used in Spain, so it's not colloquial in the Americas, but Spanish speakers will know and understand it. The RVR is far and away more popular than the other Spanish Bibles (Nuevo Version Internacional, Biblia de Las Americas). There was a 1995 revision (relatively minor, from what I could tell), but the 1960 is still the more popular one.

Regarding the textual issues, I've read articles online about which RVR versions the KJV-only people recommend (the old ones that are near impossible to find), but don't remember enough to summarize. I'm sure you can find them yourself.


----------



## py3ak (Nov 26, 2011)

I suspect it's not so much textual (the inclusion of the Comma, etc.) as translational: the 1960 transliterates _Sheol_ instead of translating it, and there are probably a few other points like it.

I don't think it's a pinnacle of style, but it flows well.
Possibly even less known than the 1995 is the 1977 revision - from my limited acquaintance with it I would suspect that that one is pretty similar to the RSV.


----------



## Pilgrim (Nov 27, 2011)

py3ak said:


> I suspect it's not so much textual (the inclusion of the Comma, etc.) as translational: *the 1960 transliterates Sheol instead of translating it, and there are probably a few other points like it.*



Presumably as opposed to _infierno_ as in Mt. 23:33. 

I don't think _infierno_ was a word I learned in my classes. I'm guessing the subject never came up.  I learned it from a Nicaraguan who I used to work with in a department store. There was an obnoxious guy there that nobody liked and my Nicaraguan acquaintance would say that this fellow is going to _infierno, _in addition to some other hyperbolic statements.


----------



## SolaGratia (Nov 27, 2011)

http://www.sociedadbiblicatrinitaria.org/Historia_RV.pdf


http://www.sociedadbiblicatrinitaria.org/Fuentes_textuales_RV.pdf


Sociedad Bíblica Trinitaria


----------



## Pilgrim (Nov 27, 2011)

Gil,Thanks. I will take a look at those. Here's the English Quarterly Record from 2007 (same article as your first link) with the update on the revision of the 1909: http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/qr/qr580.pdfHere's an article I found on the issue, although it doesn't go into detail on any text. Double Standards in the Spanish Bible Issue | English section of literaturabautista.comWhat issues are there with the 1960, in your view? The perceived demerits of the 1960 aren't mentioned at all in the TBS material, at least from what I could find in a quick perusal of the articles and website. I also find it somewhat ironic that some of the charges leveled at the 1909 (that it's hard for modern readers to understand it) could well be brought against the AV as well. Evidently their position is that their word list is sufficient for the 1769 AV but that something like that isn't sufficient to bring the RV 1909 up to their standards.


----------



## py3ak (Nov 27, 2011)

I find the 1909 to be much more challenging to understand, but chalked that up to not being a native speaker.


----------



## Pilgrim (Nov 27, 2011)

Here are some other things I've come across: 

Spanish Bible version issues | English section of literaturabautista.com Site by an IFB Missionary who is a Textus Receptus man and uses only the KJV, yet points out issues with those who agitate against the 1909 and 1960. 
The Spanish Bible - Please pray for the Rodriguez family - Missionaries to Puerto Rico



> They are clearly setting the groundwork for a "Gomez Bible onlyism" movement of sorts, [a reference to the recent Reina-Valera-Gomez which purportedly has 0 deviations from the TR] which I fear will involve much controversy and division like we have never seen before in the Fundamental Spanish-speaking world, threatening the revival we have seen in many areas in recent years. When previous Spanish Bibles came out (such as the 1909 and 1960) they were not promoted as "we now have a pure Bible" as is happening with the leaders behind the RVG.



With regard to the 1960, it appears that one of the big issues was that Eugene Nida had some involvement, as the American Bible Society apparently oversaw it. (My copy has ABS on the back and it is copyrighted by the UBS.) The site I link above states that Nida didn't have a vote on textual issues and that he was involved in more of an advisory role with regard to helping to gather commentaries, etc.


----------



## Pilgrim (Nov 28, 2011)

Spanish Bible version issues | English section of literaturabautista.com ----Site by an IFB Missionary who is a Textus Receptus man and uses only the KJV, yet points out issues with those who agitate against the 1909 and 1960, some of whom are Ruckmanites. 

With regard to a recent version called the Reina-Valera-Gomez that purportedly has 0 deviations from the TR



> They are clearly setting the groundwork for a "Gomez Bible onlyism" movement of sorts, which I fear will involve much controversy and division like we have never seen before in the Fundamental Spanish-speaking world, threatening the revival we have seen in many areas in recent years. When previous Spanish Bibles came out (such as the 1909 and 1960) they were not promoted as "we now have a pure Bible" as is happening with the leaders behind the RVG.



Here's an excerpt from his article regarding a book containing essays by American IFB's, few of whom speak Spanish themselves:



> The authors of this book seem to think that the Spanish Bible controversy involves a matter that is black-and-white. In their simplistic way of thinking, all that has to be done is to translate a new Spanish Bible (or revise an old one) from the Textus Receptus, and --presto!-- it will automatically agree 100% with the KJV, the “problem” will be solved, and all the tension will soon be forgotten. How I wish it were that easy! How I wish it was all black-and-white, but there is certainly some gray in this matter. Here is an example of the book's overly simplistic manner of treating the matter at hand:"Since the King James Bible was translated accurately from the Textus Receptus, then to compare the Spanish Bible (or any other Bible translation) with the KJV is to compare it to the Textus Receptus. Where there are textual differences between the KJV and the Spanish Bible, there are of necessity textual differences between the Spanish Bible and the Textus Receptus..." (p. 152)
> 
> It is almost as if this contributing author is in denial concerning different TR editions. An example of variations in TR editions would be Rev. 16:5. In the Spanish 1960, "el Santo" (the Holy One) can be found, referring to Christ, but it is missing from the KJV. However, it is in the Stephanus TR edition of 1550. Obviously, the KJV translators followed a different TR reading for this particular verse.
> 
> ...



So it seems that with the people behind the Gomez edn. it's a case of correcting the Spanish (and really the Greek) with the English--if a version doesn't agree with the KJV "100%" then it's by definition corrupt. 

With regard to the 1960, it appears that one of the big issues, if not the biggest issue was that Eugene Nida had some involvement, as the American Bible Society apparently oversaw it. (My copy has ABS on the back and it is copyrighted by the UBS.) The site I link above states that Nida didn't have a vote on textual issues and that he was involved in more of an advisory or administrative role with regard to helping to gather commentaries, etc. Nevertheless, that connection alone is likely to give many Received Text advocates pause. 

One site alleges that since 1865 "critical text errors" have gradually been introduced into the revisions. But given the fact that at least the "big" passages seem to conform to the received text, the issue here appears to be more subtle than what we have with English translations.


----------

