Nuggets from the NRSV

[Jeff Lebowski]

We were reading from Mark 10 last night for family scripture study. My daughter was reading from the NRSV and I was following along in the KJV. We got to verse 21 which reads:

21Jesus, looking at him, loved him and said, ‘You lack one thing; go, sell what you own, and give the money* to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.’

The corresponding verse in KJV is as follows:

21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and agive to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and bfollow me.

Note that the "take up the cross" phrase from the KJV has been deleted in the NRSV. There were no footnotes or explanation for this difference as is sometimes the case. But as I thought about it, it makes perfect sense that this would be a latter addition. Why would Christ use a phrase like "take up the cross" prior to his death? While this seems like a natural phrase in the context of current Christianity, it would make no sense to his followers at that time. I must have read this passage dozens of times, but that thought never occurred to me.

This is one of countless little nuggets we have found by reading both versions simultaneously. Most fun I have had with scripture study in a long time.

It also occurred to me that there is a certain irony at play in the LDS church. We have an article of faith that says that we believe in the bible "as far as it is translated correctly". This was a bold and controversial statement in JS's day. And yet here we are using arguably the least accurate translation of the bible as our official text.

[SteelBlue]

Interesting, that has never crossed my mind either but what you are saying makes perfect sense. I'll probably use that one in church soon and pretend that I discovered it.

[SeattleUte]

JS says take up the cross is right.

http://scriptures.lds.org/jst/53

[Tex]

In light of SU's comment, how would you feel if the LDS church standardized on the JST version?

(Assuming legal issues with the copyrights were resolved.)

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Tex

In light of SU's comment, how would you feel if the LDS church standardized on the JST version?

(Assuming legal issues with the copyrights were resolved.)

How would you feel?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

In light of SU's comment, how would you feel if the LDS church standardized on the JST version?

(Assuming legal issues with the copyrights were resolved.)

That would be a big mistake, IMO. SU is illustrating a point that LDS scholars have been making for years. It's not so much a translation as a commentary. It belongs in the footnotes.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

JS says take up the cross is right.

http://scriptures.lds.org/jst/53

Sort of. He actually seems to anticiapte this very issue and show how it was exaplined to the listeners, or am I missing something?

Edit: Lebowski said it better than me.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by jay santos

How would you feel?

There are a lot of benefits that we gain from using the KJV, speaking particularly of missionary work, so I would be sad to see those go.

But from a spiritual perspective, I wouldn't have a problem with it at all.

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

That would be a big mistake, IMO. SU is illustrating a point that LDS scholars have been making for years. It's not so much a translation as a commentary. It belongs in the footnotes.

I don't think Joseph Smith looked at it that way. Robert Matthews put out a book on the JST years ago that is still looked upon as the definitive work, and he indicates that the translation falls into several categories, one of which is commentary.

But there are other passages that he feels clearly indicated Smith was restoring lost text. In any case, why would we not want a scriptural translation that had passed through a prophet's hands?

[Sleeping in EQ]

As I've mentioned many times, I love the NRSV. Lebowski, an NRSV "nuggets" thread is a great idea.

One nugget I found in the NRSV, in the apocryphal Wisdom of Solomon, is an almost unknown, but ancient, passage that seems to affirm the pre-existence of souls. Here's 8:19-20 of that book:

"As a child I was naturally gifted, and a good soul fell to my lot; or rather, being good, I entered an undefiled body."

If you haven't ventured out into non-KJV translations, do yourself a favor and do it. You won't regret it.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

I don't think Joseph Smith looked at it that way. Robert Matthews put out a book on the JST years ago that is still looked upon as the definitive work, and he indicates that the translation falls into several categories, one of which is commentary.

But there are other passages that he feels clearly indicated Smith was restoring lost text. In any case, why would we not want a scriptural translation that had passed through a prophet's hands?

Well, to start with, JS never completed the work. And he was working with the inferior KJV as a base. Why hold on to an inferior translation to gain the few extra insights he provided? Why not keep it as a footnote and get the best of both worlds? Especially if some (at the very least) is commentary?

Again: we refer to biblical errors of translation as part of our articles of faith. Why are we not actively promoting and engaging in textual criticism using the best source texts available? Doesn't make sense.