Reply #12: The RSV and NRSV are good, scholarly translations

[Rabrrrrrr]

and try to be more literal translations, maintaining some of the form of the original languages.

The one I really like is the Oxford Annotated NRSV, which has copious notes about translations and possible other ways of translating, as well a lot of helpful historical information and cross-references to other passages.

The RSV and NRSV were both done by legitimate, mainstream, scholars who hold to legitimate, mainstream scholarly and academic standards with the only agenda being toward accuracy and a painstaking adherence to letting the text speak for itself, with a lot of looking at as many versions of the "original" texts as possible (and these were done after Nag Hammadi, so they used as many of those texts as possible). The NRSV has taken some liberties with inclusive language (using "humanity" when intended, instead of the word "man" or "mankind"; using "brothers and sisters" when the text says only "brothers" (in a non-relation way, in a friendly way), etc., but does not replace masculine pronouns for God).



Another translation that is quite helpful, but isn't really a translation at all - it's something else, and I can't remember the name - is The Message. It adds A LOT of extra words to try to make things much more understandable, but, of course, takes out some of the ambiguity and also very much loses the feel of the original text. But for real nasty passages, I've found The Message to be a good place to go to try to sort it out. But, never consider it scholarly (and the guy who did that one had no intentions of all of anyone ever considering it authoritative OR a translation, so it's not like he's trying to screw people or dupe them).