This is one of those variants that scholars go back and forth on. If I recall correctly, the original RSV omitted it, but later editions of the RSV restored it to the main text. The New American Bible puts it in brackets.
I ordered a paperback NRSVUE the other day, like you I need to do a deep dive on it but I am just a layperson. My church usually uses the NKJV. I do read the NRSV a lot.
Indeed it is weird for the NRSVue to omit that phrase. From what I can tell, that phrase is not in the SBL Greek NT, and since the NRSVue was revised by the SBL, they followed their own Greek NT. I would've preferred that the NRSVue put it in the main text but add brackets if they really doubt its authenticity. I mean, the NRSV have always done this with the alternate endings of Mark and the woman caught in adultery in John.
Bible translation is big business. If you want yours to stand out from the crowd, it has to be different. And eventually the changes you're making go beyond the cosmetic.
If references to "the Son of God" were systematically removed from Mark, then it would affect a doctrine. The question here is whether Mark chose to "spoil the twist" on the first page or not. (Considering how Mark 1.11 reads, you don't have to wait long for this doctrine to emerge, even in the NRSVue.)
One of my gripes with the NRSVue, and a reason why I rarely recommend it over its predecessor, is that it feels like many of its variant readings are just an attempt at novelty. I don't think these are always in error, but it's hard to know as a layperson without a lot of Greek/Hebrew whether it's just doing its own thing or whether it's participating in the greater conversation of how to translate those passages which are in contention by making well-supported decisions.
To me it makes no sense that pple demand Son of God in verse 1, that's clearly bec they're imposing their traditional modern notions onto the author, as if it's a theme or title of an essay. The fact that the official major Roman codex had such kinds of interpolation, it is very likely that the phrase was added for the same reason you feel it's paramount as the title of the gospel. The various mss including many early Church writers don't have it, which means it's likely a later addition. Secondly, that definition that Gospel word was used or meant in context of military victory is purely a bogus claim by amateur authors or apologists, I saw that in a book by Michael Bird. There is a good answer in hermeneutics stackexchange site on that question. The word gospel could be used for any good news like a victory or birth of a son or anything.
@@OneStepToday There are many verses that are disputed, but traditionally, and according to the KJV legacy, they've been included. I'm sure I got that reading from NT Wright, far from an amateur or apologist.
@@joest.eggbenedictus1896 NT Wright is an amateur author not an actual scholar; otherwise you'd have a footnote for evidence for this narrowing of semantic range of a word. But it's indeed true that good bibles like ESV still preserve traditional rendering like this "son of God" Mark 1:1 despite the NA Critical edition not having it. There should be no respect to tradition when it comes to textual criticism. We should realize that pple find it objectionable only bec they have been accustomed to reading that traditional rendering, and have made an emotional attachment around that rendering. There is a list of sample changes in the NRSVue, if u find the pdf by searching for NRSVue Bible Sampler Review frp-nrsvuearc-sampler-web-rev dot pdf, it will be helpful.
The NRSV 1989 is discontinued. The NRSVue will eventually replace all printings of the 1989. There are still some 1989 editions available, but eventually, that will not be the case.
@@FrKevinDaugherty I should probably purchase a back up NOAB 4th edition before its too late! I think I can get 15- 20 more years out of the one I have.
@@joest.eggbenedictus1896 I remember getting my NOAB 4th edition shortly before the 5th was released. Hardbacks, dozens of them, at my local bookstore (not Christian), being sold for about $10 a pop. I was tempted to hoard, but just one of them was already too heavy to lug around the mall.
![[FULL EP.73] เปิดบ้าน 70 ล้าน "แป้ง Zbing" ยกมาทั้งญี่ปุ่น l เคหสถานบานปลาย l One Playground](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YBnJhTt07Pg/mqdefault.jpg)
This is one of those variants that scholars go back and forth on. If I recall correctly, the original RSV omitted it, but later editions of the RSV restored it to the main text. The New American Bible puts it in brackets.
I ordered a paperback NRSVUE the other day, like you I need to do a deep dive on it but I am just a layperson. My church usually uses the NKJV. I do read the NRSV a lot.
Thank you for pointing out Mark 1:1 in the updated NRSV Bible. I have the NRSV Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible ©2019 and Mark 1:1 reads, "The beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ, the son of God." I had to check out what my Bible had printed. "the Son of God" should definitely not be left out in the version you have and left to a footnote explanation. I agree with you.
Thank you!
Indeed it is weird for the NRSVue to omit that phrase. From what I can tell, that phrase is not in the SBL Greek NT, and since the NRSVue was revised by the SBL, they followed their own Greek NT. I would've preferred that the NRSVue put it in the main text but add brackets if they really doubt its authenticity. I mean, the NRSV have always done this with the alternate endings of Mark and the woman caught in adultery in John.
@@JimJones-kj8jk Thats an option too. "Better in than out" in this instance.
I have yet to see any positive changes for the NRSVue over the NRSV.
Bible translation is big business. If you want yours to stand out from the crowd, it has to be different. And eventually the changes you're making go beyond the cosmetic.
I can hear the "no major doctrine is affected" horn a blowing but the ship is taking on water and the poop deck is on fire.
@@ColinV03 ha! poop deck, he said
If references to "the Son of God" were systematically removed from Mark, then it would affect a doctrine. The question here is whether Mark chose to "spoil the twist" on the first page or not. (Considering how Mark 1.11 reads, you don't have to wait long for this doctrine to emerge, even in the NRSVue.)
One of my gripes with the NRSVue, and a reason why I rarely recommend it over its predecessor, is that it feels like many of its variant readings are just an attempt at novelty. I don't think these are always in error, but it's hard to know as a layperson without a lot of Greek/Hebrew whether it's just doing its own thing or whether it's participating in the greater conversation of how to translate those passages which are in contention by making well-supported decisions.
To me it makes no sense that pple demand Son of God in verse 1, that's clearly bec they're imposing their traditional modern notions onto the author, as if it's a theme or title of an essay. The fact that the official major Roman codex had such kinds of interpolation, it is very likely that the phrase was added for the same reason you feel it's paramount as the title of the gospel. The various mss including many early Church writers don't have it, which means it's likely a later addition.
Secondly, that definition that Gospel word was used or meant in context of military victory is purely a bogus claim by amateur authors or apologists, I saw that in a book by Michael Bird. There is a good answer in hermeneutics stackexchange site on that question. The word gospel could be used for any good news like a victory or birth of a son or anything.
@@OneStepToday There are many verses that are disputed, but traditionally, and according to the KJV legacy, they've been included.
I'm sure I got that reading from NT Wright, far from an amateur or apologist.
@@joest.eggbenedictus1896 NT Wright is an amateur author not an actual scholar; otherwise you'd have a footnote for evidence for this narrowing of semantic range of a word. But it's indeed true that good bibles like ESV still preserve traditional rendering like this "son of God" Mark 1:1 despite the NA Critical edition not having it. There should be no respect to tradition when it comes to textual criticism. We should realize that pple find it objectionable only bec they have been accustomed to reading that traditional rendering, and have made an emotional attachment around that rendering.
There is a list of sample changes in the NRSVue, if u find the pdf by searching for NRSVue Bible Sampler Review frp-nrsvuearc-sampler-web-rev dot pdf, it will be helpful.
Is the update now the official NRSV? Specifically, is the 1989 version going to cease being printed (so get it while you can)?
@@Seaclock35 I'm not entirely sure. Maybe Oxford will still print them, but haven't seen any other new 89 editions.
The NRSV 1989 is discontinued. The NRSVue will eventually replace all printings of the 1989. There are still some 1989 editions available, but eventually, that will not be the case.
@@FrKevinDaugherty I should probably purchase a back up NOAB 4th edition before its too late! I think I can get 15- 20 more years out of the one I have.
@@joest.eggbenedictus1896 I remember getting my NOAB 4th edition shortly before the 5th was released. Hardbacks, dozens of them, at my local bookstore (not Christian), being sold for about $10 a pop. I was tempted to hoard, but just one of them was already too heavy to lug around the mall.
@@joest.eggbenedictus1896 An NOAB6 with NRSVUE is in the works.