This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to the Catholic Church. For more information, visit the project page.CatholicismWikipedia:WikiProject CatholicismTemplate:WikiProject CatholicismCatholicism articles
This is a good question. I have a copy of the NRSV with Apocrypha, which I would expect to be pretty much the same as the Catholic Edition. The NRSV with Apocrypha includes books not considered canonical by Protestants (Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, Letter of Jeremiah, 1-4 Maccabees, the last two books of Esdras, Ps 151, Prayer of Manasseh and portions of Daniel and Esther--the Greek version of Esther is translated independently). Some of these are not considered canonical by Catholics, but are considered canonical by Orthodox and/or Slavonic churches (last two books of Esdras, Ps 151, Prayer of Manasseh, 3,4 Maccabees). I would expect that the Catholic version would reunite Daniel, use the Greek version of Esther, and not include any of the works that they (actually, we, since I am a Catholic) consider non-canonical. These books would probably be placed in the "proper" order, rather than between the Old and New Testaments, as is done in the NRSV with Apocrypha.
It is also possible that the texts of the books included were changed, not just the number and placement of the books. The Catholic Church has had an issue with inclusive language, and though the NRSV uses it judiciously (they tend to rearrange sentences to avoid gender pronouns, rather than the "Our Father-Mother in Heaven" stuff that you get with things like The New Testament and Psalms: An Inclusive Version), it still has its shortcomings. It is possible that portions were changed to deal with the inclusive language issue. I'd like to know if that's true. superlusertc 2007 July 11, 21:34 (UTC)
I've found roughly a dozen textual differences between NRSVA and NRSV-CE. One caveat is that those textual differences might be the result of changes within the NRSVA, and not between the two versions.jonathon (talk) 19:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
@Superluser:@Pseudo Daoist: I added a citation from the NRSV-CE explaining that there were no changes to the text of the NRSV except that parts of the full Greek Esther of the NRSV were combined with the Hebrew Esther of the NRSV (thus no real changes). The citation needed tag is no longer needed, unless examples of the dozen textual differences between NRSV and NRSV-CE can be given or if there are examples of changes to the inclusive language of the NRSV (which is doubtful, since the preface to the NRSV-CE says that it is "sensitive to the contemporary concern for inclusive language"). KinkyLipids (talk) 18:31, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
