Talk:Revised Standard Version

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Revised Standard Version is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article Milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 29, 2004.
Article Milestones Date Process Result November 14, 2003 Featured article candidate Promoted December 9, 2006 Featured article review Demoted Current Status: Former featured article

	Religion Portal This article is supported by WikiProject Religion. This project provides a central approach to Religion-related subjects on wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start	This article has been rated as Start on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Philrelig article has been rated Start-Class on the assessment scale.

---

Eek! The page says its monopoly on Christendom, when (if my understanding is correct) the KJB isn't used by the Roman Catholic church, any of the eastern orthodox churches (greek, serbian, russian etc.), the ethiopian or coptic or armenian or syrian churches, and probably gazillions more besides. I guess a more "correct" (ahem) version would be something like

...challenge to the King James Version and its primacy in the Anglo-Saxon protestant tradition...

but then someone will say anglicanism isn't quite protestant, so:

...challenge to the King James Version and its primacy in the Anglo-Saxon protestant and anglican traditions...

or maybe

...challenge the King James Version's place as the predominant english translation of the bible in the protestant and anglican traditions...

Sorry. All of this makes a nice paragraph into an ugly one. Who says truth is beauty? -- Finlay McWalter 02:23, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Oops, I forgot about the Catholic version. But that still leaves the orthodox and eastern branches, and the "english" part. -- Finlay McWalter 02:26, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Contents 1 Ouch! 2 Re-organization 3 re "almah" 4 FA removal

[edit] Ouch!

Looks like I goofed here!

I should have used the phrase english speaking world instead of Christendom. English Speaking World interfers all of the world not just Christians.

Thanks for pointing this out!

Finlay, It's people like you who make things like this fun to do.

hoshie 08:41, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

• How about "English-speaking Protestants and Anglicans"? "Christendom" would seem to include a lot of people who never spoke English and never read the King James Translation of the Bible, and many Catholics speak English :). -- Someone else 08:49, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I have another idea. I have changed it from English speaking world to "the main English Bible prefered by Protestants." A bit wordy, but I guess it will hold. hoshie 07:58, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

OK, it looks likes "for Protestants" wasn't the best line. Since everyone used it (e.g. Prots, Caths, Orths, nonbelivers, general readers). I have left it at most popular Bible. iHoshie 05:49, May 2, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Re-organization

I've re-organized this article.

I have put the ESV, NRSV, and the 1971 NT revsion in a section, since these are different than the RSV itself. The Common Bible, Reader's Digest, and the 2002 anniversary edition are in essence, the same RSV text adapted for various formats (as these products show).

Hope this helps.

- Hoshie | 04:32, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] re "almah"

We need to be especially careful to maintain a NPOV on this section. Flat statements about what "almah" does or does not mean are disputed and must be treated as such, so please resist writing that it means "virgin" or that it means "young woman". Mangoe 02:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

At this point I'm inclined to revert assertions about the meaning of the word or the intent of the translators without a citation. I've seen no proof that they referred to the next section, and the meaning of "almah" is after all teh centerpiece of the dispute. Mangoe 02:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FA removal

As the guy who wrote this article, I agree with the decsion to de-FA this article. I hope sometime to come back here and fix this article in order to make it better. Because of this, it's a blessing in disguse the FA status was retired. - Thanks, Hoshie 20:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Click on "why it was removed" above for some ideas. Marskell 21:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! It gave me a few ideas on how to proceed. Don't think I'll get to it until the new year at least, since my interests here have divulged since I created the article. Thanks again. - Thanks, Hoshie 03:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I've taken a deep breath and done an initial rewrite of the article with some restructuring. I hope this version is more concise and formal in wording, and a bit clearer all round. We've obviously got some work ahead to get the article up to current FA standards. Metamagician3000 07:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Still working on this. Note that I changed the opening sentence - I think this was quite misleading the way it was worded. It is not so much that it's no longer popular as that it has now morphed into the NRSV, which is still popular. We can't capture that difficult thought, so I believe the simplest thing to do in the opening sentence is just refer to when it was published rather than when it was popular. At this stage, what the article now mainly needs is a lot of citations, but I don't have that kind of scholarship so I'll have to pass it back to Hoshie when he has the time. Metamagician3000 01:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)