Greg Terry Reviews the Allan's NRSV

I've spent the last two months on the road, lecturing at Worldview Academy on the West Coast, which has resulted in a major backlog of reviews. If you're itching for a Bible review, Greg Terry has published his thoughts on the R. L. Allan's NRSV, one of the Bibles in my to-do stack. He's also taken a few snaps of the Bible in action. Since the NRSV is so poorly supported in relation to its pedigree, its readers are always on the lookout for good editions. Greg thinks he's found a keeper. Find out why at the link:

R. L. Allan NRSV Review at Duine Ruadh

By the way, I'd like to re-iterate the invitation I've made before to those of you who blog about Bible design and binding topics: if you send me the link, I'll be happy to share it with the community here. As always, you're welcome to add links to the existing posts here via comments, too.

Comments

[Stan McCullars]

Thanks for the link to Greg's review. The Bible looks great. Unfortunately, I've been wanting to get a better quality NRSV and I hope his review doesn't push me completely over the edge.

[Scott]

If it had the Apocrypha, I might go for this one. It looks great. Hope to see some more NRSVs.

[Martin Han]

Another thanks for the link. It does raise a question I've been curious about for a while. With all your reviews on the top-of-the-line highland goatskin Bibles, I haven't seen anything on the regular goatskin Allan's puts out. It was nice to have a review on a "regular" goatskin Bible, but without pictures I'm still left wondering what Greg means by "slightly stiff." Does anyone have any non-highland Bibles they can take and post pictures of? I'm this close to the edge on the regular goatskin Bold Print NIV (again) and this could be what brings me back and gets me a Pitt Minion. Thanks!

[Greg Terry]

Scott and others:

When I stated in my review that it was slightly stiff, I meant by comparison to my NIV Pitt Minion which is velvety soft in the hand. My Allan NRSV will undoubtedly reach that same velvety feeling with handling and use. The "stiffness" of the Allan is LIGHT YEARS better than (as Mark has put it) the cardboard catastrophes prevalent in most Christian bookstores. While the Allan NRSV didn't quite lay flat in Genesis or Revelations out of the box, it is pretty close and getting there with use.

I have not had the opportunity to handle a Highland Goatskin from Allan but I suspect it would be similar to the Pitt Minion goatskin. Had Allan offered this Bible in Highland Goatskin, I would have gotten one, but the regular goatskin is fantastic. If the NRSV is a translation you use, then the Allan NRSV is the cream of the crop as long as you are not seeking a study Bible but instead are looking for a Bible in which you can study.

I would be happy to answer any questions or provide some additional pictures if specific requests for certain types of pictures are made.

A big thank you to Mark for linking to my review.

[Greg Terry]

I have taken some additional pictures of the Allan NRSV and posted them on my Flickr page at:

http://flickr.com/photos/gkterry/sets/72157606487364009/

[Greg Terry]

One more thought. You will notice in the pictures that the Bible lays virtually flat in the front but doesn't quite do as well in the back of the Bible. The reason for that being that I'm primarily a student of the front not the back of the book. Therefore, I've been using the Old Testament more than the New Testament and thus the increased flexibility in the front of the book.

I study Leviticus and other books of the Torah primarily as my launching point. However, I did check to make sure that Revelations was included in the Bible. :-)

[Steve Lockhart]

Beautiful bible, terrible translation.

[Nathan Greeley]

Yeah it's just so terrible, I don't know why so many world renowned Biblical scholars prefer it.

[Jonathan Wiebe]

For those of you using this edition there are few errata which I have discovered:

Jonah 1.17 reads: ...three days and three night
should be: ...three days and three nights.

New Testament p.45 header reads: Mark 7.14
should be Mark 7.34

New Testament p.46 header reads: Mark 7.15
should be Mark 7.35

2 Peter 2:2 reads: Even so, any will follow...
should be: Even so, many will follow...

Does anyone know how to contact Collins to let them know (they are the publisher of the text block which Allans uses). I tried Collins website but their "Contact us" link was not working.

[Steve Lockhart]

I just checked and the "Contact Us" link is now working.

[Stuart]

@ Jonathan, thanks for that; please post any more errors you find!

@ Nathan, ---- "I don't know why so many world renowned Biblical scholars prefer it"

I'm no "scholar" but from what I've learnt from those who are (who read the Hebrew / Greek OT/NT's directly) I think it's to do with the accuracy of the manuscripts that the NRSV was tranlated from making it a good reference Bible to have in your collection for obsure passages, much the same as many people have an NASB on hand for a more "literal" view, but once again - I'm not a qualified scholar!

BTW, I'm not trying (or wanting) to reignite any Bible manuscript debates :)

[Jonathan Wiebe]

I was able to contact Collins. Sam Richardson, Head of Religious Publishing, let me know that they were already aware of two of the above errors (which had been corrected in the most recent printings). He assured me that the other two errors would be corrected in the next printing.

[Jane]

Scholars prefer the NRSV because it lacks conservative translation bias. As someone who does read Hebrew and Greek directly and as a professional editor of scholarly writing, I can say with authority that every translator (including me) carries a bias to the text. The ESV, NASB, and TNIV, for instance, are all very conservative (not necessarily bad; though I am not conservative, I am a faithful ESV user). Scholars who are not conservative, when not translating for themselves, prefer a translation based on a reliable manuscript tradition that lacks the bias with which they take issue. Hence their use of the NRSV.