A pocket version would be nice, or I would like to see a non-study Bible version of the OSB. Just the text and some footnotes, like regular pew Bibles. I actually don't want all the study notes. I'm close to just getting a Catholic NRSV because I don't want a study Bible. It doesn't have 3 Maccabees, but it has the rest (well, except for 4 Maccabees and 3 Esdras/Apocalypse of Ezra, but the OSB doesn't have those either)
I'm going to have to agree with orthonorm about avoiding the NRSV, but on the additional grounds that it lacks any real sense of poetry. "Spirit" is almost always translated as "wind"; overly literal to provide clarity for modern readers (READ: STUPID-SPEAK), such as firmament being instead the "dome" of the sky, Behold a pale green horse, etc. It's much more about being understandable than being dignified or actually Holy. Also, as he noted, this thing is too politically correct for its own good, so anything Christological in the Old Testament is given a neutral rendering to allow for the pre-Christian "Jewish" understanding. It's certainly not worthless, but I think most of it is questionable.
On the other hand, I actually don't mind an academic Bible. While orthonorm seems to have no love for the RSV, I think it is really quite well done, and I recommend you buy The New Oxford Annotated Bible with "Apocrypha" RSV. Yes, it has study notes, but they're very minimal and really serve to provide clarification on textual issues. Here's a link if you want to consider it:
I think the translation is great and the footnotes have all the variants know at the last pressing in the late 70's. It is also Ecumenical in that it is approved for liturgical use and personal study in Orthodox, Roman Catholic and most Protestant churches. Some of the scholarship in the notes is not compatible with an Orthodox ethos, but any of that is really quite minimal and I don't see any real damage coming from those minor areas anyway.
I mostly find the notes in the Orthodox Study Bible to be banal and irritating. There's notes for everything, and they're completely repetitive. Ruth lays down with Boaz, just like we lay down dead with Christ in baptism, and He tells us what to do just as Boaz tells Ruth what to do. ARE YOU SERIOUS!?!?! I know typology can get out of hand sometimes, but this stuff is sometimes downright moronic. That being said, I mean no disrespect to the OSB and all the love and effort that went into it. I use the text quite often and I think overall it's a huge asset to Orthodox in America and was an absolute necessity to create.
So get whatever you want to, but for me at this time the Oxford RSV is becoming my standard for Bible reading. Excellent textual scholarship on variants, excellent poetical translation of songs, and even if you don't want notes these are really valuable if you are in any way historically critically inclined.
OK. First, maybe I don't write English. I've suggest the exact edition of the RSV you recommend for Bible study. I use it in conjunction with with NKJV for 83% of my Bible reading / study. The Oxford RSV comes out with the notes when doing some light study and comparison with the NKJV.
So if I have given the impression that I have no love for the RSV, then I have been unclear although I have explicitly recommended it.
Having grown up on the KJV though, the RSV as Bible to read daily seems to be a poor marriage of the language of KJV and more contemporary English. But the version is great.
I agree obviously with some of what you say about the OT in NRSV, as I have already said it.
And I agree with the lack of poetic quality. But hearing wind, breath, spirit, etc. through a variety of versions communicated more clearly what is suggested. The Hebrew and Greek agree with these meanings. This is why I think for study a couple versions are handy.
For single use, again the NRSV is to be avoided.
However, I do think it gets a bad rap about being too "Jewish". I think Christianity, Orthodox or otherwise, has suffered severely from divorcing itself too much from its semitic albeit Hellenistic influenced origins. And I think we agree Jews have as well. And really the whole what "OT" did the writers of the "NT" use is very complicated and ultimately too unclear an issue to come down on a single set much less version or even translation.
Spot on with the Christological typology. But sometimes it is the NRSV which is the greatest help in trying to make sense of some the Scripture, for me.
But I would definitely not recommend it to anyone who isn't sensitive to these matters.
To be clear, as if it matters what I do:
Daily Reading: NKJV
Light Study: Oxford RSV and NKJV and NRSV
More Serious Study: The whole kitchen sink: podcasts, books, many English versions, commentaries, homilies, etc.