NRSV Update: Danger Will Robinson!

[PointyHaired Calvinist]

So the new NRSV update has been released (NRSVue). As many know thus is a translation done by the National Council of Churches, and the 1989 edition was known for its gender neutrality (e.g. “married only once” rather than “husband of one wife.” It was also very well done if you could get past the somewhat liberal bias.

Now it’s been updated. Some of the updates are minor, many are kind of woke (e.g. “enslaved girl” replacing “ slave girl“, “people possessed by demons” instead of “demoniacs”).

Op-Ed: A new edition of the Bible, with 20,000 revisions, should spark 20,000 thoughtful conversations

The biggie; the language on homosexuality has been thoroughly changed. The language in Leviticus and Romans is still there, but per social media 1 Corinthians has changed:

Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers—none of these will inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NRSV)

Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, men who engage in illicit sex, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, swindlers—none of these will inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NRSVue)

the footnote of the NRSVue tells us, "The meaning of the GK is uncertain."

This seems to imply that there is “licit sex” between men, or doesn’t rule out the possibility.

Also, references to temple prostitution have been reduced or eliminated. For example:

Deuteronomy 23:17 -

“None of the daughters of Israel shall be a temple prostitute; none of the sons of Israel shall be a temple prostitute. Deuteronomy 23:17 (NRSV)

“None of the daughters of Israel shall serve in an illicit shrine; none of the sons of Israel shall serve in an illicit shrine. (NRSVue)

1 Kings 14:24

there were also male temple prostitutes in the land. They committed all the abominations of the nations that the LORD drove out before the people of Israel. 1 Kings 14:24 (NRSV)

there were also illicit priests in the land. They committed all the abominations of the nations that the Lord had driven out before the people of Israel.* (NRSVue)

It seems here they have completely removed the sexual nature of the sin, and made it all about who was ordained right.

For you Hebrew and Greek scholars - is there any serious questioning of what these verses mean, or is this just scholarship bending to social pressure?

 

[iainduguid]

I don't think the meaning of the Greek terms in 1 Corinthians is obscure in the least, though that's not my area of expertise.

On the Hebrew, qedishim/qedishot there has certainly been some scholarly discussion, based around 1) a suggested lack of evidence from outside the Bible of sacred prostitution in Canaanite cults 2) the fact that the word itself merely means "sacred ones" and so could easily refer to a class of priests. The latter is true enough, as far as it goes. However, there are a number of places in the Old Testament where it is clear what the duties of these "sacred ones" involved. In Genesis 38, Tamar dresses up as a zonah ("prostitute") to persuade Judah to sleep with her (38:14-15). Then when Judah's friend tries to deliver payment he asks about the presence of a qedeshah ("cult prostitute"; 38:21). See also Hosea 4:14, where zonot ("prostitutes") are in parallel with qedeshot ("cult prostitutes"). The standard academic dictionary of Hebrew HALOT therefore has "cult prostitute" as a recognized meaning, specifically citing the 1 Kings passages. So the NRSV is insisting on ignoring both the Biblical data and the overall scholarly consensus (with minority exceptions) in its translation here. It would be interesting to know what the NRSVue does in those passages.

 

[Taylor]

Can this revision be accessed for free somewhere?

 

[PointyHaired Calvinist]

Can this revision be accessed for free somewhere?

I’m afraid not. I only am hearing what others have quoted who have purchased it.

 

[RamistThomist]

I can't imagine there will be many purchases. Mainline churches are declining (by the mercy of God). About the only time it will be used is when the Academic-Industrial Complex forces people to use it, and even those volumes don't have a wide readership.

The original RSV was at least elegant. The NRSV is ugly as sin. I can't imagine this will be any better.

 

[Taylor]

I can't imagine there will be many purchases. Mainline churches are declining (by the mercy of God). About the only time it will be used is when the Academic-Industrial Complex forces people to use it, and even those volumes don't have a wide readership.

The original RSV was at least elegant. The NRSV is ugly as sin. I can't imagine this will be any better.

I very much agree. I actually sort of secretly liked the NRSV, but seeing the changes for this update I lost interest almost immediately.

Just out of curiosity, which translation do you prefer?

 

[PointyHaired Calvinist]

Except for some of the excessive feminization, I love the language of the NRSV. It has the best English of the major translations In my humble opinion. John 1 and Philippians 2 are amazing in the NRSV.

Unfortunately this revision makes me realize the time is running out on this one. I have been moving back toward the NKJV lately and this update is continuing to move me in that direction.

 

[RamistThomist]

I very much agree. I actually sort of secretly liked the NRSV, but seeing the changes for this update I lost interest almost immediately.

Just out of curiosity, which translation do you prefer?

In terms of elegance, the KJV. I am a critical text guy, though. My church uses the ESV, so I sort of alternate between the two. But in that case I would probably stick with the RSV.

 

[B.L.]

I recently purchased a brand new vintage copy of the RSV off Ebay, my first, and took it to church yesterday. I haven't read from it a ton, but I do enjoy its elegance and by today's standard it seems quite conservative in trying to retain the beauty found in the KJV.

With regards to the NRSV, I purchased a nice Cambridge version earlier in the year and was surprised by how well it read. Glad I picked one up before the NRSVue came out. It will never rise to being my primary (or secondary) for that matter, but being a "printed Bible in hand" sort of guy I'm glad to have added one to my collection.

I hear there is an updated NIV in the works...I'm curious what changed will come with a future revision.

My big 'three' are the KJV, NKJV, and ESV.

 

[JimmyH]

Every year for the past 7 I've read a different English translation for the M'Cheyne 1 Year Plan. In 2020 the '89 NRSV came up to bat. I had misgivings having heard it was a liberal translation, but decided to use it with discretion. Immediately I was distressed to see 'while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters' in Genesis 1-2. Of course in Isaiah 7-14 we have 'young woman' in place of virgin, but the choice that really got my goat was 'Mortal' in place of 'Son Of Man' in Ezekiel.

I decided to persevere and continued with the NRSV for the year. I found that I loved the translation. It is after all in the direct line of Tyndale and the KJV. The RV, RSV, NRSV. The NRSV was considered liberal when it first came out in '89, for the aforementioned verses, and especially because it was, as far as I'm aware, the first mainstream translation to go with the gender neutral stuff. That cow is so far out of the barn now that there seems to be no closing the door.

In 2021 I used the ESV for the M'Cheyne Plan, and liked it very much. This was a change since I'd tried to like it for a decade but just never could. From the '80s until 2010 or so the KJV supplemented with the '84 NIV were my translations of choice. When all of the hubbub about the ESV came along I tried it but there was just something about it that turned me off.

In reading the NRSV last year, and the ESV this year, I am so frequently reminded that they are both derivative of the KJV. For me that's a very good thing. Personally I'm not going to rush out and get a digital copy of the NRSVue. I like the '89 just fine. To my surprise the ESV may become my main translation. I've come to like it that much this year.

For the coming year I haven't yet decided on a primary translation. I'm leaning toward the NLT. Of course it is a functional (dynamic) rather than a formal (literal) translation, but I always check my primary with its counterpart in the M'Cheyne plan. Most years the NIV was the alternate to see differences in how this or that was translated, but I used the NLT alternately this past year and was impressed. Anyway .... rambling ....

 

[Taylor]

For the coming year I haven't yet decided on a primary translation. I'm leaning toward the NLT. Of course it is a functional (dynamic) rather than a formal (literal) translation, but I always check my primary with its counterpart in the M'Cheyne plan. Most years the NIV was the alternate to see differences in how this or that was translated, but I used the NLT alternately this past year and was impressed. Anyway .... rambling ....

The NLT is actually very good. It has serious scholarship behind it.

 

[JimmyH]

The NLT is actually very good. It has serious scholarship behind it.

Indeed it does. The list of translators is impressive, and Bill Mounce said, in a FB post in Everything Bibles forum, he uses the NLT to find nuances he may have missed in the Greek text.