Has the NRSV Update Gone Too Far?

The RSV was controversial. The updates with the NRSV also had its issues. While considered a great work of scholarship many began to see an agenda. Does the latest update confirm those suspicions? Let’s take a quick look at it.

[anthonym.]

I have an NRSV Bible which I have not read much. Doubt I will need to get this updated edition. Thanks for the review and info.

[charjohnnyo]

I agree. This is why I love NASB KJV NKJV and ESV. We should NEVER allow God's word to be softened so people feel better about their lifestyle.

[nan.starjak]

Thank you for pointing out that there were female deacons in the Bible! (sore point for this Catholic girl 😢 )

[saulm]

Regarding 1 Cor 6:9-10, I must say that it is sad to see that we have arrived to point where, what today is announced as 'academic' work, has to pass regularly through the filter of those who want to see total subordination to their ideologies, so that, even regarding 'academic' translations of the Bible, the expert translators, knowingly and militantly, alter the meaning of words, making the text say something (or obscure it) they know it does not say. You can agree or not with their ideologies, that is another subject, but from a purely academic perspective, what they are doing is betraying their intellectual honesty. Thank you, Tim, for sharing your observations.

[thomasshannon]

I agree about those paper liners. I have the same problem with Thomas Nelson Bibles in leathersoft. They're both owned by Harper Collins, so no big surprise. Those great text blocks do make awesome rebinds, like your beautiful Horween NKJV Maclaren you showed us awhile back.

"We never need to help the Scripture say what it says . . ." Amen, brother!

Another intelligent, well-informed assessment, something I've come to expect from you, sir, whether I choose to agree with you or not. Always a real breath of fresh air. Jesus on, indeed.

[johnoneill]

I know that I'm late with this comment, but thank you for your comments on the NRSVue. As someone who grew up in the Roman Catholic church, I have Catholic versions of the NRSV and RSV, although they are not my primary translations for personal study. When I heard about the issues with the NRSVue I resolved to never buy a copy. To avoid being left high and dry if other publishers felt the need to be more liberal in their translations, I acquired quality extra copies of my preferred translations (NKJV & NIV) in large print.

[tony.biondi]

Thank you, Tim. Another spot-on assessment.

[Marionthis]

This was a well thought-out and respectful approach to something that could have been done much more negatively. I was waiting for this video to come out and was concerned that I would hear a rehash of some of the arguments I’ve read online. I shouldn’t have been. Your approach has made me think more deeply on the matter and less defensively. Great video!!!

[LBCBrandon]

Thanks for your thoughts, Pastor Tim. As a “United” Methodist, I just can’t help but see this in the context of the great push to the left in the UMC. I won’t belabor that here except to say that a lot of us are being dragged in a direction we don’t really want to go.

Anything that the UMC is publishing right now is pretty aggressively pushing the NRSVue. It’s kind of disheartening for those of us who appreciate John Wesley’s theology but don’t like seeing it carried off in a totally different direction.

Sorry for the rant, great video as always!

[MAMoreno]

I would say that it doesn't go too far, but I do find its handling of one particular Greek word to be needlessly obscure. (You know the one.) But even in that case, I think it's more accurate than the 1971 edition of the RSV was when dealing with that exact same Greek word.

Every change that it makes otherwise is completely defensible with reputable scholarship. In some cases, it makes a reasonable decision that will take a bit of warming up to, but I always have its close relatives (ESV, NASB) to give me the traditional wording if I need it.

One change that comes to mind is Isaiah 1.18:
Come now, let us argue it out,
says the Lord:
If your sins are like scarlet,
will they become like snow?
If they are red like crimson,
will they become like wool?

There's a very good argument to be made that these sentences should be hypothetical and interrogative (as they are here) rather than antithetical and declarative. By framing these statements as a challenge, the NRSVue aligns them better with the call to repentance in verses 19-20. So it's nice to have the option available within the Tyndale-KJV lineage. At the same time, I miss the more comforting language found in the older versions.

[SimplyProtestantBibleBeliever]

I'm a firm TR/Authorized Versions user and lover and I'm considered very conservative but I love the NRSVue more than it's previous update. The texts you brought up in here are problems for sure but I dare say there are just as many problems in the NIV and CSB. I can show you places where the NRSVue gives more honor to Christ's deity than the LSB and ESV.

Also, the homosexuality texts in 1 Timothy 1:10 & 1 Corinthians 6:9 are no worse than the RSV of 1971.

[windpeoples]

I like your take on things Tim. God bless!

[timwilkins]

I appreciate your video but disagree with your assessment. I have used the NRSV since 1989 and I am breaking in my Premier NRSVue. I agree with you about the construction of the leather soft. As a translation, It is still solid and I believe accurate. It may not cater to one’s theological biases in a way one would prefer, however. I feel that one’s agreement or disagreement with the text revision is based one’s theological viewpoint. I allow for the possibility for others to disagree with me as long as they are not disagreeable/rude about it. BTW, I also use the Common English Bible on a regular basis .

[_quiara_]

I’ve read the scholarly arguments for the changes and they’re in line with my reading of the Greek and Hebrew. I don’t feel like any of these are actually the problems they’re being made out to be. I think it’s a very academically strong and faithful translation and I’ve really enjoyed using it.

[fftministriesmovingwithpurpose]

Great points and I totally agree with you thanks for sharing

[ThePolarBearProductions]

Yeah I’m not totally sold on the NRSVUE. My church is using it but I prefer the old NRSV and the KJB.

[ggshes]

I find it really disingenuous when the NRSV(UE) folks claim they're going for as literal and formal as possible but then subordinate the text to politics. And not only that, but to then claim the meaning of the Greek is unclear. Well, what kind of scholars do you have on your translation committee, when every other committee in the past has seemed to be able to figure it out?

[user]

1989’s NRSV needs no changes, such a great translation. Why do these publishers keep making new versions!!! Definitely staying with my NRSV, not the updated. NRSV and NASB has been such a good combo for me

[joshuaj]

I totally agree the synthetic covers are much better, but why the paper liner??

[sandracoombs]

Great segment Pastor Tim. Please keep speaking out on behalf of God’s Word. I believe the NRSV UE has tilted too far and I don’t know why we are always updating Bibles. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that this is done in some cases to try to appeal to current western culture. But the Bible stands above all cultures. I tell my friends to get a hard copy Bible, e.g. not digital as they are automatically updated, and get an NKJV, ESV, or NASB 95 (certainly not the 2020). Thank you again. 😊