The New Revised Version (NRSV) has served churches, liturgists, and scholarly and devotional readers for more than thirty years. It is one of the most popular English translations of the Bible, after the King James Version and the New International Version. In contrast to the KJV and the NIV, it is also the most ecumenical Bible with acceptance by Christian churches of Protestant, Anglican, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, African American, and Evangelical traditions. And while this ecumenical commitment has not only continued, but broadened, much has changed since the NRSV was first published in 1989: new manuscripts were discovered or made available, scholarship has shed new light on ancient words and practices, and English language conventions have shifted.
The National Council of Churches asked the Society for Biblical Literature to prepare a new edition to give English Bible readers access to the most meticulously researched, rigorously reviewed, and faithfully accurate translation on the market.
I was curious about what impact the revisions had on the text; many of the 20,000 or so changes apply to headings, notes, and versification (where to break the text between one verse and the next), and they barely alter how I read the text or how we hear it in worship. There are cases, tough, where new manuscript evidence leads to significant correction in the text. In 1 Kings 8:16, for example, the NRSV reads,
Since the day that I brought my people Israel out of Egypt, I have not chosen a city from any of the tribes of Israel in which to build a house, that my name might be there; but I chose David to be over my people Israel.
The NRSVue reads,
Since the day that I brought my people Israel out of Egypt, I have not chosen a city from any of the tribes of Israel in which to build a house, that my name might be there, nor did I choose anyone to be a ruler over my people Israel. But I have chosen Jerusalem in order that my name may be there, and I have chosen David to be over my people Israel.’
Such textual changes are significant, but they are also rare. More frequent are slight changes in translating words and concepts. The Hebrew word tsara‘at, for example, has traditionally been translated “leprosy.” However, the condition being referenced was not Hansen’s disease, so more than fifty verses have been updated to bring out the term’s central meaning, that this was a defiling skin disease. So, where Leviticus 13:9 (NRSV) has, When a person contracts a leprous disease, he shall be brought to the priest, the NRSVue now reads, When a person contracts a defiling skin disease, he shall be brought to the priest. Similarly, terms referencing physical disabilities can be very challenging when a translation attempts to honor both ancient realities and modern sensibilities. The NRSVue makes an effort not to identify people in terms of disability, but to adopt person-first diction, as, e.g., in Matthew 4:24.
NRSV: So his fame spread throughout all Syria, and they brought to him all the sick, those who were afflicted with various diseases and pains, demoniacs, epileptics, and paralytics, and he cured them.
NRSVue: So his fame spread throughout all Syria, and they brought to him all the sick, those who were afflicted with various diseases and pains, people possessed by demons or having epilepsy or afflicted with paralysis, and he cured them.
Likewise, to make a distinction between a person’s identity and a condition imposed on that person, Galatians 4:22 (NRSVue) uses the expression “an enslaved woman,” as opposed to “a slave woman” (NRSV).
Continuing the effort to avoid what famed translator Bruce Metzger called “linguistic sexism” (see the “To the Reader” preface in the NRSV), the NRSVue refers to the woman in Mark 14:69 as a “female servant” instead of the belittling expression “servant-girl.”
Finally, listening to the reading of Scripture in worship, no one will notice that the Sabbath and Passover are now rendered in capital letters, instead of lowercase letters. No disrespect was intended by the editors of the NRSV, but there’s no good reason for the practice when it’s not common usage to write sunday or easter.
So, should you go and purchase a new Bible? That’s up to you. You have your own reading preferences and favorite translation(s). I still love my old RSV, simply because it’s one of the few editions without headings. I typically read the NRSV, and I consult the NIV, CEB and the Revised English Bible. When studying Old Testament texts, I always read the Tanakh translation by the Jewish Publication Society. I have found comparing good translations enlightening, and checking out the Cotton Patch version or The Message can be fun as well as convicting. Do you need the NRSVue on your shelf if you already have the NRSV? Perhaps not. You can read it online, and the best Bible translation is the one you read. I do think, though, that we should start using the NRSVue in worship. It may not be time to retire the pew Bibles yet, but I suggest we purchase a new Bible for the lectern as soon as it becomes available. Hearing those subtle but important changes will help form the listening congregation in subtle and important ways. And for the same reason, we should switch to the NRSVue when we give Bibles to young disciples.
The NRSVue is no “new translation” to fall in love with or to dismiss as too much this or the other. It really is just an update of the fine NRSV. Prof. Abraham Smith, a member of the team of scholars and reviewers who have invested their time and energy in this update, said in an interview,
Standing in the shadows of the Tyndale, Coverdale, Matthew, Great, Geneva, and Rheims Bibles, the editors of the King James Bible stated in their preface in 1611, “we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one … but to make a good one better.” No less is it true for the editors of the NRSVue. The desire was always to take the NRSV and to make something better. Thus, woven into the warp and woof of the NRSVue’s approximately 20,000 substantive edits is something better—better in the diversity of its translators, better in the accuracy of its renderings, better in the consistency of its formatting, and better in the means by which it was vetted.
And then he added, stating beautifully the hope behind our quest for the best possible translation of our sacred texts,
Along the way, perhaps this long and often arduous undertaking has not just produced a better product. Maybe it has produced better people—better in their patience, better in their quest for truth, and better in their empathy with one another.
PS: I apologize for the odd links in the text. Using footnotes is a bit of a headache with this web host.