Why I ♥ the New Revised Standard Version

A week or two ago I tweeted in excitement on finding a non-ugly online version of the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible (NRSV). This puzzled at least one of my friends on Facebook: why would an atheist be excited about a Bible translation?

Well, first of all, the NRSV is an update of the Revised Standard Version (RSV), which a North Carolina pastor once publicly burned with a blowtorch because it was a “a heretical, communist-inspired Bible.”* Why the hell would he do that? Well, I don’t know exactly what was going on inside his head, but apparently a major issue was RSV’s translation of Isaiah 7:14 (yup, there’s an entire Wikipedia article on this one verse).

The story behind Isaiah 7:14 is that the first-ever Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, the Septuagint, was kinda crummy. And one mistranslation found in the Septuagint is the mistranslation of the Hebrew word “almah” (young woman) as the Greek “parthenos” (virgin). Hence a prophecy about a young woman giving birth became a prophecy about a virgin birth, and you can see where that’s going…

But it isn’t just that Christians later matched the stories in the Gospels with the prophecy in Isaiah after the New Testament was written. The Septuagint was around when the New Testament was written, and the mistranslated line was cited as a fulfilled prophecy by Matthew. Think about that. One part of the Bible, which something like a third of Americans claim to believe is literally true to the last word has among its many errors an error regarding the translation of a previous part of itself.

This is something non-Christians have been pointing out since at least the time of Celsus, but not surprisingly most Biblical translations done by Christians have backed up the mistranslation found in the Septuagint and Matthew. The RSV, however, bucked the trend and translated “almah” as “young woman,” and this translation was kept for the NRSV.

And this, actually, is why it took me so long to find a decent online version of the NRSV. When I want to read the Bible online, I often go to BibleGateway.com, a nicely done website with a truly ridiculous number of different Bible translations on offer, and not just in English. The only problem is that it specifically omits the RSV and NRSV.

I don’t have the inside scoop on BibleGateway.com’s decision making process, but it’s a safe bet that Isaiah 7:14 was a key factor here. Many Christians actually regard Isaiah 7:14 as a key litmus test for whether a translation can be trusted or not. Which might not be a bad idea, if you did the test the opposite way from what the fundamentalists intend.

Because it’s not just Isaiah 7:14. What really makes the NRSV valuable for a heathen like me is that far too many other translations these days will repeatedly try to translate away immoral, contradictory, or even mildly embarrassing passages in the Bible. One example I just stumbled across while in the process of tweeting my way through the Bible is Isaiah 3:16-17, where God announces what he’s going to do to the women of Jerusalem for being “haughty.”

But what exactly is God going to do to them? The King James Version and NRSV says he’s going to “discover” or “lay bare” their “secret parts.” However, the New International Version (NIV, probably the most popular translation among evangelicals) says god was going to “make their scalps bald.” I’m really not sure how that helps, here, since the idea of punishing women for being “haughty” is pretty bad no matter what exactly the punishment was going to be, but… yeah.

So if you want an accurate translation of the Bible, read the NRSV, and consider using the website I recommended above. On the other hand, if you’re going to argue with fundegelicals about the Bible, there’s a case to be made for using the NIV–if a problem exists in the NIV, you can be sure there was no remotely plausible way to make it disappear with an alternative translation (and some of the things the NIV does are quite a stretch once you understand the issue).

Oh, and even though the translators of the King James Version didn’t do much in the way of translating away problems, I still can’t recommend it except for its historical significance and poetry. A minority of fundamentalists cling to it, but they’re so rare and hopelessly ignorant that I personally ignore them completely. (If anyone has experience dealing with them, I’d be curious to hear from you in the comments.)

Incidentally, a month ago Bart Ehrman did a post series on problems with the NRSV, though he says that in spite of the few small problems he highlights it’s still “the best translation available.” If you have access to the pay version of his site, I recommend his thoughts on gender-neutral language in the NRSV in particular.

*Source: Bruce Mezger, The Bible in Translation: Ancient and English Versions, chapter 8.


Francis isn't the Pope the Catholic Church deserves, but the one it needs right now
My debate with Randal Rauser is out!
Why do Christian philosophers of religion believe?
Kris Komarnitsky's Doubting Jesus' Resurrection