The New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) meets my needs better than any other translation of the Bible. It tries to be as literal as possible while also using language that flows normally to our ears.
The modern idiom used in the NRSV is good English.
I don't always want the artificial sound of, say, the King James version, which makes heavy use of “thee” and “thou.”
The King James translation has Jesus speak in a way that is downright odd, such as here: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that believeth on me…” (John 14:12-14).
This is how invading Martians might speak to Earthlings, but the historical Jesus was not known for highfalutin, ornate, inflated, archaic diction.
Early manuscripts were used for the NRSV.
Early texts are the most accurate. Late manuscripts incorporate corruptions--they pass along changes made over the years by scribes, some changes being unintentional (carelessness), others deliberate (promotion of theological bias). Translators who produced the King James version used faulty texts.
I read the King James version when I seek the beautiful language that influenced literature for centuries. The King James version has a connection with the NRSV. William Tyndale’s work as a translator influenced both. All Bible translators benefit by consulting Tyndale’s work.
The NRSV was produced by a committee with no discernible biases.
The large committee had a wide range of translators--some of various Christian denominations and also Jewish scholars. This variety of theological perspectives means no one particular viewpoint prevails.
Members had none of the theological points of view that I find distasteful. These are not translators with an evangelical viewpoint. I disdain translators who change the text to fit their theology.
But if you want an evangelical text, try the New International Version (the NIV) or the New American Standard Bible (the NASB).
Jehovah’s Witnesses prefer the New World Bible.
I realize some interpretation and bias are built into the NRSV. That’s unavoidable.
Readers may say they desire a translation that is literally an English equivalent of the original Greek (New Testament) or Hebrew (Old Testament). Make it 100% literal, they say.
You might think that translators can give an “objective” translation, but that is not possible.
A literal translation obscures the real meaning of a text since the wording comes off as too stilted, wooden, and artificial. It does not capture how original readers received the text.
Translators are not able to reproduce the text of the Bible in a modern language without first interpreting the text. To put words of one language in another language requires knowing what the words mean. Knowing what they mean is based on cultural and historical assumptions, ideological perspectives, and even theological views.
But some views are less extreme than others. Some translators are more willing to overcome bias than others. Less bias for me, please!
It is good when a committee works on a Bible translation. A group can weed out the prejudices, biases, and idiosyncratic choices of any one individual.
A translation should strike the right balance between being literal enough to convey the original meaning of the text but idiomatic
enough to sound like how it would have sounded to original readers in historic times.
Also, it should be free of obvious bias.
I use the HarperCollins Study Bible, which has the NRSV translation.
The introduction to each biblical book is superb.
Experts wrote these intros as well as notes at the bottom of pages to explain cryptic passages.
New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) = reasons why it is best Bible translation (scholars)
0 Comments