Chapter 32
The New Revised Standard Version
This version
was published in 1989, thirty-seven years after the publication of the
original Revised Standard Version. G.W. and D.E. Anderson have
concluded:
As with most modern translations, in the scholars’
desire to improve the previous translations the end result produces
more problems than it solves. This is very true of the New Revised
Standard Version. Although it is more readable than the New American
Standard version, and more accurate than the New International
Version, it still falls short of what makes a translation great,
long-lasting, and God-honouring. Thus we cannot recommend this
translation for those Christian people who desire to understand God’s
Word. G.W. and D.E. Anderson, "The New Revised Standard Version,"
Trinitarian Bible Society Quarterly Record, Jan-Mar, 1991, 21
This translation has followed the current fad of
translators in desiring to eliminate "sexist" language. It seems
difficult for men and women today to comprehend the nature of the
English language. Many do not understand that some "masculine" words
depend upon context for meaning. In some contexts they are exclusive in
their reference to those of the male sex. In other contexts the words
refer to all humans, irrespective of sex. There is nothing degrading to
either men or women in this linguistic arrangement. Many other English
words have more than one meaning, and it causes no offense. Let us take
the word house as an example. Manifestly it means an inanimate
structure in the context "He built a brick house." But in the context,
"Queen Elizabeth II belongs to the House of Windsor," the same word
refers to her family. Yet no one asserts that it degrades the humanity
of the Queen’s family to use a word which is also used for an inanimate
object. We all accept that context can markedly alter the meaning of
many words. We hear no protests from men when the pronoun she is
used in relation to a country or ship.
It must be understood that just like the English
language, the Greek also lacks a common singular pronoun including both
sexes, and Hebrew is more deficient in this respect, for it does not
contain such a neuter pronoun. Thus when "sexist" pronouns are
translated in this new manner not only are we doing violence to the
English language for no good purpose, but also to the Greek. As the
Andersons have written:
The biggest problem with the New Revised Standard
Version’s gender-inclusive language, however, is that it is not what
is found in the original language manuscripts. The fact that the words
God inspired are masculine-oriented cannot be escaped; nor can the
idea that, if not for the women’s movement in the 1970s and the
resultant desire of women to abandon their God-given positions in
life, there would be no argument for gender-inclusive language in the
Scriptures. The question arises: Must God’s Word be changed to adapt
to culture? And if so, how far will those changes go? Ibid., 17
Yet despite the logic of this viewpoint, it has been
stated in reference to this new translation:
Masculine-oriented language should be eliminated as
far as this can be done without altering passages that reflect the
historical situation of ancient patriarchal culture. Bruce Metzger,
New Revised Standard Version, xiii
Thus the statement quoted by Christ from the
Pentateuch has been altered:
Man doth not live by bread only. Deuteronomy 8:3,
KJV
One does not live by bread alone. Deuteronomy 8:3,
NRSV
The impact of Christ’s words when asked to judge
between a man and his brother is needlessly weakened. When Jesus replied
He posed the question:
Man, who made me a judge or a divider over thee?
Luke 12:14, KJV
The New Revised Standard Version substitutes the word
Friend for Man. Yet clearly Christ was addressing a man
and there was absolutely no logic in altering the plain sense. Surely
men are still entitled to be called Man.
In the Old Testament the translators have followed a
perilous course. Most students of God’s Word are aware that in the
spelling of Hebrew words only consonants are utilized. This fact has
given cause for difficulty. By way of illustration, let us examine such
a spelling technique if used in English. If we spelled a word as ct
it could equally refer to cat, cot or cut. Of course, in
practice there would rarely be any difficulty, for the context would
make the meaning evident. In the sentence, "I ct my hair," no one would
misunderstand that ct referred to any word but cut.
Similarly the sentence, "The mother placed her baby in its ct" would
cause no difficulty.
But there are occasional difficulties where context
does not suffice. We illustrate: "My ht was destroyed." Does
ht in this sentence refer to hat or hut? The context
does not provide a clear-ct answer.
For this reason, Masoretes between the sixth and the
eighth centuries, Christian Era, added vowel points based upon
centuries-old traditions, passed from generation to generation by the
oral reading of the scriptural scrolls in the synagogues. These are
accepted as highly accurate. Yet the translators of the New Revised
Standard Version have adopted a policy in which
the vowel signs, which were added by the Masoretes,
are accepted in the main, but where a more probable and convincing
reading can be obtained by assuming different vowels, this has been
done. No notes are given in such cases, because the vowel points are
less ancient and reliable than the consonants. Bruce Metzger, op.
cit., xiii
Even some of the consonants have been changed.
Departures from the consonantal text of the best
manuscripts have been made only where it seems clear that errors in
copying had been made before the text was standardized.
Examples of this type of alteration is seen in
Genesis 21:9, where Ishmael’s mocking of Isaac is changed to playing
with him; and in 2 Samuel 18:27, where David’s recorded slaying of 200
Philistines is reduced to 100.
A matter of more concern is the use of Apocryphal
statements within the text of the canon of Scripture. It occurs in the
book of Ezra, and in one instance in the book of Nehemiah, where
readings from the first book of Esdras in the Apocrypha are inserted.
Thus on the basis of 1 Esdras 9:2, Ezra 10:6 is altered:
and when he came thither . . . Ezra 10:6, KJV
where he spent the night . . . Ezra 10:6, NRSV
and in Ezra 2:70 is added
lived in Jerusalem and its vicinity. Ezra 2:70,
NRSV,
on the basis of these words in 1 Esdras 5:46. Thus by
subtle means, the noncanonical books of the Apocrypha are entering the
Holy Scriptures.
Perhaps the most serious shortcoming of the new
version is that some changes have been made purely upon the conjectures
of the translators without the support of a single example of manuscript
evidence.
Occasionally it is evident that the text has
suffered in transmission and that none of the versions provides a
satisfactory restoration. Here we can only follow the best judgment of
competent scholars as to the most probable reconstruction of the
original text. Ibid.
On this basis Christ’s eternity—from everlasting—is
altered to
from ancient days . . . Micah 5:2, NRSV,
along with other unwarranted interference in Holy
Writ.
We shall add little further concerning the New
Testament, for the New Revised Standard Version follows most of the
basic mistakes already cited concerning other modern translations.
Suffice to say that Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Jewish
scholars were included with Protestant translators in the work of
translation. That they have produced such a faulted result is cause for
no surprise.
Nor is there surprise that the New Testament
translation is based upon the Greek text of the United Bible Societies,
Third Edition Corrected. In Latin America, it is a translation based
upon this text which the Roman Catholic Church sees as stemming the tide
of Protestant advance (see chapter 24, entitled The Bible Societies).
Thus another new translation has been produced which
does little service to the Christian faith and which is hailed by most
apostate religions. It cannot be recommended for serious Bible study.
|
