THE NEW REVISED STANDARD VERSION 

Stephen M. Reynolds, Ph. D.

This version, of which NRS is the abbreviation, was produced by men of great skill. Dr. Bruce M. Metzger of Princeton Theological Seminary was the chairman of the committee that prepared it for publication. 

It cannot be recommended as the primary Bible for those who hold to the unity and harmony of the Old and New Testaments and to the inerrancy of the autograph. We will come back to that, but first it is well to point out an excellence in their work. It and it alone, due to an extraordinary depth of knowledge of Greek grammar, have made Luke 7:47 agree with the rest of the Bible. Previous translations made it appear that the sinful woman of this passage was forgiven because she loved much. This is contrary to Christian doctrine as clearly set forth in the rest of Scripture. No one is forgiven for his emotions but because of God's grace. An in-depth study of this locution led the translators to render the word usually rendered for as hence, thus placing the verse clearly in conformity with Christian orthodoxy. The verse is: "Therefore I tell thee, her sins which were many, have been forgiven; hence she has shown great love. But the one to whom little is forgiven loves little." Her love is thus seen to be in gratitude for forgiveness, not the cause of it. 

But the whole Bible is not recommended for those who believe in the unity and harmony of God's revelation. It makes it appear that in Isaiah 7:14 the prophet was predicting a birth by natural generation, whereas Matthew 1:23 states that the prophet was predicting that "the virgin shall conceive and bear a son." 

This creates a grave disharmony between the two Testaments. In the Bible we feel called to publish the harmony will be preserved. Isaiah 7:14 will be translated: "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; `Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."' The KJV is correct in using the word virgin, but incorrect in omitting the definite article. Isaiah by using the definite article may have been referring to a previous but unrecorded true prophecy of a virgin birth known to him and to Ahaz. By calling the virgin "the young woman" the NRS destroys the unity and harmony of the Old and new Testaments, for Matthew 1:23 quoting this verse speaks of her who shall conceive as "the virgin," and the meaning of the Greek word is not disputed. 

The fact is that Isaiah used the right word for virgin (hm'l.[). This word is never used in the Bible for a married woman, whereas the word commonly thought to be a proper Hebrew‑ word for virgin (hl'WtK) is used for a young woman who had had a husband and had lost him by death (Joel 1:8). More on this may be found in a note attached to Joel 1:8 in the full Bible translated according to the rules of our Bible translation. 

The earliest Greek translation of Isaiah 7:14 renders the disputed words "the virgin" in unmistakable Greek. Thus it appears that the NRS has been influenced in this passage by arguments advanced by people who deny the virgin birth of Christ, for the virgin of Isaiah 7:14 is Mary and Immanuel (God with us) is Christ. 

These errors in previous translations are not errors of style. They are errors leading those who read and believe them to bad belief and practices. If we examine one error which is carried into all parts of the Bible, we find that a word which can be proven to be a nonalcoholic substance has a homograph which can equally well be proven to be alcoholic. Translators have for centuries been aware of some homographs and have translated accordingly. For example, the Hebrew word syhila//// means the one true God and when so used is usually construed in Hebrew grammar in the singular number. When construed in the plural number it usually means the false gods of the pagans or other beings distinct from the one true God. The different senses of syhila//// are therefore homographs, and translators have perceived this. They have even perceived it when the normal rule of Hebrew grammar is not observed and syhila//// as the one true God is construed in the plural (Genesis 20:13 and 35:7). They do so to maintain the unity and harmony of the Scripture, for to fail to do so would imply that pagan gods moved Abraham to wander and would declare that pagan gods appeared to Jacob at Bethel. They were right in doing this. Thus we can see that translators can recognize homographs for what they are, and they can translate accordingly. Many other examples of their capability to do this can be shown, but this establishes the fact. 

When, however, homographs occur where the same spelling stands for beverages which in modern languages are given different names, translators have regularly translated the homographs by the same word. If a word means grape juice (nonalcoholic) in Isaiah 16:10 they translate it wine, a word which means an alcoholic drink in modern English. Alcoholic wine is not found in the press, but previous translators make the Bible say it is expected to be found there. (Anticipation of possible future fermentation has no bearing on this passage. A dismal time when harvest would be expected is in view.) 

If we follow previous translators we are asked to believe that God confuses us by saying "Don't even look at a certain beverage" because He also says that it is given to make glad the heart of man (Ps. 104:15). God does not confuse us. Proverbs 23:31 and Psalm 104:15 are not speaking of the same beverage. They are homographs. 

The great majority of modem translators have erred grievously in translating I Corinthians 10:29b. they make it appear that we do not need to acquire a new conscience, more perfect in the sight of God. We must not only deny ourselves certain foods mentioned in I Corinthians 10 under the conditions described there, but also, by extending the lesson to other situations, we should see that we ought to acquire a sensitive conscience which would have us refrain from offending others in indulging ourselves in their presence. Rightly translated (there can be no mistake about this) Paul asks, why is my liberty judged by another conscience? (not by another man's conscience). The answer is found in verse 32: "Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the Church of God." 

Our liberty should be judged by another (a more sensitive) conscience that we may glorify God (verse 31) and give no offense. 

It is not enough to put these corrections in notes to an existing Bible. Publishing them in scholarly journals does little good. Many of them have been published, but the findings are ignored by translators. It is necessary that people have a translation as free from errors as it is possible to make it. A whole Bible correctly translated is needed. 

To show that it is necessary, a citation from a writer who is distressed at alcohol drinking among Christians but who does not see the true answer to the problem is here given. 

"We have often said that the Bible does not forbid the use of wine in moderation and in fact even promotes it for reasons of health. We have taken issue with the silly way in which some Fundamentalists try to argue around what God clearly teaches in his Word about the use of wine." 

But sensible people should ask themselves who is silly, the people who can detect homographs and say that what God approves is not the same substance as that which God says not to look at, or is the man silly who does not make this distinction? 

The writer quoted above is rightly shocked at alcohol abuse among Christians, but he has a remarkable blindness as to what God really says. This blindness leads him to ridicule the people who on this matter should be his mentors. He proposes a remedy which will never work and which furthermore incurs God's wrath, that is moderation in the use of what God forbids. 

He went on to write: "We were surprised to find that beer could be purchased (on the campus of a certain Protestant theological seminary). We opposed excessive drinking and still do because it is a waste of money, time and wealth. Worst of all drunkenness is a sin which could lead to Hell if no repentance is shown... 

"It makes us almost gag when we see a preacher with a long row of fancy expensive whiskey bottles in his closet. Certainly the money for this alcohol could be used for a better purpose. It simply makes no sense when seminary students plead for gifts to pay their tuition and yet have money for alcohol" (The Christian News, Monday, Feb. 3:1992, p. 5). 

This critic of the self-indulgent ridicules what he considers excessive use of alcohol on the one hand, and at the same time ridicules the people who have arrived at God's answer to the alcohol problem, which is not to look at this dangerous drug. He thinks moderation is the answer, but many who thought they could be moderate find themselves drifting into addiction. To drink a little but not much requires strong will power, but alcohol tends to destroy ethical sense as we are told in Proverbs 23:33 and leads to addiction (verse 35). 

God says that alcoholic wine is forbidden, and He says that another substance with the same name (a homograph) is His gift to make glad man's heart. It is up to the careful Bible student (and a translator should be one) to sort this out and make the right distinction. 

The New Revised Standard Version of the Bible (NRS) should be strongly opposed by all Christians for a number of reasons, one especially being that the committee that produced it did not obey Christ's commandment to "beware of the leaven of the Pharisees" (Matt. 16:6). The Pharisees were the majority part of the Jewish population of His day, and the leaven was their system of doctrine which included unbelief of His claims. If the disciples had let this "leaven" into their group it would have expanded and destroyed the sweetness and essential truth of the Gospel. Jewish scholarship today inherits in a direct line of transmission the leaven of the Pharisees. 

Robert C. Denton, "one of the two Vice-Chairs of the (NRS) committee" wrote: "While for obvious reasons the Jewish community could not be expected to endorse any part of the NRSV,¹ the presence of an eminent Jewish scholar on the Old Testament Committee, participating as a full contributing member, was intended both as an expression of good‑will and an assurance that the NRSV translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (the Christian Old Testament) would contain nothing offensive to our Jewish neighbors."² 

The cross of Christ is highly offensive to our Jewish neighbors ( I Cor. 1:23), as is His virgin birth. We would expect that the leaven of the Pharisees would have been introduced into the translation of the NRS (abbreviated above NRSV) and we are not mistaken in this expectation. Great Christian translators have throughout the ages been in consultation with rabbis, but it is another matter to have one as a full contributing member of a translation committee. With an eminent Jewish scholar, unenlightened by the Gospel, sitting on the committee, the other members of which being united in a desire not to offend him, how could it be otherwise than that the leaven should enter? On matters on which he and his Jewish neighbors are sensitive, the other committee members were no doubt prepared to yield, and they did so. For examples of this see Isaiah 7:14 and Zechariah 12:10. In the former passage the translators reject the undisputed understanding of Matthew who in 1:23 of his gospel quotes this passage and gives the true meaning which is, "Behold, the virgin will be with child..." We must remember that Matthew was writing under inspiration while others who have attempted to render this passage were not. Adequate support for Matthew's understanding of this verse may be drawn from the writings of the great Christian scholar, Edward J. Young,³ who was an outstanding exegete of the Book of Isaiah, and also by the very able Jewish scholar, outstanding in philology, Cyrus Gordon.⁴ 

Many other corrections must be made in the NRS. In at least one place (Heb. 11:11) it is worse than the RSV on which it attempts to improve. 

J. J. M. Roberts in a book review published in The Princeton Seminary Bulletin⁵ is sharply critical of the work of the Old Testament editorial subcommittee which made "thousands" of changes in the work of the full Old Testament committee. Mr. Roberts wrote that the full committee decided after long debate that shekar should be translated beer. The three person editorial subcommittee without explanation changed the translation back to strong drink. Mr. Roberts rightly points out that in modern English strong drink implies a distilled liquor and these did not exist in ancient Israel. 

The position of the Foundation is different from that of either group who worked on the NRS. It is that, to maintain the unity and harmony of the Scriptures and in view of the fact that words have different meanings in Scripture, no hard and fast rule should be established in favor of beer for shekar. On at least one occasion it must stand for a nonalcoholic beverage. 

Mr. Roberts is rightly critical of inclusive language in the NRS. He ended his review with these words: "Despite its theological merits, modern inclusivity imposed on ancient texts inevitably involves an element of literary and cultural distortion." 

1.  i.e. the NRS.

2. The Princeton Seminary Bulletin, vol. Xl. no. 3, New Series 1990. "The Story of the New Revised Standard Version," p. 217.

3. Westminster Theological Journal, vol. 16, No. 1 (Nov., 1953), p. 29. The Book of Isaiah, Vol 1, pp. 286-289.

4. Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 21 (April, 1953), p. 106.

5. A renew of The Making of the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible, Grand Rapids, 1991. published in The Princeton Seminarv Bulletin, Vol. 14, No. 2, New Series 1993