(19 votes, average: 4.84 out of 5)
Loading...In my various posts recently I’ve talked about problems I have with the NRSV; some people have asked why, then, it is my preferred translation. And even more commonly (a few times a month) I get asked if there are ANY translations out there that try to give the original form of the text instead of the one(s) altered by scribes.
I’ve dealt with both questions in the past, and here will, in short order, explain my overall strong preference for the NRSV, all things considered. This is a post from aeons ago.
******************************
A number of people have responded to some of my recent comments by asking what my preferred Bible translation is. I get asked the question a lot – especially since my book Misquoting Jesus, where I talk about the changes scribes made in the manuscripts they copied over the years. A number of readers were alarmed and wondered whether I should let scholars know about these problems. In every case I responded that yes, indeed, scholars – all scholars of the Bible – do know about these problems. Intimately. Inside and out. This is the kind of thing scholars work on. Nothing in the book would have come as a shock to anyone in the field. Most especially to Bible translators, who have to decide which Hebrew and Greek words to translate before even starting to think about how to put them into English. And so, as a result, every modern Bible translator knows about and deals with these problems.
But back to the question: which translation do I prefer? It will probably come as no surprise to learn that I prefer the one that I was (in a very limited way) involved with. I think the NRSV is the best translation of the Bible available. And I especially like it in a study edition, such as the HarperCollins Study Bible.
Join the blog and the rest of this post is yours — as are four others a week, going back to 2012!<a href=”/register/”>Click here for membership options </a>
Do you know anything about translations in other languages? German, Spanish, etc.?
Not much. Other than Luther’s influential translation, more or less the KJV of German.
Thanks for this. A translational issue I’ve wondered about is Exodus 21:22-25. The NRSV translates it so that the law concerns what happens in the case of a miscarriage, while the NIV translates it so that it concerns premature birth with no serious injury. Quite a difference! Do you think the NRSV is more accurate here?
Yikes. Yes, the NRSV.
The HarperCollins Study Edition is my go-to for the NT and the Apocrypha. The notes and also the introductions are extremely helpful. I use Robert Alter’s excellent translation of the Hebrew Scripture, in part because he has extensive notes showing how he draws on other sources in addition to the Masoretic. He does tend to get pedantic in his word usage on occasion, however.
Any inside info on the soon to be released NRSVue (NRSV updated edition)?
Soon. But I’m not sure when.
When it’s time to go to the texts, I’ve used the New Oxford Annotated NRSV since the early 1990’s with copies of the HarperCollins Bible Commentary and the HarperCollins Bible Dictionary close at hand, along with some Jesus Seminar works (for fun and added insights).
Bart – what are your opinions of the HarperCollins Bible Commentary and Bible Dictionary? The Complete Gospels, edited by Robert J. Miller?
I like the Harper books. I think the Complete Gospels is misnamed, since it leaves out many of them. The book I did with Zlatko Plese The Other Gospels is more “complete”
I don’t on a HarperCollins but I own every edition of the oxford publishing in RSV. I find that the Oxford comes from a very scholarly perspective and it’s sometimes unsettling to fundamental Christians who are simply unaware of the scholarly realm. Are you more familiar with the HarperCollins or do you genuinely prefer it to the oxford publishing? Thank you as always for your time
I’ve used the both, but I prefer Harper’s as more helpful.
Dr Ehrman, what do you think of a translation based on the Greek text, Westcott and Hort text (1881)?
Westcott and Hort is actually not much different from the Greek texts widely used by translators today. It was a revolution in the field of Greek NT editing.
On the other hand, what versions are considered problematic, why, and are books are available that compare them to the NRSV?
Yes, there are a number of books on BIble translation and comparing their strenghts and weaknesses. I don’t recall if J. Lewis’s book does that. Metzger has a book on the making of the NRSV that might be helpful.
New to the blog.. just wanted to say hello, and I wanted to thank you Dr. Ehrman for your presentation of the “What Kind of a Text is The King James Bible” from 2013 that I have only recently discovered on YouTube. My upbringing taught me that the King James was the best trusted version and others would lead us astray. I always had second thoughts about those warnings.. specifically in my youth in my mind I would always think, “Who is this King James, and why should we be concerned about what he thinks?” lol
I have an app on my phone that allows me to read several translations at the same time in a scrolling fashion: it’s called Parallel Plus. I recently discovered it and added a few of the translations that I’ve become familiar with over the years.. I checked and did not have the NRSV in the mix, so I added it today and will use in moving forward to see if I can identify some of the characteristics that you have commented on in this post.
A colleague has put me on to the Common English Bible and says that it is a better translation than NRSV. I find it more engaging than NRSV, but don’t know how it stacks up for accuracy. Do you have an opinion?
I haven’t carefully exmined it.
“It is hard sometimes to know what the very words mean.. often the grammar is problematic or highly ambiguous (both Hebrew Bible and NT); words/phrases/sentences can be translated in various ways, all of them technically correct;”
Am I right in liking the Amplified translation for this reason?
Yes, it can sometimes be useful. I personally prefer picking a couple of the best translations and just comparing them.
In the NRSV (and for that matter in the NAB), what happened to James 1:7 ??? It’s missing and there’s no note in the Harper Collins study version to explain it. Strong’s Greek interlinear text uses the second half (!) of 1:8 as 1:7.
Help?
Which other versions (2nd and 3rd choice, perhaps) do you like to use to compare with the NRSV?
Over the years I’ve used the NASB the NIV the RSV the NEB the New Jerusalem, and so on. I suppose the last two were the ones I liked best.
[Reposted at Bart’s request]
In the NRSV (and for that matter in the NAB), what happened to James 1:7 ??? It’s missing and there’s no note in the Harper Collins study version to explain it. Strong’s Greek interlinear text uses the second half (!) of 1:8 as 1:7. Where did it go?
Yeah it’s a little weird. But v. 7 in the Greek in the NRSV is given at what is v. 8 in the NRSV “must not expect…from the Lord” is v. 7 in the Greek. The translators simply thought that was the clearest translaton. They have a point, but it does make things a bit hard to follow if you don’t have the Greek in front of you….
Have you ever noticed that all the good guys in the Bible have Greek names and all the bad guys retain their Hebrew names?
I don’t think I have.
How does the NRSV Catholic Edition differ from the NRSV?
The translation is exactly the same, I believe. The notes would be different.
Two more specialized translations of the NT that I like are David
Bentley Hart, The New Testament (Yale) and Hugh Schonfield, The Authentic New Testament–the latter might be out of print but I have a nice hardcover edition. Hart has some really good linguistic notes–as does Schonfield in places, though neither is by any means a “Study Bible” with full notes. The Atlantic had a nice review of Hart: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/01/the-new-testament-a-translation-david-bentley-hart/546551/
I have The Authentic New Testament, I believe, but published under the name “The Original New Testament”. Will have a look at Hart.
Having attended your webinar on whether Jesus claimed to be God, I have a question. Dozens times in the synoptic gospels, Jesus appears to refer to himself as the Son of Man. In intervening chapters you have Jesus making apocalyptic references to the Son of Man. I know that the expression, as is frequently used in Exekiel, among other places, seems to mean a human being. However the apocalyptic references in the gospels seem to imply more than that. My understanding is that you think in the apocalyptic references Jesus was not referring to himself and in the others he was. How or why do you make that determination.
Given what Jesus says about the coming Son of Man, it appears he was referring to the cosmic figure of Daniel 7:13-14 rather than the figure in Ezekiel; though a case could be made for both.
What is the reason for most all (!) english translations to translate „gennao“ in Mt 1,20 as „conceived“ (which is sullambano) . In the german bibles they are more correct and say „begotten“ (gezeugt which really means to procreate). The things you describe in the Orthodox Corruption of scripture are never ending. The NRSV made the same „mistake“ (or let us call it corruption) in the course of translation.
Even the Interlinear Bible on bible hub puts „conveived“ under gennao (but only in Mt 1,20 !) as does the Berean Literal Bible. Conceived is not the literal translation of gennao. There is a heavy bias toward corrupting this verse. There are no reasons to trust a „christian scholar“ for me because once we look at the nature of Christ, they twist things to their liking. It‘s really annoying that people are doing this.
Part of it is that “begotten” is not a word anyone uses in English. GENNAO means to “engender” or “bring into being” or “to produce”; in the neuter aorist passive, as here, it would mean “that which has come into being” or “that which has been produced” in her.
SULLAMBANO *can* mean to become pregnant, but it’s not the normal meaning. In the brand new Cambridge Greek Lexicon (2 volumes) it is not even included among the 14 definitions provided. It clearly does mean two times occurs in the NT, in the Lukan infancy narrative. So I don’t think it is a mistake. It’s an attempt to express the meaning of the Greek that actually does convey the idea pretty well.
Now that was quite around the corner…
Sullambano = to catch / seize
Gennao = to bring forth
Joseph is the hero in this narrative because he accepts the fact that he acts as a kindsman redeemer for God, and he adopts Christ (legally) into the human family.
We took him on (if we will) not he us.
God bless you.
Dr Ehrman, I was just using Ezekiel as an example of the term being used to refer to a mortal as it appears to be translated in the NRSV. Daniel 7:13 (NRSV) is translated as a human being who becomes a king in verse 14. Does it seem reasonable to you that Jesus would switch back and for from chapter to chapter between using the words to refer to himself and then to refer to a human figure from Daniel that wasn’t him, without giving any indication that he was talking about different people? At the very least it seems confusing to me. Do you think that all of this actually came from Jesus himself? BTW, I just started on “Who Jesus Was…” I am finding it quite enjoyable to listen to as I am out walking.
My view is taht Jesus spoke of the son of man in reference to Daniel 7:13-14, as a cosmic judge soon to come, but after his resurrection his disciples came to think that since he had been taken up into heaven, *he* was the son of man, and so started changing some of his sayings so that he identified himself with the person they thought he was.
I’m a new subscriber who has been listening to your blog podcast for years on ITunes. I spent 10 years preparing for and practicing as a Pastor. When I was in Seminary I found that the NRSV was in my opinion, the better translation. This opinion came from translating from the Greek texts. While this was relatively a modest sampling, I’ve never seen a reason to change my mind. I was most interested in your opinion about the NRSV. I’m happy to hear that you prefer it. As a side note, I finished Seminary and left the Ministry. Mr Ehrman has really helped me grapple with some issues on the Texts. I’ve been vacillating between faith and agnosticism and occasionally atheism. Thanks for your work Bart.
Prof Ehrman,
Please, can you explain what you mean when you use the term ‘Critical Scholars’?
Thank you.
I mean scholars who are open minded to what the evidence says without having a prejudice about which way the evidence has to point. Many scholars, for example, have certain religious views that keep them from accepting a conclusion that is contrary to their views. That is not critical thinking. Critical thinking means being willing to admit that anything one thinks or believes may be wrong.
A bit of hyperbole on the use of “aeons”, but extra points for (properly, I’d say) employing the diphthong!
I have Hugh Schonfield’s “The Original New Testament”. Is that still a respectable choice, or do you think I would do better with the NRSV? ( I usually supplement it with the Reese Chronological Bible)
I’d stick to the NRSV. Schonfield was brilliant but could be a bit quirky…
I am not any sort of scholar and don’t know any Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek, but I have found the Jerusalem Bible helpful for its notes (particularly in the Old Testament) and general readability, but am not able to evaluate its qualityas a translation otherwise. I also sometimes like to jog my perspective by looking at the renderings in Young’s Literal Translation (even though, as old as it is, it doesn’t have the benefit of modern textual scholarship and just runs with Receptus). Wondering about your take on these.
I’m afraid I haven’t looked at either one for years — so I’m not sure. But the Jerusalem Bible was done by very competent scholars.
Dr. Ehrman, are you familiar with the Bible translation by David H.Stern? He is a Messianic Jewish theologian and published his translation back in 1998. I was curious what your opinion on his work was. especially the NT part of, in case you had encountered it.
Nope, don’t know it!
Hi Dr. Ehrman,
Do you have any thoughts on the NET(New English Translation https://netbible.org)? If you are familiar could you “compare” it with the NRSV?
Thanks!
I haven’t examined it closely, but the passages I’ve happened to read are quite good, and it was done by serious experts.