Opinions on the RSV

[CalvinisticCumberland]

I was reading the preface to one of my RSV translations last night. Is it truely a better translation than the AV? It claims greater knowledge of languages and better availability of older manuscripts.

Are these claims accurate?

Thank you for your answers, and excuse my novice questioning


Andrew

 

[Pilgrim]

The RSV shows a liberal and antisupernatural bias at several points. in my opinion a good assessment of the RSV was done by O.T. Allis in a book entitled "Revision or New Translation" that is probably long out of print but can be found in some libraries. Allis was no TR advocate but strongly criticized the RSV for being much less literal than the AV or ASV (the RSV was supposed to be a revision of the ASV) and for the liberal antisupernatural bias.

Most "conservatives" rejected the RSV not necessarily because of the manuscript issue but because the OT ignored and contradicted the NT in many places, especially messianic passages, Isaiah 7:14 most notably. There were issues with the NT as well, notably the substitution of the term expiation for propitiation.

Evangelical rejection of the RSV led to the multitude of translations that followed by those who thought the KJV was no longer adequate. (i.e. NASB, NIV, NKJV, ESV, HCSB).

See here for more information.

 

[Ron Henzel]

I find the RSV refreshingly easy to read, but disturbing in some of its translation choices. Among the more problematic renderings for me are "young woman" instead of "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14, and "expiation" instead of "propitiation" in 1 John 2:2 and elsewhere. The former is, in my opinion, an example of anti-supernatural bias, while the latter is an example of a departure from the biblical doctrine of the atonement.

The ESV is a conservative revision of the RSV. I think you're better off with either that or the mid-'90s updating of the NASB.

 

[DMcFadden]

I agree with the rap on the RSV. Not much to commend it today. It was quite fond of conjectural emendations in the OT; soft peddling the atonement in the NT. William Sanford LaSor used to say that the only reason for the NIV was to give conservatives a Bible they didn't want to cuss at. If you are into the Critical Text, the ESV or HCSB represents a much better alternative today in my opinion. If you want the TR tradition, stick with the KJV or NKJV.

 

[CalvinisticCumberland]

What about the claims of older, more reliable manuscripts?

 

[DMcFadden]

The RSV uses the same "older, more reliable manuscripts" as ALL of the modern translations (i.e., the Critical Text). However, the RSV translators were a bit more liberal and took liberties with "correcting" the OT text whenever it did not make sense to them. So, it is replete with conjectural emendations, places where scholars recreated what they think the word "should be" regardless of the manuscript tradition and whether any actual text has the word!

If you are into the theory that the KJV preserves the true texts, then you want either the KJV or NKJV. If you believe that the Egyptian documents for the NT are the "older and more reliable ones," then you want a modern translation such as the NIV, NASB, ESV, HCSB, etc.

As you will soon learn here on the PB, there is a division of the house on whether the Critical Text (reflected in virtually all of the modern translations) or the Textus Receptus (or Majority Text) tradition (found in the KJV and the NKJV) most faithfully represents the most reliable texts. Some of our folks here, including at least one with a PhD in linguistics will tell you that the tradition represented by the majority of manuscripts, albeit a little later in time, is the correct one and that it preserves more of the orthodox readings. Others, including most of us who were taught in seminaries over the last century tend to believe that the older readings, albeit fewer, preserve for us the most reliable text tradition.

That is why I wrote my original response to you as I did. If you want to know more, just use the search feature of Puritan Board and look up "translations," TR, CT, ESV, KJV. That ought to keep you busy for a few months!

 

[Jimmy the Greek]

The RSV claim to older, more reliable mss is simply it's way of adopting the more modern critical eclectic text available when it was translated. I'm not sure what NA or UBS versions that may have been. In any event, what is called the Critical (or eclectic) text is what underlies the modern translations (such as NASB, NIV, and ESV) versus the Textus Receptus which underlies the KJV and NKJV.

The current critical Greek NT Text (I believe) is the Nestle-Aland 27th edition and the United Bible Society 4th edition, which are virtually identical.

Sorry, I posted without seeing Dennis' response (above)

 

[CalvinisticCumberland]

Thank you for your replies. The link above to bible-researcher.com has been extremely informative.

I am glad I found this site, as I have already filled my head with many new learnings.

It does bother me that the translators of the RSV did not take into account the translation of the New Testament writers of Old Testament passages. Wouldn't they have been the most reliable of source as to proper translation, most especially if you believe their message to be God's truth?

My next study is into the differences in the Critical Text and the TR. I have never studied this before, and am excited to learn more.

 

[Pilgrim]

Who on the PB has a PhD in linguistics?

 

[Pilgrim]

The Bible Researcher site is a good place to start studying textual criticism because he links to a lot of resources on the web. The webmaster of that site (who is a Presbyterian) is of the critical text persuasion.

The Trinitarian Bible Society is probably the best known organization that defends the Textus Recptus and the King James Version.

 

[Robert Truelove]

You've had some good replies.

Since the ESV is a conservative revision of the RSV, you get all the benefits of the RSV and none of its liberal biases; go with the ESV.

If the real issue is the underlying Greek text, I personally believe the Critical Text to be superior to the Traditional Text. I was once a supporter of the Traditional Text but further study lead to a change of position on that issue.

For my critique of the Traditional Text Position, you can listen to my lecture at Christ Reformed Church - Audio Messages -

I'll conclude by saying, though I differ with some of the brothers here on PB regarding the Traditional Text issue, I really appreciate these brother's faith in the authority of the text of the Scripture.

Thank you for your replies. The link above to bible-researcher.com has been extremely informative.

I am glad I found this site, as I have already filled my head with many new learnings.

It does bother me that the translators of the RSV did not take into account the translation of the New Testament writers of Old Testament passages. Wouldn't they have been the most reliable of source as to proper translation, most especially if you believe their message to be God's truth?

My next study is into the differences in the Critical Text and the TR. I have never studied this before, and am excited to learn more.

 

[jaybird0827]

Thank you for your replies. The link above to bible-researcher.com has been extremely informative.

I am glad I found this site, as I have already filled my head with many new learnings.

It does bother me that the translators of the RSV did not take into account the translation of the New Testament writers of Old Testament passages. Wouldn't they have been the most reliable of source as to proper translation, most especially if you believe their message to be God's truth?

My next study is into the differences in the Critical Text and the TR. I have never studied this before, and am excited to learn more.

I strongly encourage you to consider the articles published by The Trinitarian Bible Society. These publications are accessible through the link.

 

[RamistThomist]

Regarding the "older: manuscripts: this depends on whether you are a TR or CT type.

Literary style: Its translation of the psalms is hauntingly beautiful.

Theology: In some ways it is quite useful. The RSV is probably the best demosntration of presuppositional apologetics. They presuppose a flattened ontology (e.g., no supernatural) and force the text to fit it. Quite obvious, actually.

 

[KMK]

My next study is into the differences in the Critical Text and the TR. I have never studied this before, and am excited to learn more.

Do a PB search on the name "Rafalsky". You will find a treasure trove of info.

 

[etexas]

I grew up UMC the RSV was the "children's Bible" in "them" days! Serious I and my Sis had BIG fat copies with pictures of the Ark and a smiling (European looking) Jesus. Sigh! The memories!

 

[Grymir]

Some of the people in my first church used the RSV. It had in Rom 8:28 "to those who do His will" after the 'them that love God.' hmmm

When I looked at the church's associated with the RSV translation, I understood.

 

[Pilgrim]

Here's some criticism of the RSV that has nothing to do with the textual issue (i.e. Alexandrian vs. Byzantine):

The Revised Standard Version is a curious production. The revisers apparently were committed to the philosophy of dynamic equivalence; and, I believe, had they been producing a completely new translation, they would have produced something like the Good News Bible. But they were revising the American Standard Version, the most literal of the formal equivalence translations. Bound by a commitment to the ASV, but philosophically committed to a radically different philosophy from that which lay behind the version being revised, they produced a document which is philosophically schizophrenic.

Robert P. Martin, Accuracy of Translation and the New International Version Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1989. p. 10

Since the ESV started with the RSV text and is essentially a light revision of it that fixed the theological problems, to a large extent Martin's comments are applicable to the translation philosophy of the ESV as well. However, overall I think the ESV is more literal in some places, particularly Romans, If I recall correctly. I don't know that we've ever gotten an official accounting of the changes made to the text of the ESV in 2007 either.

 

[bookslover]

I don't know that we've ever gotten an official accounting of the changes made to the text of the ESV in 2007 either.

If you go to Bible Research by Michael Marlowe, you will see a complete chart, including texts (not just references) of all the 2007 changes* to the ESV. Michael Marlowe has done a fine job over there.

*That is, all the changes published in 2007.

 

[Pilgrim]

I don't know that we've ever gotten an official accounting of the changes made to the text of the ESV in 2007 either.

If you go to Bible Research by Michael Marlowe, you will see a complete chart, including texts (not just references) of all the 2007 changes* to the ESV. Michael Marlowe has done a fine job over there.

*That is, all the changes published in 2007.

I agree that Marlowe has a good site. The chart he has represents his own work or someone elses, but I don't think it is official (i.e. supplied by the publisher), unless this was done very recently.