Bibles, Bibles...Just One More Bible?

A page from the Abbey Bible, created in the mid-1200s for a Dominican monastery. Considered one of the earliest and finest illuminated Bibles to have emerged from Bologna in northern Italy. J. Paul Getty Museum.

 Bibles, bibles, bibles. I have a lot of them, and I do actually read 'em on a fairly regular basis. I have bibles in a number of different translations and versions, some TV preacher large and floppy, a couple which are compact enough to fit in a pocket. I have the King James Version bible which belonged to one of my grandfathers, tattered from constant use, underlined and with notes in the margins.

So, I don't need another bible, but I may get one. My go-to version for the past 30 years or so has been the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), as you may have noticed when I quote scripture in my blog entries. When it was published in 1989 it became the version which took the best advantage of modern scholarship, including the accurate use of pronouns and while the NIV seems to be the version of choice in evangelical circles the NRSV is widely respected and used.

In May a revision of the NRSV called the New Revised Standard Version (undated edition)  (NRSVue) was published, although the online version has been available for a while now. There are a whopping 20,000 changes, some of them seemingly minor, yet significant for a number of reasons.Here are examples noted in an LA Times article from last December

• Leviticus 4:8 (and more than 125 other verses with the same issue)
  NRSV: He shall remove all the fat from the bull of sin offering.
  NRSVue: He shall remove all the fat from the bull of purification offering.

The scholars explain that this improves upon an earlier distortion of Hebrew hatta’t. The notion of “sin” has been removed, because they believe “purification offering” more closely reflects the ancient Hebrew word. This revision opens up new biblical conversation and subject matter without taking “sin” out of the larger biblical picture. With this revision, the 21st century Bible now joins the many world cultures in which “purifying” is a regular practice but is less entangled in “sin” considerations.

• Matthew 4:24
  NRSV: So his fame spread throughout all Syria, and they brought to him all the sick, those who were afflicted with various diseases and pains, demoniacs, epileptics, and paralytics, and he cured them.
  NRSVue: So his fame spread throughout all Syria, and they brought to him all the sick, those who were afflicted with various diseases and pains, people possessed by demons or having epilepsy or afflicted with paralysis, and he cured them.

The scholars explain: “When context permits, NRSVue avoids translations that identify people in terms of a disability.” This brings a modern sensibility to bear, because we now believe that an illness or symptom is something a person has, not who they are. This rewording is helpful for scholarly, church and public readers. The reference to demon possession … well, modern audiences can make of that what they will, no matter how we phrase it.

Each change illuminates not only how the old and new language speak to us, but also how we filter and frame the texts we consume. As this edition attempts to both modernize and improve historical accuracy, we need to notice some of the stunning cross-purposes in play within and about the Bible in any particular era.

In a time when fewer and fewer people turn to the bible as part of a devotional life (what's that?!) or a compass for moral and ethical living, a new version may seem quaint or worthless. I still think it's important to wrestle with the meaning of scripture for our lives today, individually and corporately. Accuracy is important and can lead to insight. The NRSVue does address passages where accuracy is vital regarding gender inclusivity and homosexuality. A publisher’s note explains that the translation philosophy of the NRSV is to be “‘as literal as possible” in adhering to the ancient texts and only “as free as necessary” to make the meaning clear in graceful, understandable English.

Some errors or inaccuracies can lead to profound errors, while others are curiosities.One example that comes to mind is the sculptural portrayal of Moses with horns by Michelangelo. For reasons which scholars don't really understand Saint Jerome translated Exodus 34:29 into Latin this way, that Moses “et ignorabat quod cornuta esset facies sua,” that is,“did not know his face had become horned.” Should we actually call Moses "Moose?". I don't think so. 

Will I purchase a copy of the NRSVue? What do you think?