Which Bible translation is the scholarly/academic standard?

[FerventDisciple]

Which Bible translation is the scholarly and academic standard in universities and seminaries? In less conservative institutions I assume it's the RSV/NRSV? And in the more conservative/evangelical institutions the NASB? Or is the ESV gaining a more scholarly and academic foothold now?

 

[hedrick]

I'd assume NRSV for non-conservatives. I could only guess for others. But real exegesis is done from the originals. Commentaries often use a translation made by the author. I've also seen scholars pick different translations for different passages. After all, no translation is perfect, and most people feel certain translations deal with certain passages better than others.

 

[Radagast]

But real exegesis is done from the originals.

Indeed; any serious scholarship would refer to the Greek and Hebrew/Aramaic. Ditto teaching any advanced seminary classes.

Surfing various seminary websites, less advanced classes often use the NRSV or ESV, and sometimes the NIV, NASB, or NAB (Catholic) are considered acceptable for use by students (but the instructor will probably not use them).

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Which Bible translation is the scholarly and academic standard in universities and seminaries? In less conservative institutions I assume it's the RSV/NRSV? And in the more conservative/evangelical institutions the NASB? Or is the ESV gaining a more scholarly and academic foothold now?

The New Testament in the RSV was first published in 1946, and it was immediately recognized by both pastors and scholars of the Bible as a huge improvement over the KJV, the RV, and the ASV. However, when the whole (Protestant) Bible was published in 1952 with both the Old and the New Testaments, much of the more theologically conservative camp was unhappy with the Old Testament portion. The unhappiness was largely due to the Old Testament having been translated as Hebrew literature with a contemporaneous Jewish interpretation rather than a contemporary Christian interpretation. The translation of the Apocrypha, being a revision of the of the 1894 version which was a revision of the 1611 version, was finished in 1957 and published in some editions of the RSV. In 1966, a Roman Catholic edition of the RSV was published,

The Holy Bible: Revised standard version, containing the Old and New Testaments. Catholic edition, prepared by the Catholic Biblical Association of Great Britain; with a foreword by His Eminence John Cardinal Heenan, Archbishop of Westminster. London: Nelson, 1966.​

In 1973, an ecumenical edition of the RSV was published that included both the “Deuterocanonical” books of the Catholic Church and the three books of the Protestant Apocrypha that are not included in the Roman Catholic Canon.

In 1989, a thorough revision of the RSV was completed and released in 1990 as the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV). In 2010, the fully revised Fourth Edition of The New Oxford Annotated Bible was published. This ecumenical study Bible includes a comprehensive Canon:

Books and Additions to Esther and Daniel that are in the Roman Catholic, Greek, and Slavonic Bibles

Tobit
Judith
The Additions to the Book of Esther found in the Greek Version
The Wisdom of Solomon
Ecclesiasticus, or the Wisdom of Jesus, Son of Sirach
Baruch
The Letter of Jeremiah (Baruch ch. 6)
The Additions to the Greek Book of Daniel
The Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Jews
Susanna
Bel and the Dragon
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees

Books in the Greek and Slavonic Bibles; Not in the Roman Catholic Canon

1 Esdras (2 Esdras in the Slavonic Bible, 3 Esdras in Appendix to the Vulgate)
The Prayer of Manasseh
Psalm 151
3 Maccabees

A composite book in the Slavonic Bible and in the Latin Vulgate Appendix

2 Esdras (3 Esdras in the Slavonic Bible, 4 Esdras in the Vulgate Appendix; “Esdras” is the Greek form of “Era&#8221

(Note: In the Latin Vulgate, Ezra- Nehemiah are 1 and 2 Esdras.)

A book in an Appendix to the Greek Bible

4 Maccabees (This book is included in two important Bibles from the fourth and fifth century.)​

Which Bible translation is the scholarly and academic standard in universities and seminaries? The NRSV has replaced the RSV. The ESV is nothing but an evangelical revision of the now outdated RSV. The English of NASB is so terrible that it cannot come even close to being an academic standard anywhere. The NIV and its many variants are not literal enough to be taken seriously.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Indeed; any serious scholarship would refer to the Greek and Hebrew/Aramaic. Ditto teaching any advanced seminary classes.

Indeed, a large and very prominent university near my home does not even allow English to be spoken by the students in the classes on the Old Testament—only Hebrew is allowed!

 

[Radagast]

The ESV is nothing but an evangelical revision of the now outdated RSV.

Well, for seminary classes not using original languages, the ESV does indeed get used. Possibly those using it are all evangelical seminaries.

But to criticise the ESV for being "outdated" and "a revision" at the same time seems a little illogical to me. If it's a revision of the RSV, then it is presumably no longer "outdated."

Certainly, there are a number of cases where the ESV is more faithful to the Greek than the NRSV, e.g. 1 Timothy 3:2 (μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα, NRSV: "married only once," ESV: "the husband of one wife").

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Well, for seminary classes not using original languages, the ESV does indeed get used. Possibly those using it are all evangelical seminaries.

But to criticise the ESV for being "outdated" and "a revision" at the same time seems a little illogical to me. If it's a revision of the RSV, then it is presumably no longer "outdated."

One would hope so, but the ESV revised the RSV to make a less theologically liberal translation, but not necessarily to bring it up to date. However, Oxford University Press does publish an edition of the ESV with the same comprehensive Canon that is available in the NRSV.

 

[Radagast]

One would hope so, but the ESV revised the RSV to make a less theologically liberal translation, but not necessarily to bring it up to date.

I have no idea what "up to date" means. The ESV translators would (of course) say that they revised the RSV to make it closer to the original texts.

They didn't revise the language much, so the ESV is "clunkier" to read than the NRSV or the NIV, but that is no great disadvantage in an academic setting.

And yes, there is indeed an ESV with Apocrypha. I'm not sure what market segment that's aimed at.

 

[hedrick]

Well, for seminary classes not using original languages, the ESV does indeed get used. Possibly those using it are all evangelical seminaries.

But to criticise the ESV for being "outdated" and "a revision" at the same time seems a little illogical to me. If it's a revision of the RSV, then it is presumably no longer "outdated."

Certainly, there are a number of cases where the ESV is more faithful to the Greek than the NRSV, e.g. 1 Timothy 3:2 (μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα, NRSV: "married only once," ESV: "the husband of one wife").

I don't think your take on 1 Tim 3:2 is so clear. According to the Word commentary, the Greek is unusual.

There are 4 common understandings of what the passage was intended to reject. From the Word commentary:
* the overseer must be married
* it forbids polygamy and concubines
* the overseer must be faithful to his wife
* the overseer must not remarry
1 and 3 seem unlikely. The early church understood it as 4. However it seems to me that there's no reason to choose between 2 and 4. The Greek seems general enough to cover both.

As I understand it "married only once" would forbid both remarriage and polygamy. The ESV translation "husband of one wife" would forbid polygamy but not remarriage. I think the NRSV translation is the most likely.

 

[Radagast]

I don't think your take on 1 Tim 3:2 is so clear. According to the Word commentary, the Greek is unusual.

There are 4 common understandings of what the passage was intended to reject. From the Word commentary:
* the overseer must be married
* it forbids polygamy and concubines
* the overseer must be faithful to his wife
* the overseer must not remarry
1 and 3 seem unlikely. The early church understood it as 4. However it seems to me that there's no reason to choose between 2 and 4. The Greek seems general enough to cover both.

As I understand it "married only once" would forbid both remarriage and polygamy. The ESV translation "husband of one wife" would forbid polygamy but not remarriage. I think the NRSV translation is the most likely.

Yes, it's tricky. Personally, I would go for the totally literal "one-woman man."

But the NRSV opts unambiguously for (4), while the ESV retains at least some of the ambiguity of the original (it can still be read as ruling out remarriage, for example). In that sense, I think the ESV is better here -- it doesn't commit itself to a particular interpretation (that would be OK in a paraphrase, but not in a study Bible).

The passage has certainly been much debated over the centuries; by opting unambiguously for (4), the NRSV makes it hard to understand why.

But this example underscores why I don't like the NRSV: there is too much distortion of the actual text as a result of theological bias.

 

[hedrick]

This seems odd. You think someone married to two women could claim to be married only once? Just what theological bias do you detect in this? You think married to only one woman would apply to remarriage? Perhaps our difference is in understanding English, not translation.

 

[Radagast]

This seems odd. You think someone married to two women could claim to be married only once?

I didn't say that.

My point was that the ESV's translation "the husband of one wife" can be read as "the husband of one wife at any one time" (allowing remarriage but not polygamy) or as "the husband of one wife in total" (forbidding remarriage). The ESV therefore, as I said, retains at least some of the ambiguity of the original.

The NRSV, on the other hand, is reading a theory about "what Paul meant" into the text.

 

[hedrick]

This seems odd. You think someone married to two women could claim to be married only once?

I didn't say that.

Yes you did:

But the NRSV opts unambiguously for (4)

Thus stating that the NRSV translation “married only once” doesn’t prohibit polygamy (possibility 2).

My point was that the ESV's translation "the husband of one wife" can be read as "the husband of one wife at any one time" (allowing remarriage but not polygamy) or as "the husband of one wife in total" (forbidding remarriage). The ESV therefore, as I said, retains at least some of the ambiguity of the original.

The NRSV, on the other hand, is reading a theory about "what Paul meant" into the text.

Well sure. By definition a translator has a theory about what the original author meant. I don’t see how their theory involves any theological bias. Ambiguity isn’t normally an advantage. The problem is that most readers won’t pick it up. We, who know the issues with the passage, might see “the husband of one wife” as covering either one wife now or one wife in total (though frankly I doubt it). But it’s very unlikely that any normal reader would see this phrase as ambiguous, or understand that the translator has cleverly adopted ambiguous English to translate a passage with more than one meaning. The right way to treat ambiguity is to put your best judgement in the text and add a footnote with the other possible meaning. That’s what NRSV did. They translate “married only once” and footnote “husband of one wife.”

ESV., oddly enough translates “husband of one wife” and footnotes as “man of one woman,” whatever that means. (The Greek can mean husband or man. But surely no one thinks that the author intended to allow cohabiting without marriage.) Thus ESV provides a normal English reader with no hint that many people (including many in the early Church) think the passage prohibits a bishop from being remarried. You, who are clued in on the issues, think "husband of one wife" might mean "husband of one wife ever," but I doubt many readers would understand that.

You may actually be right that there’s a theological issue here. The NRSV translators don’t believe in inerrancy. That means that they’re willing to allow Biblical texts to disagree with each other and with modern practice. Conservative translations have a tendency to smooth things out. This passage is a possible example. Today most Protestant churches allow pastors to be remarried, at least for some reasons. That implies a reading of this passage as not prohibiting remarriage. I think the ESV shows primarily the translation that is consistent with modern evangelical practice. Why not have a footnote saying “or married only once”?

Surprisingly, all the evangelical translations I’ve seen are the same. HCSB, NIV, NASB, NKJV. They have “husband of one wife” with no footnote to alert us that it might mean “married only once.”

 

[Radagast]

Thus stating that the NRSV translation “married only once” doesn’t prohibit polygamy (possibility 2)

(4) logically implies (2), obviously; your list of options wasn't logically disjoint.

Well sure. By definition a translator has a theory about what the original author meant.

It's best to draw a line between translation (what does the text say?) and interpretation (what does it mean?)

Ambiguity isn’t normally an advantage.

It certainly is in an academic setting. The ESV's translation here invites class discussion on possible meanings, histories of interpretation, etc. The NRSV makes it hard to see what the debate has been about.

The problem is that most readers won’t pick it up.

A valid point, but the ESV is intended as a more of a "study Bible." Which is, of course, exactly what's needed in an academic setting. Those who use the ESV tend to point less sophisticated readers at other translations.

The right way to treat ambiguity is to put your best judgement in the text and add a footnote with the other possible meaning. That’s what NRSV did.

That's a valid approach, but not actually what the NRSV does here, in that the footnote is not "the other possible meaning."

ESV., oddly enough translates “husband of one wife” and footnotes as “man of one woman,” whatever that means.

The ESV is exactly right: "one-woman man" is a literal translation (and, interestingly enough, colloquial English that AFAIK no translator's had the courage to use). It's picking up on a second ambiguity: the N.T. does not use distinct words for "man" and "husband" (or "woman" and wife"), and so "faithful to his woman" is also a possible reading.

In the same way, John 4:18 could be read "you’ve had five men, and the one you now have is not your man."

Thus ESV provides a normal English reader with no hint that many people (including many in the early Church) think the passage prohibits a bishop from being remarried.

Was that the translators' job? Yes, Catholic members on the NRSV panel insisted on putting that interpretation in there. But histories of interpretation belong in commentaries, not in the text.

 

[hedrick]

Was that the translators job? Yes, Catholic members on the NRSV panel insisted on putting that interpretation in there. But histories of interpretation belong in commentaries, not in the text.

It's not just Catholic dogma. Both commentators I checked think it's a plausible understanding. One (ironically, the chair of the NT translation committee for the ESV, who I'm pretty sure is Protestant) thought it was the most likely. The other did not. I don't insist it be in the text, but it would certainly make sense to include it as an alternative in a footnote.

If this was at the insistence of Catholic members of the committee, why didn't they put it into the Catholic edition of the RSV?

 

[Radagast]

It's not just Catholic dogma. Both commentators I checked think it's a plausible understanding. One (ironically, the chair of the NT translation committee for the ESV) thought it was the most likely. The other did not. I don't insist it be in the text, but it would certainly make sense to include it as an alternative in a footnote.

Of course it's a plausible understanding. But it's obviously one of the ways of interpreting the ESV's translation, so the ESV has it covered.

 

[Unix]

In 1971 the 2nd Edition RSV New Testament came out. It has numerous changes from the 1946 Edition and is also more up to date than all the Catholic Editions including the newest from the '00s.
Except the New Interpreters's Bible having the NRSV, most major New Testament resources and tools are still for the RSV, for example UBS Translator's Handbook series and many monographs, for example Israel’s God and Rebecca’s Children: Christology and Community in Early Judaism and Christianity which came out in Logos in October 2013 (pre-pub price was $49.95): https://www.logos.com/product/30092...d-community-in-early-judaism-and-christianity
It's VERY easy even for those who don't have the necessary Gk skills, to bring the RSV New Testament up-to-date with the NA27/UBS GNT4 text by perusing the Comprehensive Bible (2011) A.K.A. Comprehensive New Testament (2008-2009), the former is available in Accordance and perhaps also in print, and the latter in print.
The RSV NT is more formal equivalent than the NRSV:

The New Testament in the RSV was first published in 1946, and it was immediately recognized by both pastors and scholars of the Bible as a huge improvement over the KJV, the RV, and the ASV. However, when the whole (Protestant) Bible was published in 1952 with both the Old and the New Testaments, much of the more theologically conservative camp was unhappy with the Old Testament portion. The unhappiness was largely due to the Old Testament having been translated as Hebrew literature with a contemporaneous Jewish interpretation rather than a contemporary Christian interpretation. The translation of the Apocrypha, being a revision of the of the 1894 version which was a revision of the 1611 version, was finished in 1957 and published in some editions of the RSV. In 1966, a Roman Catholic edition of the RSV was published,
[...]
In 1973, an ecumenical edition of the RSV was published that included both the “Deuterocanonical” books of the Catholic Church and the three books of the Protestant Apocrypha that are not included in the Roman Catholic Canon.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

I don't think your take on 1 Tim 3:2 is so clear. According to the Word commentary, the Greek is unusual.

There are 4 common understandings of what the passage was intended to reject. From the Word commentary:
* the overseer must be married
* it forbids polygamy and concubines
* the overseer must be faithful to his wife
* the overseer must not remarry
1 and 3 seem unlikely. The early church understood it as 4. However it seems to me that there's no reason to choose between 2 and 4. The Greek seems general enough to cover both.

As I understand it "married only once" would forbid both remarriage and polygamy. The ESV translation "husband of one wife" would forbid polygamy but not remarriage. I think the NRSV translation is the most likely.

The Douay-Rheims version, being translated from the Latin Vulgate, reads:

1 Tim. 3:2. It behoveth therefore a bishop to be blameless, the husband of one wife, sober, prudent, of good behaviour, chaste, given to hospitality, a teacher,

1 Tim. 3:2. oportet ergo episcopum inreprehensibilem esse unius uxoris virum sobrium prudentem ornatum hospitalem doctorem (Latin Vulgate)

Beginning with the Confraternity Version, the Roman Catholic Church has favored the translation, “married but [or “only”] once.” However, they do not understand 1 Tim. 3:2 to be speaking of a pastor marrying only one woman, but rather of a priest marrying only the Church—and thus being celibate That is, from the Catholic point of view, a priest is married to the Church, and for a priest to get married to a woman would be to take a second wife!

The Roman Catholic scholar Luke Timothy Johnson, in his 2001 commentary on the First and Second Epistles to Timothy in The Anchor Yale Bible, Volume 35A, translates, “husband of one wife,” but he says nothing about celibacy and freely admits that the interpretations advocated for by Protestants (he does not use the term or make the distinction) are “possible” interpretations. An excellent commentary (508 Pages) for the scholar or advanced student, one of the very finest on the First and Second Epistles to Timothy.

It is unfortunate that William Mounce (in the Word Biblical Commentary series) makes no mention of the Roman Catholic interpretation.

 

[hedrick]

Generally commentaries like Word focus on the meaning for the original author. It's very, very, very unlikely that the author was advocating clerical celibacy. The Catholic interpretation you describe is application of the passage to a new situation, not envisioned by the original author. I think it's a legitimate one (if you accept clerical celibacy -- which I think is a mistake). But I wouldn't expect to see it in a critical commentary.

But the viewpoint you mention is in effect an application of the commitment to monogamy. Mounce certainly does mention that.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Generally commentaries like Word focus on the meaning for the original author. It's very, very, very unlikely that the author was advocating clerical celibacy. The Catholic interpretation you describe is application of the passage to a new situation, not envisioned by the original author. I think it's a legitimate one (if you accept clerical celibacy -- which I think is a mistake). But I wouldn't expect to see it in a critical commentary.

But the viewpoint you mention is in effect an application of the commitment to monogamy. Mounce certainly does mention that.

Upon further consideration, I wish to withdraw my comment about the Roman Catholic interpretation of 1 Tim. 3:2. This reconsideration is based upon my learning that the Roman Catholic Church, as an institution, has not, and does not interpret 1 Tim. 3:2 to be teaching that a priest or bishop must not marry a woman due to their being married to the Church. Some Catholics teach that interpretation, but others do not.

I also wish to say that the translation of 1 Tim. 3:2 in the ESV and the NRSV in no way characterizes either translation, and should not be used as a litmus test for the quality, fairness, objectivity, or accuracy of either translation.