Notable Textual Changes in the NRSVue NT

Produced by the National Council of Churches, the NRSV has long been the Bible of mainline Protestant denominations, those in the ecumenical movement, and the wider academy. It has never really been popular among evangelicals to my knowledge. That unpopularity goes all the way back to the controversy over its predecessor, the RSV. But that history is for another day. What we can say is that the NRSV’s reach is still in the top ten of English translations according to data from NPD Bookscan and published by the ECPA: the NRSV was the tenth bestselling English translation last month. 

Be that as it may, readers may not remember that six years ago I shared news about a planned update to the NRSV. You may also not remember that textual criticism was front and center as a justification for the need to revise, going so far as to name the CBGM itself. So, text-critical changes have been prominent in the justification for the NRSVue since the start. Besides that, the NRSVue is also noteworthy for text-critics because the general NT editor was none other than our own ETC blog member, Michael W. Holmes. (For the full list of contributors, see here.) 

So, what were the results? According to the preface, “The NRSVue presents approximately 12,000 substantive edits and 20,000 total changes, which include alterations in grammar and punctuation.” Obviously, most of these cannot be text-critical and many are in the OT. The new preface does have a pretty detailed section on textual criticism, at least as far as translation prefaces go. It says:

For the New Testament, the team based its work on three recent editions of the Greek New Testament: (1) The Greek New Testament, 5th revised edition (United Bible Societies, 2014); (2) The Greek New Testament: SBL Edition (Society of Biblical Literature and Logos Bible Software, 2010); and, (3) for Acts and the Catholic Letters, Novum Testamentum Graecum: Editio Critica Maior (Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2013, 2017). Occasionally these editions differ in regard to text or punctuation; in such cases the team followed the reading best supported by a combination of both traditional and more recent approaches and considerations. As in the original NRSV, double brackets are used to enclose a few passages that are generally regarded to be later additions to the text but that have been retained because of their antiquity and importance in the textual tradition. Here and there in the notes the phrase “Other ancient authorities read” identifies alternative readings preserved by Greek manuscripts and early versions. In both Testaments, other possible translations of the text are indicated by the word “Or.” 

Textual criticism continues to evolve. Not only have additional manuscripts become available, but some of the goals and methodology have changed over the last several decades. This is more the case for reconstructing the books of the Old Testament and Apocrypha, but it is generally true for the entire enterprise. In the NRSVue, care was taken not to push too far ahead of the existing critical editions or to turn the translation itself and its notes into a critical edition. Nevertheless, a careful reader will notice in general a more generous use of the notes for alternative readings. The editors hope that this work will serve translators in the future.

In light of the emphasis on textual criticism, I wondered what changes I could find. This is just from my spot-checking, mind you. I haven’t found a list of changes anywhere yet.

• Matt. 19.9: “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” The longer reading was in the footnote before along with the reading of B and some others. I’m guessing this change is due to Holmes’s influence given his 1990 JBL article on the subject which you should all read and heed.
• Mark 1.1: “The beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ.” To which I can only say, booooo! (The right reading is in the footnote and at least they got Mark 1.41 right.)
• Luke 10:41-42: “But the Lord answered her, ‘Martha, Martha, you are worried and distracted by many things, but few things are needed—indeed only one.[a] Mary has chosen the better part, which will not be taken away from her.’ ” Note a gives the shorter reading that was the main text in the NRSV: “Other ancient authorities read but only one thing is needed.”
• John 1.18: “No one has ever seen God. It is the only Son, himself God, who[f] is close to the Father’s heart, who has made him known.” Note f reads “Other ancient authorities read is the only Son who.” The former edition read “It is God the only Son, who...” with a slightly different note.
• Acts 3.13: “The God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob,[c] the God of our ancestors, has glorified his servant Jesus, whom you handed over and rejected in the presence of Pilate, though he had decided to release him.” Footnote c says, “Other ancient authorities read and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob,” which is what the NRSV read before.
• Eph. 5.22: the paragraph break is now after 5.21 instead of before with a new footnote that says there is no verb in 5.22. That’s an interesting combination of judgments, but at least can claim the support of Vaticanus.
• 1 Pet 4.16: footnote now says, “Other ancient authorities read in this respect” (for “in this name”).
• 2 Pet 3.10: footnote now says, “Other ancient authorities read will not be found or will be burned up.” The first part of that refers to the conjecture in NA28 which has support only of a few Coptic and Syriac witnesses.
• Jude 5: “Now I desire to remind you, though you are fully informed, once and for all, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.” The NRSV had “the Lord.”

For more on the process behind the NRSVue, see https://www.christiancentury.org/article/interview/even-better-bible