The RSV

mesly · Sep 15, 2003

I have become extremely fascinated at how this one version has become the most disdained translation of the 20th century (continuing into the 21st) by fundamentalists. Even to the point of having believers attach their dislike of it to the newly released ESV.

I found the following article interesting. It gives a bit of background of both the political and religious climate surrounding the time of the release of the RSV.

The RSV is a product of American scholarship. It is very much in the spirit of the KJV, and should be regarded as the seventh revision of the KJV.

On the first day of publication—September 30, 1952—it sold one million copies. Among many churches in America, it quickly replaced the AV. It is still one of the most popular translations ever done. It is powerful in its simplicity and directness. The conservative NT scholar, F. F. Bruce, gives it high praise:

… for the English-speaking world as a whole there is no modern version of the Bible which comes so near as the R.S.V. does to making the all-purpose provision which the A.V. made for so many years.1

But not everyone took a liking to the RSV. It is in fact the most hated English translation of all time.

The first half of the 20th century saw two new major translations—the ASV and the RSV. But the second half of the 20th has seen a multitude of new translations. Why the change? What was the catalyst that spawned all these new versions? It was primarily the RSV—and fundamentally it was a negative reaction to the RSV.

Once again, we cannot understand Bible translations unless we put them in their historical context. When the RSV was produced, there was a distinctive religious and political climate. On the religious front, we were embroiled in the fundamentalist-modernist controversy. This reached its apex in the 1925 Scopes Monkey trial when a high school biology teacher was put on trial in Tennessee for teaching Darwinian evolution in the classroom!

And on the political front, immediately after World War II the Cold War with Communism commenced. This was the era of Senator McCarthy who smelled a communist under every rock.

It should not surprise us that the strongest attacks on the RSV came from the religious and political conservatives.

Senator McCarthy condemned this new translation as communist propaganda. His sole basis was that the RSV used the word “comrade” in three verses. And since the communists referred to themselves as “comrades,” McCarthy surmised that the RSV was the result of a communist plot!

Remarkably, he was successful in persuading some members of the military of his logic. The RSV was banned for use in the Air Force for several years.

But by far the deepest criticisms of the RSV came from religious fundamentalists. The RSV was sponsored by the National Council of Churches. This is a large group embodying several denominations, but very few fundamentalist churches were included. The doctrinal commitments of the NCC had some modernist leanings to them. So, when the RSV appeared, there was an instant suspicion on the part of some fundamentalists.

And they didn’t have to look too far to find ground for their suspicions. Isaiah 7.14 became the lightning rod that attracted their thunderbolt of criticism. In the KJV this verse said, “Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” This famous passage is quoted in Matthew 1.23 where Matthew uses it as proof of the virgin birth of Christ.

In the RSV, Isaiah 7.14 was a little different: “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.”

There was an immediate reaction. Scores of pamphlets appeared with such titles as The Bible of Antichrist, The New Blasphemous Bible, and Whose Unclean Fingers Have Been Tampering With the Holy Bible—God’s Pure, Infallible, Verbally Inspired Word?

Several fundamentalist preachers publicly burned the RSV. One of them took a blowtorch and in front of his congregation tried to light it on fire. When he had trouble getting it lit, he remarked that it was just like the devil because it was so hard to burn!

Another preacher sent the ashes of the RSV to the senior editor.

1983—I had the opportunity to visit Dr. Bruce Metzger of Princeton Seminary. … While there, he showed me an urn full of ashes. I didn’t know what had been burned, but at first I thought this was a bizarre thing to show a guest. He said, “These are the ashes of the Revised Standard Version Bible.” Dr. Metzger had inherited the ashes from the previous senior editor. He quipped, “I am grateful to be a Bible translator in the 20th century. Nowadays, they only burn the translations rather than the translators!” But he quickly added that it was a terrible shame that people would treat the Word of God the way this preacher did.

Isaiah 7.14 in the RSV became the most divisive verse in 20th century translations. This text was a watershed for orthodoxy. The Hebrew word that the RSV translated as ‘young woman’ and that the KJV had translated as virgin was the word ALMAH. The debates raged so much in the churches across America that one observer noted that ALMAH had become the most recognized Hebrew word in the country!

The conservative reaction to the RSV’s translation of this one word gave birth to the NASB, the NIV, and a host of other translations.

But just like the reactions to every new Bible translation that has ever come down the pike, the criticisms are often generated more by emotions than by evidence. Recall the words of the 19th century conservative Christian scholar, Henry Alford: “a translator of Holy Scripture must be… ready to sacrifice the choicest text, and the plainest proof of doctrine, if the words are not those of what he is constrained in his conscience to receive as God’s testimony.”

This is precisely what the RSV translators did. The Hebrew word almah means ‘young woman’; it does not mean ‘virgin.’ But when it came to Matt 1.23, where Isa 7.14 is quoted, the RSV translators have ‘virgin’ because this is what the Greek word means. They are not denying the virgin birth of Christ; they are simply being honest with the Greek and Hebrew texts.

Nevertheless, not all conservative scholars saw it this way.
Click to expand...

Any comments? The entire article can be viewed at: Article

Forever settled in heaven · Sep 15, 2003

Originally posted by mesly:
Isaiah 7.14 in the RSV became the most divisive verse in 20th century translations. This text was a watershed for orthodoxy. The Hebrew word that the RSV translated as ‘young woman’ and that the KJV had translated as virgin was the word ALMAH. The debates raged so much in the churches across America that one observer noted that ALMAH had become the most recognized Hebrew word in the country!

Click to expand...

i think the article is correct to say that the RSV got hated becos of the political climate of its time, n that now some Fundamentalist scholars have started rehabilitating its reputation.

here's one such scholar, Dr Drew Conley, in a book review of the Fundamentalist-published From the Mind of God:

The Revised Standard Version (NT 1946; OT 1952) receives surprisingly sympathetic treatment. It has been the Bible most vilified by Fundamentalists since its publication by the Liberal-dominated American National Council of Churches at the height of Fundamentalist-Liberal battles. "Many scholars consider the RSV to be an accurate translation," says Conley, and that is perhaps why conservative evangelicals such as Millard J. Erickson are comfortable using it as the default Bible for their works. "But," adds Conley, "because some of the translators were liberals (and because the RSV became the Bible of many of the liberal denominations), conservative Christians rejected it." He goes on to cite the question of the virgin birth reference in Isaiah 7:14 as a bone of contention and vindicates the RSV's Matthew 1:23 as affirming the doctrine of the virgin birth (pp. 198-99). In essence, what we have here appears to be a bold, truthful, and refreshing admission that the RSV's treatment by Fundamentalists in the past was more politically and idealogically motivated than anything else.
Click to expand...

http://www.post1.com/home/amarillo/revFromMind.htm

neal4christ · Sep 15, 2003

Thanks for this post! I have never looked at the RSV before because I was always told and always thought it was the "liberals'" Bible. But after reading this thread, I went out and bought one. And wow, I am enjoying it! I am very conservative, but there is very little I can find "wrong" with the RSV. I have not settled on one default Bible yet because I am just not satisfied with any one in particular. But I must say, I am very impressed with the RSV. I wonder how popular it could have been if it was not vilified as the liberal Bible? But as I thought about it, if someone like of John Piper was comfortable with it, maybe I should check it out. And then your thread just made me go out and buy one! I plan on giving it a go for a while.

In Christ,
Neal

Taufgesinnter · Sep 16, 2003

I prefer the New RSV, but I'm particularly grateful for the appearance of the RSV if it was responsible for stimulating production of the NASB and NIV.

aefting · Sep 16, 2003

I don’t remember where I read it but my understanding is that John R. Rice actually advertised the RSV in the Sword of the Lord when the NT portion first appeared. It was only after they published the OT, and the non-Christological treatment of passages such as Isaiah 7:14 came to light, that conservatives reacted to the liberal influence of the translation committee. I think though, as was mentioned earlier, that conservatives have come to realize that the RSV is not as thoroughly liberal as once thought. In fact, it would be possible to remove the objectionable translation elements, while keeping the majority of the good work, and produce a version that conservatives and fundamentalists could embrace – hence the ESV.

Here is a LINK to an influential 1953 BibSac review of the RSV. It is interesting to see the issues that were raised, especially considering the modern day translation/text debate.

Andy

Forever settled in heaven · Sep 16, 2003

Originally posted by neal4christ:
But as I thought about it, if someone like of John Piper was comfortable with it, maybe I should check it out. And then your thread just made me
Click to expand...

Piper's use is a good signal.

not only he, but Millard J. Erickson, too, for his Christian Theology. to me, when someone who fights so hard to defend the christological doctrines chooses to USE the RSV as main Bible in his scriptural citations, it's pretty telling.

mesly · Sep 16, 2003

Originally posted by neal4christ:
I have not settled on one default Bible yet because I am just not satisfied with any one in particular.
Click to expand...

Neal, you and I have exchanged private messages regarding our use of the ESV. I am curious as to why you would think that the RSV would be any better than the ESV?

I happened to pick up one of the 50th anniversary editions of the RSV a few months ago. I have found it interesting when comparing passages between the RSV and the ESV. Overall, it is very much the same and has been an enjoyable study. Since much of it is identical, I started to think about why the RSV is so hated among conservative and fundamental circles. I think that the article that I quoted gives much needed insight into this "hate", which was mostly due to the political and religous climates of the day. It begs the question that if times were different and the RSV was accepted, would we have the NASB? Factors that contribute to the perceived need for a new translation are very interesting to me.

God bless,
Michael

TomVols · Sep 16, 2003

Didn't Wayne Grudem use it for his Systematic Theology?

mesly · Sep 16, 2003

Originally posted by aefting:
Here is a LINK to an influential 1953 BibSac review of the RSV. It is interesting to see the issues that were raised, especially considering the modern day translation/text debate.
Click to expand...

Andy, this article is very interesting! Really reveals the thoughts of that day in bible translations. The first part of the article is really just a temper-tantrum over the NCC's role in doing the translation. The rest of the article reveals some good criticism of the text.

I found it funny that some of the very things that they criticized about the RSV actually show up in other versions as well.

Here is one verse from the NIV (I guess the 20 year difference between the two translations can do wonders to your line of thinking ). The verses referenced are:

KJV: 2 Cor. 7:1 Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.

RSV: 2 Cor. 7:1 Since we have these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit, and make holiness perfect in the fear of God.

NIV: 2 Cor. 7:1 Since we have these promises, dear friends, let us purify ourselves from everything that contaminates body and spirit, perfecting holiness out of reverence for God.
Click to expand...

They question the use of the word "body" in the RSV, but as you can see the NIV has it as "body" too.

Two other verses that they complain about are the SAME in the KJV as it is in the RSV:

KJV: Hebrews 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

RSV: Hebrews 2:14 Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same nature, that through death he might destroy him who has the power of death, that is, the devil,
Click to expand...

As compared to what was rendered in the ASV:

ASV: Hebrews 2:14 Since then the children are sharers in flesh and blood, he also himself in like manner partook of the same; that through death he might bring to nought him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
Click to expand...

Incidently, the NIV is rendered the same as the KJV and the RSV in the use of the word "destroy". They are complaining about the word "destroy" in the RSV.

And lastly (there are more, but I don't want spoil the entire article ):

KJV: Romans 6:6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.

RSV: Romans 6:6 We know that our old self was crucified with him so that the sinful body might be destroyed, and we might no longer be enslaved to sin.

ASV: Romans 6:6 For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with,that we should no longer be slaves to sin--
Click to expand...

As you can see, the same "error" occurs in the KJV with their favored translation being the ASV.

I can only conclude that either time has changed the minds of many (i.e. use of the same translations in the NIV) or there was some unfair criticism of the RSV.

[ September 16, 2003, 12:52 PM: Message edited by: mesly ]

Anti-Alexandrian · Sep 16, 2003

[ September 16, 2003, 10:51 PM: Message edited by: Dr. Bob Griffin ]

Terry_Herrington · Sep 17, 2003

Anti-Alexandrian, the previous post is the most intelligent thing you have ever said on this board.

Taufgesinnter · Sep 17, 2003

Based on the timing of your post, I assume you're referring to the moderator-edited version.

Terry_Herrington · Sep 17, 2003

Yes, I am.

The RSV

mesly Member

Forever settled in heaven New Member

neal4christ New Member

Taufgesinnter New Member

aefting New Member

Forever settled in heaven New Member

mesly Member

TomVols New Member

mesly Member

Anti-Alexandrian Member

Terry_Herrington New Member

Taufgesinnter New Member

Terry_Herrington New Member

Useful Searches

The RSV

mesly Member

Forever settled in heaven New Member

neal4christ New Member

Taufgesinnter New Member

aefting New Member

Forever settled in heaven New Member

mesly Member

TomVols New Member

mesly Member

Anti-Alexandrian Member

Terry_Herrington New Member

Taufgesinnter New Member

Terry_Herrington New Member