The 1952 Revised Standard Bible

[John of Japan]

I could be wrong on this, but does not biblical Hebrew allow actually for either Virgin or young woman there, and the Holy Spirit Himself cued us to the right view asHhe chose to have the term Virgin in the Koine Greek?

No, contrary to the belief of the liberal scholars who translated the RSV, or edited lexicons such as BDB. The Hebrew word almah (עלמה) occurs seven times in the OT, several times demonstrably meaning virgin, but never demonstrably meaning only a "young woman" regardless of her virginity. Furthermore, since Matthew 1:23 translated it through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit as parthenos, παρθένος, and that always means virgin.

 

[Yeshua1]

No, contrary to the belief of the liberal scholars who translated the RSV, or edited lexicons such as BDB. The Hebrew word almah (עלמה) occurs seven times in the OT, several times demonstrably meaning virgin, but never demonstrably meaning only a "young woman" regardless of her virginity. Furthermore, since Matthew 1:23 translated it through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit as parthenos, παρθένος, and that always means virgin.

So the Rsv would get that rendering mainly due to them "not reading the NT" back into the OT?

 

[John of Japan]

So the Rsv would get that rendering mainly due to them "not reading the NT" back into the OT?

IMO, they got it from being liberal and not believing in the virgin birth.

 

[Yeshua1]

IMO, they got it from being liberal and not believing in the virgin birth.

That would be the best answer!

 

[Ziggy]

Wikipedia:

"Almah (עַלְמָה‎ ‘almāh, plural: עֲלָמוֹת‎ ‘ălāmōṯ, from a root implying the vigour of puberty) is a Hebrew word for a young woman of childbearing age; despite its importance to the account of the virgin birth of Jesus in the gospel of Matthew, scholars agree that it has nothing to do with virginity. It occurs nine times in the Hebrew Bible".

"The Septuagint translates most occurrences of almah into a generic word neanis νεᾶνις meaning 'young woman',[12][13] or to neotes νεότης meaning 'youth',[14] both words being derived from neos 'new' and unrelated to virginity.[15] Two occurrences, in the Genesis verse concerning Rebecca[16] and in Isaiah 7:14, are translated into parthenos (παρθένος)".

 

[John of Japan]

Wikipedia:

"Almah (עַלְמָה‎ ‘almāh, plural: עֲלָמוֹת‎ ‘ălāmōṯ, from a root implying the vigour of puberty) is a Hebrew word for a young woman of childbearing age; despite its importance to the account of the virgin birth of Jesus in the gospel of Matthew, scholars agree that it has nothing to do with virginity. It occurs nine times in the Hebrew Bible".

"The Septuagint translates most occurrences of almah into a generic word neanis νεᾶνις meaning 'young woman',[12][13] or to neotes νεότης meaning 'youth',[14] both words being derived from neos 'new' and unrelated to virginity.[15] Two occurrences, in the Genesis verse concerning Rebecca[16] and in Isaiah 7:14, are translated into parthenos (παρθένος)".

Ziggy, my friend, I do not allow my students to cite Wikipedia in their research papers. Therefore, I'll ignore it and stick to my own opinion.

 

[Yeshua1]

Ziggy, my friend, I do not allow my students to cite Wikipedia in their research papers. Therefore, I'll ignore it and stick to my own opinion.

How did the renowned BDB render it as meaning?

 

[John of Japan]

How did the renowned BDB render it as meaning?

They give "virgin" as the first (and thus most important) meaning.

1") virgin, young woman
1a) of marriageable age
1b) maid or newly married"

I certainly don't know where they got the "newly married" one.

 

[Yeshua1]

They give "virgin" as the first (and thus most important) meaning.

1") virgin, young woman
1a) of marriageable age
1b) maid or newly married"

I certainly don't know where they got the "newly married" one.

Based upon them, should be a young virgin !

 

[rlvaughn]

In the December 5 issue of his paper, editor Oliver Emmerich queried preachers in the McComb area to give their opinion of “the new Bible.” He said it was not an effort to put them on the spot, but to get “an enlightened viewpoint from the local ministers who are close to our people.” (“High-lights in the Headlines,” McComb Enterprise-Journal, Friday, December 5, 1953, p. 1)

When I went back to find this reference I noticed I had a typographical error. It should be:
“High-lights in the Headlines,” McComb Enterprise-Journal, Friday, December 5, 1952, p. 1.

 

[John of Japan]

They give "virgin" as the first (and thus most important) meaning.

1") virgin, young woman
1a) of marriageable age
1b) maid or newly married"

I certainly don't know where they got the "newly married" one.

Mea culpa. A friend noted to me that this is not actually what BDB says. I cited this from e-Sword, but someone has doctored the entry for BDB. Here is the BDB entry from Bibleworks:

עלמה. [; n. f. young woman (ripe sexually; maid or newly married);—Œ[ Gn 24:43 (J), Ex 2:8 (E), Pr 30:19, Is 7:14; pl. tAml'[] Psalm 68:26, Ct 1:3, 6:8; tAml'[]-l[; to (the voice of) young women, either lit., or of soprano or falsetto of boys: 1 Ch 15:20, Psalm 9:1 (rd. !Bel; tAml'[]-l[; [for !Bel; tWm-l[;], ‘ voce virginea a pueris decantandum, ’ Thes), 46:1, 48:15 (rd. tAml'[]-l[; [for tWm-l[;]; tr. prob. to 49:1).

Forgive me for not getting all of the Hebrew corrected into the entry (thus the gibberish). I'm giving my students a quiz right now, and then I lecture, so I don't have time to do it right.

 

[Yeshua1]

Mea culpa. A friend noted to me that this is not actually what BDB says. I cited this from e-Sword, but someone has doctored the entry for BDB. Here is the BDB entry from Bibleworks:

עלמה. [; n. f. young woman (ripe sexually; maid or newly married);—Œ[ Gn 24:43 (J), Ex 2:8 (E), Pr 30:19, Is 7:14; pl. tAml'[] Psalm 68:26, Ct 1:3, 6:8; tAml'[]-l[; to (the voice of) young women, either lit., or of soprano or falsetto of boys: 1 Ch 15:20, Psalm 9:1 (rd. !Bel; tAml'[]-l[; [for !Bel; tWm-l[;], ‘ voce virginea a pueris decantandum, ’ Thes), 46:1, 48:15 (rd. tAml'[]-l[; [for tWm-l[;]; tr. prob. to 49:1).

Forgive me for not getting all of the Hebrew corrected into the entry (thus the gibberish). I'm giving my students a quiz right now, and then I lecture, so I don't have time to do it right.

So does look like we still needed the Holy Spirit to inform us that He meant Virgin back in Isaiah, as He used Matthew
to record that down to us!
So the Rsv not that bad

 

[rlvaughn]

In The New Bible (Revised Standard Version): Why Christians Should Not Accept It, Carl McIntire addresses how they bungled the "thous" and "yous". (Scroll down to number III to see it.)

The King James Version universally uses “thee” and “thou” whether these pronouns apply to God or to man. If the translators of the new version were going to follow through uniformly they should use “you” and “yours” universally. But, for some reason—purely an arbitrary decision—they decided to retain “thee” and “thou” in the passages where deity is referred to, and use “you” and “yours” elsewhere.

For example, in Matthew 16:16, the great confession of Peter in Caesarea Philippi, one would expect to find the reply to the question of Jesus, “But who do you say that I am?” translated, “Thou art the Christ.” But, instead, the answer is, “You are the Christ.” So He is just a man.

 

[rlvaughn]

On the RSV, from BibleResearcher.com. The entire article, in which the writer compares the RSV to its predecessor the ASV, can be read HERE. "The Revised Standard Version of the New Testament purported to be a revision of the American Standard Version, although very little of the ASV remains in the RSV. In many passages it bears more resemblance to the version of James Moffatt than to the ASV."

The RSV Old Testament was not well received outside of liberal circles, chiefly because the translators often deliberately rendered Old Testament passages in such a way that they were contrary to the interpretations given in the New Testament. This was done on the principle that the Old Testament ought to be interpreted only in reference to its own historical (Jewish) context. Christian interpretations, including those of the New Testament writers, are therefore deliberately excluded as “anachronistic.” But this, as conservative critics perceived, practically amounted to a denial of the truth of the New Testament. As the conservative scholar R. Laird Harris wrote,

It is a curious study to check the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, a monument of higher critical scholarship, and note how every important Old Testament passage purporting to predict directly the coming of Christ has been altered so as to remove this possibility ... It is almost impossible to escape the conclusion that the admittedly higher critical bias of the translators has operated in all of these places. The translations given are by no means necessary from the Hebrew and in some cases ... are in clear violation of the Hebrew.​

​

 

[rlvaughn]

It is a curious study to check the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, a monument of higher critical scholarship, and note how every important Old Testament passage purporting to predict directly the coming of Christ has been altered so as to remove this possibility ...

This can be seen in Psalm 2:7 and Hebrews 1:5, one of the examples given by Carl McIntire.
In Psalm 2:7 RSV, the words are:

I will tell of the decree of the Lord: He said to me, “You are my son, today I have begotten you.”

In Hebrews 1:5 RSV, the words are:

For to what angel did God ever say, “Thou art my Son, today I have begotten thee”?

Notice at first the issue of refusing to capitalize “son” in Psalm 2:7, though they did so in Hebrews 1:5. Then notice the more egregious error of using “you” in Psalm 2:7, therefore showing -- based on their own policy of retaining “thou” for deity -- that they neuter Psalm 2:7 from being a predictive OT prophecy of Jesus Christ. In my opinion, like many who forcefully rejected the 1952 RSV, this kind of error, multiplied, is evidence of liberal bias rather than editorial oversight.

 

[rlvaughn]

From A Critique of the Revised Standard Version by C. P. Lincoln, Merrill F. Unger, S. Lewis Johnson, and other the Faculty of Dallas Theological Seminary.

(3) To forestall any early criticism by conservatives of the translation, the Council denied advance copies of the manuscript to outsiders though the completed copy was altogether ready more than a year previous to the publication date of September 30, 1952. However, lengthy reviews were prepared and published by the translators themselves, and by their friends and associates commending in glowing terms their own work as the product of the "thirty-two foremost Biblical scholars in America."

(4) It has been declared on good authority that upwards of $500,000.00 was spent to promote the advertisement and sale of the book. This huge financial venture on the part of the copyright-holding Council and the publishers constitutes a monopolizing commercial scheme which will enrich the NCCC and enable it to carry on more energetically its socializing-gospel effort.

(5) In keeping with its claim of being the full representative of Protestantism and following its practice of disregard for minorities, the NCCC carefully prepared through its widespread local committees more than 3,000 public demonstrations in which this version was declared to be "the most important publication of 1952," "a version correcting over 5,000 errors," "the greatest Bible news in 341 years," etc. So a spectacle was presented of millions of people enthusiastically hailing a book which they had not yet seen nor read, and which mainly radical opponents of the great fundamental truths of Scripture had produced and propagandized.

 

[rlvaughn]

The Revised Standard Version really met its “comeuppance” from evangelicals, conservatives, and fundamentalists after the entire Bible (Old and New Testaments) was printed in 1952. However, at least some Christians noticed a problem as soon as the New Testament was available. Edward Burden Warren, pastor of the Southern Baptist church in Orrville, Alabama, wrote letters about it to the Montgomery Advertiser and Selma Times-Journal in December 1953.

“The student of the Bible is shocked to read the statement of the revisers, ‘After two years of debate and experiment it was to abandon these forms (Thou, Thee, and Thine) and to follow modern usage, except in language addressed to God.’

“In the Revised Standard Version Jesus is addressed as ‘You.’ See Matthew 4:3 for a case, ‘If you are the Son of God, etc.’ The translators intentionally did this. According to their statement Jesus is not divine. The revisers say that they debated two years over this matter and decided to address only God with ‘Thou’.

“The sum total of the translators’ statement is that they do not believe in the deity of Jesus Christ.”

Edward B. Warren, Orrville, Alabama, “Revision of the Bible,” in the “Tell It to Old Grandma” column, The Montgomery Advertiser, Sunday, December 15, 1946, p. 4-A.

​

“Revised Standard Version,” in “Letter Box” column,
The Selma Times-Journal, Sunday, December 15, 1946, p. 4​

 

[rlvaughn]

Edward Burden Warren, pastor of the Southern Baptist church in Orrville, Alabama, wrote letters about it to the Montgomery Advertiser and Selma Times-Journal in December 1953.

Too late to edit now, but obviously that is a typo and should be December 1946.

 

[Ziggy]

RSV related critiques from 1946-51 relate only to the NT, since the RSV OT was not published until 1952. Criticisms after 1952 apply to OT as well as NT.

My primary criticism in the RSV OT relates to the high number of conjectures they place in the text whenever they think the Hebrew or Aramaic to be "too difficult."

 

[kathleenmariekg]

Ziggy, my friend, I do not allow my students to cite Wikipedia in their research papers. Therefore, I'll ignore it and stick to my own opinion.

This is not a college classroom at a school that provides access to a library. Wikipedia provides access to online information that ALL people on an online forum can access so that ALL can participate in a conversation. To exclude people from the opportunity to join a conversation by refusing to accept the only information that they have access to is ...

My community college never had access to the materials that university students have access to. And the longer I am out of school, the more access I am losing. When people set the bar above my access level, I am being forced out of more and more conversations. But maybe those are conversations that I don't belong in. I think sometimes those that exclude the masses lose out more than the masses lose by being excluded from the conversations of the minority.