In partnership with others, the extremely liberal National Council of Churches (NCC) has recently conducted an ambitious update of the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) translation of the Bible, called the “NRSVue” or NRSV Updated Edition.
But the NCC is not an academic, intellectually responsible, or non-partisan organization.
We at IRD have documented over the years how, despite its name and church ties, the NCC is largely a divisive, extremely liberal, clearly partisan U.S. political activist group. The liberal NCC has repeatedly promoted hard-left stances on homosexuality, abortion, and other matters, even opposing the official stances of its affiliated denominations.
Jim Winkler, the NCC’s President and General Secretary since 2013, has been notorious for his extreme ignorance and misrepresentations of Scripture as well as very basic matters of the official theology of his own United Methodist Church. He views “so-called Christian academies and home schooling” in America as similar to extremist Islamic madrassahs in Pakistan.
The NCC Governing Board was led by its radical former board chair, United Church of Christ head honcho John Dorhauer, in its process for approving the NRSVue translation update. Dorhauer’s baseless, paranoid rantings are a matter of public record.
We understand that the thousands of revisions of this liberal group’s updated NRSVue Bible translation for the sake of “modern sensibilities” were not all bad, and that the project included some serious and theologically orthodox scholars.
But this track record extreme ideological stridency and intellectual sloppiness raises serious questions of trusting if the liberal NCC’s updated NRSVue has stuck to honest translation or strayed into reshaping the Bible to reflect liberal biases. How reliable, or liberally biased, is the NRSVue Bible translation?
In this guest column below, the Rev. Arthur Collins addresses how the liberal NCC’s NRSV Updated Edition (NRSVue) translation significantly dilutes the meaning of two key words related to homosexuality, relying on more extensive analysis by New Testament scholar Robert Gagnon (which in turn cited even liberal scholars in support of his points). Professor Gagnon’s The Bible and Homosexual Practice has been credited with definitively, once-and-for all discrediting any serious scholarly attempts to argue that the Bible does not really condemn consensual homosexual practice.
Arthur Collins is a retired elder in the Indiana Annual Conference. He has an MDiv from Asbury Theological Seminary and a PhD from Indiana State University. In addition to blogging about the state of The UMC, he writes a lot about church history — especially the English church tradition, language, and Scouting ministry. He plays several instruments badly, can cook like nobody’s business, and has been married for 48 years to a very patient woman. This article originally appeared on his personal blog. Reposted with permission.
UM Voices is a forum for different voices within the United Methodist Church on pressing issues of denominational and/or social concern. UM Voices contributors represent only themselves and not IRD/UMAction.
An updated version of the NRSV is now available, and Bible students are giving it a lookover. The NRSV was itself an update of the RSV, which was a modernization of the KJV and its American offspring. The new revision does some interesting things to a couple of NT terms relating to homosexuality, softening the edges and making it easier to say that the NT doesn’t condemn same-sex intercourse. For instance, the Greek arsenokoitai has been muted to “men who engage in sexual immorality,” when the actual meaning is “men who have sex with men.” The revisers say the term in the original Greek is unclear; it isn’t. Arsenokoitai was coined by rabbis of Second Temple Judaism (the translators of the Septuagint), and then picked up by Christian teachers. It was coined specifically to refer to behavior that Jews and Christians highlighted as wrong, but which the culture around them treated in more nuanced ways. Likewise, the revisers of the NRSV have rendered the NT Greek malakoi as “male prostitutes,” which locates the basic wrong not in the sexual behavior, per se, but in its being offered for money. And, of course, one may prostitute one’s body with either sex. But malakoi (rendered “Sodomites” in the KJV) means “soft men,” effeminate men, implying men who offer themselves sexually to other men – whether or not money is directly involved.
Such controversies are not new, though the focus on sexuality is of our age. When the Puritans were agitating for a new English translation of the Bible, King James proposed to give them one, but then he rigged the game against them. They wanted a Bible that translated ekklesia as “congregation” rather than “church” and rendered episkopos as “overseer” rather than “bishop.” They were congregationalists and opposed to bishops. (Interestingly, the Geneva Bible – their preferred translation – rendered episkopos as “bishop” in 1 Timothy 3 and other places.) King James ordered that “certain comfortable old church words” not be changed. The KJV is an amazing achievement, but reading the instructions to the translators is an enlightening exercise.
Establishing what the Bible says is not merely a matter of choosing the right words in translation, of course. It also is a matter of agreeing upon the meaning of the words after everyone has adopted them. The doctrine and practice of “Believer’s Baptism” articulated by the Anabaptists and then taken up by the English Separatists (who spawned the Baptists we know and love) is an invention of the 16th Century. Likewise, St. Paul would struggle to recognize the “New Testament Church” established by Stone and Campbell in the early 19th Century. Much the same thing happened when transubstantiation was first mooted in the late 1st Millennium: the novel interpretation ousted the traditional understanding and labelled the latter an innovation – and therefore, heresy. Later low church Protestantism, in its rejection of Roman Catholic teaching, took up the same words and came up with a doctrine of memorial-only, in which the central action of the eucharist is constructed only in the mind of the worshiper – which is not what the early Church taught, either. In these and other matters, everybody uses the same words, but means slightly different things by them.
This is why we have a professional class of clergy. The clergy don’t exist to do the ministry of the Church – every Christian has a ministry to do. The clergy exist to teach the faith – and hold each other accountable for the substance of their teaching. Now, laypeople do, in fact, sometimes make practical compromises with Christian teaching. Folk Christianity may incorporate a number of ideas and practices that are not fully compatible with the actual meaning of the Bible. However, to really screw up doctrine requires the clergy, since the function of clergy is to declare what the teaching of the Church is. When they go wrong, you have the beginnings of a new understanding, which may grow into a separate movement entirely. Whether we label that new teaching a heresy or a sect depends on how vital we think the issues at stake are.
I have followed – and been followed by – pastors who had radically different understandings of the faith. It sometimes depresses me that few people in the pews seem to have noticed that they were being taught very different things. On the other hand, those who loved and appreciated those other pastors loved and appreciated me, too. In this, the laity show that they are co-equal guardians of the faith once delivered to the saints. The finer points may pass over them (or be ignored by them), but neither are they to be stampeded by enthusiasts. If “speaking the truth in love” is the ultimate standard of Christian teaching, then the clergy’s wrangles over truth have to be balanced by the amazing ability of the laity to love us and get what they can from each of us. Which doesn’t mean that it doesn’t matter what is taught; only that there is more involved than merely being correct.
Comment by Anthony on January 19, 2022 at 10:46 am
1 Corinthians 6:9-11
New International Version
9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
[a] Footnotes
1 Corinthians 6:9 The words men who have sex with men translate two Greek words that refer to the passive and active participants in homosexual acts.
Comment by Tom on January 19, 2022 at 11:15 pm
The external link to Jim Winkler views on “so-called Christian academies and home schooling in America as similar to extremist Islamic madrassahs in Pakistan” no longer seems to be valid.
Comment by What is Sermon Prep? on January 21, 2022 at 9:48 am
This is a very interesting article. It seems that the definition of words in Koine Greek and Aramaic are in flux two thousand years after being written.
You would think that clergy would spend extra time studying such differences in meaning whether they are proficient in the original languages the NT was written in or not. Especially when it comes to hot button issues today that are tearing the church apart you would think that no matter what side of the fence you are on clergy would have a handle on these debates. Or is the political driving the spiritual?
Comment by Katherine on January 21, 2022 at 7:19 pm
A rule of thumb, which I have found very helpful, suggests that when considering a Bible translation one should look at Psalm 1. If it says, “Blessed is the man,” it’s probably a fairly credible translation from the Hebrew. If it says, “Blessed is the one,” it may not be. The ESV passes this test; the NIV doesn’t, and presumably, this NRSVue may also not.
Comment by info on January 22, 2022 at 2:01 am
Its identical in intention and activity to the Gender Neutral Translation of the Bible that has been retained in the NIV 2011 that is contrary to the original texts of Scripture in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Masoretic Text:
http://bible-researcher.com/niv.2011.html
Thereby distorting God’s word to mean the opposite of what the actual text really says and means. In order to sneak in women being Pastors or undermining the headship of Christ over the Church being reflected in the relationship between Husband and Wife in order to alter gender roles.
And this gender neutral translation also is meant to alter the gender roles of Ancient Israel contrary to real history.
Comment by George on January 24, 2022 at 1:26 pm
They are not “liberal” but quite the opposite. Just disagree with them and you’ll quickly find out how “liberal” they are. They are LEFTISTS and the polar opposite of “liberal.”
Comment by Donald Link on January 31, 2022 at 3:17 pm
To distill it down to its essence, if the bible is the inspired word of God, then no change in words that affects meaning can be legitimate. To do so would be blasphemy. We recognize that some words evolve over time, decrees become laws, dwelling becomes house, etc. However, talent remains a unit of measure and a footnote can be used to explain its contemporary measure. The bible is intended to reflect the original as early as we know it and there are scholars of language that can provide needed clarification of archaic words and their meanings at the time. It would appear that was also the intent of King James though we acknowledge that there are different opinions regarding the final product.
Comment by Joe on March 1, 2022 at 7:29 am
The problem with this translation is that it falls prey to two things: protestantism and enlightenment thinking.
Higher textual criticism was born the generation after Luther and the hell Reformers started taking books it didn’t like out of their canon.
Gender neutrality, who cares? I know dozens of Protestants that biblically justify gay marriage, and how can you deny them: the Protestant doctrine of “private interpretation” exists.
This Bible is no different than the Pope changing the creed, Protestants taking out books they don’t like, and five hundred years of Protestants changing the ancient definitions of grace and faith, to their own machinations, and screaming at true believers who refuse to use their definitions.
Conservative Protestantism is no different than radical feminism.
This Bible is what you want.
Comment by BA on June 4, 2022 at 8:02 am
Quick fact-check. Jewish Rabbis did not translate the septuagint; the word αρσενοκοιτης does not appear in the LXX. Paul made the word up. The etymology of the word seems to suggest that it means what you say, but – since it is a made-up word – it is difficult to say.
Comment by Leigh on June 12, 2022 at 1:45 pm
The church as an institution is dying because of hyper-orthodoxy in translation and an adherence to the idea that 21st century people should be bound solely by 1st century writings with no modern scholarship.
Comment by Rev Dr Kevin A Johnson on July 20, 2022 at 2:03 pm
My goodness! This breathless blog could appear in any literary style guide as an example of hyperbole. Filled with unsupported claims and character assassination, above is a reactionary defense of the Maginot Line excluding the understanding and acceptance of homosexuals as Christian leaders. I pray the Holy Spirit is able to reach and relax these stiff necks so the damage they do is repaired, healed, and one day disappears altogether. On that day, we can all be one.
Comment by Gary S. Shogren on July 28, 2022 at 1:15 pm
Your comment: “Arsenokoitai was coined by rabbis of Second Temple Judaism (the translators of the Septuagint), and then picked up by Christian teachers.”
This would be an amazing brand-new discovery! Can you give references where Arsenokoitai appears in the Septuagint or in any Jewish books of the Second Temple period? Thanks.
Comment by Doug Mason on September 13, 2022 at 4:39 am
The material that the scrolls were made of was perishable, particularly with regular handling, requiring continuous copying. Over the millennia, each time a scroll was copied, scribes considered it their responsibility to edit it to make it reflect their local culture. This was done to make the text relevant and meaningful to the editing scribes’ contemporary world. This millennia-long established practice of adjusting the text to make it reflect a contemporary world continues to the present day, causing angst today among strict conservative elements over versions such as the 2022 NRSVue (Updated Edition).
While I understand the practice, it obliterates the original culture. For example, the Greek text of the New Testament as we have it include the word “Messiah” at only two places, each time in the Fourth Gospel. However, rather than translating the Greek word Christos as “Christ”, the ‘translators’ of the NRSVue New Testament render ‘Christos’ as ‘Messiah’. This is entering into commentary, not translation. The translation provides ‘Christ’ as the Footnote, but by rights it should be the other way around, with “Christ” in the body of the text, not as a Footnote.
Comment by Tim Wood on January 7, 2023 at 7:45 pm
I’m not sure where you received your information about the translation BUT the update was done by the Society of Biblical Literature, the leading academic society for the Study of the Bible:
https://guides.library.yale.edu/newtestament/nrsvue
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Revised_Standard_Version#2021_Updated_Edition_(NRSVue)
https://www.sbl-site.org/assets/pdfs/SocietyReport2017.pdf
The NCC’s only involvement was to sign an agreement authorizing the update. The scholars of the SBL manage the update. In the interest of accuracy, you may want to update the opening of your article and remove the irrelevant opinions about the NCC.
Comment by Jennifer Smith on March 6, 2023 at 5:25 pm
I’ve got a 1912 Lutherbibel (although Luther translated it originally in 1534) and in it arsenokoitai is translated as “molestors” (in 1 Corinthians 6:9) and as “boy molestors” (in 1 Timothy 1:10.) Clearly not all Bible translators thoughout history have agreed with you that arsenokoitai meant consensual adult male same sex activity. Even as late as 1984 in the NIV arsenokoitai appeared translated as “homosexual offenders” (men who rape other men and/ or boys.) Malakoi appears in this version as “male prostitutes” also
Comment by Terry on June 21, 2023 at 8:47 am
Sad to see so many false teachers and believers who love their sin in this thread. They embrace their sin to the point where they have go rewrite the Bible to remove their sin from the list of those who won’t inherit the Kingdom of God.
Comment by dave smith on August 10, 2023 at 11:57 pm
One change immediately catches my eye, i.e. Genesis 1:1
“In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth,” (Old NRSV, and NRSVCE)
“When God began to create the heavens and the earth, ” (NrsVUE, and JPS)
They changed Genesis to match the 1985 Jewish Publication Society. So its a Talmudic translation now, not a Christian translation.
Even in the Old NRSV, they had a MUSLIM translate Psalm 22 and mess it up on purpose. Instead of “They pierced my hands and my feet”
“My hands and feet have shriveled” (NRSV, Honey I Shrunk the Kids)
“they bound my hands and feet.” (I guess the Muslim on the NrsVUE committee thought Honey I Shrunk My Feet was too on the nose)
Comment by Len Ripley on October 2, 2023 at 11:37 am
I love the way The Jewish Publishing folks translate the Old Testament. When they are unsure of the ancient meaning of a text, they don’t speculate, redact, guess, or even change it! They simply footnote it with: “Meaning in Hebrew uncertain”. Good rule of thumb for those throwing out stuff like some of the comments on this article.
Comment by Dwight Osborne on November 21, 2023 at 10:23 am
The original RSV was bad enough in its translation of Isaiah 7:14. The NRSV did nothing to change it and committed even more egregious error in making a gender-neutral version. This is a HUGE problem in the Bible as it often changes the meaning of the text. A prime example is Psalm 1:1-3 which in the BSB reads, “1Blessed is the man
who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked,
or set foot on the path of sinners,
or sit in the seat of mockers.
2But his delight is in the Law of the LORD,
and on His law he meditates day and night.
3He is like a tree planted by streams of water,
yielding its fruit in season,
whose leaf does not wither,
and who prospers in all he does.” But in the heretical NRSV, we read these words, “Happy are those
who do not follow the advice of the wicked,
or take the path that sinners tread,
or sit in the seat of scoffers;
2 but their delight is in the law of the Lord,
and on his law they meditate day and night.
3 They are like trees
planted by streams of water,
which yield their fruit in its season,
and their leaves do not wither.
In all that they do, they prosper.” The passage originally is a reference to Christ but in those gender-neutral Bibles such as the 2011 NIV, NRSV, NLT and NRSVue the reference is no longer to Christ but to a group of people. The NRSV and its updated edition aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on and no Christian who desires to be faithful to God’s Word should utilize these so-called “Bibles”. I certainly wouldn’t give a wooden nickel for one.
Comment by Mike W on December 26, 2023 at 9:57 pm
Mr Osborne.
What is your favored translation?
RSV? NASB?
Comment by Dylan on January 17, 2024 at 5:54 pm
The NCC commissioned the translation (as they hold the copyright), but the work overwhelmingly was done by the Society of Biblical Literature. They included seven general editors and fifty-six book editors. All the NCC did was have 2 liaisons and have final approval. So their history or behavior is, at most, insignificant.
Comment by Sam on November 5, 2024 at 10:13 pm
2/3 of gay people (who decades of studies show are born that way- fearfully and lovingly created) will leave the faith because of this. Consider the words of Our Savior Christ. “Woe – they shut the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces; (2) Woe – they travel to make a single proselyte of hell just like themselves; (3) Woe – blind guides, swearing on the altar and on the temple is the same as swearing by God; (4) Woe – they tithe mint, dill, and cumin, but have neglected justice, mercy, and faithfulness,”
If you do not follow Christ you are not a Christian, methinks. Have grace for us ans we will have grace for you. I pray for you and love you, brother in Christ ❤️