The Revised Standard Version (1946-1977)

New Testament, 1946. Luther Weigle, et al., The New Covenant, Commonly Called the New Testament of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, Revised Standard Version, Translated from the Greek, Being the Version Set Forth A.D. 1611, Revised A.D. 1881 and A.D. 1901, Compared with the Most Ancient Authorities and Revised A.D. 1946. New York: Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1946. Revised 1952, 1959, 1971. Roman Catholic edition, 1965.

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. The Greek text usually followed was the 17th edition (1941) of the Nestle text (see Nestle 1927). The American Standard Version excelled in literal accuracy, but the RSV tended to be more free in its renderings. As F.F. Bruce puts it, the RSV translators "blurred some of the finer distinctions in New Testament wording which ... have some significance for those who are concerned with the more accurate interpretation of the text." ⁽¹⁾

As an example of what Bruce is talking about, we will compare the ASV with the RSV in places where the Greek word ὁμοθυμαδον occurs. This word is a compound of ὁμο "the same" and θυμος "emotion" with the adverbial termination αδον, and it means properly "with the same emotion" or more generally "with the same mind."

It will be seen here that the ASV consistently translates ὁμοθυμαδον "with one accord," while the RSV translates it in four different ways, using "with one accord" twice, "together" six times, and "in a body," "in assembly," and "united" one time each. The renderings "together" and "in assembly" are rather weak, and do not convey the full meaning of the word. ⁽²⁾ "Together" seems to have been used for stylistic reasons, in places where the literal rendering "with one accord" might seem somewhat redundant or superfluous while complicating the sentence.

Another prominent British scholar, Nigel Turner, agreed that the RSV "glosses over important words," and complained of its sometimes misleading renderings of the Greek word σαρξ (lit. "flesh"):

Plato, Seneca, and Plutarch, followed to some extent by Gnostics and Manichaeans, had insisted that true happiness is achieved only by leaving the body, which is mean and wretched. The principle of evil for St. Paul, on the other hand, is not identified with the body, for the life of faith and victory may still be lived this side of the grave (Gal. 2:20). The principle, for Paul, is not the body but the sarx. To translate sarx by the word 'body', as RSV does (e.g. 2 Cor. 7:1, 5), is quite unhelpful and is one of several instances where AV is closer to St. Paul's meaning and where RSV glosses over important words. Being 'in the flesh', moreover, is not the same as being 'in the world' (RSV 2 Cor. 10:3, etc.), and the student of St. Paul will not necessarily find AV to be out of date, for all its seniority. ⁽³⁾

Nevertheless, the RSV New Testament was well received by American churches, including the evangelical ones, when it first appeared. But the Old Testament (1952) provoked a storm of controversy, and killed the version's chances of becoming a generally accepted standard Bible in America.

The New Testament Committee (prior to 1952)

• Luther A. Weigle, Yale University, Chairman.
• James Moffatt, Union Theological Seminary, Executive Secretary. (died 1944)
• Henry J. Cadbury, Harvard University.
• Edgar J. Goodspeed, University of Chicago.
• Walter Russell Bowie, Union Theological Seminary.
• Frederick C. Grant, Union Theological Seminary.
• Millar Burrows, Yale University. (joined 1938)
• Clarence T. Craig, Oberlin Graduate School of Theology.
• Abdel R. Wentz, Lutheran Theological Seminary, Gettysburg.

Bible, 1952. The Holy Bible, Revised Standard Version. Containing the Old and New Testaments, translated from the original tongues; being the version set forth A.D. 1611, revised A.D. 1881-1885 and A.D. 1901; compared with the most ancient authorities and revised A.D. 1952. New York: Thomas Nelson, 1952. 2nd edition, 1971.

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." ⁽⁴⁾

The verse most often mentioned by conservatives was Isaiah 7:14, in which the RSV translators rendered the Hebrew word almah as "young woman" instead of "virgin." While this was not a case of a clear violation of the Hebrew (the word must be interpreted according to its context), it was by no means necessary. ⁽⁵⁾ And there were many other instances of the same problem, which revealed a pattern of systematic contradiction of the New Testament interpretations of Old Testament passages. For example, in Genesis 22:18 the RSV renders an ambiguous sentence as "by your descendents shall all the nations of the earth bless themselves" contrary to the interpretation given by the Apostle Paul in Galatians 3:8 and 3:16.

The contradictions foisted into the Bible by the RSV translators included also some renderings which created blatant contradictions within individual books. For example, in Genesis 9:20, where the ASV had read, "And Noah began to be a husbandman" (i.e. a farmer) the RSV reads "Noah was the first tiller of the soil," thus generating a contradiction with the statements in Genesis 3:22 ("the LORD God sent him forth from the Garden of Eden to till the ground") and 4:2 ("Cain was a tiller of the ground"). It was the belief of the RSV translators that the Book of Genesis is composed of traditional stories that frequently contradict each other, cobbled together by editors who neglected to harmonize them in many places.

The objections of conservatives to the RSV were not merely captious criticisms concerning the meaning of a word here and there; the controversy was about whether or not a version of the Old Testament which ignores and contradicts the New Testament, as well as itself, in so many places, has any right to be received as the standard Bible of American churches.

The members of the RSV OT committee were not entirely insensitive to traditional expectations. In a few cases they retained familiar language of the ASV and KJV because of its liturgical or devotional importance among English-speaking Christians, despite their opinion that the traditional renderings were inaccurate in some respect. An example of this is in the twenty-third Psalm ("The Lord is my shepherd ..."), a Psalm which is often memorized and used in ministry. In verse 4 of this Psalm the phrase "shadow of death" is retained as a rendering of the Hebrew word צלמות (vocalized tsalmaveth in the Masoretic text), although in every other occurrence of the word the RSV has changed the ASV's "shadow of death" to "gloom," which involves a different vocalization of the word (tsalmuth). It was the committee's opinion that this word does not really mean "shadow of death," but they retained the traditional phrase in this Psalm because it is so familiar. ⁽⁶⁾ They had regard for the fact that the traditional rendering of this Psalm has comforted multitudes of Christians in the hour of death. But it now seems that the condescension of the RSV translators was needless, because more recent scholarship has tended to support the traditional understanding of the word as a compound of צל "shadow" and מות "death." ⁽⁷⁾ This seems to be an example of the "scholarly herd" phenomenon that has become all-too-common in academic biblical studies—a new idea about the meaning of some word is presented as an advance beyond the knowledge of all previous generations, it gains almost universal acceptance in a few years, makes its way into a new Bible version, and is then rejected by scholars of the next generation. Scholarly claims concerning "the best results of modern scholarship as to the meaning of the Scriptures" (RSV preface) are too often of this nature, being ill-supported and ephemeral. Conservative skepticism about such claims is often justifiable and even salutary. We may thank God that the RSV translators made an exception in this important passage, but it is not a good reflection on liberal "mainline" scholarship that a correct translation was retained here only by an overriding pastoral concern.

On the other hand, we may say that the RSV committee went too far in accommodating tradition when, for their second edition, they decided to re-insert the Story of the Adulteress in the eighth chapter of John's Gospel. In the 1946 RSV New Testament and in the first edition of the complete Bible, the committee omitted this apocryphal story (relegating it to the margin), in accordance with the longstanding and unanimous judgment of textual scholars. It took some courage for them to do this, because the story is quite popular in the churches—especially among those who find it convenient as a supporting text for antinomian teachings. There must have been many complaints about this, and the restoration of the passage in the RSV's second edition was not surprising. The claim made in the preface to the second edition, that it "profits from textual and linguistic studies published since the Revised Standard Version New Testament was first issued in 1946," seems rather hollow in view of this. If there was anything in the first edition of the RSV that can be called a substantial improvement over past English versions in the presentation of textual scholarship, it was the omission of this passage.

The second edition rightly restores the sentences in Luke 22:19b-20, which were omitted for insufficient reasons in the first edition. The omission depended upon a theory of "Western non-interpolations" developed by F.J.A. Hort at the end of the nineteenth century, in which verses that have solid attestation in ancient manuscripts are nevertheless omitted because they are absent from a handful of manuscripts which do not ordinarily omit things. This theory of "Western non-interpolations" was the most questionable part of Hort's contribution to textual studies, and it was generally abandoned by scholars during the 1970's. The restoration of Luke 22:19b-20 in the RSV second edition was an early sign of movement away from Hort's theory, but the second edition continued to omit a number of Hort's "non-interpolation" sentences and phrases (in Luke 24:3, 6, 12, 36, 40, 51, and 52). By 1989 this theory of the text was so much out of favor that Kurt Aland declared that it "can only be regarded today as a relic of the past." ⁽⁸⁾

The rejection of the RSV by evangelicals had serious consequences for the future of the version. At the time that it was replaced by the New Revised Standard Version in 1990, the RSV was one of the least popular versions in America, having only about 5 percent of the market share in Bibles.

The Old Testament Committee (prior to 1952)

• Luther A. Weigle, Yale University, Chairman.
• Fleming James, University of the South, Executive Secretary.
• Julius A. Bewer, Union Theological Seminary.
• James Moffatt, Union Theological Seminary. (died 1944)
• William R. Taylor, University of Toronto.
• George Dahl, Yale University.
• Willard L. Sperry, Harvard University.
• Leroy Waterman, University of Michigan.
• Millar Burrows, Yale University. (joined 1938)
• Kyle M. Yates, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.
• William F. Albright, Johns Hopkins University.
• J. Philip Hyatt, Vanderbilt University.
• Herbert G. May, Oberlin Graduate School of Theology.
• Harry M. Orlinsky, Jewish Institute of Religion.

Apocrypha, 1957. The Apocrypha, Revised Standard Version of the Old Testament. Translated from the Greek and Latin tongues, being the version set forth A. D. 1611, rev. A. D. 1894, compared with the most ancient authorities and rev. A. D. 1957. New York: Nelson, 1957.

Prepared by Floyd V. Filson, Bruce M. Metzger, Robert H. Pfeiffer, and Allen P. Wikgren, together with members of the New Testament committee.

Roman Catholic Edition, 1966. 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.

Although the RSV translators in their revisions of 1952, 1959 and 1971 turned a deaf ear to the criticisms offered by conservative Protestants, they did cooperate with Roman Catholics in the production of this edition. The extra books included in the "deuterocanon" of the Roman Catholic Church were inserted among the books of the Old Testament, in accordance with traditional Catholic practice. A number of minor alterations were made in the New Testament in accordance with the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church (e.g., "full of grace" substituted for "favored one" in Luke 1:28). For this the chief editor of the RSV, Luther Weigle, was rewarded by Pope Paul VI, who conferred upon Weigle the "Papal Knighthood of St. Gregory the Great" in 1966. ⁽⁹⁾ In 1969 six Roman Catholic scholars joined the RSV Committee. The RSV Catholic edition received the imprimatur (i.e. it was officially declared to be acceptable for use by Catholics) and it went on to become a Bible of choice among many conservative Catholics who did not care for the "inclusive language" of later versions sponsored by the Roman Catholic hierarchy (i.e. the New American Bible and the New Jerusalem Bible).

Ecumenical Edition ("Common Bible"), 1973. The Holy Bible, Revised Standard Version. Containing the Old and New Testaments with the Apocrypha/Deuteroncanonical books: An Ecumenical Edition. Cover title: Common Bible. (New York and London: Collins, 1973).

This volume was designed as an edition of the RSV which would include the Apocryphal books in an arrangement that would be acceptable to Protestants and Catholics alike. A compromise was worked out, providing for the publication of a Bible that would contain four sections, in this order: the Old Testament, the "deuterocanonical" books of the Catholic Church, the three books of the Protestant Apocrypha that are not included in the Roman Catholic canon, and the New Testament. The edition was presented to and approved by Pope Paul VI. Metzger reports that "In a private audience granted to a small group, comprising the Greek Orthodox Archbishop Athenagoras, Lady Priscilla and Sir William Collins, Herbert G. May, and the present writer, Pope Paul accepted the RSV 'Common' Bible as a significant step in furthering ecumenical relations among the churches." ⁽¹⁰⁾

Ecumenical Study Bible, 1977. Herbert G. May and Bruce M. Metzger, eds., The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha: Revised standard version, containing the second edition of the New Testament and an expanded edition of the Apocrypha. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1977).

This edition of the RSV, was the first to include a translation of the three additional books which are received as Scripture only in the Eastern Orthodox churches: 3 and 4 Maccabees and Psalm 151. The translation was done by five members of the RSV committee. Bruce Metzger reports that "At the close of 1976, the writer presented to His All Holiness Demetrios I, the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople and titular head of the several Orthodox Churches, a pre-publication copy of The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha, expanded edition. In accepting the gift, the Ecumenical Patriarch expressed satisfaction at the availability of an edition of the Sacred Scriptures which English readers in all branches of the Christian church could use." ⁽¹¹⁾

Notes

1. The English Bible: A History of Translations (New York: Oxford University Press, 1961), p. 193. Bruce does not provide details.

2. See the article ὁμοθυμαδον by Heidland in TDNT vol. 5, pp. 185-6. The BAGD lexicon (1979, p. 566) agrees, but concedes that "the weakened meaning together is at least possible" in some places, citing Edwin Hatch, Essays in Biblical Greek (Oxford, 1889), pp. 63-4; Henry J. Cadbury, "Lexical Notes on Luke-Acts. 1," Journal of Biblical Literature 44 (1925), p. 216; and the RSV. But the arguments given by Hatch and Cadbury are insufficient, as demonstrated by Steve Walton, "ὁμοθυμαδον in Acts: Co-location, Common Action or 'of One Heart and Mind'?," in The New Testament in its First Century Setting: Essays on Context and Background in Honour of B.W. Winter on his 65th Birthday, edited by P. J. Williams (Eerdmans, 2004), pp. 89-105. Moreover, the fact that the RSV translators also used "with one accord," "in a body," and "united" as renderings shows that they recognized the fuller sense.

3. Nigel Turner, Christian Words (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1982), p. 178. In a note here, Turner refers to a fuller discussion of the problem by P. Parker in the Anglican Theological Review (Evanston) 46 (1964), pp. 251-60. We should mention that in many places the RSV does render sarx accurately as "flesh," but in many places (esp. in Paul's epistles to the Corinthians) it does not.

4. Inspiration and Canonicity of the Bible: An Historical and Exegetical Study. Contemporary Evangelical Perspectives. 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1969), p. 58.

5. Allan A. MacRae, writing in the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament edited by Harris, Archer and Waltke (Chicago: Moody Press, 1980) explains that while almah may not be a technical word for a "virgin," it does mean "a young woman, one of whose characteristics is virginity. This is borne out by the fact that the LXX translates it as parthenos in two of its seven occurrances, and that its use in Isaiah 7:14 was quoted to Joseph by the angel as a prediction of the virgin birth. Some translators interpret Mat. 1:22-23 as being simply a comment by Matthew, but it is more reasonable to consider that the argument that convinced Joseph was the fact, pointed out to him by the angel, that such an event had already been predicted by Isaiah. There is no instance where it can be proved that almah designates a young woman who is not a virgin." (vol. 2, p. 672).

6. See J.A. Wharton, "Shadow," in The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, vol. 4 (New York: Abingdon Press, 1962), p. 302. Wharton explains the thinking of the RSV translators: "The familiar KJV phrase 'shadow of death' is based upon a popular etymology of צלמות [in which the word is understood to be a combination of] צל, 'shadow,' plus מות, 'death' ... whereas the word is now seen as a form derived from צלם (unused in Hebrew; Akkadian tsalamu, 'grow black') and should be translated with the RSV: 'gloom,' 'deep darkness' (the RSV retains 'shadow of death' in Ps. 23:4 for the sake of the traditional phrase, which is not seriously msleading in this verse). The error probably goes back to a very ancient homiletical interpretation of the word, which is accepted by the Greek translations (σκια θανατου, 'shadow of death') and appears in free adaptations of Isaiah 9:2—Hebrews 9:1 in the New Testament (Matthew 4:16; Luke 1:79)." But subsequent scholarship has tended to support the traditional etymology.

7. See Walter L. Michel, "SLMWT, 'Deep Darkness' or 'Shadow of Death'?" Biblical Research (Papers of the Chicago Society of Biblical Research) 29 (1984), pp. 5-20; David Winton Thomas, "salmawet in the Old Testament," Journal of Semitic Studies 7 (1962), pp. 191-200; and Mitchell Dahood, Psalms I, Anchor Bible, p. 147. Thomas and Dahood maintain that in this compound of צל and מות, the מות "death" should not be understood literally but only as a way of adding a superlative force to צל, and so the RSV translation "gloom" is still seen as an adequate equivalent. However, it should be noted that their philological analysis rejects the speculative etymology accepted by the RSV translators, supports the traditional etymology and vocalization, and thus makes "shadow of death" once again a respectable literal rendering. And it is not likely that מות in this rare poetic word has lost all of its proper meaning and gives only a "superlative force" to צל.

8. Kurt Aland, The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism, translated by Erroll F. Rhodes, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), p. 236.

9. See Thuesen, In Discordance with the Scriptures, p. 142.

10. Bruce Metzger, "The RSV-Ecumenical Edition," Theology Today 34/3 (October 1977).

11. Bruce Metzger, "The RSV-Ecumenical Edition," Theology Today 34/3 (October 1977).

Literature

• RSV Preface (1971).
• Oswald T. Allis, Revision or New Translation? The Revised Standard Version of 1946: A Comparative Study. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1948.
• Oswald T. Allis, Revised Version or Revised Bible? A Critique of the Revised Standard Version of the Old Testament. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1953.
• Kurt Aland, Matthew Black, Carlo Martini, Bruce Metzger, Allen Wikren, Greek-English New Testament. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelstiftung, 1986. The apparatus for the English text gives nearly all differences of the Revised Standard Version from both the King James Version and the Revised Version of 1881.
• Millar Burrows, Diligently Compared, the Revised Standard Version and the King James Version of the Old Testament. New York: Thomas Nelson, 1964.
• Joseph H. Cohn, The Revised Standard Version: A Sad Travesty. New York: American Board of Missions to the Jews, 1952.
• Edgar J. Goodspeed, As I Remember. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1953.
• Neil Lightfoot, "Textual Base of the RSV New Testament" in Restoration Quarterly 5 (1961) pages 62-66. An examination of the underlying text where it differs from Nestle.
• Allan A. MacRae, "Why I cannot Accept the Revised Standard Version" (New York: American Council of Christian Churches, no date). Discusses a number of OT passages.
• Clinton Morrison, ed., "Appendix II" of An Analytical Concordance to the Revised Standard Version of the New Testament. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1979. Lists all changes in printings from 1946 to 1971.
• The Papers of the Revised Standard Version Committee reside in the Princeton Theological Seminary Library, Department of Archives and Special Collections. Microfilm reels of most of the collection are also available at the Princeton Seminary Library, the Oberlin College Archives (Oberlin, Ohio) and at the Library of Congress. The RSV committee's drafts of biblical books are in the collection of the Papers of the Standard Bible Committee at the Yale Divinity School Library. The Papers of Luther Allan Weigle are in the Sterling Memorial Library at Yale University.
• Peter J. Thuesen, In Discordance with the Scriptures: American Protestant Battles over Translating the Bible. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. Gives much information on the history of the RSV and its reception.
• C. P. Lincoln, Merrill F. Unger, S. Lewis Johnson, and J. Ellwood Evans, "A Critique of the Revised Standard Version," Bibliotheca Sacra 110 (January 1953), pp. 50-66. An important review by the faculty of Dallas Theological Seminary that articulated and solidified conservative opposition to the RSV.
• Luther A. Weigle et al., An Introduction to the Revised Standard Version of the New Testament, by members of the Revision Committee. New York: International Council of Religious Education, 1946. A general explanation and defense of the version.
• Luther A. Weigle et al., An Introduction to the Revised Standard Version of the Old Testament. New York: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1952.
• Luther A. Weigle, "The Making of the Revised Standard Version of the New Testament," Religion in Life 15 (1946): 163-173.
• Richard D. Weigle, ed., The Glory Days: From the Life of Luther Allan Weigle. New York: Friendship Press, 1976.
• Allen Paul Wikren, "A Critique of the Revised Standard Version of the New Testament" in The Study of the Bible Today and Tomorrow, edited by Harold R. Willoughby. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1947. An examination of the underlying text.