Why is the NRSV Bible far less popular than the NIV Bible?
Profile photo for Kory Schneider
Kory Schneider
B.A. in Religious Studies & History of Christianity, University of Wisconsin - Madison (Graduated 2013)1y
The NRSV is popular with people who want to know what the people who wrote the Bible wrote, while the NIV is popular with people who are okay with a translation that is influenced by sectarian and political disagreements.
Related questions
Between the King James version, NKJV, NIV, NASB and NRSV, which translation of the Bible is the most accurate?
Which Bible version is better, the KJV or the NRSV?
Why do some people say the NIV is a horrible translation of the Bible?
What is the difference between NASB and NIV?
How popular is the NRSV of the Bible compared with the KJV? I am a Brit wishing to learn more having not attended church really since school.
Profile photo for Mark Thomase
Mark Thomase
Studied Theology at Fuller Theological SeminaryAuthor has 1.4K answers and 28.8M answer views9mo
There are many good comments here about the differences between the NIV and NRSV in terms of style and accuracy, and I agree with them. Both Bibles are good translations.
But only one person has mentioned another factor that has a great deal to do with popularity, and that’s marketing.
Today if you go into a mass retailer like Walmart, they sell Bibles. I’ve noticed that they’re all produced by one company: Zondervan/Thomas Nelson (the two imprints are both owned by Harper Collins since 2011, which is in turn owned by Rupert Murdoch, the media mogul behind Fox News.) Walmart sells Zondervan/Thomas Nelson editions of the KJV, the NIV, the New King James, and the New Living, and there’s not another English translation in sight.
Here’s why: Back in 1973, when the New York International Bible Society (now called “Biblica”) released the New Testament of the NIV, they sold the exclusive rights to publish it in the United States to Zondervan, an old established Bible printer that was trying to compete against Thomas Nelson, then the biggest name in the business. The NIV was a runaway success. At the time of its release there was nothing quite like it on the market: there were other translations, of course, including the Revised Standard and “Good News for Modern Man” but the RSV was starting to be regarded as somewhat dated, and the other modern translations had various other defects. Flatly put, they weren’t very good translations, at least not in comparison to the NIV.
Zondervan had a blockbuster product that sold and sold and sold. They started marketing the NIV with bindings and commentary targeting men, women, teenagers, soldiers, first responders, serious students of the Bible, people who read it devotionally, etc. etc. There was an NIV in every color to meet every perceived niche.
Naturally, Thomas Nelson, suddenly demoted to being the number-two Bible publisher, needed to compete. They hired a team of scholars to revise and update the King James Version and called it the New King James Version — emphasizing continuity with the KJV with the hope of attracting traditionalists who might be put off by the NIV’s modern language. They were successful; the NKJV quickly became the second best selling modern English translation, after the NIV.
If you had another translation that you hoped to bring to market, you were now going up against a Duopoly. Zondervan and Nelson dominated the market. Between them they published the three best-selling Bible versions in America (the KJV was still number one for many years) and had the clout to get exclusive marketing deals with retailers like Walmart.
Other, smaller publishers sell other versions of the Bible, but lack market clout, or even the capital to produce dozens of different editions targeted at every imaginable niche.
When the NRSV was issued as an update of the RSV, it was praised for its excellence as a translation. It was acclaimed by scholars, and the National Council of Churches (which owns the RSV and NRSV copyrights) licensed it to several publishers, including Thomas Nelson. While the NRSV had a built-in market for scholars and seminary students, Nelson had no incentive to market it much beyond those groups — after all, they paid royalties to the National Council of Churches for publishing the NRSV. They didn’t pay royalties on the KJV, which is in the public domain, or the NKJV, of which Nelson itself owns the copyright.
So Bible publishing, just like selling soda pop, was a lucrative business dominated by two large companies, which then turned even less competitive in 2011 when Zondervan and Nelson merged. They promote their products heavily, while producers of other products, including the NRSV, struggle to keep market share.
Yes, capitalism even affects what Bible you read!
2.9K viewsView upvotes
Sponsored by Froala
CMS-Ready WYSIWYG Editor.
Enjoy the freedom of creating great-looking content without the need to touch a single line of code.
Profile photo for Philip Jones
Philip Jones
Master of Divinity, 8 years a ministerAuthor has 2.6K answers and 1.6M answer views5y
You have one pretty good answer here and one very very bad answer. NIV and NRSV are both accurate translations of the original languages. I think are good stylistically. They both continue the tradition of English translation of the Bible begun by William Tyndall in the time of Henry VIII.
The NRSV is famous for “inclusive language” and has been unjustly accused of bowing to “political correctness.” Fact is the NRSV language is gender-neutral because the original is gender neutral. The Hebrew adam and the Greek anthropos both mean “human being not specifying gender.” Older translations rendered these words “man.” “Man” is not gender neutral. “Man” is not a good translation of the Hebrew and Greek.
Turning to the kerfuffle around Isaiah 7:14, “Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son…” is not what the Hebrew says. The Hebrew says “Look, a girl is already pregnant. She will bear a son and call his name Emmanuel .” If you read the 7th chapter of Isaiah without your blinkers on you will see clearly it is not a Messianic prophesy. Isaiah has a number of Messianic prophesies, but this ain’t one of them.
So how did this verse get to be “Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son…” in the first chapter of Matthew? Note the NRSV and the RSV translate Matthew to say virgin. Matthew took the text from the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures called Septuagint. LXX for short. LXX was made in the third century BC for Jews in Egypt who did not read or speak Hebrew. They used the language everyone else in the ancient Mediterranean used: Greek. There are many citations of the Hebrew Scriptures in the New Testament. Every one I have run across cites the LXX rather than making an original translation.
Why did Matthew use LXX Isaiah 7:14 and turn it into a Messianic prophesy? I will hazard a guess. Matthew knew the circumstances of Jesus birth. He knew Mary was a virgin when she conceived Jesus. Isaiah 7:14 seemed to explain the facts as he knew them so he cited it to “explain” the virgin birth. Matthew was not above making up a prophesy if he needed to. Matthew 2:23.
Whew! Long explanation of a pretty simple story. I don’t know if I answered the question. You are on firm ground whether you use NIV or NRSV.
29.9K viewsView upvotes
Profile photo for Martin Turner
Martin Turner
BA in English Literature and Language, University of Oxford (Graduated 1988)Author has 7.6K answers and 14.7M answer views2y
There were a number of attempts to provide a new Bible translation during the 20th century. Prior to the NIV, the most successful was probably the Good News Bible. However, it was written in deliberately simple English, and often translated out difficulties which preachers wanted to explain, and which home Bible study groups wanted to wrestle with.
When the NIV came out in 1978 (the New Testament had already appeared in 1973), it established itself quickly as a modern, accurate translation. By modern, I don’t just mean ‘in modern language’. It also was translated according to modern translation principles, balancing formal and dynamic equivalence, and it made good use of modern textual criticism. It was also eminently readable in public.
Not everyone liked the NIV, for a number of conflicting reasons.
Some people were opposed to using a text which also incorporated material from the Dead Sea Scrolls and developments in textual criticism. These people generally favoured modernising the King James Version, which led to a number of updates, including the RAV and NKJV.
Some people opposed it because they saw it as ‘too evangelical’, which is to say, part of the premise of the translation theory used for the NIV (incidentally the same theory used for most contemporary translation) was that where two passages could legitimately and equally be translated harmoniously or unharmoniously, the harmonious translation was preferred.
One response to this was the production of the NRSV, the New Revised Standard Version, based on the Revised Standard Version. This was a translation with a much more scholarly intention, and aimed for accuracy above all else.
The NIV is more popular than the NRSV for two reasons. The most important one is that it came first. The market for an up to date, reliable, readable translation was already saturated when the NRSV came along.
The second is that it doesn’t read well in English. The purpose of translation is to represent the ideas of the original language as closely as possible in such a way that the resulting text sounds like it was originally written in the target language. In concentrating so hard on accurately representing the ideas, the NRSV reads like poor English.
For example:
Psa. 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. (NIV)
Psa. 19:1 The heavens are telling the glory of God; and the firmament proclaims his handiwork. (NRSV)
Psa. 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. (KJV)
I think we can agree that there is no significant difference of meaning in these three translations.
Interestingly, the NIV and the KJV are the same for the first part of the verse, and the NRSV and the KJV are close for the second part.
The NIV reads like ordinary English.
The KJV, of course, is old fashioned. Nobody has said ‘sheweth’ for centuries, except when reading from the Bible or a prayer book. But look at the NRSV. “The heavens are telling the glory of God…” Telling it what? As given, there is something missing. In English, ‘telling’ can have two different constructions. You can ‘tell a story’ or ‘tell a joke’ or ‘tell a tale’, but for anything else, it is ‘tell your mom’ or ‘tell the doctor’. I’ve heard people read out this passage in the NRSV, and stumble. This is actually how I first came upon this particular example. It reads wrong because it is wrong.
Then, what about the second part of the verse. What is a ‘firmament’?
Here is the development of the words ‘sky’ and ‘firmament’ since the KJV was published:
Google Ngram Viewer
The Ngram Viewer looks at the usage of a word as a proportion of the corpus of English. In 1600, there are few books, so the graph jumps a lot. However, it’s clear that ‘sky’ and ‘firmament’ are pretty much neck and neck until about 1750. But, these days, ‘firmament’ is really only used in books referencing the KJV Bible. If you wanted someone to look up, you could say ‘look at the sky’. If you said ‘look at the firmament’, most people would not know what you were talking about.
And then there’s ‘handiwork’. There are still books referencing the KJV meaning, mainly quoting this passage. But the contemporary meaning is better expressed in this example offered by Google:
Senior citizen handiwork offered for sale at the Old Bakery includes oil paintings, quilts, afghans, handpainted china, decoupage, and macrame.
‘Handiwork’ today is succinctly defined as decoupage, macrame and other artefacts produced at home as a hobby.
So why not just say ‘works of his hands’?
I don’t want to suggest that the NRSV is a translation to be avoided. I use it quite often. But I would never choose to read aloud from it unless I thought there was a serious problem with the NIV translation. It just doesn’t read very well.
For those seeking exact translation, there’s a much better option now available which is the NET Bible. The NET’s own translation is unremarkable. In some places it is better avoided — such as the use of ‘John Doe’ to describe a missing person. But the NET comes with extensive footnotes on text and translation. Every possible alternative translation is discussed, so that the reader can make their own mind up, if they want. It’s really a Bible translator’s Bible, designed to assist those doing the first draft into a new language.
23.3K viewsView upvotes
Related questions
Which version of the Bible is best for academic study?
Which version of the Bible is closest to the original translations, yet still comprehensible?
What is wrong with the NRSV Bible?
Do Catholics follow the NIV or KJV Bible translation?
Is NRSV a Catholic Bible?
Profile photo for David Page (LaDeau)
David Page (LaDeau)
Atheist and Historian, autistic adhdAuthor has 1.3K answers and 317.1K answer views4y
Both should be considered “accurate” by modern standards.
Simply put the two bibles had very differing purposes when they were translated. The NRSV was ment to be more litteral of a translation so it is preferred for doing more intensive bible study and is often used by scholars. The NIV was ment to be accurate but much more understandable to the average reader. The NIV is not to be mistaken for paraphrased versions that are intended to be easy readers. The New Jerusalem bible is the best bible for lacking dogma. It uses very literal wording that sometimes conflict with modern Christian beliefs such as using the term “young woman” instead of “virgin".
6.4K viewsView upvotes
Sponsored by Mordryz
AU Bucks Won't Last Long After China Announcement.
News from China are spreading fast in Australia.
Profile photo for Stephen Frantz
Stephen Frantz
Love the Bible! Any translation will do.Author has 6.7K answers and 4.5M answer viewsUpdated 2y
I wonder about that. I have used both the NIV and the NRSV extensively. I also compare them with the Greek and Hebrew. In my humble opinion, the NRSV is more faithful to the original texts. That is also the opinion of most of the scholars at the world's preeminent educational institutions. That is why the NRSV is used almost exclusively in scholarly seminaries and universities. It is also used by the mainline denominations.
I think that is the main reason it isn’t used by many evangelicals. It is tainted by being used by these scholars and mainline denominations. These tend to be more liberal in their use and interpretation of the Bible and that makes them the enemy to most evangelicals. Therefore the Bible they use must be part of the problem.
The NIV is actually more of a paraphrase than the NRSV. The different ways that the NIV translates sarx (flesh) reveals their interpretation of the various passages. The NRSV leaves it alone for the reader to interpret.
Some of the specific criticisms of the NRSV are a smokescreen.
The NRSV translation of Isaiah 7:14 is more accurate than the NIV. The NIV makes the passage conform with Matthew 1:23 even though the Hebrew text doesn’t use those words.
The use of some gender inclusive language is more accurate because when the writers of the Biblical texts used masculine and male words they meant both genders in most situations. (Unless you think that the gospel should be preached to all men, but not to any women.)
21.7K viewsView upvotes
Profile photo for Steve Page
Steve Page
Student of the Bible -- semi-retired from QuoraAuthor has 9.5K answers and 874.8K answer views11mo
When I first started reading the Bible, I first used the KJV, which I couldn't understand, and then the NASB, which I couldn’t understand but it wasn’t “readable,” and finally the NIV, which was much more readable.
The NRSV came out later, and I used it for a while and enjoyed it. I used different translations to keep my Bible study fresh and to avoid forming doctrines based on the wording of a specific translation.
To answer your question, I think the NIV came out at the right time when churches were looking for something more modern and readable to standardize on.
Also, the NIV used thought-for-thought translation, which tends to sound much more natural than word-for-word translations, such as the NASB, NRSV, and ESV.
My current favorite is the CSB, a worthy successor to the NIV.
In 2005, I completed intermediate Greek and began reading the New Testament in Greek. I quickly noticed small issues in translation with all the versions, even the NASB. All of them smooth over certain difficult or idiomatic words or phrases.
I say this only to point out that this doesn’t matter except for individuals wanting to teach the Bible in-depth. Those individuals should learn the original languages and draw their conclusions from them, referencing the authoritative lexicons and grammars.
Without training, it is very easy to make mistakes. I see a lot of comments about Isaiah 7:14, criticizing the use of virgin. Technically, the Hebrew word could be translated maiden, keeping in mind that maiden means a virgin girl of marriageable age. The use of “young woman” is too broad, based on the entries in two lexicons that specifically address the issue.
The translation committees know what they are doing.
1.6K viewsView upvotesAnswer requested by
Nyaw Ray
Profile photo for Teresa McWilliams
Teresa McWilliams
Studied Theology at Bob Jones UniversityAuthor has 4.4K answers and 492.4K answer views3y
The NRSV had a noble intention but ultimately failed. The translators wanted to remove gender in pronouns, which is a better translation because the original language was gender-free. I wish they had invented a pronoun that meant a person regardless of gender, but I am sure the general public would have responded with ridicule. Instead they did what we do when we speak colloquially—they shifted to plural. The relationship between God and man (of course I mean woman too; you see the problem) is very individual. It’s God and me. God and us is different. Changing every singular pronoun to plural in the Bible literally has the effect of changing doctrine. Furthermore, in order to end up with something that sounded like a sentence, they sometimes had to paraphrase. A paraphrase is fine as long as you know it’s a paraphrase. But in general, we avoid reading the Bible in paraphrase for the following reason. There are some obscure verses that even the most avid Bible reader may read only once or twice in a lifetime. Yet based on the doctrine of the priesthood of the believer, every believer is responsible to interpret the meaning of the verse for himself (of course I mean herself too). Therefore, it’s important that we are reading an accurate translation.
6.1K viewsView upvotes
Profile photo for Steve Andrews
Steve Andrews
Survivor of God Delusion IndoctrinationAuthor has 832 answers and 2.4M answer views4y
It doesn’t matter—only the King James Version is the true word of God. All other translations are the work of the devil.
If the King James Version was good enough for Jesus, it’s good enough for me!
Obviously I’m being sarcastic. But when I was being raised a fundamentalist, I actually heard these two arguments on a number of occasions.
Profile photo for John Simpson
John Simpson
ChristianAuthor has 6.4K answers and 9.3M answer views5y
The deliberately non-Christian interpretation of the Old Testament which made the RSV unacceptable to many Christians is continued in this revision. The most notorious verse of the RSV, Isaiah 7:14, “a young woman shall conceive,” is revised only to put the verb in the present tense and add the definite article: “the young woman is with child.” In some places the NRSV is worse than the RSV in this respect. For example, in Genesis 1:2 the RSV’s “and the Spirit of God was moving” has been changed to “a wind from God swept.” In Psalm 23 the RSV’s traditional renderings “valley of the shadow of de
Profile photo for John Allister
John Allister
Vicar in the Church of England (2009–present)Author has 498 answers and 565.1K answer views3y
I’ll answer the slightly different question of why I encourage folks to use the NIV, rather than the NRSV (and yes, I used NRSV when doing my theology degree).
1) The NIV is easier to read for most normal people. It’s deliberately slightly more of a paraphrase than the NRSV specifically to make it easier to read.
2) Since the 2011 revision of the NIV, they’re both at about the same level with regards to inclusive language, so that is no longer an argument in favour of the NRSV.
3) The NIV is a Christian translation; the NRSV is an academic one. There are some places where a passage in the original could have several meanings. The NRSV explicitly tries to discount any theological arguments for what it might mean and just do the attempt at the best translation. The NIV lets the rest of Scripture inform the translation a bit more. That’s especially true with regard to the Old Testament - the NRSV was translated so that Jews who reject Jesus would still be happy using it as a faithful translation. I can see the value in both, but I’d rather use the NIV in a church context.
4) The copyright holders of the NRSV were more restrictive around giving rights to use it. It wasn’t on Bible Gateway for years, for example, and therefore lost a lot of ground to other translations whose copyright holders were less restrictive.
5) I grew up in churches which used the NIV as a good modern updating of the RSV. The new NIV is therefore more familiar to me than the NRSV.
6) There are places where the NRSV takes a definite theological stance in translation, and it’s usually not an evangelical one. For example, the use of “expiation” in Romans 3:22, when the semantic range of the word hilasterion is clearly wider. NIV has “sacrifice of atonement”; ESV (which is comparable to NRSV but more evangelical) has “propitiation”.
51.1K viewsView upvotesView 1 share
Profile photo for Daniel Roddy
Daniel Roddy
Studied at New Tribes Bible Institute (Graduated 1990)4y
Both of those Bibles are based upon the “Critical Text” which are manuscripts which contain some alterations from the original manuscripts. The original manuscripts are best reflected in the Masoretic text (for the Old Testament) and in the Received Text (also called the Majority Text) for the New Testament. These better manuscripts were the primary source for the King James Bible translated in 1611 and converted into modern English in 1769. Thus the King James Bible is superior to all other English bibles even if it is not the most popular due to Bible companies wishing to promote the Bibles which they can copyright and profit from. I read many years ago in a NIV bible that it was an interdenominational effort to come up with a Bible that all of the denominations involved could agree upon. That goal and its means makes for popularity, but does not make for good and accurate scholarship.
The King James translators had much higher standards of both Manuscripts and the method to translate them. See for yourself what they had to say in their full preface to the King James Bible entitled “From the Translator to the Reader”… http://www.av-1611.com/KJBIBLE.pdf
8.8K viewsView upvotes
Profile photo for Glenn Brotherton
Glenn Brotherton
Former ly > have had 300+ Odd Jobs in 10 CountriesAuthor has 1.9K answers and 488.7K answer viewsUpdated 6mo
Refs:
NRSV = New Revised Standard Version, distributed among many Catholics.
NIV = New International Version (with its revisions called NIrV = New International reader's Version, and later re-edited as TNIV = Today's New International Version) …distributed mostly among Protestant faiths.
Perhaps the simplicity of the title name with the words “New" and “International” plus the fact that the NIV is translated in more languages, it's fancy colored covers are targeting audiences of particular markets (rich red color for “the Women's Devotional Bible;” or young people doing various sports on the cover with the title ‘Youth's Action Bible’…plus the pricing, …probably make the NIV more popular for statistics of sales.
However, both the NRSV and the various editions of the NIV do not contain God's Name in the 6,000+ verses where it should be. So, you could study both these Bibles all the way thru …and you still would not know how to ‘hallow the Father's Name’ or how to correctly baptize someone “in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy spirit.” (Matthew 28:19-20; compare John 17:1-6 and vss 25-26.) Most people don't know God's name or how to spell it or how to pronounce it.
Therefore, this proves what Jesus warned about, …that false teachers and false prophets would infiltrate the congregations and mislead people with a polluted blend of half-truths, misinterpretations and manmade traditions. Matthew 7:13-23 and 15:3. Contrast with John 17:3–6 and vss 25–26.
So, here is a question for you : What religious group today is fulfilling the prophecy of Isaiah 12:2-5? KJV (This same prophecy appears in the Book of Mormon at 2 Nephi chapter 22, but they [ LDS ] are not the one group fulfilling the prophecy) …so which worldwide organization is doing it.!.??
2.5K viewsView upvotes
