I have spent a little bit of time in the New American Standard Version 2020 (NASB2020). The update from the NASB1995 is moderate. The update is definitely more colorful to read and much less "wooden" than NASB1995. I want to focus on the Big Story improvements in the NASB2020.
The NASB2020 reportedly introduced gender inclusive language in passages where gender inclusiveness is implied even though the classical language (Hebrew/Greek) is overtly masculine.
For example, In 1 Corinthians 1:10, NASB1995 reads
Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment.
The NASB2020 presents the same verse as
Now I urge you, brothers and sisters, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment.
Notice that NASB1995's "exhort" has been replaced with the word "urge." Replacing "exhort" is probably an improvement because it is a little easier to understand. Notice also the addition of "and sisters" (italics original, showing that it is not in the original language) in the NASB2020 reading. It is obvious that the verse applies equally to men and women; but the original language applies it to men. Bravo, NASB2020. Unfortunately, the update is not consistent in its view of what is obviously gender inclusive. Consider 2 Peter 1:21. The update reads exactly the same as the previous NASB.
NASB1995 and NASB2020
for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
For comparison, consider how the NRSV (that does an excellent job with the gendered translation).
because no prophecy ever came by human will, but men and women moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. (bold text mine)
So, why did the NASB2020 revisers decided against "men and women" in this verse? Is it because women were never prophets? Perhaps the assumption of the revisers is that the passage is talking only about writers of the Old Testament. That assumption is not necessarily correct; but if your study source is only NASB, you may miss the possibility of the alternative interpretation.
I will go through the verses in the update that I think are remarkable. I will discuss the gendered pronouns first and then I will have some things to say about accuracy.
Gendered Language
Romans 16:1
NASB1995
I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea
NASB2020
I recommend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea
These two readings are pretty close. NASB1995's "commend" is replaced with "recommend." I think that revision choice obscures the meaning of the verse. Paul is not telling the church in Rome that this lady Phoebe is a really good Christian and, since she is moving to Rome, the church should welcome her as a fine, upstanding person. No. Phoebe had traveled to Rome for some reason of her own and she was the carrier of the letter. She was going to read the letter to the church or, if someone else read it, she was available to answer clarifying questions about what the letter said. Since she is a fine, upstanding Christian; and because she personally knows Paul and his preaching, she is quite capable of answering whatever questions the believers in Rome might have. "Recommend" suggests that Phoebe is moving to Rome. "Commend" is Paul's way of emphasizing her credentials as a learned disciple. She was not moving permanently to Rome. More likely, she was visiting Rome on business. She carried Paul's letter to the Roman church as a favor to Paul.
"Recommend" damages the reader's understanding of Paul's meaning. Why would the revisers make this change? Maybe because "recommend" is easier to understand than "commend." Unfortunately, the two words have sufficiently different meanings in the context as to obscure the meaning.
Both translations use the word "servant" in describing Phoebe's relationship to the church in Cenchrea. The Greek word, "diakonon," is the same (except for case) as "diakonos" in 1 Timothy 3:8. They are both gendered masculine. When it is applied to a woman, it, with near certainty, applies to an official capacity rather than a role. Grant Osborne (IVP Commentary) has this to say about the word as it appears in Romans 16:1.
Moreover, this is the masculine noun (diakonos), and if it did indicate a general “serving,” one would have expected the feminine diakonia.
So, translating the word as "servant" further obscures the capacity of Phoebe in Rome.
Another bizarre revision in NASB2020 appears in Romans 16:7 regarding the apostle Junia.
NASB1995
Greet Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners, who are outstanding among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.
NASB2020
Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsfolk and my fellow prisoners, who are outstanding in the view of the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.
This verse definitely needed attention in the update. Junia was definitely a woman. There are some Greek manuscripts who changed her sex to a man (Junias); but it is clear why there is a difference among the parchments about Junia's sex/gender. It would make little sense for a scribe to accidentally change Junias (a man) to Junia (a woman). One possible way the name may have accidentally been changed to a feminine version of the name is because nobody in that day named their sons "Junias" but "Junia" was a very popular name for girls. The more likely explanation is that "Junia" was changed to "Junias" because the scribe could not imagine a woman being an apostle!
NASB2020 correctly replaced NASB1995's "Junias" with "Junia;" but the revisers had the unknown scribe's problem of a female apostle. Thus, the revisers further "improved" the verse by taking away Junia's apostleship and instead reported that she is "outstanding in the view of the apostles." Indeed, the apostles in Jerusalem knew about Junia and respected her. Yeah. No. Junia was an apostle (an itinerant preacher) and she even spent time in prison for her preaching behavior. Both versions of NASB obscure this fact.
NASB2020 does not correct a gross flaw in NASB1995's version of 1 Timothy 3:1.
NASB1995 = NASB2020 (the same except for the italics)
It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do.
The word "man" does not belong in this verse. It should read as "someone" or "anyone." The word "he" also does not belong in this verse. There are no masculine pronouns in 1 Timothy 3:1-13. I realize that some may read the qualifications of the overseers and conclude that the candidates must be men ("husband of one wife"); but it should be up to the reader to draw this conclusion rather than for the translator to read that conclusion into the text and make their conclusion clear in the first verse. It is shameful, in my judgment, for a translation to lock a reader into a particular interpretation when the original text permits several interpretations.
A similar screw-up happens in 1 Timothy 3:8.
NASB1995
Deacons likewise must be men of dignity, not double-tongued, or addicted to much wine or fond of sordid gain
NASB2020
Deacons likewise must be men of dignity, not insincere, not prone to drink much wine, not greedy for money
NASB2020 clearly improves upon NASB1995; but the word "man" does not belong in this verse! It is an example of bad translating.
The update did improve upon 2 Timothy 2:2 with respect to gender inclusiveness.
NASB1995
The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.
NASB2020
The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful people who will be able to teach others also.
NASB2020 wisely replaced "faithful men" with "faithful people." This improvement was probably safe since everyone today is in full support of teaching women as well as men about the Bible.
General Accuracy
Both versions of the NASB are highly accurate but neither is entirely trustworthy as a sole source for Bible study. In the Hebrew Scriptures, for example, the update did not take into account recent research (the past half-century or so) in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Some of examples of refrence to the Qumran parchments would definitely improve NASB2020's translation of (for example) 1 Samuel 10:27-11:1; 14:41 and Isaiah 40:6.
There are some other mistakes upon which I have stumbled, and there are certainly more than these two, I will mention in brief.
Romans 4:25, both versions
He who was delivered over because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification.
To be blunt, this translation is incomprehensible. What does it mean? Why not just say "for" instead of "because of?" In rational thought, we may possibly translate the first "eis" as "because of" and the second as "for." Christian Standard Bible in its footnotes translates the verse that way. Common English Bible is pretty good here, but it is far from word-for-word in its translation.
He was handed over because of our mistakes, and he was raised to meet the requirements of righteousness for us.
New Century Version:
Jesus was given to die for our sins, and he was raised from the dead to make us right with God.
NET Bible:
He was given over because of our transgressions and was raised for the sake of our justification.
There are other pretty good translations of that verse, including any that just translate "for" in both cases of the Greek word "eis."
First Peter 4:6 could be improved in both editions.
For the gospel has for this purpose been preached even to those who are dead, that though they are judged in the flesh as men, they may live in the spirit according to the will of God.
This verse is confusing even in Greek. It literally says that the gospel was preached "to the dead." Some translations try clear up this verse by helpfully supplying language that implies the people heard the gospel when they were alive but they are now physically dead (NIV). "Those who are dead" may be people who died after hearing the gospel. It may also mean they were spiritually dead and were not able to respond to the gospel (a popular Calvinist view: "Dead means dead"). Any translation that translates the Greek noun (the dead) to a verb (are dead) cannot be justified by the Greek. Reconstructing the church context of the saying in the verse would be helpful; but so far it seems to be unrecoverable. NRSV in this verse is more literal in this verse; but we are still not helped much by it. I just think a word-for-word translation like NASB should translate this verse word-for-word.
NASB2020 will be one of my study resources. It has not lost its reputation as an accurate translation; but it is not suitable as a sole resource for Bible study.
No comments:
Post a Comment