Title: NRSV, The C. S. Lewis Bible: For Reading, Reflection, and Inspiration
Genre: Study Bible (English Bible translation + Commentary)
Pages: 1312
Rating: 3.5 of 5

I love C. S. Lewis, so I was pretty excited when I discovered that there was a C. S. Lewis study Bible. Then, I was a bit disappointed to find that it only came in the NRSV translation. I am all for accurate modern-language translations of the Bible (See: this review), but in my circles the New Revised Standard Version has a reputation for being a translation that is untrustworthy, biased, and corrupted by the liberal theology of its translators. Nevertheless, I know that cries of “it’s a corrupt translation!” are usually nitpicking and overblown so I decided to read and evaluate it for myself, both in terms of the NRSV translation and the C. S. Lewis excerpts used as commentary.

The Translation:
Admittedly, I went into this biased by what I had heard in the past, but I don’t think the concerns are completely unfounded (though they are a bit overblown). The translators offer a huge number of notations that provide alternate readings or say, “exact meaning is uncertain.” By itself that isn’t necessarily a bad thing – there are minor differences between ancient manuscripts (see this post) and any attempt at translation reveals the ambiguity in language.

However, the ways that many these alternate readings and ambiguities of language are handled by the NRSV seem questionable. For example:

  • Some supposed ambiguities are left nearly nonsensical rather than making a good-faith effort to provide a meaningful translation.
  • Some alternate readings are completely conjectural, amending the underlying text without any ancient manuscript evidence
  • Unlikely alternate readings are often given as much weight as well-attested ones
  • More subjectively, there does appear to be some theological bias in deciding which variant to put in the main text and which to put in the footnote (especially in sections relating to prophecy and the Holy Spirit).

Overall, I wouldn’t call this an unusably corrupt translation, but it certainly wouldn’t be in my top 5 recommended English Bible translations. Other modern English translations (e.g. ESV & NIV) are more helpful in their handling of ambiguous phrases and less likely to include alternate readings that are clearly secondary or conjectural in nature.

C. S. Lewis Notes:
For me, the editorial choices regarding C. S. Lewis excerpts were a mixed bag. Most of them were insightful and moving (because Lewis is amazing), but some of them (especially in the Old Testament) seemed barely related to the passage in which the footnote occurred.

Additionally, there seemed to be an inordinate number of quotes from Reflections on the Psalms in which Lewis questions the historicity and/or goodness of certain parts of the Bible. Lewis was definitely influenced by the “higher criticism” of liberal theology, and even though he rarely mentions it in his writings, the editors seem intent on highlighting this (including in a concluding essay). That said, they do include Lewis’s insights on the veracity of Jesus’ virgin birth, miracles, and bodily resurrection, all of which are frequently denied in liberal theology.

Overall Impression:
Fusing the NRSV translation with a selection of explanatory/inspirational C. S. Lewis quotes isn’t the worst thing ever, but I think you would be a lot better off just reading Lewis on his own and reading a different modern-English translation.

2 thoughts on “A Corrupt Translation?

  1. Burn the heretics! With their own translations!!!!!

    😀

    I have enough issues with Lewis that I’d be hesitant about reading his words on the bible out of context. And throw in liberal theology making the call and I’ll have to pass completely. I’ll go read some Yellow King or something 😉

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Both definitely have some heretical leanings… I’m more willing to overlook the occasional questionable/heretical thing that Lewis said given where he came from (atheist to agnostic to Christian who never claimed to be a trained theologian despite his flashes of theological brilliance) than I am trained scholars who know full well the implications of what they are denying/altering.

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s