Register now for "Tell Her Story: Women in Scripture and History!" Spots are still available! Click here to learn more!

Published Date: August 9, 2022

Book Info

Book Review: The New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition, NRSVue (National Council of Churches, 2021)

The New Revised Standard Version of the Bible was published in 1989 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. The NRSV was a revision of the RSV, which in turn was a revision of the ASV.

Abbreviations Used in This Review Article

ASV – American Standard Version, 1901
CEB – Common English Bible, 2011
CEV – Contemporary English Version, NT 1991, OT 1995
CSB1 – Christian Standard Bible, 2017, revised 2020
ESV – English Standard Version, 2001, revised 2007, 2011, 2016
GNT – Good News Translation, also known as the Good News Bible and Today’s English Version, 1966, revised 1992
HSCB – Holman Christian Standard Bible, NT 1999, OT 2004, revised 2010
KJV – King James Version, 1611, revised 1769
NSAB – New American Standard Bible, NT 1963, OT 1971, revised 1977, 1995, 2020
NIrV – New International Reader’s Version, 1996
NIV – New International Version, NT 1973, OT 1978, revised 1984, 1995/96/99 (NIV Inclusive Language Edition/NIVI), 2002/05 (Today’s NIV/TNIV), 2011
NRSV – New Revised Standard Version, 1989
RSV – Revised Standard Version, NT 1946, OT 1952, NT revised 1971

The 1989 NRSV was well received by a large swath of the Christian world, which is no surprise given its ecumenical nature. Unlike the NIV in wide use at the time, the NRSV was the work of Protestant, Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and Jewish scholars. Its OT included the Apocrypha and writings accepted as Scripture only by certain Eastern Orthodox Christians (such as 3 Maccabees and Ps 151). Another aspect unlike the NIV at the time is that the NRSV translation team included women (Phyllis A. Bird, J. Cheryl Exum, Lucetta Mowry, and Katharine Doob Sakenfeld). For millions of English-speaking Christians, the NRSV became—and remains—the translation of choice for scholarly and liturgical use.

The NRSV had its detractors, of course. This was due, in large part, to the significant steps it took toward gender accuracy in its approach to translation. Where the RSV had “I will make you fishers of men,” the NRSV had “I will make you fish for people” (Matt 4:19, cf. Mark 1:17). Instead of “brethren” (KJV, ASV, RSV, 1977/1995 NASB, etc.) or “brothers” (1984 NIV, HCSB, ESV, etc.), the NRSV often read “brothers and sisters.”

In 2017, the National Council of Churches and the Society of Biblical Literature announced they would cooperate to produce a revision of the NRSV called the New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition (abbreviated NRSVue and pronounced as six letters, N R S V U E). This revision became available as a for-purchase app from Friendship Press late in 2021, then freely online in the spring of 2022, and will appear in print later in 2022. The NRSVue follows the dictum of the NRSV, “as literal as possible, as free as necessary,” and continues to have a formal feel.

The NRSVue translation team consisted of three groups: editors, section review leaders, and book reviewers. Women account for sixteen of fifty-six editors, four of eleven section review leaders, and sixteen of forty-one book reviewers.

While many factors could be considered when evaluating a translation, this review focuses on two: gender accuracy and translation of certain passages of particular interest to CBE International’s constituency.

Gender-Accurate Language

Brothers and Sisters

In 1989, one of the most-noticed features of the NRSV was its use of “brothers and sisters” to translate the plural Greek word adelphoi. In the singular, adelphos, this word typically means “brother,” and the word for “sister” (adelphē) differs only in its ending. The NRSV’s use of “brothers and sisters” unnecessarily became a point of contention, even a litmus test. I say “unnecessarily” because Greek-English lexicons have long stated, without controversy, that the plural adelphoi can mean “siblings” or “brothers and sisters” (like Spanish hermanos and Italian fratelli, for example, can mean “brothers” or “siblings,” depending on context). Though “brothers and sisters” has since become commonplace in English Bibles, it was essentially unheard of before the NRSV.

This phrase, “brothers and sisters,” occurs over eighty times in the NRSVue where it was not already in the NRSV, mostly in the NT. In a few instances, NRSVue has used “brothers and sisters” where NRSV simply had “brothers.” These are Tobit 6:18 (recall that the NRSV and NRSVue include the Apocrypha) and four NT instances:

  • Matt 28:10, where the risen Lord says, “Do not be afraid; go and tell my brothers and sisters to go to Galilee; there they will see me.” Unfortunately, this same change was not made in the similar verse, John 20:17.
  • Luke 14:12 “When you give a luncheon or a dinner, do not invite your friends or your brothers and sisters or your relatives or rich neighbors. . . .”
  • Twice in 1 Cor 16:11–12, where the addition of “and sisters” gives a more accurate picture of Paul’s missionary team.

Much more frequently, NRSVue uses “brothers and sisters” where NRSV had something other than “brothers.” The NRSV had a strong tendency to use “believers,” “beloved,” or “friends” to translate adelphoi, and this tendency is greatly minimized in the NRSVue. “Believers” has frequently become “brothers and sisters” (1 Cor 6:5, 6, 8; Gal 2:4; 2 Thess 3:15; and 22 times in Acts). “Beloved” has changed to “brothers and sisters” or “beloved brothers and sisters” fourteen times. “Friends” has become “brothers and sisters” twenty times (including 1 Cor 14:26, 39). In three of these instances (Acts 1:16; 13:26, 38) the Greek text reads andres adelphoi, which most translations render as “men, brothers,” “men and brothers,” or simply “brethren” or “brothers.” Rendering adelphoi as “brothers and sisters” in these three places is noteworthy, for it reflects the translators’ understanding that even the Greek word for “men” (andres, sg. anēr) can sometimes be gender-inclusive (though much less frequently than anthrōpos, the Greek word for “person, human”).2

In addition to these transitions from “believers,” “beloved,” or “friends” to “brothers and sisters,” several other NRSV words/phrases have made the same transition in the NRSVue: “students” (Matt 23:8), “members of my/your/God’s family” (Matt 25:40, 1 Cor 8:12, Gal 1:2), “the (whole) community” (John 21:23, Eph 6:23), “my own people” (Rom 9:3), “members of the church” (1 Tim 6:2), “one another” (1 John 3:14, 16), “comrades” (Rev 12:10, 19:10, 22:9), and simply “them” (1 Thess 5:27).

To be clear, NRSV was already gender-accurate in nearly all the above examples. Nevertheless, only a handful of these 1989 translation choices communicated the family connotation of adelphoi. “Brothers and sisters” better reflects how early believers spoke of each other as family.

Man, Humans, Mortals

The NRSVue uses the word “humans” much more than the NRSV did, though the Updated Edition does retain numerous occurrences of “mortal(s),” “humankind,” “human beings,” and a few of “humanity” (neither edition uses “mankind”). While most of these changes (such as “humankind” becoming “humans”) do not add gender accuracy, Gen 3:22 and 24 are important exceptions (bold face added):

  • 3:22 NRSV: “See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand. . . .”
  • 3:22 NRSVue: “See, the humans have become like one of us, knowing good and evil, and now they might reach out their hands. . . .”
  • 3:24 NRSV: “He drove out the man. . . .”
  • 3:24 NRSVue: “He drove out the humans. . . .”

Other Examples of Gender-Accurate Language

The NRSVue shows no significant difference from the NRSV in its use of “son(s)” and “descendant(s)” (both editions prefer the latter). Nor is there much change regarding “ancestor(s),” “father(s),” and “patriarch(s)” (both editions use all these terms). Though the changes are few, one example is that the NRSVue has changed “patriarchs” to “ancestors” in Rom 15:8.

An example of the NRSVue missing an opportunity to improve gender language is Eccl 8:1, which in both editions begins, “Who is like the wise man?” The Hebrew word for “man” is not present in this sentence, and numerous translations instead read “wise person” (CSB, HCSB, 2020 NASB) or simply “Who is wise?” (CEB, cf. CEV, ESV, GNT, 2011 NIV). In the end, though the NRSVue has indeed improved on the NRSV, it has not necessarily surpassed the 2011 NIV or, especially, the CEB, in its use of gender-accurate translation choices.

Key Passages

Below are comments on several passages of heightened relevance to the nature and mission of CBE International. I ask for your understanding, especially regarding the OT, for only a limited number of passages can be surveyed here.

Old Testament

We begin with Genesis. The only change in Gen 1:26–27 is from “humankind” to “humans.” Verse 27 reads, “So God created humans in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.” The same is true in Gen 5:1–2, where “named them ‘Humankind’” has become “called them humans.” Genesis 2:18–25 remains unchanged; both editions translate ezer kenegdō as “a helper as his partner.” At Gen 3:6b, the 1989 NRSV corrected a grievous error in the RSV, which omitted the phrase, “who was with her.” Both the NRSV and NRSVue read, “she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate.” Genesis 3:16, though slightly revised, remains the same in its second half: “yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” Finally, the naming of Eve in Gen 3:20 remains unchanged.

Moving forward to the Wisdom literature, Ps 68:11–12 is unchanged in the NRSVue. Verse 11 includes the clause, “great is the company of those who bore the tidings,” with a footnote on “those” that reads, “Or company of the women.” The word in question is a feminine participle, and numerous other translations include the word “women” (ASV, CEV, CSB, ESV, NASB, 2011 NIV, etc.).

The well-known poem in Prov 31:10–31 began in the NRSV, “A capable wife who can find?” NRSVue now reads, “A woman of strength who can find?” The subheading in each edition reflects this change. Both editions, however, translate the same Hebrew phrase, esheth khayil, as “a worthy woman” in Ruth 3:11. The only other revision to this ode in Prov 31 is “female servants” instead of “servant-girls” in v. 15 (a change also made in three other places).

In the Prophets, Mal 2:16, in both the NRSV and NRSVue, begins, “I hate divorce, says the Lord. . . .” Indeed, the vast majority of English Bibles up till 1995 expressed God’s hatred for divorce here. Interpreting this verse is especially difficult and sometimes controversial. In 1995, the CEV took a different approach: “The Lord God All-Powerful of Israel hates anyone who is cruel enough to divorce his wife. So take care never to be unfaithful!” Since then, several translations, have understood the subject of “hates” to be a husband, rather than God: “If he hates and divorces his wife . . .” (CSB, cf. ESV, 2011 NIV). The NRSVue, however, continues to ascribe this hatred to God.

Finally, Dan 7:13 reads, in both the NRSV and the NRSVue, “I saw one like a human being . . .” with a footnote giving the traditional alternative, “one like a son of man.” Similarly, neither edition uses “son of man” in Ps 8:4 or Heb 2:6 (which quotes Ps 8:4). However, in the Gospels (also Acts 7:56; Rev 1:13, 14:14), both the NRSV and NRSVue refer to Jesus with the traditional title, “the Son of Man.”3

New Testament Narratives

Many passages about women in the Gospels and Acts remain essentially unchanged. These include Jesus encountering a Canaanite/Syrophoenician woman (Matt 15, Mark 7) and a Samaritan woman (John 4), Jesus healing a woman in a synagogue (Luke 13), Jesus interacting with a woman caught in an unjust legal system (John 8) and with Mary and Martha in John 11–12, and the four resurrection narratives (with the exception of “and sisters” being added to Matt 28:10, as noted earlier).

In the Christmas narratives we find a few revisions. In the NRSVue, “dismiss” has become “divorce,” better reflecting the legally binding nature of Joseph and Mary’s betrothal (Matt 1:23). In the subsequent chapter, “wise men” has become “magi” (with the footnote “Or astrologers,” Matt 2:1, 7, 16). In Luke 1:5, the NRSV’s “His wife was a descendant of Aaron,” referring to Elizabeth, has been changed to “His wife was descended from the daughters of Aaron.” The NRSVue’s inclusion of “daughters” here closely mirrors the Greek text. Finally, Luke 2:7 is the source for Bethlehem’s famously full inn. The NRSV used the traditional word “inn,” without a footnote. The NRSVue replaces “inn” with “guest room,” with a footnote saying, “Or their room.” This revision gives a more accurate picture of Mary’s story. The Greek word in question is kataluma, and various other translations have followed the relevant scholarship and made this improvement (e.g., CEB, CSB, 2011 NIV, and N. T. Wright’s New Testament for Everyone).

In the double story of Jesus raising a girl from the dead and healing a woman, found in Matt 9, Mark 5, and Luke 8, “hemorrhage(s)” has been changed to “flow of blood.”

In Jesus’s teachings on divorce, NRSV’s “unchastity” is changed to “sexual immorality” in Matt 5:32 and 19:9. Matthew 19:9b, in the NRSVue, adds the clause, “and he who marries a divorced woman commits adultery”—a manuscript variation which makes 19:9 more like the wording of 5:32. The NRSVue retains “causes her to commit adultery” in the middle of 5:32, opting not to follow 1984 NIV’s “causes her to become an adulteress” or the 2011 NIV’s “makes her the victim of adultery.”

An important passage for understanding that Jesus’s disciples included numerous women is Luke 8:1–3. I will describe three of the several challenges this paragraph poses to translators.

First is Mary Magdalene’s name. She is mentioned twelve times and in all four Gospels, always with the definite article (“the Magdalene”) and here with the phrase, “the one called Magdalene.” There is growing evidence that “Mary, the (one called) Magdalene” does not mean “the one from the village of Magdala,” but instead, “the one nicknamed tower/fortress.”4 If this latter understanding is correct, it would be in line with Jesus giving nicknames to other disciples (notably, Simon Peter/Rock, James and John the Sons of Thunder). Given the scholarship on this question since 1989, at least a footnote would have been appropriate.

Second, in Luke 8:3 the list of disciples ends with “and many others.” These words are feminine in Greek (heterai pollai) and clearly refer to other women disciples. Very few English translations make this as clear as the Greek text does (the GNT is an exception). Many, including the NRSVue, depend on punctuation (more specifically, depend on the reader to notice and interpret the punctuation) to communicate that these many others were women. A clearer translation would be, “and many other women.”

Third, also in Luke 8:3, NRSVue ends with, “who ministered to them out of their own resources.” This is a small change from NRSV’s “who provided for them out of their resources.” The NRSVue makes this same change, translating diakoneō as “ministered/ministering” rather than “provided for,” in the parallel texts Matt 27:55 and Mark 15:41.

Two chapters later, Luke tells a story about Mary and Martha, and the NRSVue makes a few changes. One, which results from reevaluating manuscript evidence, is the removal of “into her home” from the end of the opening verse: NRSVue ends Luke 10:38, “a woman named Martha welcomed him.” NRSV had “. . . welcomed him into her home.”

Acts 18:26, found on the cover of all 143 issues of Priscilla Papers, says of Apollos, in both the NRSV and NRSVue, “when Priscilla and Aquila heard him they took him aside and explained the Way of God to him more accurately.” The phrase “took him aside” can mean “took him to their home” and is translated to that effect in various Bibles, including the CEV, HCSB, and NIV (1978, 1984, and 2011).

New Testament Letters

As with the NT narratives, some passages in the letters remain unchanged. This is true, for example, of Gal 3:26–28 and of Paul’s commendation of Phoebe in Rom 16:1–2.

The only change to Rom 16:7 is that Paul calls Andronicus and Junia “fellow Israelites” instead of “relatives.” In the footnotes on this verse, however, the NRSVue misses an opportunity. In spite of overwhelming evidence that Junia was a woman, a footnote on “Junia” reads “Or Junias.” It would have been better to follow the example of translations such as the CSB and 2011 NIV, which print “Junia” without an obfuscating footnote offering “Junias” as an option.

First Corinthians houses two well-known and controversial passages, in chs. 11 and 14. NRSVue makes two significant changes in ch. 11. First, 11:3 has changed from husband/wife language to man/woman language. The NRSVue, with NRSV in brackets for comparison, reads, “But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man [NRSV ‘husband’] is the head of the woman [NRSV ‘his wife’], and God is the head of Christ.” Second, and of inestimable importance, is NRSVue’s removal of “a symbol of” from 11:10. The NRSVue, with NRSV in brackets, reads, “For this reason a woman ought to have authority over [NRSV ‘a symbol of authority on’] her head, because of the angels.” Furthermore, NRSVue adds the footnote “Or have freedom of choice regarding her head.” A few other translations (CEB, 2011 NIV, etc.) have remedied this translation error, which Katharine Bushnell called “a most extraordinary substitute for the words of Scripture,” and a century later Andrew Bartlett identified as second only to changing “Junia” to “Junias” as the translation with “the least shred of justification.”5

In 1 Cor 14, the NRSVue retains certain positive aspects of the NRSV. One such aspect is translating sigaō consistently (“be silent”) in vv. 28, 30, and 34, rather than strengthening the call for women’s silence (v. 34) compared with the earlier directives for tongue speakers and prophets to be silent (the NIV, for example, renders the first two occurrences of sigaō as “keep quiet” and “stop,” but then enhances the command to women as “remain silent”).

In its treatment of 1 Cor 14:34–35, one of the most debated passages among egalitarians and complementarians, the NRSVue takes an unexpected turn. One point on which translations differ is how 14:33b (with bold face added below) relates to the adjacent clauses. The ESV is an example of 33b introducing the following clause: “33 For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. ¶ As in all the churches of the saints, 34 the women should keep silent in the churches” (also CEB, CSB, 1984 NIV, etc.). In contrast, the 2011 NIV is an example of 33b linked more closely to what precedes: “33 For God is not a God of disorder but of peace—as in all the congregations of the Lord’s people. ¶ 34Women should remain silent in the churches” (also KJV, etc.). In this regard, the NRSV was similar to the ESV, etc., linking 33b with women’s silence. The NRSVue, however, has taken a third approach by placing 32–33a in parentheses:

31 For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged 32 (and the spirits of prophets are subject to the prophets, 33 for God is a God not of disorder but of peace), as in all the churches of the saints.

34 Women should be silent in the churches. . . .

One effect of these parentheses is that 33b (“as in all the churches of the saints”) modifies v. 31. That is, 33b does not comment on God’s peacefulness (as in KJV, 2011 NIV, etc.) or on women’s silence (as in CEB, CSB, ESV, etc.); instead, it describes prophecy (31a) and the encouragement that prophecy provides (31b). To my knowledge, no other English translation prompts this interpretation.

Moving forward to Ephesians, the NRSVue has not improved the NRSV’s translation of Eph 5:21–33. Most notably, the NRSVue has moved its subheading, “The Christian Household,” down one verse. Formerly, the NRSV had the subheading between 5:20 and 5:21; now it is between 5:21 and 5:22. The NRSVue is not wrong that Eph 5:21 is closely tied to what comes before. But, as many readers of Priscilla Papers know, 5:21 is also inseparable from what comes after (which a footnote that NRSVue adds to 5:22, “Gk lacks be subject,” attempts to make clear). A basic Bible translation policy should be that no subheading should reduce the average reader’s ability to understand. If the NRSVue editors thought the NRSV subheading was wrongly placed, they should have removed it altogether rather than trading a small problem for a big one.

The wording of this Ephesians passage has been adjusted in small ways. Unfortunately, two opportunities for improved wording have been missed, both in 5:22, where NRSVue, slightly shortened from the NRSV, reads, “Wives, be subject to your husbands as to the Lord. . . .” The first missed opportunity is that the passive “be subject” could have been changed to the middle “subject yourselves” (or, better, “submit yourselves”). (This is a distinction of the Greek grammar; English does not have a middle voice, hence the addition of “yourselves.”) The translators might push back against this critique by noting that “be subjected” would be passive and their “be subject” is indeed middle. Nevertheless, when interpretation goes seriously awry, as has so often been the case in the household codes, “be subject” will lead to abuse of wives more readily than “submit yourselves.”

The second missed opportunity in 5:22 is that the NRSV and NRSVue overlook the word idios, “own.” The NIV is better: “Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord” (as are the ESV, HCSB, KJV, NASB, etc.). Paul emphasizes “your own husbands,” apparently to be clear that he is not advising women to submit themselves to all men (that is, not to other women’s husbands)—an emphasis also present in the Greek text of 1 Cor 14:35, Titus 2:5, and 1 Pet 3:1, 5, but not in any of these places in the NRSV or NRSVue.

The NRSVue has made a few small changes to 1 Tim 2:8–15, indicated with bold face below.

  • 2:9a NRSV: “also that the women should dress themselves modestly and decently in suitable clothing. . . .”
  • 2:9a NRSVue: “also that the women should dress themselves in moderate clothing with reverence and self-control. . . .”
  • 2:12 NRSV: “I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent.”
  • 2:12 NRSVue: “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent.”
  • 2:15 NRSV: “Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.”
  • 2:15 NRSVue: “Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.”

Though these three small changes are for the better, in my opinion the NRSVue has missed two opportunities for significant improvement. First, “to have authority” in 2:12 stands unchanged, in spite of significant scholarship arguing that the verb in question, authenteō, has negative connotations.6 This understanding is reflected in older Bibles such as the 1599 Geneva Bible (“usurp authority”), the 1611 KJV (“usurp authority”), the 1862 Young’s Literal Translation (“rule”) and the 1901 ASV (“have dominion”). Certain recent translations have revived this understanding of the verb: “assume authority” (2011 NIV), “take authority” (NIrV), “control” (CEB).

A second missed opportunity is NRSVue’s translation of the noun hēsuchia, which both editions translate as “silence” in 2:11 and “silent” in 2:12. The problem here is two-fold. First, the word refers to peacefulness, not to silence. In this context, it could be translated “calm attentiveness.” Second, in close proximity, 1 Tim 2:2, the word’s cognate synonym, the adjective hēsuchios, refers to all Christians, not only to women. In 2:2, both editions rightly translate the word “peaceable.” In a different context, 2 Thess 3:12, where hēsuchia again refers to both men and women, the NRSV and NRSVue translate it “quietly.”

Also in 1 Timothy, many will appreciate that “foolish tales” replaces the NRSV’s “old wives’ tales” at 4:7 (cf. “senseless stories” [CEV] and “silly myths” [CSB, ESV]). In contrast, 1 Tim 5:13 has unfortunately not been changed: “Besides that, they learn to be idle, gadding about from house to house; and they are not merely idle, but also gossips and busybodies, saying what they should not say” (NRSV, NRSVue). To quote Bartlett’s conclusion, “Paul does not think that all younger widows are gossips and busybodies. His concern is about these particular younger widows in Ephesus. They are probably false teachers, dabbling in magic, a probability that has been obscured by the traditional translations.”7 A positive development, however, is that the NRSV’s inaccurate and belittling translation, “silly women” at 2 Tim 3:6, has been improved to “immature women” in the NRSVue.8


As noted above, the NRSVue does improve the gender language of the NRSV, especially by recovering family language, but not necessarily beyond that of the 2011 NIV or, moreover, of the CEB. Regarding the several passages surveyed above, there is some improvement (especially 1 Cor 11:10 removing “a symbol of”). In my opinion, however, there are also several missed opportunities (such as “have authority” in 1 Tim 2:12) and even a significant step backward (the intrusive subheading between Eph 5:21 and 22).

The NRSVue is a high-quality translation and will continue as the Bible of choice for many Christians, especially in liturgical and academic contexts. I do recommend it, but not more heartily than I recommend the 2011 NIV and the CEB.


1. See reviews of the CSB in Priscilla Papers 31/3 (Summer 2017) 29–30,, and 35/3 (Summer 2021) 26–28,

2. See CBE’s blog entry for April 3, 2018:

3. For a detailed explanation of the translation issues surrounding “the Son of Man,” see Cynthia Long Westfall, “The Human One? A Controversial CEB Translation Choice,” Open Theology 2/1 (Oct 2016) 895–906, DOI:10.1515/opth-2016-0068.

4. Craig Evans, “A Tale of Two Cities: What We Learned from Bethsaida and Magdala,” ch. 1 in Jesus and the Remains of His Day: Studies in Jesus and the Evidence of Material Culture (Hendrickson Academic, 2015); Dorothy Lee, The Ministry of Women in the New Testament: Reclaiming the Biblical Vision for Church Leadership (Baker Academic, 2021) 49; and esp. Joan E. Taylor, “Missing Magdala and the Name of Mary ‘Magdalene,’” PEQ 146/3 (2014) 205–23.

5. Katharine C. Bushnell, God’s Word to Women: One Hundred Bible Studies on Woman’s Place in the Church and Home (1921, reprint by Christians for Biblical Equality, 2003) 100, §218; Andrew Bartlett, “Worst Translations: All in One” (Oct 30, 2020),

6. See for example, Linda Belleville, “Teaching and Usurping Authority: 1 Timothy 2:11–15,” ch. 11 in Discovering Biblical Equality: Biblical, Theological, Cultural, and Practical Perspectives, 3rd ed. (ch. 12 in the 2nd ed.), ed. Ronald W. Pierce, Cynthia Long Westfall, and Christa L. McKirland (IVP Academic, 2021); Jamin Hübner, “Translating αὐϑεντέω (authenteō) in 1 Timothy 2:12,” Priscilla Papers 29/2 (Spring 2015) 16–26; Walter L. Liefeld, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, NIV Application Commentary (Zondervan, 1999) 98–99; Margaret Mowczko, “The Meaning of Authentein with a Brief History of Authent– Words,”; Cynthia Long Westfall, “The Meaning of αὐϑεντέω in 1 Timothy 2.12,” JGRChJ 10 (2014) 138–73.

7. Bartlett, “Worst Translations: All in One,” §3.

8. See Bartlett, “Worst Translations: All in One,” §2.