The New Testament part of the so-called "NEW ENGLISH BIBLE," published jointly by the Cambridge University and the Oxford University Presses, was released for sale to the general public on March 14. The Old Testament and the Apocrypha are to come later, and are at present being prepared. The brochures for this new work state that the New Testament is the product of 13 year's labor by scholars and literary advisers from various parts of Great Britain. Its sponsors include most of the large Protestant groups in the British Isles. It is due to receive much publicity and wide acclaim.
This present article is not intended as a detailed report of our examination of it, but we hasten into print with a word of warning. This new translation is simply not to be trusted. Certain unbecoming liberties have been taken with the Word of God by these translators. They have frequently used paraphrases by which their own thoughts Here injected; paraphrases are interpretations and not merely translations. In our judgment there is a lightness and lack of reverence about it which is to be condemned. We wrote a review of the Revised Standard Version when it came out, in which we pointed out its unsuitability for use; but this new one from England is worse.
Think of the new book giving Matt. 16:1818And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. (Matthew 16:18) thus: "You are Peter, the Rock; and on this rock I will build my church." The R.S.V. gave it correctly, "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church." The R.S.V. added a note that "Peter" in the Greek was "petros," while the "rock" on which the Church would be built was in Greek, "petra." The former is only a fragment of the rock, while the latter is the rock foundation- Christ Himself as the Son of the living God according to Peter's confession of Him. No, Peter is NOT the rock on which the Church is built; it is Christ, and Him alone. What a poor foundation failing Peter would be! The new translation is putting forth the doctrine of the Church of Rome. Even the Catholic "Confraternity" translation gives the text correctly, although their note would compromise the truth by applying the foundation to Peter; but even then the note says: "Of course the strength of the foundation comes from Christ." The rendering in this new translation can only come from bias, not from learning.
Notice this new translation of Jas. 2:1616And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? (James 2:16)-"Good luck to you, keep yourselves warm, and have plenty to eat." How inappropriate! "Depart" or "depart in peace" is translated into modern idiom which borders on slang. "Luck" is never mentioned in Scripture, nor is the thought of it to be found there.
The translation of John 1:1, 21In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2The same was in the beginning with God. (John 1:1‑2) is certainly inferior to most other translations. These translators have avoided saying "the Word was God," by skirting it with "what God was, the Word was." Perhaps it may be argued that they have still kept within bounds, but WHY abandon the actual truth as found in a simple statement? Was novelty and change the object? or is there a deeper significance?
That blessed gospel verse of Matt. 11:28, where the Lord Jesus bids the storm-tossed, sin-burdened soul to come to Him and receive the REST that He gives, has been distorted to a mere invitation to get "relief." Why should anyone weaken the force of "rest"?-complete satisfaction that entirely removes labor to appease God. The "rest" He gives was only made possible by His suffering and death, so that the believer can sing, "Rest my soul, the work is done, done by God's beloved Son." Relief may be a mere temporary alleviation of pain or anxiety. Many troubled souls have found the "rest" He gives, and rested in His own invitation and gracious gift. We have checked twelve other translations of this verse, and not one of them departed from the word "rest."
We do not believe the NEW translation of Matt. 27:5050Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. (Matthew 27:50) gives the mind of the Spirit; the new rendering, "Jesus gave a loud cry, and breathed His last," is not commensurate with the dignity of His Person. He was the only one who could lay down His life; others might take their lives, but He could and did lay His down. "Breathed His last" is a phrase that belongs to a human being's death.
The translation, "a means of sharing in the blood" (1 Cor. 10:1616The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? (1 Corinthians 10:16)), approaches the doctrine of the mass. Partaking of the Lord's supper is a remembrance of His death and has NO connection with a means of procuring blessing through the blood of Christ. The memorial cup is not a "means" of sharing or receiving anything.
Acts 3:1515And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses. (Acts 3:15) reads in the King James Version, "And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead." But the NEW translation reads, "And killed Him who has led the way to life." Of the Greek word archegos Mr. J. N. Darby says: "archegos, a word difficult, not to understand, but to render in English. It is a 'leader,' but it is more. It is used for one who begins and sets a matter on... 'the origin,' or 'originator,' though the word is harsh in connection with life." He who was killed by them was not the one who led to life, but the very originator of it. How far short of setting forth His true glory this NEW translation is!
And why dispose of the term "God's righteousness" in Rom. 1:1717For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. (Romans 1:17) for "God's way of righting wrong"? This is not translation, but wrong interpretation. God's righteousness is His perfect consistency of all His attributes with Himself. God found a way to bring the guilty sinner to Himself while at the same time maintaining His holiness, His hatred of sin, His love and compassion. All meet in the work of His beloved Son on the cross.
Another item in this very brief look at the NEW New Testament: The translators generally discarded the word "saints" for "God's people." Now "saints" is the right translation. It means "holy ones." The Roman Christians became saints by God's call (Rom. 1:77To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ. (Romans 1:7)). Of course, the saints are God's people; but the original Greek word is "hagios" which is the word used for "holy" and is so translated in "Holy Ghost," or "Holy Spirit," and of the Lord Jesus in "that holy thing which shall be born of thee" (Luke 1:3535And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. (Luke 1:35)). Is this juggling the result of failure to comprehend that believers are made "holy" now, or is it an accommodation to the Roman practice of making saints by canonization?
The translators have committed a grave error in John 2:44Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come. (John 2:4), and again in 19:26. They took the license of rendering the Lord's reply to Mary thus: "Your concern, mother, is not mine"; and
in speaking to her in chapter 19:26: "He said to her, Mother, there is your son." Even the Catholic translations-Douay, Ronald Knox, and Confraternity-did not go so far as to change "woman" to "mother," though their doctrine which teaches her communicants to worship Mary, and which falsely says she was taken to heaven in her body, where she is now "Queen," would have benefitted by such a translation. We have now noted four places where the translators have shown deference to the Roman Church. We will recapitulate:
By generally removing the term "saints" (as applied to living believers) from the vocabulary of their New Testament, they have helped clear the way for approval of the Romish practice of making saints of dead people by canonization.
They have paved the way for Mariolatry by putting the word "mother" into Christ's mouth twice.
Such obeisance to Rome is easily understood, for the great ecumenical leaders are working hard to promote a reunion of Protestantism and Roman Catholicism.
One thing for which there seems to be no explanation is the disappearance of the word "Christ" (except in one case) from the four gospels. It has been replaced by "Messiah," and once by "anointed." But in every case it was a translation from the Greek word Christos, and not from the Hebrew word, mashiyach. They were not translating from the Hebrew Old Testament, but from the Greek New Testament. While both the Hebrew and the Greek words convey the thought of "the anointed," yet why go contrary to good procedure and break with established custom? Was it just to be different?
We certainly do not recommend the purchase of this New Testament; we advise against it. It will only confuse many readers and help none. And as for a reliable, faithful, and reverent translation as a real help for reference, we strongly recommend Mr. J. N Darby's translation of both Old and New Testaments.