Brief Examination of the New Revised Standard Version
Paul Wilson
Table of Contents
A Brief Examination of the Revised Standard Version
Many requests have come to us for an evaluation of the new Revised Standard Version of the Bible which was placed on sale September 30, 1952. It would obviously be impossible to make a thorough study of such a large work in a short time; hence, our observations must necessarily be sketchy and fragmentary.
Before commenting on the new revision itself, we unequivocally state that we believe in the plenary and verbal inspiration of the Holy Scriptures. They are as a whole and in all their parts inspired. The thoughts given and the words used to convey them were God-breathed —"holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." 2 Peter 1:21. It is true that the words and doings of wicked men and of Satan are therein recorded, and these doings were not inspired, but the records are given by inspiration of God for our learning.
The Old Testament was written largely in Hebrew, and the New Testament in Greek. Translation into English has been a laborious and difficult task. Often there is no equivalent in English of the original expression in Hebrew or Greek; but it is important to get as near as possible to the exact words which God caused to be written. We are only sure of the truth of God when we have it in the words He caused to be written. The search that has been conducted by devout men to ascertain the original wording, and then to convert it into the understandable language of peoples of various tongues is most admirable. How few would be able to read the Word of God if it were only obtainable in Hebrew and Greek! This was the situation at one time, and then it was translated into Latin. The first complete Bible in English was the work of Miles Coverdale, and was printed in 1535-6.
Certain educational standards are absolutely necessary to the work of translating the Bible, or of making a revision; yet no amount of learning alone will suffice for the great task. Only by the Spirit of God can the things of God be understood. The greatest scholar on earth, if unsaved, has not the Spirit of God; he therefore cannot be trusted where spiritual perception is necessary for making a correct translation. "The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Cor. 2:14.
English-speaking people have been much blessed by God in having the King James Version (often called t h e Authorized Version) since 1611. For 350 years it has stood with its elegance of diction, as a masterpiece of English literature. It has probably done more than any other work to stabilize the English language. Its fidelity to the original texts has brought us the Word of God in truth. However, due to constant changes in a living language, many words used in the King James Version are not now current, and are not easily understood. The meanings of some words have changed; for instance, "let" no longer means "hinder"; neither does "prevent" now mean "precede; nor "conversation," "manner of life"; etc.
In the 17th century the pronouns thee, thou, thy, and thine, were in common daily use; today these pronouns are archaic, except as they have come to express solemnity and reverence. It is quite fitting that this solemn form should be used today when addressing God or the Lord Jesus Christ.
The King James Version is a revision of earlier English translations — Coverdale's, Matthew's, the Geneva, and the Great Bible. The new Revised Standard Version (R.S.V.) is the third revision of the King James Bible.' the first came out in England in 1885, and the second in the United States in 1901, but neither of them became generally popular. The present revision (R.S.V.) has been launched with an initial half million dollar advertising publicity program to insure its general acceptance, but time and other factors will determine that.
Some critical translations have been made wherein words and phrases were more literally translated, although doing so has in some measure spoiled the poetic beauty and smoothness of the beloved King James Version. One of the foremost of these is the J. N. Darby New Translation (1881), which is still obtainable. A sample of the way it at times sacrifices smoothness for literalness of translation may be found in 2 Cor. 9:5. The Apostle tells the Corinthian saints that he wished them to have their contribution for the poor saints ready when he and others came to Corinth, so that it would be seen that it was readily given and "not as got out of you." J.N.D. Trans. It is much smoother to say with the King James, "and not as of covetousness," but the meaning is not the same. The one implies, not as being forcibly extracted, while the other may mean that he was not desirous of having the gain. Mr. Darby's translation was the work of a man of God who approached the task with the unshod foot of reverence and holy fear, and his translation is a valuable aid in the proper understanding of the true meaning of some words and phrases. Mr. William Kelly (1821-1906), a man of rare intellectual ' stature, has also translated most of the Bible from the originals, and his work very closely resembles that of Mr. Darby's. His translation is found mostly in his expository books.
A number of modern English translations have been brought out; such as, Moffat, 20th Century, Smith and Good-speed, and Weymouth. Most of these are untrustworthy and objectionable in that they have taken undue liberty with the real meaning when changing it into common English phrases. There is little to be gained from any of these, and there is a constant danger of being misled by them, even in vital points. Some of them may be branded as thoroughly dangerous.
There are a few mistakes in the time-honored and much-loved King James Version, but nothing that would undermine any basic truth. The translators' ecclesiastical background led them to use the word "Easter" instead of "Passover" in Acts 12, and "Calvary" instead of "The Skull" in Luke 23:33. They also failed to comprehend the true meaning in 1 John 3:4, and mistakenly said, "Sin is the transgression of the law"; whereas, it should read, "Sin is lawlessness." This is perhaps the most serious mistake in it, for it would limit sin to breaking the law; but Rom. 5 clearly tells us that there was sin in the world between Adam and Moses when there was no specific law to break. Sin is doing one's own will. The King James Version also wrongly renders Rev. 22:14, "Blessed are they that do His commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life," etc. This has been seized by the Seventh Day Adventists to bolster their false teaching of the law. The verse should read, "Blessed are they that wash their robes.”
It would seem a good thing if the King James Version could have obsolete and archaic words replaced with words that would convey the meaning which was intended by the original manuscripts. This would improve the understanding of the Word of God for many people-those who are not diligent to check the rendering with a more literal translation, such as Mr. Darby's. There is no special benefit in retaining the archaic pronouns thee, thou, etc., except as they are addressed to the Persons of the Godhead.
With these thoughts in mind we have read extensively in the new Revised Standard Version, to see if perchance archaisms were deleted, fidelity to the original texts maintained, and smoothness and ease of reading retained. We have approached the matter with an open mind, hopeful of finding a useful version.
We must admit, however, that the list of the scholars who worked on this latest revision is not one to invite confidence. Many of these revisers are openly known as liberals and modernists, and come from schools where doubt and infidelity prevail. Another thing that would put one on his guard in reading R.S.V., is the fact that in the advertising material from the publishers, Thomas Nelson and Sons, came an enthusiastic endorsement by a rank modernist preacher, Harry Emerson Fosdick—a man who openly scoffs at the sacred and supernatural fundamentals of our faith. The revising has been done under the auspices of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in U.S.A. This organization embraces some of the most modern and heterodox churches in the nation. In spite of this background, it does seem that these revisers attempted to do a thoroughly scholarly work, and to render a fair translation of the original texts.
Whether these great scholars could render a faithful and unbiased revision or not, is at least questionable, for as we have already said, spiritual discernment is a requisite to proper translation of the Holy Scriptures. The Hebrew of the Old Testament is such an old language that here and there are found words that are now of uncertain meaning. Then there are those words and phrases in both Greek and Hebrew for which there are no equivalents in English; this causes a translator to use circumlocution and sometimes put in a whole phrase to make the sense in English. (You will notice in the King James Version many words are printed in italics; this means was used by the translators to show that they had to add these words to complete the sense in English. Mr. Darby used brackets to indicate the added words. One serious objection to the R.S.V. is that words supplied by the revisers have not been indicated, thus leaving the unsuspecting reader to believe he has an exact word-for-word translation.)
Another problem confronting translators and revisers is that the old manuscripts were all written by hand, and mistakes of copying did slip in—sometimes through mere human failure and sometimes from prejudice on the part of the scribe. Many old manuscripts must be compared, and often more than scholarship is needed to discern what was originally given, and what was tampered with by the scribes. Obviously the closer the copy was to the original, the nearer it would come to being correct; but here, again, discernment is needed, for a later copy may have been made from a more ancient manuscript than one copied much earlier.
In all these difficulties the bias of the translators would be inclined to influence their judgment. It is almost impossible for a man to get away from himself; if he writes history he will see the events from his own viewpoint, and so his history will be colored accordingly. A man who does not believe the Bible to be the Word of God, absolute and unerring, has a bias that ill-befits him for revising the Bible. One who does not accept the Lord Jesus as deity—God manifest in the flesh, God Himself present on earth in human form—will undoubtedly stumble at such a point if there is a difficulty in the old manuscripts, or if he finds one that has been tampered with.
No true-hearted Christian wants a translator to tamper with the original text to prove such truths as the deity of Christ; at least he should not. The miraculous and supernatural things concerning the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ do not require a translator to force the true original to prove these things. We need a faithful reproduction of what God has given, but through the ages the tampering has been done by those whose prejudice has been against these precious truths.
Having stated some of the background of translations and revisions, we shall now make a brief examination of the R.S.V. New Testament. In eliminating obsolete words and phrases, the revisers have succeeded well. They have replaced "prevent" with "precede" in 1 Thess. 4:15; "letteth" with "restrains" in 2 Thess. 2:7; and "we do you to wit" with "we want you to know" in 2 Cor. 8:1. 1 John 3:4 is correctly translated, "sin is lawlessness.”
Some minor mistakes in the King lames Version have been properly corrected; for instance, "holy child Jesus" in Acts 4 has been translated "holy servant Jesus." Where the King lames scholars used three words (perhaps for variety and smoother reading) in John 5 to translate only one word in the original, the R.S.V. uses only "judgment," instead of "judgment," "condemnation," and "damnation." A clause which crept into the text by mistake in Matt. 25:13—"wherein the Son of man cometh"—has been dropped; so has the interpolation—"which walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit" from Rom. 8:1. References to the Son of man coming, properly belong in other portions of the prophecies of Matt. 24 and 25; but not in that place; and the clause deleted from Rom. 8:1 properly belongs in verse 4. The word "again" has been correctly dropped from Acts 13:33, for it is not the raising of Jesus from the dead that is the point, but rather having sent Him into this world in the first place in accordance with the promises made to the fathers. We noted some other places where corrections could have been made. Nearly all the good alterations have been made years ago in one or another of the revisions and translations; such as, the Revised Versions of 1885 and 1901, J.N.D.'s New Translation of 1881, and others.
We regret to say, however, that we must make some unfavorable comments regarding the R.S.V. There is considerable evidence in it that the bias of the modern scholars has caused some portions to be slanted toward modernism, liberalism, and neo-orthodoxy —all simply gradations of the infidel principle. This is deplorable, for it spoils what may otherwise have been a very useful work.
In our comments on the use of thee, thou, thy, and thine, we suggested that they be retained by us in addressing God, or the Father and the Son. We are told that this has been done in the Revised Standard Version, and this is partly correct. Here was one place where the revisers had to take a stand on the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the preponderance of weight among them being against this truth, they quite naturally decided against using the pronoun for deity in addressing Him; thus, the words of that blessed statement from the lips of Peter, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God" now read, "You are the Christ," etc. Satan, when addressing the Lord in the temptations, is made to use the pronouns you and your. This can be traced throughout the New Testament, except that in some unexplainable way, a very few times it is otherwise; for instance, "Thou art my beloved Son; with thee I am well pleased" stands in Mark 1:11 and Luke 3:22. A strange incongruity appears in Rev. 18, in that the corrupt religious system—Babylon the Great is addressed with the reverential pronouns.
The words of the centurion who watched the crucifixion have been rendered, "Truly this was a son of God," instead of "the Son of God" as in the King James Version. This is a plain case of a wrong interpretation, for there is no indefinite article in the Greek; what the Greek says is, "Truly this was Son of God," and so J. N. Darby in his literal translation gives it. No doubt this lacks something in English, but it also supplied an opportunity for bias to display itself. Even the Weymouth New Testament in Modern Speech (of which we have spoken, and in which there is a tendency to liberalism) did better on this verse, and rendered it, "Truly this was indeed God's Son." The centurion had heard the taunting words addressed to the Lord Jesus about His being the Son of God, and letting God deliver Him, and when he saw the convulsions of nature at the death of that blessed One, he was moved to exclaim that He indeed must have been the Son of God. There is absolutely no room for such a thought in this verse of "a son of God." It is a clever device of the enemy to detract from His deity. Those who would call Him only a son of God would doubtless tell us all men are sons of God.
“Dost thou believe on the Son of God?" in John 9:35 has been changed to, "Do you believe in the Son of man?" Why this change has been made is not understandable in the light of the fact that the previous revised versions, J.N.D., W. Kelly, the Catholic Douay Version, and Weymouth all render it, "the Son of God," also two new Catholic versions which are as late as the R.S.V. (Confraternity and Ronald Knox) retain "the Son of God," although they also had access to any lately discovered manuscripts.
“Great is the mystery of godliness," in 1 Tim. 3:16, has been changed to read, "Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of our religion." This may not seem like a serious change, but all the other versions mentioned above use either godliness or piety in the verse. Godliness and piety may be far removed from mere religion, but the natural man rises no higher than religion.
In Rom. 9:5 the R.S.V. has changed the reading from "Christ came, who is over all, God blessed forever," to "God who is over all be blessed forever." The King James Version, along with previous revised versions, J.N.D., W. Kelly, Douay, Confraternity, and Ronald Knox, all understand the reference to be to Christ, the One who is over all, God blessed forever, but R.S.V. by a few little changes removes the ascription of deity from the doxology in this verse. Perhaps the revisers found some manuscript that gave their predisposition a chance to show itself, although W. Kelly says of this verse, "Manuscripts and versions proclaim the truth with an unwavering voice: Christ is over all, God blessed forever." Unbelief often stumbles where simple faith finds everything clear and precise.
John 3:13 furnished an excellent opportunity for men lacking allegiance to the cornerstone of our faith —the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ—because some manuscripts had left out the clause, "the Son of man which is in heaven." It can readily be conceived that some early copyists, along with modern revisers, stumbled over His being in heaven when He was upon earth, a n d so left it out; however, the weight of evidence for its proper inclusion was so strong that all the other versions we have before mentioned include it. We should state that the R.S.V. gives a footnote wherein they state some manuscripts do include it, although they chose to leave it out of the text.
We also noticed that the R.S.V. left out the little word and in Titus 2:13, thus making our blessed hope—the coming of the Lord for His Church—to be one and the same thing with the appearing of the glory—His coming back in power and great glory with His saints, as is well established by many scriptures. This change, although it does not directly affect the glory of His Person, makes confusion of a most beautiful distinction of the prophetic word.
We might add comments on other verses where we believe the R.S.V. has strayed from the correct meaning—simple cases of misinterpretation through lack of spiritual perception, but we forbear, as this is only a sketchy review.
With all that we have said regarding the R.S.V. New Testament, we believe that the revisers think they acted objectively and gave an honest and fair translation. Their scholarship is apparent, and we do not charge them with forming a cabal to mutilate the Holy Scriptures. That there are errors in it, and some serious ones, we do assert; consequently, we advise that it be treated with suspicion and distrust. If one had an acquaintance who occasionally told him an untruth, he would be wary of anything the acquaintance said.
Review of Old Testament of the Revised Standard Version
We shall now come to a fragmentary review of the Old Testament of the new Revised Standard Version. Here we shall say at the outset that we find it more objectionable than the New Testament. Perhaps we can discover a reason for this in some observations of the list of scholars who worked upon it. The revision committee was larger than the one which worked on the New Testament. It was almost entirely composed of liberals and modernists, and even included a Jewish scholar, Harry M. Orlinsky, of the Jewish Institute of Religion, New York. This is a reform Jewish seminary, which corresponds to the thoroughly modernist theological schools among the Protestants.
The Old Testament would furnish many opportunities for the opponents of all the truth of God that centered in the revelation of Himself in the Person of His Son, who was to come as the seed of the woman, and of the seed of Abraham, through Jacob, Judah, a n d David, for it abounds in its prophetic and typical testimony to Him. The allusions to Him are clear and unmistakable, and that without a discordant note. Every section of the book points forward to Him in perfect unison with every other part.
When the Lord Jesus came into the world according to the prophecies that went before, He was forthwith rejected by the very people to whom these oracles were entrusted. They looked for a Messiah to come in power, but failed to believe "all that the prophets had spoken"; they overlooked His first coming in humiliation; and His rejection took place as foretold. Even when the Lord was here, the Jews were incensed at His claim to deity; and those who at this day still look for the Messiah, look only for an outstanding man—not One who is Jehovah as well.
Jewish opposition to the prophecies concerning "Him of whom Moses in the law and the prophets did write" is well known, and very deep-seated. Jewish scribes, translators, and expositors have worked unceasingly at changing the wording or altering the obvious meaning through dexterous manipulations. Some of their reasonings to explain away the self-evident truths concerning the Lord Jesus are "not violent merely, but pitiable" (quotation from W. Kelly).
This deeply ingrained antipathy toward the prophetic word concerning Jesus of Nazareth would be natural to a Jewish scholar, and it would find a like spirit in the anti-Christian modernists among Protestants. Now these men, even though they had good intentions of rendering an honest translation, would be inhibited by their predilections. Handling an older language than the New Testament Greek, these Old Testament scholars had more difficulties with a dead language, and also found a great variety of manuscripts a n d translations that had undergone tampering in past centuries. All this added up to some difficulties, and to others that were difficulties in their own minds. A Spirit-taught Christian with less scholarship would have had less occasion for stumbling.
In our judgment, when these difficulties, or supposed difficulties, arose, there was a tendency with these revisers to resolve them along the line of their natural bent—a thing quite understandable, a n d even excusable, if it were not so serious.
One change from the King lames Version which t h e R.S.V. revisers did not make, was one that had been adopted by the American Revision in 1901, and prior to that by J.N.D. New Translation in 1881, also W. Kelly followed it; that was, using a translation of the Hebrew name by which God revealed Himself to Israel—"Jehovah." King lames has used "Lord" instead, except in four places, and the R.S.V. adopts "Loes" exclusively. This we believe to be a mistake. The Hebrew word probably was "YHWH" before the vowels were added to make it "Yahweh." It is a precious part of the divine truth that God chose thus to reveal Himself to His earthly people with whom He had made a covenant; the meaning of that name is basically, "Who is, who was, who is to come"—the one unchanging and unchangeable One. How precious that God should deign to thus certify to Israel that He who had made a covenant with them would never change. The name of God, "I AM," found in Ex. 3:14, expresses the same thought; compare also Ex. 6:3 where King James uses "Jehovah," but the new R.S.V. adopts "Loam”
A book we have reviewed, The Story of Bible Translations, published by the Jewish Publication Society of America, calls the 1901 revision's use of "Jehovah," "a questionable innovation." Now we read in the preface to the R.S.V. that one reason they did not use "Jehovah" was that "the use of any proper name for the one and only God, as though there were other gods from which he had to be distinguished, was discontinued in Judaism before the Christian era and is entirely inappropriate for the universal faith of the Christian Church." What if it was discontinued in Judaism before the Christian era? Shall we give up the correct translation to please the Jews who dislike it, and who dropped it 2000 years ago? God used it in His inspired Word, and that should settle the matter. But here we trace the effort to blend Judaism and Modernism of Christianity into one pattern. It reminds us that when the lying prophet comes to Jerusalem claiming to be their Messiah, apostate Christendom will also accept him to their ruin. (See Dan. 11:36-45 and 2 Thess. 2:9-12.)
In the Old Testament the R.S.V. likewise uses thee, thou, thy, and thine in addresses to deity, and carefully avoids the use of such pronouns when the Lord Jesus Christ is addressed prophetically. This can be seen in the Psalms; for instance, "You are my son, today I have begotten you. Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession. You shall break them with a rod of iron." Psa. 2:7-9. "The LORD says to my lord: 'Sit at my right hand, till I make your enemies your footstool.... You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.'" Psa. 110:1-4. And in that beautiful psalm that describes His glory as the coming King, Psa. 45, we read in R.S.V., "You are the fairest of the sons of men; grace is poured upon your lips; therefore God has blessed you forever. Gird your sword upon your thigh, 0 mighty one [not "Most High"], in your glory and majesty," and so on through the 9th verse. This has been done in another Messianic psalm—the 91St—you and your are used 21 Times in direct address to Him.
A very strange and incomprehensible application of the rules concerning these pronouns is to be found when some of these verses are quoted in the New Testament. The revisers of the New Testament followed the same plan of not addressing the Lord Jesus as deity when the 91St Psalm is quoted to Him by Satan in the temptations (see Matt. 4:6 and Luke 4:11), but then in quoting from Psa. 110 in Acts 2:35, thy is used, and thou in Heb. 5:5,6, and 7:17, 21; also in quoting from Psa. 2 in Acts 13:33 and Heb. 1:5 and 5:5, thou is used.
A regrettable change has been made in Psa. 2. In this psalm the Lord Jesus, when He came into the world as man, is addressed by God as His Son; then the kings and rulers are called upon to be wise and to "Kiss the Son, lest He be angry, and ye perish from the way, when His wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in Him." v. 12. The R.S.V. changed "Kiss the Son" to "Kiss his feet," evidently harking back to the word "LORD" in verse 11. The context should have made any difficulty in translating the Hebrew quite clear—it is the Son whom the rulers are called upon to honor. The word could not possibly mean "feet.”
Why the R.S.V. should have changed Psa. 8:5 from "For Thou hast made Him a little lower than the angels," to "Yet thou hast made him a little less than God" is not understandable. The psalm speaks of the same glorious Person, but in that special character as Son of man-a much broader title than Messiah. He was made a little lower than the angels; that is, He became a man, and that (as we read in Heb. 2:9) for the suffering of death. The quotation from the 8th Psalm in Heb. 2 is correct—"a little lower than the angels.”
The 22nd Psalm which so graphically sets forth the sufferings of that blessed One on the cross, is changed in verse 21. As it is in King James and J.N.D. New Translation, God's hearing Him at the end of His sufferings is noted—"Thou hast heard Me"—and He is answered (in resurrection) and immediately He speaks of declaring the Father's name to His brethren; but the answer from God is deleted from the verse in the R.S.V.
Another serious alteration is made in Psa. 45:6. The coming King is addressed as God in verse 6, "Thy throne, 0 God, is forever and ever," in King James, J.N.D., a n d Douay versions, but the R.S.V. has removed His deity by rendering it, "Your divine throne." Yet, the quotation of this verse in Heb. 1:8 is correct. This is one case where the Old Testament revision seems to deliberately err, but it is in keeping with modernistic thoughts. A true Christian—one whose eyes were anointed with eyesalve (Rev. 3:18)— would have no difficulty here. The Spirit of God makes it clear in Heb. 1:8, what is meant and to whom it was addressed: "But unto the Son He saith, Thy throne, O God," etc.
Another objectionable change is found in Psa. 69—a psalm of the sufferings of the Lord just before and on the cross—where "Save Me, O God; for the waters are come in unto My soul," is altered to read, "For the waters have come up to my neck." Surely the idea of waters coming up to the neck is not the same as the Lord's sorrows entering into His soul. We have checked a number of other psalms where the same Hebrew word nephesh is found, to see how the revisers translated it elsewhere, and in all cases which we noticed they translated the word nephesh, soul. Some of these are, "My soul is also sore vexed" (6:3); "The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul" (19:7); "He restoreth my soul (23:3); "Why art thou cast down, O my soul?" (42:5, 11); "Bless the LORD, O my soul" (103:1, 2, 22). It is quite obvious that the word neck would be out of place in any of the above quoted passages, as also in Psa. 69:1.
Lack of spiritual understanding was abundantly evident in the way the revisers handled Psa. 102. The psalm declares the rebuilding and glory of Zion, and then the Messiah (the Lord Jesus in His humiliation) says, "O My God, take Me not away in the midst of My days." Was Jerusalem to be re-established and the Messiah to be cut off? Then God answers Him: "Thy years are throughout all generations. Of old hast Thou laid the foundations of the earth: and the heavens are the work of Thy hands. They shall perish, but Thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt Thou change them, and they shall be changed: but Thou art the same, and Thy years shall have no end." vv. 24-27. What a beautiful answer to His prayer about being cut off-He was the Creator, and His years would have no end. There can be no reasonable doubt to any open-minded child of God that this is the meaning of these verses, but the R.S.V. by a clever manipulation changes t h e whole meaning, and again removes a clear statement of the deity of Christ. It reads, "O my God, I say, take me not hence in the midst of my days, thou whose years endure," etc. Thus the Messiah is made to address God as the unchanging One, rather than to be addressed as such.
We must pass over other points in the Psalms and come to the book of Proverbs for a few comments. Prov. 8:22-36 has long been enjoyed by believers as setting forth the eternal place occupied by the Lord Jesus before coming into this world. He is doubtless referred to as Wisdom personified. Here, however, we meet with an affront in the R.S.V. All other translations which we have checked render the 22nd verse thus: "The LORD [or, Jehovah] possessed Me in the beginning of His way"; now R.S.V. changes possessed to created—an entirely different thought. If it be Christ who is referred to, then certainly possessed is demanded, for He cannot be referred to as having been created. R.S.V. also has altered the wording and meaning of the next verse—the 23rd—so that instead of saying, "I was set up from everlasting" (King James), or "I was set up from eternity" (J.N.D. and Douay), it reads, "Ages ago I was set up." Ages ago has a beginning, but not eternity.
We shall now come to Isa. 7:14. Here we find R.S.V. has changed "Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call His name Immanuel," to Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son." W. Kelly says of this verse: "It is well known that the Jews have made desperate efforts to evade this luminous testimony to the Incarnation in their own prophet." Jews and rationalists have made much out of the difference between two Hebrew words, be thuwlah, and almah (used here). The former is often used for a virgin, but not exclusively so; the latter is seldom used, but beyond question it is used for a virgin. Both words are used of Rebecca in Gen. 24—one in verse 16 and the other in verse 43. Both refer to the same person, and evidently virgin or maiden is intended. Almah is also found in the Hebrew text of The. Sol. 1:3 and 6:8, and it is worthy of note that the R.S.V. uses an equivalent of virgin in both of these verses; that is, maiden. The word be thuwlah which the R.S.V. wants to be exclusively known as virgin is used in Joel 1:8 where the meaning could not be virgin.
Now when this verse is quoted in Matt. 1, the R.S.V. does give it as virgin, but this may not reflect any credit to it, for the New Testament quotation was made from a Greek translation of the Old Testament, often called the Septuagint, and it definitely gives parthenos, or virgin. A translation of the Greek of Matt. 1 Could only be virgin from the word parthenos.
The Septuagint Greek translation of the Old Testament was completed in or before the second century before Christ, so that it cannot be said to have been influenced by Christianity in so translating almah as parthenos, or virgin. The Hebrew scholars who worked on translating the Hebrew of the Old Testament into Greek, understood the word to mean virgin.
Ponticus Aquila, a Greek proselyte to Judaism in about 138 A.D., translated the Old Testament, and utilized the Septuagint in his work. He, as was his bent, changed virgin of Isa. 7:14 into young woman, so the R.S.V. is not alone in doing this; but the weight of evidence is against them and it.
Another point to consider is, in the words of W. Kelly, "In the present instance the context requires the sense of virgin with the utmost precision; for in a young married woman's bearing a son, there is no sign or wonder." This was to be the sign God would give of His interposition on behalf of Israel. And the virgin's Son was to be Immanuel, or "God with us.”
The wonderful prophecy of the "seventy weeks" in Dan. 9 has been altered somewhat from what it is in King James Version, where the time for the appearance of "the Messiah the Prince" is foretold. R.S.V. reads instead, "an anointed one, a prince." This is in line with what we have discovered elsewhere in the version. We know that Messiah means anointed, but the use of the indefinite articles before anointed one and prince indicates the disposition of the scholars who worked upon it, for in the 26th verse, after speaking of the Messiah's being cut off, it goes on to a Roman prince, and there uses the definite article— "the prince who is to come.”
In Mic. 5:2 it was foretold that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem, but the Spirit of God hastens to add: "Whose goings forth have been of old, from everlasting" (King James Version); Mr. J. N. Darby, and Douay, translate the last clause, "from the days of eternity." A wonderful safeguard against any misunderstanding about the deity of the Christ—His goings forth have been from the days of eternity. Here again we find the R.S.V. in conflict with the testimony of the other capable and trustworthy translators, for the R.S.V. says, "Whose origin is from of old, from ancient days." Here we have the revisers dropping in again (as in Prov. 8) the thought of His beginning—"whose origin"; that is, His beginning, or creation (which is utterly false)—and then bringing it down from an unknown and unknowable eternity to merely "ancient days." Much more could not be done to this plain prophetic utterance of the deity, and eternity of being, of the Lord Jesus Christ.
We shall glance at one more book—Zechariah—to see some twisted references to the Person of the Lord Jesus. In Zech. 11:13, after giving a prophetic picture of the Jewish leaders making a bargain with Judas for the betrayal of the Lord for thirty pieces of silver, the prophet was told to "Cast them to the potter in the house of the LORD." We know how accurately this was fulfilled, and the Jews bought the field, called the potter's field, in which to bury strangers. But the R.S.V. has dropped any mention of the potter from this verse.
The coming of the Messiah in lowliness and humiliation, when He came the first time, is adjusted in Zech. 9:9, for instead of rendering it as others do, "Thy King cometh unto thee: He is just, and having salvation," the R.S.V. says, "Lo, your king comes to you; triumphant and victorious is he." That is the way Israel looked for Him, but the prophets also foretold of the sufferings of Christ as well as of the glory that should follow.
Also in chapter 12:10 the R.S.V. has changed the wording to that which is pleasing to Jews and liberals. Jehovah speaks of the day when the house of David and inhabitants of Jerusalem shall see the One whom they pierced, and says, "They shall look upon ME whom they have pierced." What could be plainer than that the lowly Jesus of Nazareth was Jehovah Himself. Israel shall yet see Him thus, and believe this very truth. But here the R.S.V. followed earlier doubters, and rendered it, "When they look on him whom they have pierced"; they thus remove the statement that the One who was pierced was Jehovah. W. Kelly comments on the same change made at earlier dates: "The reading of the Keri 'on him' instead of 'on Me,' seems evidently to bear the stamp of a correction designed to remove an apparent anomaly from the construction as well as to get rid of the plain truth, as the text stands, that the pierced One is Jehovah. Hence the correction has crept into the text of not a few manuscripts.... The truth is that these tamperings with the reading and the efforts of others to enfeeble the translation only show the deep moment of what is here written by the Holy Spirit.”
Then in Zech. 13:6, "What are these wounds on your back?" has been substituted for "What are these wounds in Thine hands?" The marks in His blessed hands, which were put there through the wickedness of men, on the cross, shall yet be apparent. The change to "on your back" strikes at the crucifixion.
Perhaps it should not be overlooked that the R.S.V. says, "And there shall be a priest by his throne" (6:13), instead of His being a priest upon His throne. The thought of combining priesthood and kingship in Him did not enter their minds, but that is precisely what is meant, and many scriptures give support to this truth. It is then that He shall act in His Melchisedec, or royal, priesthood character.
Now, Christian reader, we leave these observations with you and trust you may weigh them in the fear of the Lord. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge and wisdom, but not of the wisdom of this world. We had hoped we might find a useful version that we could recommend, but alas, it is otherwise. We feel it would be a great mistake if the Revised Standard Version should replace the King hones Version for one's regular reading of the Word of God. While there are mistakes in the King James, as we said, yet it is free from liberal bias and slanted renderings which wrest the Scriptures.
Perhaps this new revision may be helpful to some when used strictly as a reference book, but even then the user should be on his guard, and he should be one who is able to discern both good and evil. We strongly advise reading regularly and diligently the King James Version, and we feel that the reader would be wise to check any difficult passage with a more literal translation from God-fearing men, such as J. N. Darby and W. Kelly.
Perhaps God may overrule and permit the publicity for this R.S.V. Bible to promote the reading of it by some who may therein find the way to repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. He is sovereign and can do as He pleases, and if He blesses unsaved people through it, to Him be the praise.
Supplement
Some additional information and more questions regarding the Revised Standard Version of the Bible have reached us; therefore, it seems advisable to add some supplementary remarks to our review.
In the preface of the R.S.V. whole Bible (not the New Testament volume alone) is found this statement: "The revisers in the 1870's had most of the evidence that we now have for the Greek Text, though the most ancient of all extant manuscripts of the Greek New Testament were not discovered until 1931." Obviously, this would tend to silence all criticism of the changes made in the R.S.V. New Testament, which had not been made in the Revised Version, which first appeared as a whole Bible in 1885, for if only the later revisers had access to the oldest manuscripts extant, then perhaps such changes were warranted.
To test this statement (from the preface), we turned to the library of the University of Chicago, because Prof. Edgar J. Goodspeed, one of the revisers, is listed as being connected with that institution. To our inquiry, "How are these recently discovered manuscripts listed?" we received the reply that they are known as the "Chester Beatty papyri nos. P. 45-46 and 47." They are classified as of the third century of this era-a date at which the whole canon of the New Testament had been established. Later, we sent the University Library a chart which outlined all the books of the New Testament, and requested information on what portion of the New Testament was contained in these manuscripts. From their notes made on our chart, we learned that the following books are not included: 2 Thessalonians; 1 and 2 Timothy; Titus; Philemon; James; 1 and 2 Peter; 1, 2, and 3 John; Jude-a sizeable part missing in its entirety. Of the books that were contained in these manuscripts, they gave us this information: "The MSS P. 45, P. 46, and P. 47 are all very fragmentary. No one of them contains the complete books checked. They were discovered in 1933," instead of 1931 (italics are ours). All of this raises a great doubt as to their value being any greater than that of those which were previously known to exist, and makes the revisers' claim seem rather presumptuous.
Even if these Chester Beatty manuscripts were of special value, they certainly were obtainable to the Catholic translators of the Confraternity version, and Ronald Knox who translated the New Testament in English, as also to Gerrit Verkuyl, Ph.D., who brought out the Berkeley Version of the New Testament in modern English, in 1945. While mistakes may be found in any literary work, as there must be in the three versions just named, yet there does not appear to be in them the biased renderings and slanted readings which we have noticed in the R.S.V. It is our judgment that the revisers' statement regarding these papyri is an attempt to justify any and all changes they made, which others did not make, but with very, very little real evidence in hand to support them.
Another change in the R.S.V. that has troubled many Christians is the deletion of the close of Mark's Gospel from the regular text—verses 9-20 of the last chapter. These verses are printed in small italics as a questionable supplement, and they are preceded by a note which says: "Some texts and versions add as 16:9-20 the following passage." We shall quote from others on this subject.
W. Kelly says on Mark 16:9-20: "I am aware that men have tampered with the closing verses, as they have sullied with their unholy doubts the beginning of John 8.... I admit that there are certain differences between this portion and the previous part of chapter 16. But, in my judgment, the Spirit purposely put them in a different light. Here, you will observe, it is a question of forming the servants according to that rising from the dead for which He had prepared them. Had the Gospel terminated without this, we must have had a real gap, which ought to have been felt.... This wonderful Gospel of His ministry would have left off with as impotent a conclusion as we could possibly imagine. Chapter 16 would have closed with the silence of the women and its source, 'for they were afraid.' What conclusion less worthy of the servant Son of God! What must have been the impression left, if the doubts of some learned men had the slightest substance in them? Can anyone, who knows the character of the Lord and of His ministry, conceive for an instant that we should be left with nothing but a message baulked through the alarm of women?”
Speaking further of the internal evidence for the Holy Spirit's authorship through the Evangelist Mark, W. Kelly says, "The very freedom of the style, the use of words not elsewhere used, or so used by Mark, and the difficulties of some of the circumstances narrated, tell to my mind in favor of its genuineness; for a forger would have adhered to the letter, if he could not so easily catch the spirit of Mark.... I am not aware that in all the second Gospel there is a section more characteristic of this Evangelist than the very one that man's temerity has not feared to seize upon, endeavoring to root it from the soil where God planted it.
“Accepting these words [vv. 9-20] as the words of God, you have a termination that harmonizes with a truly divine gospel; but not merely that-here you have a divine conclusion for Mark's Gospel, and for no other. There is no other gospel that this conclusion would suit but Mark's; for observe here what the Spirit of God finally gives us. He says, 'After the Lord had spoken unto them, He was received up into heaven and sat on the right hand of God.' As the Gospel of Mark exhibits emphatically Jesus the workman of God, so even in the rest of glory He is the workman still.... 'While they went forth upon their mission, they were to take up the work which the Lord had left them to do. 'They went forth and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the words with signs following.' Thus Mark, and no one else, gives us the picture most thoroughly, the whole consistent up to the last. Would a forger have kept up the bold thought of 'the Lord working with them,' while every other word intimates that He was then at least quiescent?”
Mr. Kelly concludes his remarks by saying, "The positive external proofs, and the internal, prove not only that it is inspired Scripture, but from none other than Mark himself.... To allow that these verses are authentic Scripture, but not Mark's own writing, seems to me the lamest supposition possible.”
Mr. J. N. Darby says in a footnote of his translation, "I do not enter on the question of the authenticity of verses 9-20 here. I read them as Scripture. Burgon has pretty well demolished the authorities against them." Then, after naming four manuscripts that omit or qualify them, he says, "All other uncials and cursives and versions have the passage. It is quoted by Irenaeus and also by Hippolytus of the second or third century.”
Ronald Knox gives this footnote in his translation: "It seems that the manuscripts of St. Mark were mutilated at the end in very early times; the whole of this chapter being sometimes omitted.... And in a few of our existing manuscripts these last twelve verses are wanting, which fact (together with the abruptness of their style) has made some critics think that they were added from another source.
But they are evidently of primitive account, and there is no reason why we should not ascribe their inclusion here to St. Mark.”
R.S.V. gives John 7:53 to 8:11 the same treatment which it accorded those closing verses of Mark 16. It casts a blight on that portion of the Word of God by first remarking that most authorities either omit these verses or insert them with variation elsewhere, and then by printing them in small italics in the form of a footnote. By way of challenging the revisers' handling of this portion of the Word of God, we shall again quote the words of others who have before written on this subject.
Augustine (354-430), the celebrated bishop of Hippo, who so faithfully withstood the Pelagian heresy which denied mankind's fall and depravity, said that there were persons of small faith, or rather enemies of the faith, who had taken the above mentioned portion away for fear of allowing immorality. (Such persons never felt the heat of the light that the Lord that day turned on the woman's accusers, or they would never have thus spoken.) W. Kelly, a well-known authority on Greek and Greek manuscripts, says that it was the incredulity of some copyists that indisposed them to reproduce the story of the adulteress. He adds, "This is plain from some copies which leave a blank-a fact wholly inexplicable, if the scribe had not been aware of a paragraph which he knew to exist, but for reasons of his own thought fit to omit." He gives a list of Greek uncials (those written in all capital letters) which do include the disputed portion, and also says that 330 cursives (those written in a running hand) and many versions have it.
Taking up another form of objection to these verses, W. Kelly says, "Many alleged verbal peculiarities have acted on the minds of a considerable number, and led them to question its title to a place in the genuine Gospel of John.... I have examined with care, and satisfied myself, that the alleged weightiest argument against the passage, in its entire diversity from the style of John's narrative, is superficial and misleading. Some peculiar words are required by the circumstance; and the general cast and character of the passage, so far from being alien to the Evangelist's manner, seems to me, on the contrary, in his spirit, rather than in any other inspired writer's, no matter in which of the manuscripts we read it.... Mature as well as minute consideration of them fails to raise the slightest doubt in my own mind, and therefore to me it seems so much the more a duty to defend it, where the alternative is a dishonor to what I believe God has given us.”
The statement that "most manuscripts" omit this portion (also found as a side note in the Revised Version of 1885) is challenged by the same writer, when he says, "The idea of many distinct and independent texts (as distinguished from abundance of various readings) seems an evident exaggeration." He then goes on to explain the method by which such a computation is accomplished, and says that it is "eked out" by putting many manuscripts together and classifying them as one group.
The remaining point which should be examined is the internal evidence about which W. Kelly says: "The moral and spiritual indications are incomparably graver and more conclusive than any evidence of an external sort. Not that the external evidence is really weak, far from it. That which gives such an appearance is capable of reasonable, unforced, and even of what seems almost to amount to a historical solution.... The account is exactly in harmony with the scripture that follows it... There is here an indissoluble link of connected truth between the facts related and the communication our Lord makes afterward.... Choose for me in all Scripture a preface of fact so suited to the doctrine of the chapter that follows. The whole chapter from first to last, beams with light-the light of God and His word in the Person of Jesus. Is not this undeniably what comes out in the opening incident? Does not Christ present Himself in discourse just after as the light of the world, as God's light by His word in Himself, infinitely superior to law, yet at the same time giving law its fullest authority? Only a divine person could act in perfect grace, and at the same time maintain immaculate holiness, and so much the more because it was in One full of grace.
“The scribes and Pharisees manifest no holy hatred of evil, and certainly feel no pity for the poor sinner. 'They say unto Him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest Thou? This they said, tempting Him, that they might have to accuse Him.' Their hope was to ensnare Christ, and to leave Him only a choice of difficulties: either a useless repetition of the law of Moses, or open opposition to it... Enmity to His Person was their motive. To agree with Moses or to annul him seemed to them inevitable, and almost equally prejudicial to the claims of Jesus.... But the fact is, the grace of God never conflicts with His law, but, on the contrary, maintains its authority in its own sphere.”
The Lord's all- accusers and the accused is well known, so we shall say little. Again, from the pen of Mr. Kelly we quote: "His words were few, simple, and self-evidencing. `He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.' It was the light of God cast on their thoughts, words, and life. The effect was immediate and complete....
Why did not some of the witnesses rise and do the office? What! not one? 'They..., being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one.' The law had never done this.... But here was the light of God shining full on their sinful condition." Oh, the perfection of the Lord and His ways in this incident, and of the way in which it is dovetailed into the divine record at this very point! How can any devout Christian question either its divine authorship or the special place it has in John's Gospel?
A footnote in the new Berkeley Version is worthy of note here. While it admits that some old manuscripts omit the passage, this conclusion is appended: "The incident has such a Christlike ring, the omission of it would be a great loss. We accept it as a true report.”
We stand by our earlier statements that the R.S.V. is untrustworthy, and strongly advise against its use, except as a reference book, and then only with great caution.
—PAUL WILSON
Courtesy of BibleTruthPublishers.com. Most likely this text has not been proofread. Any suggestions for spelling or punctuation corrections would be warmly received. Please email them to: BTPmail@bibletruthpublishers.com.