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 Pet. 1:2121For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but 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. 2:1414But 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 Corinthians 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.) h a s 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. 9:55Therefore I thought it necessary to exhort the brethren, that they would go before unto you, and make up beforehand your bounty, whereof ye had notice before, that the same might be ready, as a matter of bounty, and not as of covetousness. (2 Corinthians 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 Goodspeed, 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 23:3333And when they were come to the place, which is called Calvary, there they crucified him, and the malefactors, one on the right hand, and the other on the left. (Luke 23:33). They also failed to comprehend the true meaning in 1 John 3:44Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. (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 Romans 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. 22:1414Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. (Revelation 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.
Some minor mistakes in the King James Version have been properly corrected; for instance, "holy child Jesus" in Acts 4 has been translated "holy servant Jesus." Where the King James 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. 25:1313Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh. (Matthew 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. 8:11There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. (Romans 8:1). References to the Son of man coming, properly belong in other portions of the prophecies of Matthew 24 and 25; but not in that place; and the clause deleted from Rom. 8:11There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. (Romans 8:1) properly belongs in verse 4. The word "again" has been correctly dropped from Acts 13:3333God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. (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 t h e
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 1:1111And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. (Mark 1:11) and Luke 3:2222And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased. (Luke 3:22). A strange incongruity appears in Revelation 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 9:3535Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God? (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. 3:1616And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. (1 Timothy 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. 9:55Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. (Romans 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, a n d 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 3:1313And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. (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, and 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 2:1313Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; (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.
(We regret that we cannot publish our whole review in this issue, but, the Lord willing, it will be concluded next month. We urge that it also be read, for it deals with the Old Testament of the REVISED STANDARD VERSION.)