The word “devil” still occupies its former position where the original is diabolos. The same may be said in regard to its plural form, “devils”; but with this difference, that the word “demons” is inserted in the margin. This is an advantage, in enabling defenders or propagators of the truth to point out the distinction between sin and one of its effects. Unbiassed fidelity would (as recommended by the American Committee) have inserted “demons” in the text, instead of the margin.
In Matt. 28:20, Jesus is still represented as saying, “Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.” It was, perhaps, too much to expect that the self-styled “successors of the Apostles” would alter this supposed support to their ecclesiastical pretensions. They have, however, inserted in the margin, as an alternative rendering, “the consummation of the age.” Possibly they did not see any difference between the two; nevertheless the result of their deliberations has a suspicious aspect.
2. By carrying out more completely the rule of giving a uniform rendering to the same Greek word. In John 14:16 and 1 John 2:1 the word Paraclete occurs. According to the Revisers’ own rule, this should have been rendered the same in both cases. What have they done? In the former they give “Comforter,” and in the latter, “Advocate.” The first passage has always been considered a strong support for the personality of the Holy Spirit, and it might, on that account, be considered dangerous to alter it. True, the margin of John 14:16 says, “or Advocate, or Helper” and that of John 2:1 says, “or Comforter or Helper.” The context of the Epistle shows that Advocate or Helper is the correct meaning; from which the conclusion might have been drawn that the Holy Spirit is so called in the Gospel. In John 16:7 to 9, Jesus Christ specially associates it with advocacy or defence, in reproving, or convicting (as the Revised Version has it), the world in respect of sin, righteousness, and judgment. There need be no hesitation, therefore, in calling the Holy Spirit an Advocate as well as Christ.
There is not a more important word in the inspired writings than that rendered “testament.” The revisers have in every case but two substituted “covenant” and inserted “testament” in the margin. The exceptions are Heb. 9:16, 17, where testament is retained, and this note is given in the margin:—“The Greek word here used signifies both covenant and testament.” The American committee did not altogether approve of this course, for they recommend in the appendix that “the word ‘testament’ be everywhere changed to ‘covenant’ (without an alternote in the margin), except in Heb. 9:15, 17.” Thus to linguists on both sides the Atlantic the word has proved a stumbling block. It need not have been so if the subject had been received comprehensively, and a right use made of the labours of some who have given special attention to it. The matter stands thus: A covenant may come into force during the lifetime of those who make it, a testament or will, can not. Which, then is the correct term to apply to a transaction of which God is the author? A covenant without doubt. The Revisers have recognised this in every passage but the two mentioned. Why this departure from such an excellent rule? Apparently because the subject is there dealt with in a general way, and the form of words used is somewhat singular. But it must be remembered that this general statement is simply introduced for the purpose of enforcing what the Apostle has to say on the two covenants under consideration. In Heb. 7:22, Jesus is called “the surety of a better covenant:” in ch. 8:6, he is called “the mediator of a better covenant,” subsequent verses referring to God’s promise to make a “new covenant” (5:8). In chap. 9:1, the Mosaic system is called “the first covenant,” and in 5:15 Jesus is styled “the mediator of a new covenant. Verses 16 and 17 begin with “for,” showing how closely they are linked with that which has gone before, and the Reviser’s render them as follows:—“For where a testament is, there must of necessity be the death of him that made it. For a testament is of force where there hath been death; for doth it ever avail while he that made it liveth?” The Apostle is thus represented as enforcing the necessity of Christ’s death as “the mediator of the new covenant” by the fact that when a man makes a testament or will, he must die before it can come into force. Where is the analogy? Absolutely none. Jesus Christ was not both maker and mediator of the new covenant, God made it, and appointed His son to be its mediator. A covenant required death to ratify it; it was the custom among men to slay an animal for this purpose, of which an illustration is to be found in Jer. 34:18. This is how the Mosaic or old covenant was brought into force, as shewn by the Apostle in Heb. 9:18, 19:—“Wherefore even the first [covenant] hath not been dedicated without blood. For when every commandment had been spoken by Moses unto all the people according to the law, he took the blood of the calves and the goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself, and all the people.” The argumentative connection between this statement and verses 16 and 17 shew that there is no room for altering the translation of the word diatheckee in this chapter from covenant to testament. God was the author of the Sinaitic transaction, and he caused it to come into force by the shedding of animal blood. But this would not suffice for the new covenant, of which the old one was a type, because it involved the absolute destruction of sin. Hence the death of its mediator, Jesus Christ.
Thus the logical necessities of the case exclude the idea represented by the word “testament,” and demand, without alternative or exception, the word “covenant.” But it will be said, Can verses 16 and 17 be legitimately rendered on this basis? Let the following authorities answer. John Wesley used “covenant” in these verses, giving in verse 16 the words, “the death of him by whom the covenant is confirmed.” Archbishop Newcome rendered them:—“Where a covenant is, there is a necessity that the death of the covenanter should be brought in. For a covenant is firm over the dead: whereas it is of no force when the covenanter liveth.” Gilbert Wakefield improves on this by saying:—“the death of that which establisheth the covenant; because a covenant is confirmed over dead things; and is of no force at all whilst that which establisheth the covenant is alive.” Perhaps the best attempt to give the true meaning of this passage is that of Dr. Stroud’s, in his “Physical cause of the death of Christ”:—“For where [there is] a covenant [the] death of the covenant-victim [must] necessarily take place; for a covenant [is] ratified over dead [victims] not having any force while the victim remains alive.” The blunder into which both Translators and Revisers have fallen appears to have arisen from overlooking a somewhat elliptical form of speech not unfrequent in the inspired writings, together with a theological bias inseparable from Trinitarianism, and the influence of Popish versions. But for this, the writings of Moses and the Prophets would have been called The Old Covenant, and those of the Evangelists and Apostles, The New Covenant. There is no reason why they should not be so called by those who recognise in these the correct titles of God’s typical and anti-typical manifestation of His will.
3. By adopting some of the suggestions of the American Committee. The appendix, where these are arranged, is a valuable addition to the New Version. It shows that the Revisers in the New World have been less fettered by tradition than those in the Old. They would omit, for instance, the prefix, “S.” for saint, from the titles of the writers—a very proper emendation, in view of the fact that all the brethren of Christ are “saints,” whether inspired writers or not. And they would bring the language in relation to persons into harmony with modern usage by substituting “who” or “that” for “which.” “Our Father who art in heaven” sounds much more appropriate than “Our Father which art in heaven.” It is an anomaly to find in Col. 4:11, “Jesus WHICH is called Justus;” and in 5:12, “Epaphras WHO is one of you.”
Heb. 11:1, is a passage which has not been improved by the Revisers. Instead of defining faith to be “the evidence of things not seen” they say the proving (or, test margin) of things not seen” the American Committee suggest “a conviction of things not seen”, which is evidently more correct. Acts 20:28, contains a sentence which has been the source of much controversy—“feed the Church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.” The only alteration made by the Revisers is to omit the word “hath,” give the alternate rendering “acquired” for “purchased” and insert in the margin the following note in reference to “God:”—“Many ancient authorities read the Lord.” The American Committee recommend this course to be reversed by substituting “Lord” for “God” and inserting in the margin—“some ancient authorites, including the two oldest MSS., read God.” The authorities for the two readings being somewhat balanced it becomes a question as to which is more in accordance with the language of scripture. From this point of view there can be no hesitation in selecting “Lord,” “God” being probably a corruption of the text introduced by some careless scribe.
Some of the principal recommendations of the American Revisers have been already noticed under other headings, and need not be repeated. It is a matter for regret that greater deference was not paid to their judgment. The Revised version would have been less faulty if this had been done. An enterprising firm of publishers in New York announce an edition which, will be the reverse of the Oxford and Cambridge edition. The American readings will be given in the text, with alternate readings in the margin, and the English readings will be relegated to an appendix. There is a touch of humour about this scheme, apart from the business like enterprise it displays, which is quite in harmony with Yankee smartness. This rivalry on either side of the Atlantic will doubtless contribute to a more accurate knowledge of New Testament language among the English speaking portion of the human race.
4. By correcting some of the ungrammatical expressions it contains. Very critical minds might no doubt make a long list of these; but inasmuch as they do not affect the meaning of the passages it is a comparatively unimportant point. The following will serve as illustrations. Matt. 12:48, reads, “Who is my mother and who are my brethern,” which is correct; but the parallel passage in Mark 3:33, is worded “Who IS my mother and my brethern,” a violation of the rule which requires a plural verb when referring to more than one. A similar inconsistency is to be found in another parallel passage: Mark 15:40, reads “among whom were both Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James,” but in Matt. 27:56, “was” is given instead of “were,” To those who live South of the Tweed the correction of the improper use of “will” and “shall” would have been appreciated.
Whatever errors of omission the Revisers have been guilty of, they are more to be blamed for the errors of commission. These may be summed under two heads, viz.:—
1. Needless changes in phraseology. The instructions given by Convocation required “as few alterations as possible” to be made “consistent with faithfulness,” and the Revisers profess to have acted upon this rule. But no independent judgment can agree with them. They have changed words and phrases without affecting the idea. Thus, for “Be not afraid,” in Mark 5:36, they have substituted “Fear not;” and for “Labour not,” in John 6:27, they have given “Work not.” Many other instances might be given, but these will suffice to show that much of the Revisers’ work, however great may be the ability and learning shown, is of no substantial value to the ordinary reader.
2. The theological colouring imparted to certain passages. The most glaring illustration of this is the introduction of the personal element of evil into the Lord’s Prayer. For this there was no good reason even from the Revisers’ point of view. Assuming that there is a superhuman monster, he is comprised in the general term, “evil.” The alteration of this into “evil one” narrows the petition to deliverance from evil outside the human race, and represents Christ as teaching his disciples, by implication, not to pray for deliverance from the evil existing among the sons of Adam. This introduces discord where there previously existed harmony, as shown in the frequent note of warning given to his followers—e.g., “Beware of false prophets”, “Beware of men”, “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees”, “Beware of the Scribes”, also in his application of the term “evil” to many of Adam’s sons (Matt. 5:45; 7:11; 12:34, 39). The Apostle Paul describes Christ’s mission as having for its object to “deliver us from this present evil world” (Gal. 1:4), and he asks the Thessalonians to pray “that we may be delivered from unreasonable and wicked men.” On the assumption that “the evil one” is the only form of evil from which deliverance is required, this Apostolic request would be superfluous. It may be said, that the Revisers have been guided, not by general considerations but by critical acumen, and on this point there has been some amount of controversy. Their position, however, is very weak, for not only is the word “one” in italics, but the margin gives as an alternative rendering, “or evil”. Now, there is such a wide difference between evil in general and evil in the form of a superhuman being, that it is impossible to use them interchangeably. Either “evil” or “evil one” is right, and whichever it be the other must be wrong. The best way to test the matter is to examine some of the other passages where the expression occurs. The Authorised Version represents Jesus as saying that “whatsoever is more than Yea, yea, or Nay, nay, cometh of evil” (Matt. 5:37), but the Revisers say it is “of the evil one”. How does this agree with the context? Not at all. Those who utter superfluous oaths are condemned, not a supposed supernatural instigator of them. In v. 39, “Resist not evil” has been changed into “Resist not him that is evil”, which is possibly intended to suggest “the evil one” without actually expressing it, although the explanatory sentence which follows excludes the idea—“But whosoever smiteth thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also”. John 17:15 is rendered, “I pray not that thou shouldest take them from the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil one”, a flagrant violation of Jesus Christ’s obvious meaning. It implies that the world is not evil; and that the evil to be shunned and kept from is outside the world, although the previous verse describes the world as hating Christ’s disciples, and the following verse says that neither they nor Christ were of the world. The Revisers have here shown their consistency in a wrong course at the expense of ordinary common sense. Instead of this passage being dependent on the translation given in the Lord’s Prayer, the Revisers should have been guided in the latter by the obvious meaning of Christ’s own prayer in John 17., the one being a practical application of the injunction contained in the other. But, alas, alas! as with Jewish, so with Gentile wise men; “their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old”, or, in this case, the new, “testament” (1 Cor. 3:14).
After viewing some of the pros and cons of the Revision, the question naturally arises, On which side does the preponderance lie? This is not difficult to answer. Its commendable points exceed its censurable ones. It is an improvement on King James’s version, and a further step towards an accurate translation. Expression has been given to a hope, though there is probably but little ground for indulging in it, that a further and early revision may be undertaken by a new body of Greek scholars. The work just finished, and the criticism it has elicited, would certainly be of considerable service in facilitating the undertaking, and it would probably result in a better version. But, whoever might be appointed, they would be tainted with the errors of the Apostasy. The perfect translation of Holy Writ requires not only a scholarly acquaintance with two languages, but a knowledge and belief of the promises and doctrines revealed therein. Better still would be an inspired translation—a Divine work possible, and perhaps probable in the age when religion will be guided and controlled by infallible kings and priests.
Addendum
The question has been raised as to the use which can be made of the new version by Brethren of Christ.
- It may be used in private for daily reading.
- The option might be given to brethren reading aloud in ecclesial meetings to read from it, instead of from that hitherto used. The language of the authorised version has become so familiar that the words are sometimes apt to pass before the eye, or fall on the ear without entering the mind. An altered form of speech tends to arrest attention. This fact has sometimes led men acquainted with one or more foreign tongues to read the Bible in one of them when desirous of fixing the mind on it, and some brethren have found it an advantage to use for their daily reading a different form of Bible from that which they have marked for service in the truth.
- The most complete way to derive from the Revised version such benefits as it contains is to compare it verse by verse, and chapter by chapter, noting down in some way the points worthy of remembrance. It is an intellectual operation which may be made the basis of much spiritual good by those who meditate as they proceed. An American edition has been published by a Philadelphian firm (Porter and Coates), which would be of great service in such an occupation. The old and new versions are printed in parallel columns. The Oxford and Cambridge copyright prevent any English publisher taking such a step, but possibly copies of the American comparative edition may be sent over to this country.
Review of “The Early Earth” by John Whitcomb (1972)