The issue of a new version of the Scriptures is no ordinary event, as will be seen when it is remembered that such a thing has not occurred before for the long period of 270 years. It is an event among many others (such as the contemporary issue of the new map of Palestine) by which men’s attention everywhere is being increasingly directed to the East, and to those cradle lands of our race which were anciently so largely the theatre of the visible operations of God. That the ancient Jewish nation, their land, and their Scriptures should come in simultaneously for such express attention at the hands of the Gentiles as they are now receiving, is a triple sign of the times betokening the steady approach of the day in which Bible history will repeat itself with the wonderful exactness and universality which belongs to a dispensation which is the Divinely appointed counterpart of the events of both the Mosaic and Apostolic narrative.
Meanwhile the Truth will be advantaged; first, by the substantial confirmation which the Scriptures will receive by the revised issue; and secondly, by the religious controversies to which it will give rise, and still more generally by that re-examination of doctrinal foundations to which it will lead in the majority of cases.
The version of the New Testament just issued has already received extensive attention at the hands of the Press; various opinions are expressed, as was to be expected, some of them consisting of well-merited criticisms and others of a fairly commendatory character. To the brethren, a glance at the list of renderings preferred by the American committee will satisfy them that they are in advance of their English coadjutors.
The striking out of those marks of the beast, the titled saintship which have hitherto marred the introduction of the books, was something to be desired, but scarcely to be hoped for from any convention of humanly constituted “divines.” Something would have been gained by the substitution of “Spirit” for “Ghost” and “demons” for “devils” where demoniacs are referred to; but these and other equally justifiable changes were unhappily not permitted to find their way into the new text. There were two things, however, which every one might have reasonably expected, viz., the complete expurgation of obsolete and antiquated words, and the removal of questionable grammar from every part: this has only been partially done, whereas it might just as well have been perfect in these particulars as not; and we should then have been excused such ungrammatical phrases as, “Do thy diligence” (2 Tim, 3:9) and again “Which they have ungodly wrought” (Jude, 15)—a literal enough rendering of the Greek no doubt, but at the same time the sense of the original and the grammar of the English might both have been preserved by substituting “impiously” for ungodly; or if the strictly literal counterpart were important, then what should have hindered the giving effect to it by the lengthening of the term ungodly into ungodlily; in the same way as in another instance (1 Thes. 2:10), we have the word holy lengthened into holily. No better opportunity could have occurred for the coining of a few fresh words where required as the exact equivalent of the Greek text.
But the revisers have not always been particular to give the exact equivalent even where they might have done: take the two instances (Matthew 14:26, Mark 6:49) in which they have rendered the Greek term phantasma by the word spirit, when they might have given us the very word used in the original in its anglecised form, i.e., phantasm. Then, again, why render the Greek term harpazo by the words “caught away” in Acts 8, 39, and “caught up” in 1 Thes. 4, 17. Surely it was their idea of doctrinal fitness which led to a difference in the English where there was none in the Greek. The word “up” ought, at least, to have been in italics or better still have been rendered uniformly with the text in Acts which is a type of the event yet to happen in fulfilment of the passage in Thessalonians.
The more correct rendering of which is “caught away in clouds,” not the clouds of the sky, but clouds in the same sense as that word is used to describe a similar exodus of the Jews by Isaiah, who says, “who are these that fly as a cloud” (Isa. 60, 8). There are many other renderings to which exception may be justly taken, such as “times eternal” (Jude 1, 2), where the change is for the worse; and “undressed cloth” (Matt. 9, 16), where mere literality is made to interfere with the sense. And then, again, what incongruity is exhibited in the phrase “spiritual milk which is without guile” (1 Peter, 2, 2), which might have been much more appropriately rendered, “the unadulterated milk of the word.”
In 2 John, 2, 11, we have the “Godspeed” of the old version substituted by the word “greeting,” because the word God does not occur in the Greek; but consistency required that for the same reason, the term God should have been left out of the frequently-occurring words “God forbid,” which simply means in the original “let it not be,” or “by no means.”
Leaving further criticism, let us look at some cases in which the former version has been amended, and there are many instances of this which may tend to throw new light on somewhat obscure parts of the word. To this class belong the substitution of the words “living creature” for beast in the Apocalypse; and the change from spirit to apparition in Mark 6, 49. The substitution of love for charity in Corinthians is a decided change for the better; and “willingly ignorant” (2 Peter, 3, 5) is much improved by the change to “wilfully forget.” The same may be also said of the new rendering “living hope” in the place of “lively hope;” and good service is also done by the transposition which has taken place in 2 Peter, 1, 19, where instead of a “more sure word” we have the “word of prophecy made more sure” (or confirmed).
There is a change also in 2 Tim., 4, 8, which is appreciable where “those who love his appearing” is made to comprehend all “those who have loved his appearing” from the beginning of the world. The well-known exhortation to “abstain from all appearance of evil” is now better rendered by “abstain from every form of evil.” “Pit of the abyss” now takes the place of “bottomless pit” which is the improved rendering which had already been adopted by Dr. Thomas.
In the new version of Jude 12 we have “autumn trees” instead of simply “trees,” which much enhances the signification of the words “without fruit.” A transposition has also taken place in Matt., 7, 11, by which what was before obscure. is now made clear and intelligible.
The introduction of the phrase “Sabbath Rest” into Heb. 4:9 is a marked improvement, and “Kings from a sun’s rising,” the new version of Rev. 16:12 is all that could be desired, and a grand confirmation of the Dr.’s translation. The first verse of Heb. 6:1 has also undergone a slight but useful alteration by the addition of a word by which now we read “first principles” instead of merely “principles.” The term “conversation” is also appropriately changed to “behaviour;” and the word “servant” to “bond servant,” both of which are to be regarded as improvements. And “Judge the world” (John 3:17) is also an improvement upon the old phrase “condemn the world.” We have also a change from the word “Heathen” to “Gentiles,” and another change of “carriages” into “baggage” (Acts 21:15), which is for the better. Then in 1 Peter 1:9, we have another change,—“Shew forth the praises” is altered to “Shew forth the excellences,” which is probably a superior rendering. And there are also numerous other improvements by which the nice shades of some figure in the original is more forcibly exhibited.
Taking it altogether it is calculated to promote enlightenment, and to confirm believers of the Bible in the credibility of these Divine records; and will no doubt constitute a foundation for a more enlarged and accurate acquaintance with the Holy Oracles, both amongst the friends of the truth and amongst those outside.
And we may reasonably hope that by the time the new version of the Old Testament is in circulation, we shall have seen some practical utility in the step taken, which will at least have the effect of reviving the truth of God more or less, and bringing men face to face again with those Divine dispensations now so far removed into the past; but which may henceforth (like the repetition of the law to the children of Israel) become more of a reality than hitherto to this distant generation.
Review of “The Early Earth” by John Whitcomb (1972)