The eighth chapter of Nehemiah gives an account of Ezra reading “the book of the law” to those Jews who had returned from the Babylonish captivity. And it is recorded that he, and certain Levites “read in the book of the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading (5:8). What was required to convey the meaning to the people is not stated. Their spiritual destitution while in Babylon is sufficient to account for the necessity of something more than a mere utterance of the words. God had brought them back to their own land, and at the same time provided them with men able to explain His law. The picture delineated by Nehemiah was designed, not by man, but by the God of Israel.
The same principle is applicable in other cases. When God has desired to communicate His word to Gentiles unacquainted with the languages in which it was originally written, He has provided the means necessary to make it understood. This has involved translation. Hence the raising up of men at the close of the dark ages who translated the Bible into the English language. Previous to the sixteenth century, it was a comparatively unknown book. It existed almost wholly in the form of manuscripts, which were held principally by the monks. The Reformation drew attention to the inspired writings, and the interest thereby excited naturally produced a demand for them in a more handy form. The invention of the art of printing—doubtless under Divine guidance—had already prepared the way for their circulation among the people.
The next thing required was a translation into the language of ordinary life. Wycliffe and others succeeded, more or less, in individual efforts. But in 1611, a translation was issued which had been prepared by a company of theological linguists, under the authority of King James, and which has since been adopted as the Authorised Version. On the whole it is a very good translation, taking into account the theological bias of those who prepared it. There are a number of flagrant errors in it, but most of them are known to students of the scriptures. It has been of incalculable benefit in dispelling the mist which had so long enveloped the Anglo-Saxon mind.
The position which the pure truth now occupies in this portion of the human race is in itself evidence that the way has been providentially prepared. The Bible being wholly of God, it necessarily follows that its translation and circulation is attributable to His guiding hand. He who caused it to be written has provided the means for making its language familiar, even where its contents are far from being understood. On this principle its re-translation cannot be attributable to mere human device.
As far as outward appearances go, the Revised Version of the New Testament is but the result of machinery set in motion by an ecclesiastical Parliament representing the Canterbury Province of England’s State Church. But those who are acquainted with the history of the Book of books must see in it the operation of a much higher Power. This may be affirmed apart from the question as to whether the new be an improvement on the old version or not. The reason is not far to seek. Its publication calls attention to God’s word in public highways, where it is seldom mentioned.
The discussion it has excited in the daily, weekly, and monthly press, is not without its use in reminding a world which knows not God that His word is still in existence. To His sons it is a refreshing substitute for the literary rubbish which usually pours forth from the editorial study. It is one method of answering the atheistical tendencies of the present day, and is an appropriate preliminary to the startling events which are about to close the existing, and introduce a new, dispensation. On this ground, if on no other, it is welcomed by the heirs of Christ’s coming kingdom; but there are other reasons which make it acceptable. These shall be considered in their appropriate order.
2. It, in effect, points out the distinction existing between inspired writing and man’s translation of it. There is a kind of superstition attaching to the Authorised Version which greatly interferes with the elucidation in public of passages incorrectly rendered. So powerful is this prejudice that many ingenious explanations have been devised on the basis of words and phases which ought not to be there. The act of revision in such a public manner shews how unreasonable it is to manifest an antipathy to improved renderings. In the language of one of the Revisers, “people will no longer look upon the English Bible, chapter, headings, and italics included, as if it had been dropped from heaven just as it is.” It may further be said that the issue of the New Version tends to arouse the religious world from its slumber, and to stimulate inquiry.
3. It comprises the correction of the Greek text, which is the basis of all translation. The Authorised Version is based chiefly on the Greek text issued by Erasmus in 1527. Since then the four oldest manuscripts have been discovered, and many other sources of reference have been opened up. An immense amount of time has been occupied in comparing and collating the various manuscripts by such Biblical linguists as Tischendorf and Tregelles. It is through these labours that the passage about the three witnesses in heaven (in 1 John 5:7, 8) has, for some time past, been regarded as spurious. So satisfied are the Revisers on this point that they have omitted it without even a marginal note of explanation. It was not contained in the first and second editions of the Greek text published by Erasmus, but apparently out of deference to the prejudices of the times, and on the authority of the Latin manuscript known as the Vulgate, and a Greek text published by a Catholic Bishop in Spain under the sanction of the Pope, he inserted it in subsequent editions. For these reasons the passage has long ceased to be quoted by Trinitarians, who were not so blind as to shut their eyes to indisputable facts. Not so with the multitude, who have little or no opportunity of investigating the matter. It is well, therefore, to have at hand the means of exposing the spurious character of what, at one time, was a powerful weapon for deluding the ignorant.
Another illustration of the results of the textual criticism is to be found in the omission of the word “again” from Rev. 20:5; which now reads “The rest of the dead lived not until the thousand years should be finished.” Hitherto the passage has been supposed by some to teach that a portion of the responsible dead will be left in their graves at the coming of Christ, and not undergo resurrection until the end of the thousand years. It will now be seen that this idea is untenable. Verses 4 and 5 present a contrast between the respective conditions of just and unjust during the thousand years. The just reign with Christ during that period, but the unjust—i.e. the rest of those who had been dead, and had been raised, judged and condemmed—live not out, through, or to the end of the thousand years. In other words they enter the second death at the beginning of that age. Other instances might be adduced but these will suffice here.
4. All the criticism and learning which the revised version represents and has called forth leave untouched the truths necessary for salvation. This is an important and very satisfactory result. The existence of 150,000 variations in the manuscripts of the new testament would appear at first sight to make it a very doubtful book of authority. But when it is known that the great bulk of these various readings are mere verbal differences and errors, the feeling of unreliability diminishes, though it does not wholly disappear. There is still room for some amount of doubt, for a very small proportion of the 150,000 variations, might materially effect some fundamental point. How is the doubt to be removed? It would be impossible for any one man to critically examine them all, and determine which are the most authentic. God has therefore raised up men who have made this subject their special study. They are servants of Christ’s brethren in this age and probably of generations to come.
The Revised version presents to the public the result of their accumulated labours. That result removes any lingering suspicion there might be in regard to the solidity of the foundation. The heirs of God’s kingdom now know the full extent to which the second volume of the Book of Divine covenant is affected by the researches of Modern Criticism. They still see in its pages shining even more brightly than before the first principles of the truth. That man by nature is sinful and under sentence of death; that Christ has destroyed sin in relation to himself and is the only one through whom everlasting life is obtainable; that Christ will return from heaven to establish the kingdom of God; that baptism is required for the remission of sins; that there will be a judgment at Christ’s coming of righteous and unrighteous; that God is one, not three persons, and that Jesus Christ is His Son by Divine begettal; that Christ’s physical nature, from birth to crucifixion, was identical with that of all mankind; and that he now acts as a mediator with God for his disciples. These principles, in their detailed development, are equally untouched. The form of words may be altered in some cases, but the ideas are still there.
5. It omits the headings of the chapters and pages which are sometimes misleading. Three illustrations of this will suffice. In the authorised version, the separation of the sheep and goats at the coming of Christ (Matt. 25:31–46) is called at the beginning of the chapter, “The description of the last judgment,” a mistake which arises from not seeing the thousand years’ reign of Christ in the “kingdom” which the sheep enter. The definiton of John 14:1 is that “Christ comforteth his disciples with the hope of heaven,” and of John 17:20, that “Christ prayeth to his Father to glorify his apostles and all other believers with him in heaven,” in neither of which passages is “heaven” mentioned.
The compilers have evidently been guided by their theology in these cases. Headings to the various chapters would no doubt be useful if correct. The greater portion are so because referring to matters about which it would be difficult to make a mistake, when the language of scripture is adhered to. But, inasmuch as uneducated people are apt to think them an essential part of God’s word, it is better wholly to omit them. A sign post which points the wrong way is dangerous and should be cut down.
6. While retaining, for the sake of reference, the numbers of the verses, it adopts the paragraph form, which makes the matter more intelligible. It is well known that the inspired writers did not divide their contributions into chapters and verses. It was first done in an edition published at Geneva, in 1551, by a Parisian printer named Robert Stephens. The plan is good in principle but it has not been properly carried out. Chapters sometimes end in the middle of the subject treated of, and sentences are often unnecessarily split up by verses. In the epistles to the Romans no less than nine chapters commence with a statement dependent on the preceding context, and upwards of a dozen verses end with a comma, not to speak of the far larger number divided by a semi-colon. Other books have been similarly treated. Everyone is familiar with the practice of quoting single verses, which, when isolated, are often either unintelligible or misleading, and frequently, when reading aloud, the sense is lost through treating the end of each verse as a full stop. The paragraph form of Bible tends to prevent these abuses, and is therefore much preferable.
7. It has reduced the number of instances in which the same Greek word is variously rendered. The translators of the Authorised Version avowedly acted on the principle of giving a variety of renderings. In many cases, where the words used are almost of exactly the same meaning, no harm has been done, but in others, accuracy has been sacrificed to diversity of language. For instance, Aioµn (aion) is rendered by three different words—age, world, and ever. The Revised Version partially remedies this by substituting age in some cases, either in the text or the margin. Thus Heb. 9:26 has “once at the end of the ages,” instead of end of the world; and in Heb. 6:5, we read of “the powers of the age to come” instead of “the world to come.” In the following among other passages “world” is retained in the text, but “age” or “ages” is given in the margin:—Matt. 12:32; 13:39; Mark 10:30; Luke 20:35; Heb. 1:2; 11:3. It is a matter for regret that neither the English nor American Revisers saw the propriety of adopting the marginal as the true rendering, for in each of these cases the word “age” makes the passage more easily understood.
Among minor improvements an alteration in 2 Tim. 2:12 may be mentioned. This is the only passage where the Greek verb hupomeno is rendered “suffer” in the Authorised Version. In nearly all others, it is translated “endure” or “patient.” It is so given in 2 Tim. 2:10: “Therefore I endure all things for the elects’ sake.” Between this and verse 12, there is a connection which is apparent in the Revised, but not in the Authorised Version. Instead of “If we suffer, we shall reign with him,” we now read, “If we endure.”
The former predicates reigning with Christ on mere suffering, but the latter on such endurance as the Apostle exhibited, and suggests a parallel with the love which “endureth all things” (1 Cor. 13:7), the cross which Christ “endured” (Heb. 12:2), the chastening which the sons of God must endure (Heb. 12:7), and the blessed “man that endureth temptation” (James 1:12). Comparisons such as this give greater force to Apostolic utterances, and afford additional evidence to their perfect unity. (Further points will receive consideration next month.)
Review of “The Early Earth” by John Whitcomb (1972)