The publication of the revised version of the Bible has been looked forward to by the brethren of Christ with considerable interest. It could not be otherwise, for unto those who fear God and whose affections are set upon the things of Christ, his revealed word is their most precious possession, a gift for which they cease not to give thanks, a store from which they derive instruction, comfort, and reproof more highly to be esteemed than their necessary food. “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” It is, therefore, of the highest importance that we should have as accurate a representation in our own tongue of those words of inspiration which were originally spoken in Hebrew and in Greek.
In the Providence of God we have inherited from our fathers a translation which, though it has a few serious errors and a certain number of inadequate renderings, is substantially a splendid representation of the original in the purest and simplest style of our mother tongue. In our controversy with the apostacy, however, some of the errors of translation have been against us as affording support to false doctrines which we have had to combat, and this gives an additional importance to such a work as that upon which the two Committees of Convocation have been for the last ten years engaged.
The revised version of the “New Testament” was published on the 17th of May, but the revision of the “Old Testament” is not yet complete. It is of course too early to say the revision will meet with such a degree of favour as to replace by authority the version at present in use. It will have to await the appearance of the “Old Testament,” and in all probability will have to undergo some kind of re-revision. Meanwhile it must pass through a crucible of fiery criticism, of which some premonitions have been given in the newspaper comments which have already appeared.
A few notes upon the work may not be unacceptable to the readers of Christadelphian even though they make no pretension to completeness, and though they commit no one to what they contain beyond the individual writer.
The Revision Committee have had two things to do.
In the first place they have had to revise the Greek text, and in the second, to translate it into English, the former work being in many respects the more intricate and difficult. The identical manuscripts of the apostles and evangelists having naturally disappeared through the lapse of time, we are dependent for our knowledge of what they contained upon copies made of them, and copies of copies. In transcribing such a volume as the New Testament even a ready and accurate penman would be certain to make some mistakes, and if he were not strictly honest in his work and at the same time a partizan of some sect which had erred from the truth, he would be under a certain degree of temptation to make fraudulent alterations.
The latter consideration accounts for the appearance in some of the later manuscripts, none of them older than the 5th century, of words in 1 John 5., which make the apostle say that “there are three that bear record in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one.” What security then have we that we possess what the apostles wrote? Our security lies in this: that the original records once sent by the apostles to their destination were copied and recopied amongst the believers, and if one copyist made an error of penmanship—and sometimes the omission or addition of a single letter alters the meaning of a Greek word—it can be rectified by comparing it with the copies made by other persons. The number of manuscripts, ancient translations, and quotations in controversial writers of the early centuries is so large that, though in certain particular instances, there may be a difficulty in deciding which of two or three readings has the greatest weight of evidence in its favour, such cases are in very small proportion to the whole work, and except in a few instances they do not so materially affect the meaning of the writer as to be any hindrance to the practical work of the truth in enlightening the understanding and purifying the heart.
Having settled the text, the Revision Committee have had to revise the translation. They were not commissioned, nor have they attempted to produce a new translation into the English of to-day, but the language of the old version has been preserved except where in the judgment of the revisers faithfulness to the original called for alteration. Some of the newspaper criticisms have been rather adverse to the new work on the ground that it has changed the wording of certain familiar passages which in their old form have become classical sayings; but those who value the Bible as the word of God more than as an English Classic, will be more prepared to sacrifice the older form if the new gives them a better expression of what the inspired penmen have written. Still if the old is a clear and correct rendering of the original thought, there is no practical gain in altering it for the purpose of representing a different order of the words which may be characteristic of the Greek original.
Looking at the composition of the Revision Committee, composed mainly of Trinitarians and believers in the doctrines of the immortality of the soul and a personal devil, it was hardly to be expected that the result of their labours would show no evidence of bias; but there are certain deficiencies and faults in the authorised version which any honest men whatever their bias might be expected to amend. Let us look at what has been done with regard to some passages which have played an important part in Christadelphian lectures and in the contrary arguments of upholders of popular theology.
The spurious passage in 1 John 5. about the three heavenly witnesses already referred to has disappeared. There is also a more correct reading of a passage bearing upon the doctrine of the Pre-existence of Christ in 1 Cor. 10:9, which formerly read “Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them (i.e. Israelites in the Wilderness) also tempted;” but which now appears “Neither let us tempt the Lord, &c.,” with a marginal note to the effect that some ancient authorities read Christ.
Upon the other hand, an instance is afforded in which Trinitarian bias seems to have given rise to inconsistency and inaccuracy, in the perpetuation of “Ghost,” as a translation of pneuma whenever that word is accompanied with the adjective “Holy.” The American revision committee whose recommendations are printed at the end of the book suggest that Holy Spirit should appear in the text in every instance instead of being simply given in the margin; and this is reasonable for the word “spirit” is an ample equivalent of the Greek pneuma, and should be satisfactory alike both to Trinitarian and Unitarian. The former have to be content with Spirit, in such phrases as the Spirit of God, ‘my Spirit,” &c., in which cases “Ghost of God” and “my Ghost” would be strikingly inadmissible translations. The translator doubtless thought that the Holy Spirit is a person, and that, therefore, it would be well to retain a term which to some extent conveys the idea of personality, but they have hesitated to adopt it in a passage where “Spirit,” undoubtedly is used as meaning a person, namely, (1 John 4:1). “Believe not every Spirit, but prove the Spirits whether they are of God.” To read “Ghost” and “Ghosts” instead of ‘Spirit’ and “Spirits” here would be quite as correct as in the cases under consideration, but it is rightly rejected because its use would have the effect of importing an idea from the language of metaphysics foreign to that which was in the Apostles’ mind, and to render the passage absurd. One might just as well speak of “Ghost of Christ” in the prophets, in fact, in all instances except those where the form of words “Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,” or the phrase “Gave up the Ghost,” have become familiar and conventional. They have recognised the unsuitability of ‘Ghost’ as an equivalent for pneuma, and have avoided the use of it.
In the case of the word Devil (Greek Diabolos) the translators have kept up the old rendering to which no reasonable objection could have been made, had they also used the word “Devil” in the three cases in which they have translated it “slanderers.” If it be right to read as we do read in John 6:70 concerning the Twelve, “One of you is a Devil,” then surely it would be right to read “Women in like manner must be grave, not devils,” (1 Tim. 3:11), and similarly in 2 Tim. 3:3, and Titus 2:3, where “slanderers” is the word used to translate Diabolos. Had the rendering been uniform the unlearned reader would have been able to see that Diabolos does not of necessity mean a personal supernatural agent of evil as is commonly supposed.
With regard to daimon, demons, the revisers have for some reason best known to themselves, and against the recommendations of the American Committee preserved the translation “devils,” but they have done the reader the service of giving the translation “demons” in the margin.
In our controversy with the apostacy as to the destiny of the wicked, we have frequently had to point out the distinction between the meanings of Hades and Gehenna, both of which appear as “Hell” in the authorised version. It is a distinct gain in the revision that where Hades occurs in the Greek, it is transferred as a proper name into the English, “Hell” being left to represent the instances in which the original is Gehenna. The reader, therefore, will be tempted to enquire what Hades means, and may result in his acquiring some useful information on the subject. It would have been well if Gehenna had been treated in the same way, because it also is a proper name and, moreover points to a geographical locality, which is altogether absent in the signification of the old English word “Hell,” which in popular imagination signifies a “land of horror and despair” in some unknown part of the universe, filled, in the words of Dr. Watts, with “guilty ghosts of Adam’s race.” “Gehenna,” however, is given in the margin, and in that respect there is some compensation for the faultiness of the text. The phrase “hell-fire” of the authorised version appears as “hell of fire” in the revision, a rendering which is open to question, on the ground that if the idiom Judge of unrighteousness in Luke 8:6, means, as is given in the text, “unrighteous judge,” “Hell of fire” would be better rendered fiery Hell, or burning Hell.
A careful reader may find some light upon the meaning of the word psuche (soul) by comparing the portions of the text in which it occurs with the marginal notes. Wherever the translators have adopted the rendering “life” in the text, they have given “or soul” in the margin; for example, Luke 12:22, “Be not anxious for your life what ye shall eat, &c.;” and Matt. 16:26, “What shall a man be profited if he gain the whole world and forfeit his life.”
In the former of the two passages quoted an improved rendering will be noticed in the words “be not anxious,” in place of “take no thought.”
We have often had to direct the attention of the stranger to the term “world”—aion and the phrase “world to come” in the old version, as not signifying another sphere or place of human abode, but as signifying age, and age to come. The revisers have adhered to the translation “world” in the text wherever another world entered into their imagination, but in each instance they have given “age” in the margin. In one important instance they have used “age” in the text, viz., Heb. 6:5, which now reads “Powers of the age to come.”
Very small words sometimes possess an important doctrinal signification, and the substitution of “into” for “in,” in Matt. 28:19, “Baptising them into the name,” is confirmatory of what Christadelphians have always contended for. The name of Christ is a covering name into which believers are introduced by baptism. The passages from which the phrase “God manifestation,” is taken, (1 Tim. 3:16), contains a somewhat important alteration of reading about which the writer will express no opinion. Instead of “Great is the mystery of Godliness; God was manifest in the flesh,” the text now reads, “Great is the mystery of Godliness; He who was manifested in the flesh.”1
A passage often quoted as specifically indicating the time when the righteous will receive their reward namely, 2 Tim. 4:1. “I charge thee, therefore, before the LordJesusChrist who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and kingdom,” reads in the revised version, “I charge thee in the sight of God, and of Christ Jesus, who shall judge the quick and the dead, and by his appearing and kingdom, preach the word,” &c. Although in these two instances, Christadelphians will not be able to quote the passage in question to illustrate the doctrines to support which they have been in the habit of adducing them; those doctrines themselves resting upon many testimonies are as unassailable as ever.
Moody and Sankey’s hymn, “Almost persuaded,” and many sermons to like effect, fare much worse, through the loss of Agrippa’s “almost thou persuaded me to be a Christian,” (Acts 26:28). Scholars have long pointed out that what Agrippa said is not to this intent, and an improved rendering is now found in “with but little persuasion thou wouldest fain make me a Christian.” Agrippa is speaking of what he thinks to be in Paul’s mind, and not of his own sentiments.
One other important alteration which has made some persons excessively angry is the substutition of “love” for “charity” in 1 Cor. 13., &c. As this is a very familiar and musical series of passages the change is an unwelcome one to the ears of many, but on the other hand it is a gain to the cause of truth on the ground that “charity” possesses conventional significations out of harmony with the original term.
Many other interesting alterations might be pointed out, did space permit, but these which have special bearing upon Christadelphian contentions may prove useful. From a controversial point of view the revision is not so thorough as could have been desired, though perhaps the measure of improvement is as large as could have been expected from those to whom the work has been entrusted. Apart from controversial considerations there is also some gain to lovers of the word in the increased intelligibility of the epistles; but upon the other hand fault has been justly found with the revisers for having in not a few instances made pedantic alterations of particular words and of their order, following that of the Greek idiom, without any gain in sense. “Be ye followers of God as dear children” is in no way improved by being changed for “be ye imitators of God as beloved children;” nor is “God hath made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom ye crucified,” any improvement upon “God hath made that same Jesus whom he have crucified, both Lord and Christ.” These are illustrations of numerous changes of a like kind which are a serious blemish upon the work.
It becomes not a little difficult to decide whether Christadelphians should adopt the new version or not. The lead in its adoption has been taken by Mr. R. W. Dale’s congregation (Independent) at Birmingham. For ourselves the wiser course will be to wait for the Old Testament revision, and meanwhile, to use the new as a book of private reference, and to cite it in conversation and public speaking in those instances in which its readings are more in harmony with the truth, or give increased intelligibility to the meaning of the inspired writers.
Review of “The Early Earth” by John Whitcomb (1972)