The Revised New Testament has been the subject of many reviews, favourable and unfavourable. Those reviews which have appeared in the newspapers and magazines, have, with very few exceptions, been of the most superficial character. The writers for the public press seem indeed to have had no other object before them than to point out readings which they have liked or disliked, and renderings which they have approved or disapproved. The religious newspapers have not in this matter acquitted themselves any better than their secular contemporaries. Some have reviewed the book as to its English, which, while it has by some been loudly spoken against, has by others been with equal enthusiasm commended. Others have reviewed the work to point out to what extent the revision has affected those passages with which most of us were acquainted in the days of childhood, and, irrespective of the question whether in the Authorised Version those passages were rendered accurately or otherwise, the Revisers have incurred considerable denunciation, and have on the one hand been charged with irreverence and vandalism, and on the other with having played into the hands of the sceptic and the infidel.
Others again, and these are not numerous, have undertaken to criticise more minutely, have given their reasons for or against the Revisers on points of detail, and have disputed with more or less vigour the disposition and order of words and the punctuation and rounding of sentences. Those who estimate Truth as it should be estimated will not be so much concerned about the classic position and reputation of the English Bible as about its reputation and position as a faithful and reliable translation of the Scriptures from the original tongues. The principal anxiety should be to have the Word of God rendered into our mother tongue in the most exact and intelligible way, so that by daily reading and study, we may grow in knowledge of Divine truth. Anyone competent to judge, who has read the newspaper reviews, must admit that as a rule the writers of such reviews have shown themselves wholly unqualified to consider the work of the revisers in the way it should be considered. Here is an English New Testament. It is a revision of a translation from the Greek, the original text having been first specially compared with the most ancient authorities for the purposes of the revision. The great questions to consider are—first, is the Greek text formed on the most approved principles? Second, is the translation a faithful and reliable one?
These are the prime considerations. May people who know nothing of the Greek language take this book into their hands with confidence and derive therefrom instruction in the things of the Spirit? King James’s version, of which the new work is a revision, has maintained a high place among translations into living tongues; and by reasonable, thinking people it has been used to enlightenment and profit, for those passages wherein Divine truth was conveyed by inexact language, or was obscured by being expressed in unsuitable terms, have long been expounded by polemical writers and others, who, though themselves, in some cases, unacquainted with the Truth in its purity, have lent support to the position of people who, untrammelled by orthodox creeds, have with discerning minds read the Scriptures to understand them, and with a conviction that the Scriptures cannot be broken.
The reviewers generally do not appear to have cared to approach the subject with a view to ascertaining whether the word of God is more faithfully presented to the English reader in the revision than it is in the authorised version. They have contented themselves, as a rule, with generalities; and when they have come to a point involving doctrine or the unity of Holy Writ they have been content only too frequently to take a perverse course and express an unenlightened judgment. In this we do not wish to follow them. Our estimate of the New Testament is different from that of the reviewers, as are also those considerations which make the revised version an object of peculiar interest to us. The excellencies and shortcomings of the revision, as pointed out by the reviewers, are for the most part of a fancy character: they are in a large degree points wherein a difference is of comparatively small moment, and often points which, from the standpoint both of revisers and reviewers, might be decided simply on the score of taste and preference.
The reviewers and the revisers are, we know, at one as regards certain cardinal theological dogmas. It could hardly be expected then, that the reviewers, looking through the same spectacles as the revisers, would be able to point to passages which have been rendered in a particular way simply because of the religious beliefs of the members of the revision committee. The Anglican Church and the Nonconformist denominations, in both clerical and lay departments, agree in the belief of unscriptural doctrines, and so those passages which “Christendom” at large misunderstands and perverts have not been prominently referred to or particularly discussed in the public prints.
While thankful for the many improved renderings of the Revised Version, we are unable to express an unqualified satisfaction with it. King James’s version presents many very important parts of Scripture with much greater accuracy than do many more modern translations in our own or other languages. That version, however, has its defects, and some passages which above all others ought to be clear (because if inexactly rendered they make scripture to appear to contradict scripture) have long been regarded as serious blots upon the work. The Revised Version certainly shows fewer signs of theological bias than the common version, and some of the improved readings and renderings now at hand are evidence of a more extended freedom of action having been exercised by the nineteenth century scholars. Yet there are plain indications of the theological bias of the revisers. In many places there is distinct evidence of the judgment of the revisers being a judgment trained and exercised in the doctrines of the Schools. The work is beyond question a valuable one. The text itself has been greatly improved by the adoption of fresh readings and by the more accurate translation of many passages which are in the A.V. imperfectly rendered; in the margin we have many alternative readings and various renderings of importance; and the appended suggestions of the American Committee form a very interesting feature. If more of the American suggestions had been adopted by the English “divines,” the revision would in the end have been a more valuable work. Dr. Crosby, a member of the American Revision Company, writing with regard to the demand of the Americans to drop “St.” before the names of the Evangelists, to substitute “Spirit” for “Ghost,” to distinguish between “devil” and “demon,” and so forth says: “Probably not a single Reviser on either side the Atlantic would doubt the value of the distinctions made in these cases, but the English Revisers have not thought it prudent to make such radical changes in familiar passages.” The pity is that a “prudence” of this sort should have influenced the revisers.
We have said that theological bias is apparent in the work. How could it be otherwise? However honest a translator may be, he cannot be exempt from an unconscious dogmatic leaning. The revisers were continually called upon to exercise their judgment, and the misfortune is that their judgment would be that of men holding what we cannot but call unscriptural doctrines. In this and that passage they have recognised an allusion to this or other part of the orthodox system, and in resolving the Greek into English they have used words suited to their notion of what the sacred writer meant. This is no imputation upon the revisers. They have doubtless done their best. In all such work a judgment must be exercised.
The question is—did the revisers exercise an enlightened judgment? We know the company contained adherents of the “Established Church” in such number that anything could be decided as men of “Established Church” ideas deemed right. Without exception, whether members of the Anglican communion or not, the revisers are men of no declared reputation for having a clear understanding of the truth as it is in Jesus, as that Truth is distinguished from current ecclesiasticism. Men of learning they all undoubtedly are. But their learning was not such as to teach them the importance of translating in this or that passage words which to them might seem superfluous or merely present in the text as idiomatic ornaments; nor was it such as to impress them with the necessity of observing uniformity in rendering into English words which might be adequately represented at all times by one particular English word. A man acquainted with the Truth will know why Peter or Paul should say this or that. A man who has a wrong idea of what the Apostles taught, will, as a consequence, be liable in many places to misconstrue their writings. King James’s revisers did so, and so did their predecessors. Do the nineteenth century revisers understand Moses and the prophets aright, and do they excel their predecessors in an understanding of the only true Deity and Jesus Anointed whom He has sent? Of late years translations of the New Testament into English have been very numerous, and men of some enlightenment on particular doctrines have occasionally entered the field, and thus, by the rejection of archaisms or by the more consistent rendering of some words or phrases, increased light has been thrown upon different portions of Holy Writ. It may be added that some of the renderings adopted by the revisers and issued to the world with the weight of their scholarship, make the passages in which they occur more easy of comprehension by a Christadelphian, while orthodox readers will require them to be explained or spiritualised before understanding (?) them. While, then, in some respects, the revision affords satisfaction, it must be said that some faulty renderings have found their way into the text which would not have been there if the revisers had not lacked a knowledge of the spirit and meaning of the sacred writers. The Revised Version must, however, take a high place among modern editions of the New Testament in the English language; and those who do not use it habitually will doubtless consult it before any other revision in respect of obscurely translated passages.
While sincere and reasonable people have gladly hailed this addition to our means of instruction, the shallow-minded and those who, like Dean Stanley, are ever ready to say all they can against what they term “bibliolatry,” have raised the old cry. The Unitarians and Freethinkers have seized the opportunity of trumpeting against “verbal inspiration” and the soundness of the New Testament Scriptures. Wise people, however, will not waste time with these theorisers.
The Dean of Westminster has though fit to affirm that, “the publication of the revision will teach the people that inspiration consists not in the letter but in the spirit, not in a part but in the whole, not in a particular passage but in the general tendency and drift of the complete work.” The Dean may have his own notion on the point, and express it in his own way. But, as the whole is greater than its part, and the larger includes the smaller, that quality which he denies to the part and the smaller but allows to belong to the whole and the larger, must belong to every portion of the complete work in question. The ideas are, it is allowed, of divine origin, and penned at divine command. The Spirit of the Deity moved, led into all truth, and brought all things to remembrance.
Must it not then be also allowed that, as revealed in the original, the divine ideas are expressed in the most suitable terms, that they are properly, and therefore accurately, and therefore exactly expressed? In that case enlightened criticism will not tend to the discredit of the text, but by purifying it and excluding interpolated words and so forth, it will enhance the value of the text in the estimation of right-minded people; and the process cannot but strengthen the position of those who contend for the importance of accuracy in the study of the Holy Scriptures. It cannot be conceived how people who have studied the prophetic scriptures, can, consistently with reason, concede this point to Dean Stanley. It has been justly asked—What are our grammars, lexicons, concordances, &c., but instruments for ascertaining the sense of scripture by its words?
The late Dr. Tregelles wisely wrote:
“When asked what theory I maintained, I would answer ‘None!’ for I consider inspiration to be a fact and not a theory—a fact which makes Holy Scripture to be what it is—the word of God (so termed by our Lord himself, Mark 7:13) and not the word of man.”
While not without its faults the revision is an important and acceptable work. It will help believers to an enlarged understanding of the word, and, maybe, will encourage other classes of people to study the sacred writings. It is characterised by greater uniformity of rendering than the A. V. The Greek text which has been followed is a purer one than King James’s revisers could possess. The language, too, is in many places much plainer than that of the A. V. Yet it is to be regretted that some antiquated and objectionable forms are scattered up and down the pages. Nevertheless, the Truth receives, in many directions, support which was not before apparent.
In their preface the revisers say with regard to the definite article, that it “was necessary to consider the peculiarities of English idiom as well as the general tenor of each passage.” They also say that, in some cases where the article is absent from the original they have had to tolerate it in the English version because the English idiom would not allow the noun to stand alone, and “because the introduction of the indefinite article might have introduced an idea of oneness or individuality which was not in any degree traceable in the original.” Sometimes also, “in order not to overload the sentence,” they have omitted the article though it was expressed in the Greek. This discretionary course cannot but have afforded the revisers many opportunities of interpreting rather than translating. And yet, from the nature of things, some such discretion must be exercised.
The misfortune is that, in the highest sense, a wise discretion was not always exercised. The English tongue does not lack in elasticity, and therefore the reproduction of the sacred writers’ ideas should have been the first study of the revisers, and the rounding off of sentences and the securing of rhythmical symmetry should have been secondary considerations. In the Greek language the definite article has a definite place and object. It is employed not only to specify, and to indicate the subject of a proposition, but to note renewed mention of something, to point out a well-known thing, and it is also prefixed to nouns of an abstract character.
There are places in the Revised Version where the article has been improperly introduced, and also places where it has been suppressed. Again, there are instances of passages being much improved by the article having been regarded by the revisers. In Mark 1:1, they render “Jesus Christ the Son of God.” We should read “Jesus Christ, Son of God.” In verse 8, we read: “I baptized you with (margin, ‘or in’) water, but he shall baptize you with (‘or in’) the Holy Ghost (margin, ‘or Holy Spirit.’) This verse should read: “I baptised you in water, but he shall baptise you in Holy Spirit.” In many other places this error occurs. It is no more allowable to put in “the” before Spirit, or Holy Spirit, than before other words which may be used with or without the article. There are places where Theos (Deity) Pneuma (Spirit) and Christos (Christ) occur with the article, and also places where they have not the article. There is Deity and the Deity; Spirit and the Spirit; Christ and the Christ.
If in the verse we are noticing we translate “in the Holy Spirit,” we should also render, “in the water.” No one, however, has a right to insert the article in either places; and if not in the latter, then neither in the former. In verse 10 of this chapter we read, “the Spirit as a dove descending upon him.” This is correct, because we read in the original to pneuma. What caused these inexact renderings, but doctrinal bias? In some places again, the article has been left untranslated without reason. For instance, in 1 John 4:6, we read: “By this we know the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.” We should read here: “The spirit of the truth, and the spirit of the error.” The Truth is the system of teaching which had apostolic approval, and which was of God (see v. 2), while the spirit of the Error was the antichrist (see v. 3), whereof says John, “ye have heard that it cometh, &c.” This shows why the article is in the Greek prefixed to these words. The spirit of the Truth and the spirit of the Error are put in forcible contrast, and the ideas were familiar ones to those to whom John wrote. He had told them (chap. 2:18), that antichrist was coming. He now refers again to the same thing. While those to whom John wrote were related to the Truth, they were familiar with the Error which had been the subject of prophecy. Paul had written to the Thessalonians (2 Epis. 2:8–11) telling them that the mystery of iniquity was already working, and that the lawless one would, after the removal of restraint, be revealed “whose coming is according to a working of the Satan with all power and signs and wonders of falsehood, and with all deceit of unrighteousness for them that are perishing; because they received not the love of the Truth that they might be saved. And for this cause the Deity sendeth them a working of Error that they should believe the Lie that they all might be judged who believed not the Truth but had pleasure in the Unrighteousness.” In this passage we find the same terms used for the Truth and the Error, as in the verse we have just quoted as a specimen. The “powerful working of the Adversary” and “the working of Error” refer to the same thing. When John alludes to the matter he denominates this working simply as the Error. The whole was matter of expectation and, therefore, the definite article was employed; and both in the verse from John’s epistle and in those from Paul’s epistle to the Thessalonians, the ideas of the apostles would have been more clearly conveyed to the English reader if the articles had been translated. We have another instance of a similar oversight in Romans 8:3, where we read: “God sending his own son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and as an offering for sin, on-demned sin in the flesh.” Without taking note of the marginal renderings here, we will simply point out that in this verse the noun hamartia (sin) occurs three times, and while in the first two instances it has no article before it, in the third case the article is prefixed, and the object of this is to make it plain that what is involved in the word in the first two occurrences is specified with emphasis in the third. We should read, “in likeness of flesh of sin, and for sin, condemned the sin in the flesh.” Another instance of the same omission is John 4:22, where we should read “the salvation is of the Jews,” the article being expressed to show that a salvation of all so-called salvations is referred to—the real, the expected, the promised salvation, is of the Jews. In other places we are glad to find the article duly translated. For instance, in 2 Thess. 2:3 we now read: “Let no man beguile you … for it will not be, except the falling away come first.” Why does the apostle thus emphasise? Because the apostasy indicated was an event of which the Thessalonians had already been advised — and therefore the article denotes renewed mention, an allusion to something familiar to the Thessalonians. Then again we read in 1 John 5:12: “He that hath the son hath the life; he that hath not the Son of God hath not the life.” Why is the language thus definite? Because John had previously written on the matter, and to those to whom he wrote this “life” was a familiar term; for they knew what had been brought to light by the Gospel. In the verse immediately preceding, we are told that the life given by the Deity is aioonian life, and that life is in his son. To observe the use of the article and to adhere to the original in places where it is not used are very important points; and those who wish to be accurate in their study of the scriptures will not be above giving due attention to the matter. Exactness is all that is required to harmonise many apparent contradictions, and by exactness many passages otherwise unintelligible are easy to understand. Not a few omissions of the article, and also many cases of its improper introduction, are to be accounted for by the fact that the revisers entertained unscriptural ideas as to the nature of man, as to the truth concerning the Deity, and several important points of Bible teaching. In the exercise then of their judgment, however sound and excellent on questions of Greek grammar and English propriety, they have, here and there, failed to fully reflect the language of the sacred writers.
It were too much to expect that the revisers should tell us when the definite article is expressed before such a word as Theos. They have indicated when it precedes the word christos, and we now read “the Christ” and “Christ” according as the article is present in or absent from the original. Among other reasons why this has been done is the fact that the word christos is not necessarily a proper name, but it is a Greek word meaning “anointed,” and answering to the Old Testament term mashiach. But it is equally important to know when the word Theos is used in an emphatic way. Sometimes it is preceded by the article and sometimes not. There must be reason for this. The word is probably derived from a verb meaning “to place” or “to dispose,” and, when applied to the Supreme Ruler and Disposer of the Universe, it is not anarthrous, for we read ho Theos. Again, in other places, we read Theos when also the Omnipotent One is referred to. It would not be convenient to render these expressions as “God” and “the God,” as the case might be. First of all, the word “God” is not sufficiently comprehensive; and secondly, it is no translation of the Greek word. The well-known word Deity, which has come down to us through various stages from the Greek word, is a much more suitable word to use, and we may with propriety say “Deity,” or “the Deity,” as necessity may demand. The distinction exists, and it must be regarded. Illustrations are numerous, and here is one—(Jno. 1:1). “In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with the Deity, and the Logos was Deity.” This is the correct rendering. It is wrong to translate the last clause “and God was the Word,” as some have done, who have disregarded the fact that the article precedes and indicates the subject of the sentence. If John had intended to write “and the Deity was the Word,” we should have read: “Kai ho Theos een ho Logos.” In this case the Logos would have been declared to be identical with the Deity. Whereas Theos is the predicate, and, in the words of Sheldon Green, a churchman and author of a Greek grammar, “all that is involved in the notion of Theos is predicated of the Word, namely, the proper nature and attributes of Deity.” It was not desired to show that the Word and the Deity are one and the same, as some, without reference to the original, have contended; but to show what the origin and nature of the Word was—it was with the Deity and was Deity, i.e. Divine power in operative manifestation. This power was employed in creation, “The same was in the beginning, &c. All things were made by it.” The Logos was no more the Deity than the Son was the Father, in an absolute sense. The Son originated in the Deity; and so did the Logos. As then the important distinction of the presence or absence of the definite article can be marked by the use of the word Deity, which can be used definitely or indefinitely, that word should be used in translations of the New Testament that are to be plain, in preference to the Saxon word God.
But we could not expect the revisers to make such a radical change in the language of the New Testament as the introduction of the more suitable word would have involved. As we have intimated, Theos is not a name of the Most High, but an appellative by which He is brought before the mind. The expression, “the Deity,” would indicate the Supreme Being, Ail, who was known to Israel by the name Yahweh; the indefinite expression Deity would, lacking emphasis, convey the idea of the Almighty in a less individual way, reminding us of the multitudinous Elohim, and of Divine nature and attributes in manifestation. The word Pneuma must likewise be considered in this connection. It is a neuter noun used in many senses. In one particular sense, it was in the opinion of nearly all the revisers a name for what they style “the third person of the ever-blessed Trinity.” Accordingly, we find the masculine pronoun used in relation to it (John 16:13; 15:26; 14:17). In other places, in the A. V., we had it treated as a neuter (John 1:32; Rom. 8:16, 26). The revisers, however, have given us the masculine in the latter instance. The word Logos is a masculine noun. In the estimate of the majority of the revisers this word stands for Jesus Christ, and they, therefore, regard it as a person—the second of a “trinity.” The English expression, Word, is not masculine but neuter, and, therefore, to have been consistent, the revisers should have selected pronouns in agreement with the noun. Only in a theological sense are the terms “Word” and “Spirit” personal and masculine. Being really neuters in our tongue, these words should be referred to by neuter pronouns. Psuchee (soul), zooee (lifetime), hamartia (sin), poneeria (evil), anomia (lawlessness) are all feminines, but we do not translate them into English as such, but as they all signify things which in English are neuter as to gender, we allude to them by the use of neuter pronouns. Again genos (generation), nomos (law), chrusos (gold) are masculines, but we render them into English neuters. The Hebrew masculine noun davar, the French feminine parole, and the Latin neuter verbum, all resolve themselves into English, into our neuter noun “word”; and whether we are translating from the first, second, or third language, we ought to make our pronouns agree with the nouns for which they stand. The revisers should have undone the wrong of their predecessors by rendering the pronouns referring to Logos into “it,” and not into “him” and “he” in John 1.
The learning of the Schools has ruled in the matter. These verses should read: “In the beginning was the Logos and the Logos was with the Deity, and the Logos was Deity. The same was in the beginning with the Deity. By it all things became, and without it not one thing became, that came into being. In it was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness overcame it not. There was a man sent of Deity, his name John. The same came for a witness, in order that he might bear witness concerning the light, that all might believe through him. He was not the light, but (came) that he might bear witness of the light. That was the true light which lighteth every man, coming into the world.” At this point we are to regard the light as manifested, so we then continue to read in the masculine: “He was in the world, and the world came into existence through him, yet the world knew him not. He came unto his own (possessions), and his own (people) received him not.” Then again verse 14: “And the Logos became flesh, and tabernacled among us, and we beheld his glory, glory as of an only begotten of a father, full of grace and truth.” Here again the change of gender is necessitated by the sense of the verse, for the Word is represented as tabernacling among men in the person of Jesus Christ. It is not “the only begotten from the father,” but, as Sheldon Green points out, the langunge is so selected as to “give the most effective expression of the characteristic circumstances of the mission of Jesus, standing in unapproachable contrast to that of all other divine messengers.” The mission is (see verse 17) contrasted with that of a servant, Moses. It was by the Word, and not by Christ, that all things were made. Luther’s German and Ostervald’s French translations make it clear that this was so by using pronouns agreeing in gender with Word. The Vulgate does the same, and so does Beza’s Latin version. Some modern English translators have done the same. In the old English versions, the Bishop’s Bible, the Geneva Bible and Tyndal’s Bible, &c., the pronoun “it” was used. Then, as to the Greek term pneuma, it has no personal meaning. Sometimes it has the definite article and sometimes it is without it. Sometimes the term pneuma hagion or hagion pneuma has the article and sometimes it is without it. We should read that Mary was “found with child of holy spirit”—(Mat. 1:18) “he shall baptise you in holy spirit and in fire.”—(Mat. 3:11); “How then doth David, in spirit, call him Lord”—(Mat. 22:43); “Except a man be born of water and of spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of the Deity” (Jno. 3:5). In other places, such as Mark 1:10 (“the spirit as a dove descending upon him”) there is the article, and it is necessary to translate it. Mr. Green, in his grammar, already referred to, says that in the time of Polycarp the words “holy spirit” without the article had become a personal title, but “in one remarkable instance (Mat. 1:20) the mere order of the words, ek pneumatos estin hagion, will not allow this to be the case; and it may therefore be reasonably concluded that the anarthrous form is always designedly employed to signify an influence, operation, or endowment proceeding from the Divine Person.
Nor can it be shown that pneuma is ever, without the article, a proper name.” The word kurios (Lord) also has the article sometimes, and at other times is without it. This is significant, and something important to observe. Also the words Satan and Devil are common appellatives and not names, and sometimes are accompanied by the article and sometimes not. The Greek form Satan or Satanas stands for the Syriac word Satana, which means the same as the Hebrew common noun Sahtan, an adversary, an opponent. The lexicographers tell us that in later Jewish theology, the word Satan was understood to mean a wicked angel, a prince of fallen angels. The idea has almost disappeared from Jewish theology now. It is clear from the New Testament that Christ adopted no such belief as that stated to have attached to the word. The Hebrew form of the word has in the Old Testament been nineteen times transferred into the English Bible in the shape of the word Satan, seven times it has been rendered “adversary,” and once treated as a verb and translated “to withstand.” The verb, too, from which the noun is derived is once rendered “to resist,” and five times “to be an adversary.” While there is no reason for questioning the original simple meaning of the word, it is clear that in New Testament times it had become a designation for that course of things which was opposed to the principles of Truth and Righteousness. The word was used to designate sin in a comprehensive sense, just as Mammon (Greek, Mammonas, from the Syriac, Mamona), was employed to designate the unrighteous wealth, and the deceitful riches. To exert oneself for the acquisition of wealth, was regarded as serving Mammon; and to pursue a course of life which was opposed to Divine principles was to become a servant of Satan; and of all satans the Satan was the sin stricken world which was energised by a spirit which was enmity against God. It is the same today. But it appears that the revisers, almost to a man, believe in the existence of a personal supernatural agent of sin, ever actively, and successfully, plotting against mankind. Therefore, we did not expect the revision to contribute to a clearer understanding of this question. However, it may be well to state that neither Devil nor Satan are proper names. We read of the Devil in our ordinary versions, and we ought to read of the Satan, for the word is a common appellative, used, of course, to bring a particular idea to mind. In all but five cases of the thirty-seven occurrences of the word Satanas in the New Testament, we have the definite article before it, and in those cases should read the Satan. In the other cases it is easy to account for the absence of the article. The word Diabolos (accuser) occurs nearly forty times, and has the article in all cases except eight. Certainly, it would have been well to have had this indicated in a translation of the New Testament. It would surely work death to the orthodox Devil and Satan doctrine.
Review of “The Early Earth” by John Whitcomb (1972)