8. The Revised Version recognises the change which has taken place in the meaning of certain words since the Authorised Version was issued. “Letteth,” which used to mean prevent, now gives place to “restraineth” in 2 Thess. 2:7. “Prevent,” which formerly meant to go before, is appropriately superseded by “precede” in 1 Thess. 4:15. The Authorised Version does not correctly convey to modern readers the apostle’s meaning in 1 Cor. 4:4: “For I know nothing by myself,” for the simple reason that the word “by” at one time comprised the idea of against. The Revisers, therefore, give us: “For I know nothing against myself.” The injunction of Christ to “Take no thought for your life” Matt. 6:25, has been made use of by opponents of the Bible, to show how impracticable and destructive of ordinary prudence is its teaching. This weapon is taken out of their hands. The word “thought” formerly meant anxiety. Hence the Revised Version says, “Be not anxious for your life.” The word “wealth” once had a more extended meaning than now, and was, with propriety, inserted in italics, to supply the unexpressed meaning in 1 Cor. 10:24: “Let no man seek his own, but every man another’s wealth, ” which was doubtless the same as weal. It is now displaced by the word “good, ” which is more in accord with the language of the present day.
9. It reduces the number of italic words. Ordinarily they are used for emphasis, and for this reason some have wondered that so many unimportant words should be italicised in the Bible. The explanation is simple. They are introduced by the translators to supply what they conceive to be implied or understood. The necessity for this arises from the idiomatic differences in the two languages. They are useful at times, but the fewer the better. Sometimes they becloud the meaning, as in 2 Cor. 5:10, where the four italic words in the Authorised Version have been reduced to three by the Revisers. The verse would have been clearer if all had been eliminated, and the marginal alternative introduced. It would then have read, “For we must all be made manifest before the judgment-seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things through the body, according to what he hath done, whether good or bad.” The introduction of the italic word “done” after “things,” and the selection of “in” rather than “through,” indicate the inability of either Translators, or Revisers, comprehending how “good or bad things” could be received “through the body” at the judgment-seat of Christ. The doctrine of immaterial spirits is the veil which darkened their understanding. The italic words “for us,” at the close of Heb. 9:12, are omitted, whereby the verse represents the “eternal redemption” obtained by Christ, to be personal to him. If the Revisers had been faithful, they would have added, “for himself,” but it would be too much to expect such a thorough-going change as this.
The reduction of the italics has been effected in two ways, partly by forms of speech which render them unnecessary, and partly by putting italic words into ordinary type, which is evidence that, in the judgment of the Revisers, they have an equivalent in the Greek text. Taking Matt. 3., a short chapter, as an illustration, seven italic words have, in both ways, been reduced to three.
10. While retaining the style of the Authorised Version, it gives a more literal rendering. Some think this a disadvantage, and complain loudly of the melodious rythm, so long familiar to the ear, having been marred. This is a very weak argument. It is not a question of melody versus harshness, but of correct versus incorrect language. Linguistic exactness, even though sometimes uncouth, is preferable, especially in divine revelation, to harmonious sound. When Translators aim at effect, they are apt to give a false colouring to the inspired words. It is for want of recognising this danger, that objection has been taken to the substitution of “love” for “charity” in 1 Cor. 13. chap. A word of one syllable, it is said, does not sound so well as a word of three. If there were no difference between the two words this would be an allowable reason for preferring the more musical: but the variance is so wide in this case as to make the Authorised Version misleading. The necessity for the alteration is indicated by the fact, that in an early edition of Chambers’ Information for the People an editorial note defined Charity to be “a disposition to think well of our neighbours, whatever may be their actions.” The adoption of a more literal translation necessitates careful attention to the article, definite and indefinite, which is often a matter of great importance. The introduction of the definite article has, no doubt, made some sentences more angular, as in Matt. 8:12, “There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” which, if rendered with exact literality, would have been “the weeping and the gnashing of the teeth.” But defects of this kind are of minor importance compared with the advantage of “the” before “Christ” in Matt. 2:4; 16:16; 23:8; Luke 24:26; 46; Acts 2:31; 17:3. It tends to disabuse the popular mind of the idea that “Christ” is a proper name given to God’s Son, simply to distinguish Him from other men. As Prof. Roberts, one of the Revisers says, “that term is never used in the Gospels as a proper name, but always as an official title. Only once is it connected with the personal appellation Jesus, namely at John 17:3; in which passage the Saviour stations himself, as it were, in the future, when his claim to be regarded as Messiah shall have been demonstrated by the resurrection. After that event the term Christ might be used as synonymous with Jesus, but not before. Accordingly, we find that in the Gospels the word has, with very few exceptions, the article prefixed, and should therefore be translated ‘the Christ.’” The alteration of “in” to “through the” in 1 Tim. 2:15, shews that the Apostle is not writing about child-bearing in general, but about that particular child-bearing of which the Virgin Mary was the subject. Heb. 11:10, describes Abraham as looking “for the city which hath the foundations” instead of the indefinite “a city” of the old Version. As an illustration in the opposite direction, where specific is transformed into the general, by “the” being changed into “a” Rom. 2:13, may be referred to. “The hearers of a law” instead of “the law” shows that the Apostle means law in the abstract, not simply the Mosaic law.
11. It has made some passages more intelligible, such, for instance as, Mark 2:22, which now reads, “No man putteth new wine into old wine-skins.” The old word “bottles”—having in view the impervious material of which they are now made—was unintelligible without an explanation as to the difference between ancient modes of holding liquids and those now in vogue. The new rendering requires none.
12. Many words and phrases are more accurately rendered. “Hades” is substituted for “hell” in those passages where the original warrants it. It may be said that this is not a translation, but merely a transfer. True; but it is not associated with the fiery elements which have been attached by the Apostasy to the old word. The alteration is, therefore, a decided gain. Mark 16:26 is rendered, “forfeit his life” instead of “lose his own soul,” which is equivalent to an admission that the Greek psuche rendered “life” does not contain the idea of immortality. It has puzzled some to understand why angels should be described as ministering to “them who shall be heirs of salvation” (Heb. 1:14), a form of words which is applicable only to believers previous to entrance into the bond of the covenant. The difficulty now disappears by the more correct wording, “them that shall inherit salvation.” In Heb. 2:16, the marginal rendering of the Authorised Version has been virtually adopted by the present tense being substituted for the past, and all the italic words—five—have been eliminated. So that we now read, “For verily not of angels doth he take hold, but he taketh hold of the seed of Abraham.” The taking hold is thus a present and continuous process, and cannot, therefore, apply to Christ being made of human nature. The Apostle has already affirmed that truth in v. 14, and his argument does not require its repetition in v. 16. On the contrary, his reasoning would be weakened by it. Verse 16 is, at the same time, an explanation of a previous statement, and a basis for the conclusion given in v. 17—“Wherefore it behoved him in all things to be made like unto his brethren.” Why did it so behove Christ? Because he “took on him” the nature of the seed of Abraham at the time of his birth. This cannot be; there is no sequence, no syllogism; it is a mere repetition. Who, then, it will be asked, takes hold of the seed of Abraham? That which is spoken of as “him” at the close of 5:14, viz., “the devil.” Sin personified takes hold of the seed of Abraham, and, in fact, all mankind, by subjecting them to death. Wherefore, as Christ was designed to be “a merciful and faithful high priest,” to “succour them that are tempted,” it behoved him to be made in all points like them; that is, in a nature which sin takes hold of by bringing it into the grave.
Considering the taint attaching, in these Laodicean days, to the word “profession,” in connection with religion, it is gratifying to find it displaced by “confession” in Heb. 3:1; 4:14; 10:23. “Most pitiable” is an improvement on “most miserable” in 1 Cor. 15:19; for a false hope, although a subject of pity, does not produce misery as long as it lasts. “Passover” instead of “Easter,” in Acts 12:4, removes not only an anachronism, but a Popish disfigurement, the latter being the name of the Romish imitation of the Jewish festival which witnessed the Crucifixion. “Life and incorruption” is more accurate, in 2 Tim. 1:10, than “life and immortality;” for immortality comprises life, but incorruption does not. The incorrect statement, that “the love of money is a root of all evil” (1 Tim. 6:10), need no longer be a stumblingblock to any, the revised rendering, that “the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil,” being in perfect accord with observation and experience. The reference, in the same chapter, to some who “suppose that gain is godliness” (5:5), always appeared out of harmony with the context, and improbable. No such thoughts will arise respecting the new reading, “Supposing that godliness is a way of gain.” Acts 3:19 predicates “times of refreshing” on the blotting out of sins, which is obscured in the Authorised Version. This is brought out by the Revisers, who translate it, “That your sins may be blotted out that so there may come seasons of refreshing from the presence of the Lord.” Gal. 5:17 has been a source of comfort to indolent believers inclined to yield to the old man of the flesh. The Revised Version takes away this prop to self-indulgence, by substituting “may not” for “cannot.” The strife between the flesh and the spirit is not for the triumph of the flesh, but the reverse, “that ye may not do the things that ye would.” “Living creatures” for “beasts,” in Rev., 4. chap., is a necessary emendation with which all readers of Eureka are familiar.
Having glanced at the commendable features in the New Version, most of which might have been further elaborated, it is now necessary to point out some of an opposite character. These may be divided into two parts, the first arising out of the theological conservatism of the majority of the Revisers, and the second out of what may be called, in relation to the Old Version, their radical tendency to alteration. The former consist of those points where the Revised Version might be further improved:—
1. By embodying some of the marginal renderings in the text. The most important is “Holy Ghost,” which is retained in nearly every place where it is to be found in the Authorised Version. In the margin of Matt. 1:18, and in that also of the first use of the phrase in other books, the following note occurs: “Or Holy Spirit: and so throughout this book.” No valid reason can be adduced for this course. It is a feeble attempt to perpetuate the delusion that the Holy Spirit possesses a distinct personality. The inconsistency of this is shown by the alterations made in Matt. 12. chap. In the Authorised Version “Holy Ghost” occurs in verse 31, but the word “Holy” is in italics. The Revisers, by the rule already noticed, leave out the word “Holy,” and, at the same time, substitute “Spirit” for “Ghost.” Why this? What is there about the adjective “Holy” which makes it an appropriate word to qualify “Ghost?” If “Ghost” be right why should it not stand, when the word “Holy” is left out, or, as in some cases, when associated with God? If “Holy Ghost” be right, “the Ghost of God” cannot be wrong. In Matt. 12:32, “Holy Ghost” occurs without any italics, and yet the Revisers have altered it into “Holy Spirit.” In this they show a refined sense of propriety, which it is a great pity was not excited on a more extended scale. Having represented Jesus as condemning “blasphemy against the Spirit” in 5:31, they evidently thought it inappropriate to represent him in v. 32, as saying, “Whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost,” and therefore they substitute “Holy Spirit.” In doing this, they practically condemn themselves for retaining the obsolete phrase in other portions of the translated text, and relegating to the margin the more correct word.
On the subject of “hell” the New Version is an improvement. Where the original word is Hades, it is transferred, instead of translated. We now read, therefore, of “the gates of Hades” (Matt. 16:18), of Dives lifting up his eyes “in Hades” (Luke 16:23), and of the “soul” of Jesus not being left “in Hades” (Acts 2:27). Though not altogether satisfactory, this is a step in advance, inasmuch as it helps to get rid of false ideas associated with the word. The introduction of the word “grave,” in most cases would have been better. Where the original word is Gehenna, the text is left unaltered, the Greek word being given in the margin. See, for instance, Matt. 5:29; 10:28. But where it is associated with fire, the expression “hell fire” is transformed into “the hell of fire” (Matt. 5:22), and the Greek “Gehenna of fire” given in the margin. For translating “Gehenna” by “hell” there is absolutely no warrant. It is attributable to the exigencies of a false theology, though even on this basis it is inappropriate. That theology teaches that “hell” is a place of fire and torment: to associate it with the word “fire” is, therefore, superfluous. If the primitive meaning of the word “hell” be accepted, viz.: a covering, it is impossible to use it as an equivalent for the word Gehenna, which is the name of a valley outside Jerusalem that can be seen at any time by those who visit it. It was once the scene of constant fires, which were kept burning to consume the refuse and corruption cast into it; the name has thus become specially associated with that condition. “Gehenna of fire,” or fiery Gehenna, is, therefore, a correct representation of the original, and should have been inserted in the text instead of the margin.
Study 1: Introduction