The Revised Version of the New Testament

For more than ten years past, a company of “learned men” have been engaged in revising King James’s version of the New Testament. Their work has been regarded with different feelings by different classes of persons. The bulk of the population of the British Isles could not be expectcd to be more than mildly curious, if anything else than quite indifferent.

A considerable class were not indifferent, but on the contrary much interested, but interested in different ways. Some were sorry that the work was in hand at all, feeling abundantly satisfied with the Bible as it was, though not knowing very much of it, even in King James’s version. Others were very glad that a work they had long felt to be needful had at last been undertaken, looking forward with eager expectation to the result of a revision in relation to the various scriptural controversies that have been raised. The enemies of the Bible were glad at a performance which they conceived must be unsettling in its effects upon the position occupied by the Bible in the confidence of the believing community.

The case of the last may be dismissed without much ado. The position of the Bible is strengthened in all critical senses rather than weakened by a process which confirms its main sense as embodied in King James’s version. It would have been a very distressing event if the result of a revised translation had been to alter any of the hopes or duties exhibited to us in the Holy Oracles.

This is very far from being the case. The effect of a new translation as regards the meaning of God’s message to man, may be best illustrated by supposing the case of an illiterate Englishman getting a letter from Spain, written in Spanish, which, of course, he cannot read. He takes it to a friend who knows Spanish, and this friend makes a translation for him from which he learns to his great and gratified surprise that an estate awaits his possession on compliance with certain legal formalities which it specifies.

He proceeds to comply with these formalities and to arrange his affairs with a view to the new turn in his circumstances. While doing so, another friend, also knowing Spanish sees the letter. He says to the illiterate Englishman, “This letter is wrongly translated.” The illiterate Englishman takes fright, and asks what he is to do. “Oh,” says the second friend, “I have a dozen friends who all know Spanish well. We shall meet together and make you a thoroughly good translation.” The man awaits the result with painful anxiety. By and bye he gets the new translation. He sits down to read it with fearful interest. It is certainly a differently worded translation, but he discovers to his jubilant relief that its sense is identically the same.  Instead of “estate,” it reads “extensive landed possession;” instead of “obtain for the Spanish authorities the documents proving your identity,” it reads “forward, after due authentication, to the Government of His Majesty in Spain, certificates of your birth, marriage, residence, &c.,” and so on. He thanks his friend perhaps for the trouble he has taken, but feels he would have spared him some uneasiness if he had let the first translation alone.

The practical bearings of the revision of the New Testament are fairly illustrated by such a case. The New Testament is altered, but in substance remains the same. Some of the alterations are improvements and some are not. It was scarcely to be expected that a company of Revisers, meeting under the auspices and mainly composed of the pillars of an Episcopalian State establishment would make a translation of the New Testament all that it might be made in the hands of those understanding the truth which it embodies.

Still, the friends of the truth could not help looking forward to the result of their work with an interest exceeding perhaps that of any other class in the community. Rejoiced to find the message of God untouched in the declaration of his love, the offer of reconciliation, the forgiveness of sins, and the promise of life everlasting and inheritance in the kingdom of God, they can well endure verbal emendations, which while more correct in a scholarly sense, make no alteration of meaning. For some alterations long contended for by the brethren, they are thankful, as now having a sanction that will have weight with the people.

For other alterations that ought to have been made, but which have not been made, they can wait, such as “spirit” for “ghost;” “demons” for “devils;” “immersion” for “baptism,” and so on. Some such alterations were favoured by the American committee that assisted the English revisers on the other side of the Atlantic. Many of the American suggestions were not adopted by the revisers;—a list of these suggestions is inserted at the end of the book, and form quite a valuable feature. Some alterations that ought not to have taken place they can endure, as not involving any radical change of idea, though strengthening the polemical efforts of the orthodox, such as the insertion of the word “one” (in italics) after “evil” in “the Lord’s Prayer.”

Taking the revision as a whole, it will not be pronounced a splendid success by any large class. It is of course in many points an improvement upon King James’s version, and will doubtless be a useful aid to scriptural study: but there will be a feeling that where it has made one improvement, it has made ten alterations that are for the worse—alterations which are merely closer approximations to the idiom of the Greek tongue, but not improvements as a translation of the idea of the original into the English idiom.

The too literal following of the idiom of any tongue in translating into another will interfere with excellence of translation, for each language has its own particular mode that cannot be literally imitated in another without causing obscurity. The nature of the needless changes is illustrated in the following quotation from a criticism in the Standard:—

“In St. Matthew 1:21, can there be any necessity to re-write the holy words ‘for he shall save his people from their sins’ as ‘it is he that shall save,’ &c.? Upon what principle do the Revisers defend the substitution of ‘thou have paid,’ Matt. 5:26, for ‘thou hast paid’? ‘You have’ would, at least, be grammatical; but if the ‘thou’ is retained it is clear that there must be retained also the ‘hast’ of the Old Version. Again, in Matt. 9:16, what conceivable advantage is derived from changing ‘new cloth’ into ‘undressed cloth.’ ‘Undressed,’ of course, is the more literal rendering of the Greck word, but the context shows that the opposition is between the oldness of the garment and the newness of the piece employed to patch it. Nor in the next verse, 17, is there any sufficient reason why ‘wine skins’ should take the place of ‘bottles.’ The two mean practically the same thing, and the circumstance that the familiar rendering has acquired a proverbial significance and sound is an additional argument against its disappearance. In this matter, as in many others, the Revisers are not consistent. We should not expect to find in Matt. 10:9, ‘Get you no gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses.’ Equally uncalled for is the correction in Matt. 12:45, ‘The last state of that man becometh (for ‘is’) worse than the first.’ Why, too, should we have ‘there shall be the weeping and gnashing of teeth’ (Matt. 13:50). The Revisers have officially testified their apprehension of the beauty of the rhythm of the Old Version. We are sorry that they have practically shown so poor an ear for it. How comes it that in the Canticles at the close of the first chapter of St. Luke they on several occasions destroy this rhythm? Thus they write ‘The hungry He hath filled with good things,’ instead of ‘He hath filled the hungry;’ ‘He hath visited and wrought redemption for His people,’ in the place of ‘He hath visited and redeemed;’ ‘salvation from our enemies,’ for ‘that we should be saved from our enemies.’ ‘On earth peace, goodwill toward men’ (Luke 2:14), ‘On earth peace among men, in whom he is well pleased.’ For ‘wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business’? (Luke 2:49) we are bidden to read, ‘that I must be in my Father’s house”—which is, indeed, a more literal rendering of the original, but by no means a so really faithful one. Similarly (Luke 3:13), ‘Extort no more’ is not a happy change for ‘Exact no more;’ (Luke 7:32), ‘We waited unto you’ is not an improvement on ‘we mourned unto you;’ ‘store-houses’ and ‘fowls’ (Luke 12:24) are quite as good as ‘store-chamber’ and ‘birds;’ ‘All that is mine is thine’ (Luke 15:21) has nothing to recommend it over ‘All that I have is thine.’ We give the Revisers credit for a conscientious realisation of the difficulties of their task, and for indefatigible patience in dealing with them. But in their determination not to spare their energy and their labour they have carried the work of revision beyond the necessary point.”

Some of the most glaring defects are pointed out in the following newspaper extracts:—

“The hell of fire” takes the place of the authorised “hell fire” (Matt., 5:22). The expression is one which introduces an idea even more fearful and repulsive than that suggested by the old rendering. In one respect the change is useful, perhaps, beyond what the revisers intended. It will not only startle people, but it will make them ask what the original really means, and whether it is such as has been so usually imagined. This consideration may perhaps add a little additional interest to the following statement. In some mythologies there are hells of torture and of punishment by other means than fire. These, however, are not known to the New Testament. Hence it would seem to have been scarcely wise or right to suggest the idea of a distinction which was most probably unthought of by the Christian evangelist. But is the word “hell,” with the dreadful mediæval associations which still cling to it in the popular conception, a just rendering of the original? We greatly doubt this. The original word is Gehenna, which in its origin was a local name, denoting a definite spot with a very peculiar history. Accidental circumstances made the “Valley of Hinnom” (such is the import of the word) a place of burning. It was a spot rendered abominable to later generations by the idolatrous rites once practised in it. It was on this account defiled by the various refuse there collected, to consume which fires were constantly burning.

In the midst of the decaying and putrid matters there lying might be found vermin and “the worm which dieth not,” until they were actually reached by the all-consuming element. Such circumstances would easily originate the expression “eternal fire”—literally, age-enduring fire—found in two or three instances, and such expressions unhappily, by the aid of speculative imaginings and systematising, have originated a good deal more of the same kind of language which it is unnecessary here to repeat. Into this “Gehenna of fire” the wicked and unbelieving, according to the popular idea, were to be cast at the coming of the Messiah, and the place came to be looked upon as either the actual scene, or perhaps only as the representative and image of the scene, of punishment or destruction for unbelieving and ungodly men in general. The word then, it is clear, is a local name, a proper name, with very peculiar associations. The addition “of fire” is most probably a Hebraism, like “judge of unrighteousness” rendered “unrighteous judge” (Luke 18:6), and it simply means “burning Gehenna.” As the word then is of this character, was it wise or faithful to the Scripture to use, as its English equivalent, a word suggesting to ordinary readers the meaning which has descended to us from the old days of mediæval darkness and superstition — the meaning so usually conveyed by the word ‘hell?’ Ought not a proper name to have been given as a proper name? This as been done in the case of the word ‘Hades,’ the other word rendered by ‘hell’ in the authorised version. Why should not ‘Gehenna’ have been treated in the same manner? “Gehenna of fire” would have been at least a literal rendering.

It would not have read amiss. It wouid have drawn attention to the subject, and would have led to enquiry and to explanation which it would have been for preachers and teachers to give, as they deemed right. By adopting it our revisers would have escaped the reproach which some will be ready to fix upon them of sanctioning an idea which appears to, perhaps, the majority of thoughtful readers of the Bible to throw discredit upon Christianity, and by attaching to the latter an incredible doctrine to weaken, rather than strengthen its authority in the world. The word ‘hell,’ we imagine, must disappear entirely from the Old Testament. It would have been a fitting pendant to this if the same result could have followed in the New Testament revision also.

“Passing on a little further, we come to the Lord’s Prayer, in which many persons will see, with regret or even with a stronger feeling, the changes which have been made. ‘Bring us not into temptation’ takes the place of ‘Lead us not,’ probably, as before said, for no reason but to harmonise the translation with other places in which the same verb is so rendered—a very small reason, it must be allowed, in the face of the rule to make ‘as few changes as possible . . . consistently with faithfulness.’ The other and greater change is equally arbitrary and more unjustifiable, ‘deliver us from the Evil One.’ The facts of the case are as follows:—The Greek words for ‘the evil’ may be either masculine or neuter, according to the requirements of their context. No doubt there is an instance or two in the New Testament in which they are masculine, and denote therefore a person, as in Matt. 13:19, (compare Mark 4:15). The context here, in addition to the nominative form, requires a correspondent rendering. But other cases occur in which the words are neuter, and carry with them a general or abstract, and not a personal meaning—that is, they signify the evil, ‘that which is evil,’ or ‘evil.’ Such cases are Luke 6:45, ‘An evil man . . . bringeth forth that which is evil, (or simply bringeth forth evil); and Rom. 12:9, ‘abhorring that which is evil’ (i.e., ‘evil’). There is no doubt about these cases, in both of which the article and adjective are neuter. It is clear, therefore, so far, that in the Lord’s Prayer the rendering might be either ‘the evil one’ or ‘evil.’ What then in the context determined for the personal meaning? Nothing whatever; but the contrary. ‘Forgive us our trespasses,’ ‘Lead us not into temptation.’ In these expressions, ‘trespasses’ and ‘temptation’ are general or abstract in meaning. To them, therefore, the abstract ‘evil’ is correspondent and parallel. Thus we have three petitions, ‘forgive us our trespasses,’ ‘lead us not into temptation,’ ‘deliver us from evil,’ answering in character to each other. Evidently there was no need to introduce a personal agent, ‘the evil one,’ and to do so is to spoil the symmetry of the prayer, to lower its character by introducing into it a gross and unspiritual conception. Why then have the revisers done this? It may be conjectured that they have done it out of regard for the authority of the Greek Fathers, who quite uniformly so intrepret the words. At first sight this seems to be a strong reason, and it is so, but there are considerations which diminish its force. Even the Greek Fathers were not infallible, and on this subject of the [Satan] devil, they were very fallible indeed. They were full of superstitious faith in him, and about him. They saw diabolical agency and influence everywhere in life, in the commonest actions and occurrences. This any one may see for himself who will refer to an easily accessible book. ‘Middleton on the Miraculous Powers.’ This writer has brought together a number of instances from the Fathers, quoting their own words, showing us that on this subject of Satan they were childishly credulous, and that, although they certainly saw ‘the evil one’ in the Lord’s Prayer, they were most probably wrong in so doing. But then this personage is very important, and holds a most prominent position in the theology of our day, and the majority of the revisers; it would appear, were as much under his influence as were the Greek Fathers. They would have done better, in our humble judgment, to have left the Prayer in this respect as it was. If they thought the other rendering worthy of notice, they might have given us a margin, ‘or the evil one,’ leaving it to those readers who might prefer this rendering to follow it, but not making the whole Revision Company responsible for it before the world, and so lending an authority to it which it surely does not deserve. There are various other cases of similar character to the foregoing in which, as we are sorry think, the revisers of 1881 have shown themselves scarcely equal to what literary accuracy and impartiality asked from them.”—Daily News.

“There remains the question whether the revisers have been sufficiently conservative in details to avoid giving unnecessary offence to ears familiar with the old version, and this is a point which can only be decided by the popular verdict. We will give a few examples of the general result of the revision upon familiar passages. The reader will naturally turn, in the first instance, to the Lord’s Prayer, as given in its fullest form in the Sermon on the Mount. It is now presented as follows:—‘Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be Thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven so on earth. Give us this day our daily bread (margin; or ‘bread for the coming day’). And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And bring us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil One’ (margin: or ‘evil’). The doxology at the end is omitted. We must confess we cannot regard this as a favourable specimen of the revisers’ work. The old form—‘Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven’—is altered without any advantage whatever to the sense. The change from ‘we forgive’ to ‘we have forgiven’ is justified, though not required, by a various reading, and is thought by some commentators to convey an instructive shade of meaning. But the alteration in the last clause by changing ‘evil’ into ‘the evil one’ is deeply to be regretted. The old reading ‘evil’ is retained in the margin, and as is implied by this retention, there is, to say the least, very high authority for it; and this being the case, the old form in which the prayers of Englishmen have been uttered for so many generations ought to have been respected. The change, moreover, forces into notice an important, but a disputed doctrine, while the old form had the great advantage of being neutral on the point, and of neither imposing it upon us nor excluding it. There is no chance that this new rendering of the universal prayer of Christian nations will supersede the old and familiar one. The shorter version in the 11th chapter of St. Luke now runs as follows:—‘Father, Hallowed be Thy Name. Tny kingdom come. Give us day by day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins; for we ourselves also forgive everyone that is indebted to us. And bring us not into temptation.’ The margin says that ‘many ancient authorities read ‘Our Father which art in heaven;’’ that many add, ‘Thy will be done, as in heaven, so on earth;’ and that many also add, ‘but deliver us from the evil one (or from evil).’ Considering that the authorities for the clause, ‘Thy will be done’ include both the Sinaitic and the Alexandrian MSS., that the Alexandrian MS. supports the two omitted clauses, and that all the clauses stand in the form of the prayer given by St. Matthew, the revisers might, we think, in so venerable a form of words, have given the old text the benefit of the doubt.—Times.

Pointing to the fact that in Matt. 1:18, the term “Holy Ghost” is accompanied by the marginal note: “or Holy Spirit; and so throughout this book,” the Daily News reviewer observes:

“A well-informed reader is no doubt aware that the original word, rendered sometimes ‘Ghost,’ sometimes ‘Spirit,’ is without exception everywhere one and the same word. Why, then, should it be differently translated in different places? If the Evangelists and other New Testament writers were so uniformly satisfied to express their meaning by the use of a single term, why should the English translator have recourse to two? The English Bible is probably the only version of any importance in which this has been so arbitrarily done at the pure will, it would seem, of the translator. We can imagine no satisfactory reason or justification for so peculiar and exceptional a course. A dogmatic bias in the revisers would account for it, but this, we suppose, must not be imputed any more than a mere desire to conform the New Testament to the creeds of the Church. It may, indeed, be said that ‘Ghost’ and ‘Spirit’ are identical words, so far as force and meaning are concerned. But if so, why not use the one comprehensive and beautiful word ‘Spirit’ rather than its poor, antiquated, and almost obsolete duplicate? But, indeed, it cannot be admitted that the two words are identical or equivalent in force or meaning. The one has a sort of techical and dogmatic import which does not attach to the other. The one is quite limited in its use. It cannot be employed alone, and even requires one particular adjective to make it presentable. It is further constantly associated with a definite personal meaning which is probably foreign to the New Testament, except as figuratively used. In all these respects the word which is relegated to the margin is unobjectionable, and should certainly have been used by Revisers who would seek before all things to be true to their original. If it be urged that the marginal note is a sufficient correction of the text, it should be remembered that the margin is not usually read from the pulpit or reading desk, and also that editions will most probably be printed hereafter without any marginal addition. Thus the common reader or hearer, the person of little knowledge, will be left, so far as this revision is concerned, to the erroneous idea that the original is rightly represented by two words, the one ‘Ghost,’ the other ‘Spirit,’ and injustice, as we submit, will thus be done to the original, in spite of the care for ‘faithfulness’ and ‘consistency’ professed by the Revisers.”