SW
THE K I N G ’ S BUS I NESS
fcfcV>V*yMVAV*V«>mVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAV*VJàVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAV
I THE NEW REVISED STANDARD VERSION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT A A Æ Æ a A Æ Æ Æ A f l A « Æ A Æ A A Æ A Æ Æ Æ A A Æ Æ Æ A Æ A A ü l A A A A 1Et*ATA¥ATATA*ATATATA¥A¥ATATATAirATÂ^
translated: “He will not speak on his own authority.” Another novel feature of the Re vised Standard Version is the com plete abandonment of the pronoun “thou” except in addresses to God. For example, in Acts 16:31, instead of, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house,” it is rendered, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” However, in making this alteration, no encouragement is given to the unfortunate habit of addressing God as “You,” which is becoming common in some quarters today. Again, it is interesting to notice the introduction of the word, “slave,” in place of “ bondservant” or “servant” in many passages where the word, “servant,” is misleading, as in Ephe sians and Colossians, where duties of masters and slaves are described. This also applies to the runaway slave Onesimus in the Epistle to Philemon. In an effort to remove the harshness of the words, John 2:4 has been al tered to read: “O woman, what have you to do with me?” This can still be improved upon. A welcome change is found in John 4:24 where the translators at last have dared to put Into the text the words, “God is spirit,” instead of, “God is a Spirit.” In John 1:30, the revisers have smoothed down the cumbersome translations of the past into the more easily running words: “After me comes a man who ranks before me, for he was before me,” and in John 1:11, we have a real effort to give us what actually appears in the original: “He came to his own home, and his own people received him not,” although I feel that the translation would be better if the word, “home,” were dropped, and the rest retained. I conclude my observations with the mention of two or three striking changes. We have a complete new version of John 1:9, but one that is faithful to the original, the translators considering the verb as an historic past, and rendering the passage as follows: “The true light that enlight ens every man was coming into the world.” This might have been im proved by translating the historic past in the regular way, thus: “The true light that enlightens every man came into the world.” One of the most admirable changes contained in this new version is the restoration to Christ of a very common title, which seems to have been dearly loved by our Lord Himself. I refer to Reid McCullough, A.B., B.D., D.D. Professor o f Biblical Languages o f the Bible Institute of Los Angeles T HAVE BEEN asked my opinion of -*■ the Revised Standard Version of the New Testament just published. At first, I was quite indifferent to it, thinking that it was just another translation, of which we have so many. I was even suspicious of it because of the well-known reputation for liberal theological views that most of its translators enjoy. H o w e v e r , after spending a little time looking it over, I became greatly interested in the new version. While we have in It by no means, a perfect version, I do believe that it is indeed a very great improvement upon the Ameri can Standard Version of 1901. If that splendid little brochure en titled, “An Introduction to the Revised Standard Version of the New Testa ment,” published by the translation committee, is carefully read and stud ied, the reader will be better able to appreciate not only the necessary changes in this new version, but also the reverent and scholarly spirit which prompted them. In the first chapter of Matthew, in stead of the old-fashioned Word, “be gat,” as in “Abraham begat Isaac,” the words, “Abraham was the father of Isaac,” are substituted. Certainly this is more like what we would say today. Another startling change is the use of “ only Son” in John 3:16 to re place the old theological term, “only begotten Son.” But we would never think of calling the only son of the widow of Nain her “only begotten son” ! Another very important feature in the new Revised Standard Version is the correct use of “ shall” and “will.” In this connection, it is interesting to note the commendable changes in the sixteenth chapter of John. In the Au thorized Version, there are thirty "shalls” in this chapter; in the Ameri can Standard there are twenty-six; in this version there are only two, and these are properly used. Also irf this same chapter, the word, “proverbs,” is dropped in favor of a much better word, “figures.” In verse 13, the great ly misunderstood phrase, “He shall not speak of himself,” is correctly Bernard Ramm, A.B., B.D. Assoc. Professor of Apologetics and Doctrine of the Bible Institute of Los Angeles a great interest in and veneration of the Bible as literature, accompanied by a shameful unbelief in its purpose and teachings, a new revision of the New Testament is on the market—the Revised Standard Version. As stated in its preface, it is an authorized re vision of the American Standard Ver sion of 1901. It is the work of the American Standard Bible Committee, appointed in 1929 by the International Council of Religious Education. Un fortunately, not one of the revisers is a conservative, and its success will greatly enhance the position and favor of the liberal scholars. Since time is the only real test of literature, we who handle this book before the print is scarcely dry, are not in posi tion to judge its merit. We can only guess its lasting value; our opinion may be vindicated or scorned in the future. However, we welcome any honest effort to make clearer and more readable the translations of the Word of God from the inspired Greek and Hebrew texts, and it is highly probable that a version may appear that will do this more accurately for English-speaking people than any of the versions now obtainable. The Authorized (King James) Ver sion appeared in 1611, and, after a struggle for popularity with the Bish op’s and Geneva Bibles, won out. Later on, as more manuscripts were discovered, and the knowledge of Greek grammar increased, a revision was indicated. Accordingly, the Eng lish Revised Version appeared in 1885, followed by the American Standard Version in 1901. For several reasons the American Standard Version did not take fire: there were some mis translations; its chapter arrangement was cramped; there was still great veneration for the Authorized and the Textus Receptus Greek text upon which it was based. It never became the People’s Bible; it is the hope of the revisers that this one may. Here are some commendable fea tures about the Revised Standard Ver- (Continued on page 192) TAEMONSTRATING one of the para- doxes of our civilization, namely,
Made with FlippingBook HTML5