The Revised Standard Version What Kind of Translation ? Charles L. Feinberg
Filmed against the back ground of the world’s most fabulous city. . . . HOUSTON, TEXAS : as
S i t z \
i Thrilling, unforgettable scenes of evangelism’s largest throng . . highlighting the gripping story o f one man’s experience with his God . . climaxed as the skies turn red from the flames of a city’s smoldering ruins.
PREMIERES NATION WIDE IN MARCH
RELEASED THROUGH BILLY GRAHAM EVANGELISTIC FILMS INC.,
2627 CONNECTICUT AVE. N.W., WASHINGTON, D. C,
Page Two
T H E K I N G ' S B U S I N E S S
THE
¡d ea d e r ¡R ea ctio n Gracious Words We are happy to be members of the large King’s Business family, composed of Christian people who are traveling the narrow, if unpopular way, the terminal point of which is the Celestial City where “ the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.” . . . We are greatly pleased with the December number, as we are with every copy we receive . . . It is a real pleasure to meet the members of the staff as they are photographically pre sented to us, and to meet in the same way the grandchildren of Dr. and Mrs. Talbot. May the Lord bless the dear children and use them to His glory. C arleton H. W right Fredericktown, Ohio Wise Men at the Manger I read with interest the article in the December issue “ Were the Wise Men at the Manger” . . . I have for many years recognized the truth of what the author says. There is, however, one modification which I would suggest. Inasmuch as the visit of the Magi may have been almost two years after the birth, it is quite possible that they found the Child in Bethlehem. Joseph or Mary, either one of them, may have had relatives or friends in that vicinity; and even had they known no one there prior to the visit recorded in the Gospel narrative, it would not be surprising if lifelong friendships were formed with some who may have gathered about to sympathize and assist in those memorable days. And it may have been divinely timed that they made a visit to Bethlehem about the time the Magi arrived in Palestine. I have thought this not unlikely. It seems strange that careful Bible students should have com monly allowed the current idea to persist. W alter C. W right Los Angeles, Calif. The New Bible I am a reader of The King’s Business and have given it to many. I would like to say that there are many readers who would like to have Dr. Feinberg’s review of Isaiah 7:14 and other Scriptures in the Revised Standard Version put in | print or in The King’s Business. Other I magazines, Moody Monthly, S. S. Times, | Eternity and Our Hope have done so. U nsigned The only reason why we have not had an article from Dr. Feinberg on this sub- | ject is that Dr. Feinberg has not had the ! time to put his articles and radio mess ages into print.But that has been done and the article appears on page 7 of I this issue. E ditor Devotionals May I suggest you put in devotionals | again. So many people use them as their I daily devotions. The explanation of the Scripture is very helpful to people who haven’t had any training. M rs . E. C. J ohnson Glendale, Calif.
BUSINESS
Official Publication of The Bible Institute of Los Angeles, Incorporated
Louis T. Talbot, D.D.
Betty Bruechert
Editor in Chief Managing Editor No part o f this magazine may be reproduced without permission All Rights Reserved Vol. 44 FEBRUARY, 1953 No. 2 Reader Reaction ........................................................................................... 3 Editorially Speaking, Wallace Emerson, Oran Smith ....................... 4 Dr. Talbot’s Question Box ........................................................................ 6 The Revised Standard Version: What Kind o f Translation? Charles Lee Feinberg ...................................................................... 7 The Judgment Seat o f Christ, I. M. Haldeman .................................... 11 Who Shall Deliver Me? Arthur Hedley ................................................... 14 The Lighthouse o f Love, John G. Ridley ................................................ 15 Poem: Casting All Your Care, Thomas Washbourne ......................... 16 Junior King’s Business: When Jeannie Began to Listen, Barbara Candee; Birthdays and Hearts, Martha S. Hooker . . 17 In the Corner of the Streets, Maxine E. Dowd .................................... 18 Tragic But Hopeful, Oswald J. Smith ..................................................... 19 Book Reviews, Donald G. Davis ................................................................. 22 Young People’s Topics, Chester J. Padgett .............................................. 23 Biola Family Circle........................................................................................ 28 Sunday School Lessons, Homer A. Kent, Allison Arrowood ............... 29 Miscellanea ..................................................................................................... 35 Object Lessons, Elmer L. Wilder ............................................................... 36 Picture Credits: Cover, Defense Dept. Photo (Marine Corps ) Navy corpsman Leo J. Chapman of Neillsville, Wise., gives medicine to a little sick Korean girl. The compassion of our GJ.’s for the Koreans, and for the nationals in all lands where they have been stationed, especially for the children, is our best “good neighbor” policy. Pp. 7, 12, Ransom Marvin, Spokane, Wash.; p. 15, Don Knight, San Francisco, Calif. SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION— “The King’s Business’’ is published monthly: $2.50, one year; $1.25 six months; 20 cents, single copy. Clubs of three or more at special rates. Write for details. Canadian and foreign subscriptions 25 cents extra. It requires one month for a change of address to become effective. Please send both old and new addresses. REMITTANCES— Payable in advance, should be made by bank draft, express, or post office money order payable to “The King’s Business.“ Date of expiration will show plainly on outside of wrapper or cover of magazine. ADVERTISING— For information address the Advertising Manager, 558 South Hope Street, Los Angeles 17, California. MANUSCRIPTS— “The King’s Business’’ cannot accept responsibility for loss or damage to manuscripts mailed to us for consideration. Entered as second-class matter November 7, 1988, at the Post Office of Los Angeles, Cali fornia, under the Act of March 8, 1879. Acceptance for mailing at special rate of postage provided for in the Act of February 28, 1925, embodied in paragraph 4, section 588, P. L. and R., authorized October 1, 1918, and November 18, 1988. ADDRESS: The King’s Business, 558 So. Hope St., Los Angeles 17, California.
Page Three
F E B R U A R Y ,
1 9 5 3
the One who was not the least irrespon sible about the physical world and the world of life? Many minds finally came to admit that the same authority could hardly have been responsible for both Christian revelation, as interpreted by liberal thinking, and the universe as pic tured by the evolutionist. From the days of William James or even before, the discipline of psychology came to be more and more of a third stumbling block. Many psychologists were, and are, men who, while perhaps not orthodox in viewpoint, at least are reverent and responsible. Others have been reckless in dealing with spiritual and moral values. One well-known psy chologist described himself and his un believing colleagues as “hardy souls able to think psychologically without the hin drance of any theistic or metaphysical complications.” Freud was bitterly anti- Christian in his dealing with certain aspects of mind and his eifect upon our times has not been for the best. Beyond all doubt, psychology has been a trap for the unwary, especially those who have not gone beyond the absolute certainties of the sophomore course to a more ma ture realization of the great incomplete ness of the subject. But psychology itself is not to blame for this. There should not be a mass condemnation of psychologists. Basically, psychology is an attempt to understand human nature, not human mature as it ought to he, or could be, but as it is. That philosophy, biology and psychology have been misused by unscrupulous men to pervert minds should not rule out their true values. In our world it is impossible to remain ignorant of these things if we read contemporary news and literature or even converse with educated people. Then the problem is not that young people should not be sub jected to such disciplines, but that they should be given the right viewpoint on them. For the purpose of this editorial when we speak of psychology we mean human nature. Immediately we are on ground in which all believers, and particularly the Christian worker, are interested. The day laborer is taken up with things; the intellectual with ideas; the Christian with people. The extent to which he shows his interest in others under the guidance of the Word of God and the power of the Holy Spirit will be the measure of his success as a Christian and a soul-winner. So then anything that contributes to his understanding of men will make him a more effective Christian, providing the knowledge he secures is accurate, and is used properly. Now that the best of modern psychol ogy has come through the mazes of the various mechanistic theories (of which behaviourism was the most popular), of psychoanalysis, and other aberrant or incomplete viewpoints, and again admits that man has a soul, as was assumed by the oldest psychology, it should have a place in the Christian’s education.
IS PSYCHOLOGY FOR THE CHRISTIAN?
By Wallace Emerson, Ph.D. Chairman of the Departments of Christian Education, Education, and Psychology of BIOLA Bible College
T HREE lines of learning have been charged with exerting a sinister in fluence upon youth—philosophy, biology and psychology. In this brief article we shall see that this need not be the case. In the dim past it was supposed that since philosophy was frequently the re ligion of the irreligious, the doubter and the agnostic, one could hardly study the subject without being led thereby from the paths of sound Christian doctrine and experience. Undoubtedly some young men whose Christianity was of the tra ditional order did find in philosophy more acceptable views of life and bases for value. This was so because philosophy was, is, and perhaps always will be, an attempt to deal with everything under the sun. It is a discipline which attempts to generalize and reduce to system man, the universe, and even the First Cause. Too often philosophy assumed that the mind of the creature was sufficiently comprehensive and discerning to rethink the thoughts and work of the Creator. Sometimes the possibility of human lim itations did not enter into its teaching. Then an attempt was made to account for the origin and mechanics of the uni verse, of life and of man, by the philos ophy of evolution. Evolution is thought of as a science. In reality, it is philos ophy employing science for its building blocks and support. It seemed to promise a scientific method, a scientific goal, and an understanding of causation by which the science could become interrelated to a greater degree than previously had been thought possible. Never did such men as Darwin, Hux ley and Spencer propose evolution, as
means of bowing God out of His universe. They merely believed they were dis covering the mechanics by which life, and probably man, had been created. The subsequent use of the theory of evolution—to make the universe respon sible for its own creation—would have been repugnant to at least two of these men. But coupled with German rational ism and the psychological need for escap ing from a God whose omniscience could not be comprehended, whose justice would not be evaded, and whose love was not understood, some men willingly uti lized this theory to create for themselves a universe in which, first of all, spiritual responsibility had no focus. There was a consequent later moral declaration of independence from the spiritual obliga tions man had accepted previously. Many a young man was told that he could not believe evolution and the Scriptures. Even worse, he was assured that there was no incompatibility between the two. It was suggested that compromise be made between the two viewpoints. Many people in those days thought of them selves as theistic evolutionists. Some would so designate themselves today. The remarkable thing about this blend of Christianity and materialism, however, is that the theism has always to make the concessions, and science has the last word and is the final authority! Ulti mately, a clear thinker was put in the position of having to confess that God had spoken inaccurately in His written Word but had revealed Himself as pre cise and orderly in His universe. Was the same Creator who was so careless about moral and spiritual revelations
Page Four
T H E K I N G ' S B U S I N E S S
at a disadvantage in dealing with such problems in his parish. There is a second situation of which Christian leaders should be aware. It has become the fashion in some circles to think of Christian conversion as a sort of autogenous and indigenous psycho logical experience. Perusal of many of the psychologies of religious experiences would lead one to feel that the moral and spiritual problems of the race could best be left to experts in psychology. I think every young minister should take a course in the psychology of Christian ex perience. If it were properly presented to him, it would forever disillusion him as to the possibility of man’s ever being converted in the terms of his own psy chological resources or of those of any other human being. In the third chapter of John, which is the charter chapter of the new birth, we are told that except a man be born from above, he cannot even see the Kingdom of God. Unless the power of God through the Holy Spirit becomes the seed planted in the human heart, the soil may be good but there is nothing there to grow. All argument about whether volition, or emotion, or ideation, or feeling are the sources of the new birth, is time wasted. Whether a man has an emotional experience when he is saved depends upon his nature.If under other circumstances which are of tremendous importance to him, he be comes emotional, he is very likely to be emotional when he is born again. If he is self-contained under such circum stances, then that may be the outward pattern of his conversion. On the other hand, the very reverse may be true. The joy of a man who has a profound sense of his own guilt released by the power of God may cause him to transcend all former patterns of his behaviour. Let us be certain of this one thing: if conver sion could be produced psychologically, liberalism would have converted the world by this time, and man would be close to the golden age. If psychology tries to discover in conversion, a reduc tion of inner conflict, a new ideological pattern, a profound emotional experience or dependence upon anything except Christ; if it expects to find in these things the answer to regeneration, it will look in vain. A third use that Christians may find for psychology is in the rearing of their children. We can only touch upon this. Emotionally, intellectually and volition- ally, the child is at the mercy of the wis dom or the unwisdom of the parents. While love is certainly the means of bringing out all of the intelligence that there is in the parent-child relationship, unfortunately it does not always furnish the “ know-how.” Should a Christian have basic under standing of psychology and psychological principles? Our answer would be that for his own effectiveness in his personal life, in his dealing with mankind in gen eral, in his service of the church, and in coping with his own children, it would be most profitable indeed, if it were sound psychology.
If we make an application of what modern psychology can offer the Chris tian in his problem of dealing with human nature, there are various fields to consider where it may be of great as sistance. It should first lead him to ex amine himself, his motives, and his men tal efficiency with a keener scrutiny than the average man who takes himself and his weakness for granted. For instance, the Christian who would grow spiritually must be brutally frank with himself with reference to his motives. We like to talk about the love of Christ and the love of the brethren. The truth of the matter is that there is often an enormous disparity between what a man says and feels than what he does. It is very rare that no element of self-interest and desire for reward or publicity enters into our dealings with each other. Another angle that troubles us is temptation. We assume that temptations are peculiar to us, that our natures are more depraved than others, and we al most lose our self-respect because we do not remember that the temptations which have overtaken us are common to all men. Every pastor is familiar with the problem of those who confuse their spir itual difficulties with those which are actually mental. There are many neu rotic people in the world. The majority of these are not Christians, but some among them are. Of course, a Christian with a neurosis is an anomaly. It is the privilege of the child of God to walk by faith, to have definite and consistent Christian goals, to have his heart filled with love and not to be obsessed with bitterness. He should be the healthiest- minded person in the world. But, sad to say, many Christians have not entered into their heritage and there is a lot of unfinished business in their lives that calls for moral and spiritual house cleaning. Such individuals are not only unhappy and unsatisfied themselves, but are most troublesome in a church. There are those whose feelings are being hurt constantly—instinct of pride; there are those who are busybodies in other peo ple’s affairs—abnormal curiosity; there are those desirious of running everything —motives of dominance. There are even pathological liars. A knowledge of true psychology will hold up to a person a reflection of his own nature. If he does not like what he sees there, he can find psychological as well as spiritual help. Among first-class psychologists there is now a recognition of the fact that many of the psychoneuroses and psy choses have their bases at moral and spiritual levels. It is just as reasonable to speak of enjoying a sound mind and sane viewpoint when certain bodily con ditions are abnormal (such as glandular defect, toxemia, fever, etc.) as it is to talk of one’s having a sound mind when spiritual and moral conditions are ab normal. Spiritual and moral anarchy are not conducive to sane and normal think ing. The pastor who does not recognize these factors and their relationships is
FAITH GIVING By Oran Smith Chairman of the Department of Missions BIOLA Bible College M UCH emphasis these days is placed upon the subject of living by faith, trusting God for necessary pro vision in carrying out the God-given task of spreading the gospel. The time has come when more should be said about faith giving, lest we become un balanced in our Christian economy. Faith works two ways; it motivates young lives to devote themselves to sacrificial service in some remote corner of the Lord’s vineyard, but it also com pels individuals to give of the material substance entrusted to them. Presumption, which is “the act of venturing beyond due bounds,” is fre quently substituted by our youth for true faith, which is a gift of God, and which is anchored in the Scriptures. The numerous reports of “ Missionary casualties” would indicate that some have cut the moorings on the strength of an inspiration or a challenge. But the missionary volunteer is not the only one who is at fault in this matter. Is it not presumptuous when a man contributes to a work or to an individual worker simply because a strong appeal has been made? Should not the steward prayer fully, and carefully consider his invest ment and secure the favor of God upon his act of generosity? It is commonly known that a mission ary with an outstanding personality can usually get a larger offering than the one who is reserved and lacks platform poise, yet the latter may be far more useful on the mission field. It is contended that if we practiced faith giving, there would be more faith living, and fewer schemes devised to coax people to contribute. Whenever there has been an indication of God’s leading in the matter of sup porting a cause or an individual, it has brought encouragement and blessing to both parties, and surely the Lord has been honored. On the other hand, when the money has gone out on the strength of a mere inspiration, a strong human appeal, or a winsome personality, the benefits are greatly in question. The suggestion is offered, therefore, that candidates for what we sometimes call “ full-time Christian service,” make sure of their calling, launching forth by faith in the promise of God’s provision, and that God’s stewards who are called upon to give, be just as diligent and prayerful in the investigation of their objectives for the glory of Christ and for the furtherance of the gospel.
Page Five
1 9 5 3
F E B R U A R Y ,
nition cannot be improved. Believing with the head is a part of saving faith, but that kind of faith alone cannot save. You remember that even the demons believed and trembled (Jas. 2:19). There are thousands of unregenerate men and women who believe intellectually in Christ, but they have no saving faith. To believe with the heart involves the affections. That is where the word “ love” comes in. The Holy Spirit, through Paul, said, “ For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness” (Rom. 10:10). The expression, “ affiance of the life,” shows that faith always includes action. It is not a dead intellectual thing, but it is a living, pulsing, acting, expressive affair. Paul and James agree thoroughly. James said, “ Faith without works is dead” (Jas. 2:20), but a living faith that issues in works is the only kind of faith that Paul ever preached. We fear that there are multiplied thousands in the churches today who have been taken in on a mere assent of the mind. The old Testament word for faith is trust. Be cause the word faith has been profaned by misuse, it is often helpful to use the word trust. In Jude I read “ Keep yourselves in the love of God.” This is important, but how can a mere mortal do it? We keep ourselves in the love of God by obedience. This is clearly shown in John 15:10: “ If ye keep my command ments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love.” The command ment the Lord Jesus refers to here is that we “ love one another.” Many be lievers, because they harbor malice, re sentment, and ill will toward other believers, miss fellowship with Christ, and lose a consciousness of His presence. How this command needs to be pressed upon the conscience of Christians today! To keep ourselves in the love of God, also includes Bible study, prayer, the stewardship of life and possessions—our whole Christian testimony. Why do you not baptize infants and very young children? Because it is my firm conviction that baptism follows conversion. I am happy to dedicate infants and young children to the Lord for it seems to me that every Christian parent should dedicate his child to God, both as an act of devo tion to Him, and as a safeguard to the child. But dedication is not baptism. Ded ication is the act of the parent, in which he presents his child to God and assumes responsibility for the training of that child for Him. Baptism, however, is the
act of the believer himself, in which he confesses faith in the Lord Jesus, who died for our sins and rose again for our justification. What form did God take when He walked in the Garden of Eden? The appearances of God in Old Testa ment times were pre-incarnate manifes tations of our Lord Jesus Christ. God’s appearance in the Garden of Eden was one of these revelations. Sometimes these theophanies reveal the appearance of God in the form of an angel. However, when He is described as “ the angel of the Lord,” or “ the angel of the cove nant,” it must be remembered that this “angel” is entirely distinct from the created angels. We read that when God talked to Ab raham, “ three men stood by him” (Gen. 18:2); and we learn from verse 1 of this chapter that one of the “men” was the Lord. Again He appeared to Joshua as the “ captain of the host of the Lord” (Josh. 5:14); He walked with the three Hebrew men in the fiery furnace as the One “ like the Son of God” (Dan. 3:25); He was “ the angel of the Lord,” before whom “Joshua the high priest” stood, Satan also “ standing at his right hand to resist him” (Zech. 3:1). From the context of these Scriptures, we note that in several of these appearances of our Lord, the descriptive terms are either “men,” “man,” or another which is sug gestive of human form. However, in the light of the fact that our Lord did not receive His human body until he “was made flesh” (John 1:14) in Bethlehem’s manger, we conclude that His appear ances in the Old Testament period prob ably were in angelic form. GEORGE WASHINGTON'S PRAYER “Almighty God: We make our earnest prayer that Thou wilt keep the United States in Thy holy protection; that Thou wilt incline the hearts of the citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination and obedience to government, and entertain a brotherly affection and love for one another and for their fellow citizens of the United States at large. “And, finally, that Thou wilt most graciously be pleased to dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy, and to de mean ourselves with that charity, humil ity and pacific temper of mind which were the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed religion, and with out a humble imitation of whose ex ample in these things we can never hope to be a happy nation. “ Grant our supplication, we beseech Thee, through Jesus Christ our Lord: Amen.” June 8, 1788.
Dr. Louis T. Talbot Can you tell me of any case in the Bible where man changed the mind of God? You inquire as to there being any cases in the Bible in which a man chang ed the mind of God. When one mentions “ changing the mind of God,” the ques tion immediately is asked, is it possible for the finite (human) to change the infinite (God)? We shall not enter into a discussion on this point except to say that since God knows all things from the beginning to the end, He is omniscient. His plans are never frustrated, and His thoughts and purposes are “ fixed” to provide the best for mankind. Some one has said that the product is never great er than the producer. This is true in man’s relationship to God. He cannot change God by any thought or act. Nevertheless, in His plan, God has made provision whereby His children may make appeal to His grace and mercy. We find one of the most striking ex amples of this fact in the case of Abra ham’s plea to the Lord for the saving of Lot and his family from the destruction of Sodom: Genesis 18:1-33. Because of the wickedness of the inhabitants, the city was to be destroyed by the Lord. However, Abraham entreated the Lord for the righteous citizens, and in honor of this plea the Lord saved Lot and his wife. This did not involve a change of God’s mind; it was a gracious act of mercy in keeping with the words found in Proverbs 15:29: “ . . . he heareth the prayer of the righteous.” The incident bears out the truth found in James 5:16: “ The effectual fervent prayer of a right eous man availeth much.” Please explain the difference between believing with the head and with the heart. The theologians of old used to say that faith is composed of three things: First, the acknowledgment of the head; sec ond, the assent of the heart; and third, the affiance of the life. I think this defi
Page S‘x
T H E K I N G ' S B U S I N E S S
The Revised Standard Version: What Kind of Translation ?
Charles Lee Feinberg, Th.D., Ph.D. Director Professor of Semitics and Old Testament Talbot Theological Seminary Los Angeles, California
books were written” (p.v). The claim is also set forth that the RSV is based on the Masoretic Text (p.v). The version does not hide the fact that it makes cor rections, but finds the basis for such changes in the ancient versions (p.v). But the translators have taken greater liberties with the text. When they feel the text has become corrupt through copying and none of the versions is satis factory, they resort openly to conjec ture, marked “ Cn” in the footnote. “ Con jecture” is just a three syllable word for the one syllable,word “ guess.” It is free ly admitted also that (p .v i): “ Some times the present translation will be found to render a Hebrew word in a sense quite different [note this] from that of the traditional interpretation. It has not been felt necessary in such cases to attach a footnote, because no change in the text is involved and it may be assumed that the new rendering was not adopted without convincing evidence.” A major reason for the revision, and it is the most valid of the reasons, is the change in meaning of certain English words from the time of the KJV in 1611. Some three hundred words and more are said to come under this category. To make any part of the Holy Scriptures intelligible to the people is a worthy objective, provided there is no loss in other directions. With all the previous statements of the translators in mind, it is a bit sur prising to read (p .ix ): “ The Revised Standard Version is not a new transla tion in the language of today [sic/]. It is not a paraphrase [of this more later] which aims at striking idioms. It is a re vision which seeks to preserve all that is best in the English Bible as it has been known and used through the years.” The Translators When we come to study carefully the translation of any man or group of men, it is necessary to know the outlook or theological position of the translator. It is as foolish to try to separate a trans lator from his translation, as it is to attempt to sever a child from its parents.
Introduction W HEN we speak of a translation we mean the product of one who renders from one language into another. There is a definite and legiti mate reason for translations. From the very first translation on, they have been made, because there were many who did not understand the Hebrew and Aramaic of the Old Testament; and later there were those who did not understand the Greek of the New Testament. The earli est version or translation from the original was the Septuagint (the LXX), probably made in Alexandria, Egypt, be ginning about 280 B.C. From the first to the tenth century A.D., Aramaic translations (called Targums) were made of the Old Testament, no single Targum covering the entire OT. The Syriac Peshitta was made about 150 A.D. on the entire Bible for the Church in Syria. The Latin Vulgate, covering the OT and NT, was completed by Jerome in 405 A.D. After these ancient ver sions, translations into other languages were made from time to time. The first complete translation of the Bible into the English language is that of Wyc- liffe, completed in 1382. The important version of William Tyndale was given the English-speaking world about 1531. It did not include all of the OT. The King James Version was made in 1611, and is a revision of the Tyndale. Because of the discovery of new manuscripts since the appearance of the KJV, the English Revised Version was projected, and scholars in England and America worked on this translation. The work was completed in 1885. Because the American translators did not have the decisive vote on matters of difference in translation, they issued in 1901, after the time agreed upon had elapsed, their own translation, known as the American Standard Version.
Why Another Version? Now, why is there need for another version? In the preface to the Revised Standard Version the new translation claims to be “ an authorized revision” (p.iii) of the ASV which was a revision of the KJV. After lauding the KJV highly, the RSV tells us: “ Yet the King James Version has grave defects” (p.iv). The claim is that the finding of many manuscripts more ancient than those underlying the KJV shows (p.iv) “ these defects are so many and so serious as to call for revision of the English trans lation.” Thirty-two scholars (p.iv) are indicated as having served on the re vision committee with the help of others. However, the jacket on the Bible lists only twenty-two members. Compare this carefully with the fact that 54 transla tors were appointed for the KJV and a list of 47 has come down to us. In the case of the English Revised Version there were originally 65 translators from England with 34 additional from Ameri ca, a total of 99. The ultimate total of translators for both groups came to 82. You may judge which versions had the wider range of scholarship. Too, when we consider the names of the translators of the RSV, we find there is heaviest representation from Union Theological Seminary in New York, Yale University, and Harvard University. Not one scholar west of Chicago is on the published list of contributors. It looks as though the translation aimed to be sectional. Only one scholar outside the United States of America is included. Is this a represen tative translation in any true sense of the word? But we shall see more later. In spite of the stress laid upon the finding of new manuscripts more ancient than those used in the KJV, it is ad mitted that the manuscripts of the OT are “ based on a standardized form of the text established many centuries after the
Page Seven
F E B R U A R Y ,
1 9 5 3
my righteous servant justify many; and he shall bear their iniquities.” The text appears in the RSV in this form: “he shall see the fruit of the travail of his soul and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous; and he shall bear their iniquities.” A reading of the Hebrew text will reveal there is no Hebrew word in this passage for “fruit.” This may be interpretation, but it is not called for in a translation. The work of the interpreter should fol low that of the translator. It may be pointed out here that a paraphrase is introduced into Romans 5:2 also. The KJV is: “ By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of
an owl of the desert.” The translation of the ASV is: “ I am like a pelican of the wilderness; I am become as an owl of the waste places.” The RSV renders it: “ I am like a vulture of the wilder ness, like an owl of the waste places.” How much is gained here, especially in view of the footnote: “ The meaning of the Hebrew word is uncertain” ? You may test it yourself by comparing the majestic rendering of the last clause of Isaiah 63:1 in the KJV and the ASV with the pompous, but not more force ful, translation of the RSV. Careful reading of the footnotes will disclose the nature of them. Some of them touch matters in a radical way (see later on Isaiah 7:14) while others are quite pointless and ineffective. As an illustration of the latter, read Psalm 23 in the KJV and ASV, then in the RSV with its seven footnotes for the six verses of the Psalm. Strangely enough, when there was an opportunity to give the proper meaning to an im portant verb, there is no change what ever. I refer to Exodus 20:13 in the Decalogue. It reads in the KJV and ASV: “ Thou shalt not kill.” This verse has been made to do duty in bolstering arguments against capital punishment, arguments in favor of vegetarianism, and arguments against military service even in defense of one’s own country and loved ones. If the translation “kill” is allowed to stand, it contradicts verses in the broad context of Exodus like 21:14; 21:15; 21:16; 21:17; 22:18; 22:19; and numerous other instances. In the He brew language there are more than a half dozen verbs which convey the thought of kill, but the word employed in Exodus 20:13 is a special word. It means “ to murder,” and the verse in the Decalogue should be translated: “Thou shalt not murder.” This needed change is not found in the RSV which reads: “ You shall not kill.” As already shown, this is not the meaning of the verse. The Results of the Revision All orthodox students of the Scrip tures recognize that prophecy is a mir acle of utterance. The Messianic element in the OT prophets is one of the out standing features which attest the super natural character of the OT. It is well known that liberals greatly minimize the element of predictive prophecy in the Bible or seek to eliminate it alto gether. We have carefully considered every major Messianic passage in the RSV. It will not be possible in the pur pose of this appraisal to treat each one, but we present some of the findings. It is commonly accepted that the Abra- hamic Covenant of Genesis 12:1-3 is basic in God’s unconditional dealings with Israel and the nations. It concludes with these words (practically the same in KJV and A SV ): “ and in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed.” RSV gives us: “ and by you all the fami lies of the earth will bless themselves,” with a footnote reading, “ in you all the families of the earth will be blessed.” It is true that the Hebrew verb is in a conjugation (or better, stem) which is
Come what may, the offspring will show the characteristics of its parentage. There is a Jewish saying which runs this way: “ The apple does not fall far from the tree.” The list of the translators of this version shows unmistakably that theologically they are in the liberal camp. They are scholars, but liberal scholars, scholars with a liberal bias. No orthodox or fundamental school is in cluded among them. Their position on the Bible is not that of the historic faith, of the Apostolic or Reformation days. There is no evidence that they hold to the verbal, plenary inspiration of the Scriptures. Their Methods The real aim and task of a translator is to be rigidly faithful to the language of the Biblical text, and faithful also to the language into which it is being trans lated. A faithful translation should take into account the original text above all else, and rule out guessing or conjec tures. The RSV indicates it will use the versions, and this it does with both hands. It refers again and again [we are speaking especially of the OT] to one Hebrew manuscript in the footnote, or dwells monotonously on the note that “ thè Hebrew is obscure” or “ the Hebrew is uncertain.” If the readers could only know how often the versions are ob scure! But the impression is given that the defect lies with the Hebrew. By actual count we have found in the foot notes of the OT, 1292 references to the versions. Anyone who has had any expe rience in teaching students even on the graduate level, realizes what a Hercu lean task it is to teach them to read footnotes. How many of the ordinary readers of the Bible can be expected to read footnotes? Does not all this foot noting savor of the pedantic? On page 222 there are in the footnotes, 11 refer ences to the versions as well as one con jecture. By actual count again, there are at least 344 conjectures in the OT. On page 545 there are three conjectures in two lines of footnotes. And, mind you, these conjectures are introduced into the text of the passage; it is only the foot note that indicates the words of the text are a conjecture. It would have been far better, if conjecture had to be included in the version, to have placed all con jectures themselves in the footnotes. Since the RSV has determined not to employ italics, it is difficult to know where the text ends and paraphrase be gins. For use is made of paraphrase. This may be due to the close adherence of the OT translators to the text of the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the OT), which indulges in paraphrase in many places. An example of para phrase is to be found in Isaiah 53:11. It reads in the KJV: “ He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satis fied: by his knowledge shall my right eous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.” The ASV renders the verse thus: “He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satis fied: by the knowledge of himself shall
Dr. Charles L. Feinberg Hebrew Christian Bible Scholar Author and Professor
the glory of God.” The rendering of the ASV is: “ through whom also we have had our access by faith into this grace wherein we stand; and we rejoicd in hope of the glory of God.” The RSV translates thus: “ Through whom we have obtained access to this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in our hope of sharing the glory of God.” The word “ sharing” is added without any basis in the Greek text. On page x of the preface we are told that the Scriptures “must stand forth in language that is direct and plain and meaningful to people today.” Let us test this version out on this score. In Psalm 103:6 the KJV reads: “ The LORD exe- cuteth righteousness and judgment for all that are oppressed.” The ASV is: “ Jehovah executeth righteous acts, And judgments for all that are oppressed.” The RSV translates: “ The LORD works vindication and justice for all who are oppressed.” Is there a gain here in di rectness, plainness, or meaningfulness? We can test it further with Psalm 102:6 which reads in KJV: “ I am like a pelican of the wilderness: I am like
Page Eight
T H E K I N G ’ S B U S I N E S S
Psalm 45 celebrates the marriage of the coming King Messiah. The KJV and ASV render verse 6a: “ Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever.” The RSV (in spite of its footnote readings) reads: “ Your divine throne endures for ever and ever.” This translation attributes divinity to the throne, and not deity to the One who rules thereon. We are not left in doubt as to the meaning of Scrip ture, for the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews iri 1:8 adduces this passage as
“ virgin” of the text to “young woman.” If you will consult the RSV footnote, you will find “ virgin.” Now, we submit that if “virgin” is an erroneous transla tion for ‘almah in the text, it would be just as much an error in the footnote. Why, then, was it placed in the foot note? Are the footnotes to be reckoned less reliable? The truth of the matter is that com pulsion for this footnote from more than one source was upon the translators. First of all, the Septuagint, which is highly favored in the RSV, does trans late the word as parthenos (“ virgin” ). (And correctly adds the definite article, “ the,” which is in the Hebrew text, for a definite virgin is referred to.) Sec ondly, the revisers themselves had trans lated in the NT Committee the passage in Matthew 1 :23 as “ virgin.” And this, too, in spite of the change from the 1946 edition of the NT of the RSV, to the 1952 edition of the RSV, with the lat ter’s absurd footnote on Matthew 1:16. Thirdly, it is well known that the root thought in ‘almah is of one who has reached the age of physical maturity. L. Koehler (editor of Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros, which is still in proc ess of publication) gives the meaning of the word (Part XII, p.709, col.2) as “marriageable girl.” This is unquestion ably correct. The able expositor of Isaiah, Franz Delitzsch, declared (Vol.I, pp.206,207): “ ‘almah (from ‘alam, to be strong, full of sap and vigor, arrived at the age of puberty . . . ) is the mature woman who is near marriage.” The word will be found seven times in the OT—Genesis 24:43; Exodus 2:8; Isaiah 7:14; Psalm 68:26; Proverbs 30:19; and Song of Solomon 1:3; 6:8. Not one of these cases demands the force of “young woman” or “married woman.” In the Genesis passage it is definitely ruled out, because in verse 16 of that chapter, Re- bekah is spoken of as one whom no man had known in the sense of marriage. It is ruled out in the other cases, and in the passages in the Song of Solomon it would be unseemly, to say the least, for the statements to be true of married women. But this is not the end of the matter. Fourthly, it is not true that if “vir gin” were meant in Isaiah 7:14, the word used would be bethulah. We grant that this word is used interchangeably with ‘almah in Genesis 24:16,43. But has Joel 1:8 been considered? The word bethulah is used there, and the RSV translates: “ Lament like a virgin girded with sackcloth for the bridegroom of her youth.” We should like to point out that the KJV and the ASV are correct in translating ba'al “husband” instead of the RSV “ bridegroom,” which would de mand the word hathan (see Psa.l9:5). But our main contention is that the word bethulah is used in Joel 1:8, not only of a married woman, but of one whose husband has already died. Fifthly, the force of the languages related to the Hebrew is in favor of the renderings of the KJV and the ASV. Finally, where would be the sign (miracle) if a mar ried woman were to conceive a child?
both passive and reflexive. However, in this verb the reflexive (“ bless them selves” ) is expressed by another stem. What is the difference? The RSV con veys the idea (see Smith-Goodspeed translation) that all the families of the earth will invoke blessings on one an other, using Abraham as a formula of blessing. The passage actually states that God will make Abraham a bless ing to all the nations through the com ing Messiah. No doubt can be enter tained on this matter, once the com mentary of Galatians 3:8-14 is given its rightful force. In the RSV the divine element is by-passed, while it is attested in the Galatians passage. In the important Messianic passage of Genesis 49:10, both the KJV and ASV (the latter has marginal readings) read: “ until Shiloh come.” The RSV gives: “ until he comes to whom it belongs.” By a comparison of the footnote it will be seen that the reading of the Syriac ver sion is favored. This is another instance where the traditional interpretation is set aside without sufficient warrant. In Numbers 24:17 in the prophecy of Balaam concerning the coming Star out of Jacob and Sceptre out of Israel, the KJV and ASV use but ,one pronoun, “ him,” whereas the RSV inserts another, “ it,” as though there were a change of personal pronoun. The reader of the pas sage will not realize that there is no reason for a change, since no additional pronoun is introduced into the Hebrew text. The shift from the masculine to the neuter does serve to becloud the Messianic force of the passage. Second Samuel 23:1-7 contains one of the most beautiful passages on the coming Re deemer to be found in the OT. The por tion is admittedly difficult, but a com parison of the KJV and ASV with the RSV will reveal that the last named generalizes the text, as though to make it of universal force. Psalm 2 has entered so largely into the revelation we have in the NT, that it is useless to contend for its Messianic character. Verse 7 addresses the Mes siah as the Son of God, while verse 12 exhorts men everywhere to “ Kiss the Son,” which is the translation of both the KJV and the ASV. The RSV amazes us with its: “kiss his feet.” Is the He brew susceptible of such radically differ ent translations? When we consider the reason for the RSV, we find that the word for “ rejoice” (v .ll) is placed after the word bar (three words away) which means “son,” thus arriving at the gro tesque translation, “his feet.” No won der the footnote adds: “ Cn: The Hebrew of lib and 12a is uncertain.” Now, did the translators have reason to be puz zled by the little Aramaic word for “ son,” namely bar? It occurs in this sense only three other times in all the OT (apart from the Aramaic portions in Ezra and Daniel), and all of them are in Prov erbs 31:2, where the RSV, consistently with the meaning of the word and incon sistently with the translation in Psalm 2:12, renders the word “ son” thrice. Is this avoidance of the Messianic force to be considered accidental? We shall see.
one that clearly defines the deity of the Messiah. Smith-Goodspeed translates the passage in Psalm 45: “ Thy throne, 0 God, is forever and ever,” so our in sistence in this case cannot be laid to some fundamentalist aberration. In Psalm 72 the tenses are so changed from the future to that of a devout wish (the Hebrew jussive, which is permis sible in the proper context), that the result is a skillful removal of the por tion from the realm of predictive proph ecy. In Psalm 110 a comparison of verse one with verse 5 shows both persons are God. The RSV avoids this by (1) capi talizing the first “ LORD” and not the second (Adhoni); and (2) by needlessly inserting the copula “ is” in verse 5. How this passage is to be understood is plainly set forth in more than one place in the NT. It is one of the most fre quently quoted passages of the OT. No tice the splendid footnote on it in the Scofield Reference Bible. Probably the most publicized passage in the RSV is Isaiah 7:14, and with reason. Whether the claim that the new version has rectified an old error is borne out or not, we shall leave with the reader after the evidence is pre sented. Again, both KJV and ASV trans late: “ a virgin shall conceive.” The RSV reads: “ a young woman shall conceive.” One of the translators insists that an error has been corrected by changing
F E B R U A R Y ,
1 9 5 3
Page Nine
This occurs numberless times daily. And, too, notice the magnitude of the proposed sign (verse 11), which has not only the sky as the limit, but the depths as well. In Isaiah 53:10 the RSV changes the correct rendering of the KJV and the ASV. The change is made on the basis of the Vulgate, not some new reading in a new Hebrew manuscript. Where are all those changes made on the basis of new manuscript authority? The trans lation of Daniel 9:25,26 reveals both in consistency and a bias against Messianic prophecy. The RSV translates “ an anointed one” in both verses, whereas the KJV rightly reads “Messiah” and the ASV gives us “ the anointed one.” To treat the word as indefinite is inexcus able, because the absence of the article (“ the” ) marks it out as a proper name, as much as the same phenomenon caused them to render “ Branch” as a proper noun in Jeremiah 23:5 and in Zechariah 3:8; 6:12. We shall bring our examples to a close with the choice of two vastly im portant passages in the prophecy of Zechariah. In the well-known passage in Zechariah 12:10, the KJV and ASV have “they shall look unto me whom they have pierced.” This points up the fact that the One sovereignly pouring out the Holy Spirit as deity is the same One who was pierced in Israel. The RSV translates: “when they look on him whom they have pierced.” It will be readily seen that the passage does not have the same force or definiteness of person. Why the change in the RSV? It was made on the basis of Theodotion, a version of a version (the Septuagint). Would it not have been wiser to have placed the translation of the Hebrew in the text (where it would be read) and the reading of Theodotion in the foot note? To the unwary reader, who seldom if ever reads footnotes, the reading of the text is what is found in the original language. But this is not the case in the RSV, and that in too many cases to mention. Our final passage is Zechariah 13:7 which reads in the KJV: “ Awake, 0 sword, against my shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow, saith the LORD of hosts” and in the ASV : “ Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow, saith Jehovah of hosts.” The RSV comes forward with an amazing translation: “Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, against the man who stands next to me.” The word ‘amith is correctly translated in the KJV and ASV as “ fellow.” (L. Koehler, op.cit., p.715, col.l). It occurs 12 times in the OT; besides the citation here in Zechariah, it is found 11 times in Leviticus. It is of tremendous doctrinal and Messianic significance. As it is translated in the RSV, it may refer to any type of individual, a friend, an en emy, an acquaintance, an inferior, or a number of other possibilities. Even when the Smith-Goodspeed translation trans poses the passage in 13:7-9 to place it at the end of Zechariah 11 (on the ground that the two passages are speak- Page Ten
ing of shepherds) it, nevertheless trans- lates: “ Up, sword, against my shepherd, And against the man, my associate!” The Jewish commentators, Abarbanel and Kimchi, understood the passage to be the false claim of a mere man, but they saw that the word referred to One equal with God. Needless to say, this is not a false claim of a mere man, because it is God Himself who calls the Shep herd, His Fellow. Hear the words of a great Hebrew scholar and defender of the faith of an other generation (Hengstenberg, Christ- ology of the OT, Vol.IV, pp.97,98): “ It is used eleven times in the Pentateuch, and is not met with anywhere else [be sides the Zechariah passage] . . . It occurs in the laws relating to injuries done to near relations, and is always used with peculiar emphasis [note this], to show how great a crime it is to injure one who is related both bodily and spirit ually by a common descent. It is used interchangeably as being equivalent to brother; a word which is invariably em ployed in the laws of Moses with refer ence to a common physical and spiritual descent . . . From this it is evident . . . when the same term is applied to the relation in which a certain individual stands to God, the individual referred to cannot be a mere man, but must be the same person who has already been referred to in chap.xi. and xii. as con nected with the Lord by a mysterious unity of essence. The neighbour or fel low of the Lord is no other than He who says in John 10:30, ‘I and the Father are one,’ and who is described in John 1:18 as ‘the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father,’ whose connection with the Father is the closest that can possibly be conceived.” That this is not the opinion of only one scholar can be seen from the words of the great Hebraist, C. F. Keil (The Twelve Minor Prophets, Vol. II, p.397): “ The idea of nearest one (or fellow) involves not only similarity in vocation, but community of physical or spiritual descent, according to which he whom God calls His neighbor cannot be a mere man, but can only be one who par ticipates in the divine nature, or is es sentially divine.” (For a complete dis cussion of the passage, see our work, God Remembers, Van Kampen Press.) Enough has been said to show that the translators of the RSV have done vio lence to an important and clear Mes sianic passage, which also attests the deity of the Messiah as God’s equal. He who denies liberal bias in such instances needs to look well to his definitions. In the course of our discussion of the OT passages in the RSV, we have had occasion to mention the NT in passing. The reader is referred again to Isaiah 7:14 with Matthew 1:23, and to Psalm 45:6 with Hebrews 1:8, where the OT of the RSV contradicts the NT of the same version. Arbitrary in the extreme is the decision to use the ancient “ thou” in some cases and “you” in others. On what basis could the translators decide to use the pronoun of deity in Matthew 6, and deny its use in reference to
Christ in Matthew 16? Such high-handed methods will not pass muster. Such sub jective treatment of the Scriptures need not seek to hide under the guise of schol arship. And what basis in the text of Romans 9:5 leads the translators so to punctuate the passage, that it does not ascribe deity to Christ? Care must be exercised in reading the NT as well as the OT of the RSV. Conclusions It cannot be denied with any show of reason that the RSV has a decided lib eral bias. It departs from the traditional renderings in important prophetic and Messianic passages, and in the NT as well. Because a version may have some virtues, and this is not denied, do we dare overlook its very serious errors and bias? Too, it is more vital to get a translation which is true to the original languages, than it is to have one in modem speech. Furthermore, scholars may and should labor on the Bible, but we must always remember that the Bible is not intended exclusively for them, but for the masses of the people, the common people, for whom also Christ died. This version (p.ix) indicates it is designed for public and private wor ship, not alone for reading and study. Public and private worship with heavy footnotes? And now we come to the most serious charge of all. But first, let us note John 5:39, 45-47, ASV,'where our Lord says: “ Ye search the scriptures, because ye think that in them ye have eternal life; and these are they which bear witness of me . . . Think not that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, on whom ye have set your hope. For if ye believed Moses, ye would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?” From this passage and multiplied others, indeed from the entire New Testament, we find that one of the highest values of the Old Testament (as witness its use by the Lord Jesus Christ and the Apostles) is its testimony to Israel of their Mes siah and His work. What happens to this witness in the RSV? The reader will easily enough answer for himself. There fore, it is a grave charge, but those of us who have a burden for the salvation of the lost sheep of the house of Israel must make it, that the RSV is useless for missionary work among Jews. This is a heavy and needless loss. Those who believe in the verbal, plenary inspiration of Scripture, who see clearly the super natural element ip the Word of God (and we rejoice to be counted among this number), will find ample basis for their faith and service in the old and accepted versions. Copies of this article in pamphlet form may be obtained from the Bible Institute of Los Angeles, 558 So^Hope Street, Los Angeles 17, Calif., at 10c per copy, $1.00 per dozen, and $7.50 per hundred. T H E K I N G ' S B U S I N E S S
Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 Page 38 Page 39 Page 40Made with FlippingBook Online document