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
Made with FlippingBook Online document