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
Made with FlippingBook Online document