THE REVISED VERSION

Seventh-day Adventist Missionary Society · Oakland, Cal. · Jul 28, 1881

THE REVISED VERSION.

THE preface to this version by the revisers, speaking of the Authorized Version, as it is called, says:—

"That translation was the work of many hands and of several generations. The foundation was laid by William Tyndale. His translation of the New Testament was the true primary version. The versions that followed were either substantially reproductions of Tyndale's translation in its final shape, or revisions of versions that had been themselves almost entirely based on it. Three successive stages may be recognized in this continuous work of authoritative revision: first, the publication of the Great Bible of 1539–41, in the reign of Henry VIII.; next, the publication of the Bishops' Bible of 1568 and 1572, in the reign of Elizabeth; and lastly, the publication of the King's Bible in 1611, in the reign of James I. Besides these, the Genevan Version of 1560, itself founded on Tyndale's translation, must here be named; which, though not put forth by authority, was widely circulated in this country, and largely used by King James' translators. Thus the form in which the English New Testament has now been read for 270 years was the result of various revisions made between 1525 and 1611; and the present revision is an attempt, after a long interval, to follow the example set by a succession of honored predecessors."

Not only did our present version come up by successive steps, but it contained many errors in its first publication, many of which were corrected by different individuals at different times.

But with all the changes which have been made in this version, some obsolete words remain, and some are there which, in the changes of the English language, have entirely changed in signification. There is no reason whatever why these should stand to tantalize or mislead the uneducated reader. Thus the expression, "We do you to wit of the grace of God bestowed on the churches," has no sense at all to the general reader. "We make known to you," is intelligible. 2 Cor. 8:1. "He who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way." 2 Thess. 2:7. In the year 1600 this expressed the meaning of the language of the apostle; now it is exactly the opposite. Then "let" meant "to hinder;" now it means "to permit." Why should it stand in the Bible when it misrepresents the meaning of the Bible? "We which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep." 1 Thess. 4:15. This expression was not an absurdity when the translation was made, but certainly it is now. The text means, shall not precede.

These are samples of but one class of instances which prove the advisability of a revision.

It appears to have been the intention of the revisers to discard italic words, as far as possible, from the text; but this intention was carried out only to a limited extent. It is to be regretted that it was not done more thoroughly. Perhaps in no one thing has the common reader been more misled in the A. V. than in its italic, or, as they are more generally called, "added words." To a very great extent they were not added at all, but were really necessary to a correct understanding of the original. And just to that extent they misled the reader who understood, as was too often the case, that they were supplied, and formed no part of the words of Scripture. What if there were no exact equivalents of some of these words in the original? That would not determine that they are unnecessary. A "word for word" translation is really no translation at all, because it takes no account of the peculiarities and idioms of the different languages. Thus, in Gen. 1:4, and many like places, omitting the words "it was" destroys the sentence as an English sentence, while such a construction is very common in the Hebrew. Whatever is necessary to give the sense of the original correctly in the English, properly belongs to the translation. Adherence to this principle would discard a large proportion of the italics in the common version. The revisers corrected this error only in part.

The danger of misleading the reader is increased by the fact that sometimes words were added without any necessity. As an instance we refer to Mark 10:40. Without any supply the text reads: "But to sit on my right hand and on my left is not mine to give, but to whom it hath been prepared." With the addition it reads: "—is not mine to give; but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared." This entirely changes the statement of the Saviour. With such additions as this it is not strange that people were led to believe that italic words were words unnecessarily supplied.

Another cause of stumbling found in the received version is the many different renderings given to the same word where there was no necessity for so doing. We are well aware that a word may have different meanings, and may, therefore, very properly be rendered by different words to accurately express the meaning in another language. But in some cases the translators under King James gave a needless latitude to many words, where it would seem that the only object could be to secure variety of expression or to serve an existing sentiment. An instance is found in Matt. 16, where psuchee is twice rendered life in verse 25, and twice rendered soul in verse 26. This is corrected in the revision. "What shall a man be profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and forfeit his life?" The revisers give, "or soul," in the margin; but they very properly make it uniform by giving the same in the margin of verse 25.

We have already noticed the grave error of translating both hades and gehenna by the same word—hell; this is corrected in the revision.

A very important change, which should be noticed, is the omission of the words, "without a cause," in Matt. 5:22. These words are absent in many MSS., and Dr. Clarke considers them spurious. The omission relieves the text of a difficulty in the question of Christian ethics. But we would not accept any change merely to relieve a text of a difficulty, if the words lawfully obtained a place in the text. We want the exact words of inspiration, neither more nor less, not presuming to make provision for consequences.

And this reminds us of a question asked a religious paper in the East, on the revision of Heb. 1:13, namely, if "the footstool of thy feet," is better English than as it stands in the received version. We do not think it is; but we think it is a more literal translation because it is exactly as the author of the book of Hebrews wrote it. In this manner many people judge of the work of the revisers.

A very desirable change is made in Rev. 4:6, and elsewhere in this book, in substituting "four living creatures" for the "four beasts" of the common version. The Authorized Version is objectionable both in a critical and exegetical view. We have never, for the past twenty years, read these texts before a congregation without changing them to "living creatures," so well assured were we that the word "beast" gives an entirely wrong idea of the subject. It is to be hoped that now the change may be universally made.

We have taken a few points, almost at random in our reading, as specimens of the work. After giving a few interesting facts concerning the work of the Committees, we shall notice a few points wherein we cannot co-incide with their decisions.