No publication in the last three hundred years has so stirred the American pulpit as the New Revised Standard Version. Great mass meetings are being held throughout the United States, some to sponsor it, others to denounce it. While the General Conference, representing the church in all the world, has never taken a position for or against any particular version, yet as editor of our workers' journal I know how you appreciate being kept informed on trends that affect the proclamation of the everlasting gospel. This we constantly endeavor to do. And this new Bible is something that will greatly influence English-speaking Christendom.
The announcement of a new translation of the Scriptures is not strange in our ears, for many new translations have appeared through the centuries, especially during the last few decades. However, this 1952 translation comes in with more fanfare than any previous version. Orders amounting to a million copies were received before the book was even off the press. And when it was officially released on September 29 and 30, it is estimated that more than two and a half million people attended the opening ceremonies, which were held in some sixteen hundred different centers.
It was not the purpose of the committee on translation to have this version take its place on our study shelves along with the many other translations of more recent times, but rather that it might eventually supersede the Authorized Version of 1611 and also the Revised Version of 1881-85 and the American Standard Revision of 1901. In order to make this new version more accept able to English readers, they have sought to preserve the classic English of the Tyndale-King James translation. Furthermore, it has been styled "an authorized version"; authorized, not by royal decree, but by recommendation of the National Council of Churches.
We are not seeking in this issue of THE MINISTRY to examine this translation, but rather to make our readers aware that this new version has created a real issue among the churches, sharply dividing them into two main camps.
Removing Archaic Words
We are not opposed to new translations. We appreciate every faithful attempt to make the Word of God more clear. The replacing of archaic words and obsolete expressions is always helpful. But many feel that perhaps far more changes have been made than were necessary. Even a member of the committee is quoted as saying that out of 150,000 variants not more than perhaps 50 were absolutely vital to the actual meaning of the original. Certain archaic words have been well known through the years, even to the average Bible student. One does not need a college degree to understand Elizabethan English. Many of our choicest hymns come from those backgrounds. Nor is it required that one be a master of Greek or Hebrew to know that such words as "prevent" in 1 Thessalonians 4:15 or "let" in 2 Thessalonians 2:7 or "meat" as in "meat offering," Leviticus 23:18, have definitely changed their meaning since 1611. But earlier revisions have given us equivalents for most of such words, and even without these revisions the context usually makes the meaning clear.
Nor is the Bible the only place where certain words have grown old and obsolete. The works of Shakespeare, Milton, and other great writers of that period all have words that have changed their meaning. But students in our high schools seem able to read their works with understanding.
The promoters of this new version emphasize the fact that many new manuscripts have been found, and that great light has come on certain Bible passages since the Authorized Version came to the people in 1611. That is true, but actually very little has been found that would make even slight changes essential. And in any case, everything of vital importance was known to the revisers before 1901, and was incorporated into that version. Even the most recent discovery of the Isaiah scrolls and fragments of other books in the Dead Sea region has only confirmed the accuracy of the Masoretic text, which has been in use since the seventh century.
We are not picking a quarrel with the translators, nor are we overlooking the high scholarship represented by this committee. But scholarship is not confined to any one particular group. Authorities universally recognized can be found among conservatives and liberals alike. Modernism has no monopoly on scholarship.
A Readable Book
In many ways the translators of the RSV have succeeded very well. They have produced a book that the casual reader at least will appreciate. He will find an easy flow of language, and he will see new beauties in some of the poetic sections. And the committee has also shown its wisdom by retaining the word "Lord" rather than using the
word "Jehovah," as was the case with the revisers in 1901. It was some of these features that made that version unacceptable to the great majority of readers. But there are other features of this new Bible that, we believe, will make it even less acceptable than the earlier revisions.
Despite its readability, there are large sectors of the Christian church that are very dissatisfied with this new translation. Like those early Puritans who, because of their dissatisfaction with the Bishop's Bible and other translations of the sixteenth century,requested King James to authorize the production of a more accurate and acceptable translation, so already many are looking fora translation that will create confidence and be acceptable to all denominational groups. It must be a disappointment to the producers of this Bible to find, in spite of all the publicity given the new version ("$500,000 is the figure published in one well-known magazine), that there is such growing disappointment and disapproval among students of the Word and influential church leaders of many denominations.
A Universally Acceptable Translation Difficult
To produce a translation that will suit everybody is perhaps impossible. Even the Authorized Version of 1611 contains a few expressions that reflect the theological thought of the translators. The fact that two years ago the Jehovah's Witnesses brought out their own translation is significant. Adventists, however, do not need a translation of their own, for throughout our history we have demonstrated in all parts of the world that good, loyal believers can be made by using any version, including the Roman Catholic Bible. And we certainly would not condone the actions of some who, not content with a public denunciation of this new version as "an attempt of the Devil to discredit the Holy Word of God," have gone so far as to burn it in their churches.
However, we are well aware that our workers are going to meet some very real problems as they endeavor to emphasize certain definite points of our faith. Some of these points will be particularly noted in later issues of THE MINISTRY. Our ministers will be glad to know that a committee has been appointed by the General Conference to give further study to the new version. Their conclusions will naturally prove of great interest to our workers around the world, and we will keep our readers informed concerning any future developments in this matter.
Of one thing we are assured, and that is that in the months and years to come, English readers will become very much more aware of the importance of fine points of difference to be found in varied translations. There may be some who will regret the cause of the controversy, but a little reflection on church history will remind us that while no century produced as many renowned translations as the sixteenth century, yet no other century since apostolic times was more glorious in its great conquests for truth.
It is interesting to note that Time magazine in a recent survey shows that 90 percent of Protestant families and 70 per cent of the families of "other denominations" in America possess Bibles, and that in most Protestant homes there is more than one Bible. But even more important is this, that 95 per cent of Americans read the Bible occasionally, 41 per cent read it at least once a week, and 18 per cent (chiefly Protestant) read it daily. If the issuance of a new translation can stir the English-speaking world to a closer study of the Word, it will have been in that respect, at least, a blessing.
This will not be the last word in Bible translations; of that we feel sure. A group is already at work in England producing another revised version, and time alone will tell whether its issuance will result in the unification of Christendom rather than the sharp division which is developing in the wake of this new Revised Standard Version.
Straw in the Wind
September 30 was set aside as National Bible Observance Day. On that day the Revised Standard Version was released. But this day was also the five hundredth anniversary of the publication of the great forty-two-line Bible of Gutenberg. To commemorate this historic event, an issue of 110,000,000 specially printed postage stamps was released by the U.S. Postmaster General, all of which was entirely fitting except for the design of the stamp. To the amazement of students of history, the stamp shows Archbishop Adolf, of Mainz, receiving a page proof of this Bible, as it were "hot off the press." Their bewilderment was all the more evident when the Religious News Service explained that the archbishop was Gutenberg's "benefactor"! For more than two centuries experts have been combing the continent for every shred of evidence concerning Gutenberg, and all the facts testify that the lordly archbishop had absolutely no part in the famous Bible. It was not until ten years after its publication that
Adolf came into the picture. True, Gutenberg was given an appointment as "servant and court attendant," to the lordly prelate, compensation for which, however, was not at all impressive. He was to be issued one suit of clothes a year and "twenty molders of corn and two fuders of wine for use in his household provided he did not sell it or give it away."
And this appointment was made in 1465, just three years before Gutenberg's death.The belated intrusion of the archbishop into the unique story of Gutenberg can be traced to Father Horn, a Roman Catholic priest. And it is all the more amazing when we discern that Horn is not recognized as an historian but as "an authority on religious stamps!" But even more significant is the fact that this is the first time any of the Roman Catholic hierarchy has been pictured on a U.S. stamp! Could this be a straw in the wind? R. A. A.
