The New English Bible: A Preliminary Critique

DURING recent years, par­ticularly since World War II, there has grown up in the mind of the Bible-reading public a feeling of dissatisfaction with the old translations of the Bible. The language of the King James Version, majestic and beautiful as it is, has caused increasing difficulty to the present generation. To the modern mind the style and language of the Elizabethan period is hard to grasp and rather remote from the space age. This, of course, is not a new situation. It is a continuing situation, be­cause language is ever changing. The King James translators were dissatisfied with the translations of their day, and for the same reason we will continue to witness new translations of the Scriptures until the Lord comes.

The appearance, then, of a major Bible translation is always of interest to the Chris­tian world. When that translation is re­leased simultaneously in a number of places in the world in an edition number­ing nearly one million copies, it is sure to capture its fair share of interest and con­troversy for some time to come. The New Testament section of The New English Bible (N.E.B.), published on March 14, gives every sign of fulfilling this prediction.

Sponsors of the Translation

This new translation is the work of schol­ars drawn from the major Protestant churches of Great Britain. In 1947 a Joint Committee of these churches was charged with the work of producing a new transla­tion of the entire Bible. The actual work of translation was entrusted to four panels that dealt respectively with the Old Testa­ment, the New Testament, the Apocrypha, and the literary revision of the whole. The portion recently released is limited to the New Testament, but work is continuing on the Old Testament and the Apocrypha, which will be published in due time. Though a number of Protestant church bodies (e.g., the Baptist Union of Great Britain and Ireland, the Church of Eng­land, the Church of Scotland, the Con­gregational Union of England and Wales, et cetera) were associated in the produc­tion of the translation, the Joint Committee is at pains to point out that the translation is not an expression of any denominational or doctrinal leaning.

The Text of the Translation

The translators did not choose one con­tinuous Greek text (e.g., Westcott and Hort, Nestle, et cetera) as the basis for their translation, but rather, as is the cus­tom today, they based their work on an eclectic Greek text. That is, variant read­ings in the Greek text were considered on their merits, and after the manuscript evi­dence had been examined, the reading was selected which seemed most likely to repre­sent what the Bible author wrote. This method of selecting a text is the one com­monly practiced today (e.g., by the R.S.V. translators), because textual scholars do not consider that the time has yet come to construct a single critical text. While new material is constantly coming to light, the situation in textual criticism remains in flux.

Aims of the Translators

Perhaps the most important single fact about this translation is that it is not a re­vision as were the English Revised Version (1885), the American Standard Version (1901), and the Revised Standard Version (1952), but it is an entirely new transla­tion. In the words of the translators them­selves, "What was now needed was not an­other revision of the Authorized Version but a genuinely new translation, in which an attempt should be made consistently to use the idiom of contemporary English to convey the meaning of the Greek." (All quotations are from the Introduction to the N.E.B.) This fact in itself is of greatest im­portance, for it means that this translation breaks the great line of major translations, which began with Tyndale and passed through Matthew's Bible, the Great Bible, the Bishops' Bible, the King James Version, to the English and American Revi­sions of the nineteenth and twentieth cen­turies. It will also mean that the reader of this translation can expect to find transla­tions that differ greatly from those to which he is accustomed.

More important still, however, is the at­titude the translators have taken to their work of translating. Their conception of the work of translation is quite removed from that of their predecessors. This is well illustrated by a comparison of Matthew 25:26 in the K.J.V., the R.S.V., and the N.E.B. ("Thou wicked and slothful serv­ant," K.J.V.; "You wicked and slothful servant!" R.S.V.; "You lazy rascal!" N.E.B.) The older translators considered that faithfulness to the original meant that they should reproduce the character­istics of the original in the translation. This meant sometimes the production of an un-English or stilted translation. The translators of the N.E.B. have not felt this restraint. "We have conceived our task to be that of understanding the original as precisely as we could (using all available aids), and then saying again in our own native idiom what we believed the author to be saying in his." This method lays a heavier burden on the translators, but should it be successfully accomplished, there is no doubt that the resultant product would be a wonderful advance in Bible translation. However, the question must al­ways be raised (and this will be the point at which controversy will rage over this new translation) as to what extent the in­terpretation of the translators has entered into their product. This question, of course, must be asked of all translations, for it is true that all translations are to a greater or lesser degree interpretations. But it is also true that the more liberal the translator is with the text, the freer the translation, the greater the degree of inter­pretation that enters into the product.

Herein lies the danger of the paraphrase, and in many places it must be charged that the N.E.B. is more paraphrase than strict translation.

Perhaps anticipating this charge, the translators in their introduction have defended themselves against the idea that they have produced a paraphrase. But their definition of a true translation is wide enough to include what others would term a paraphrase. They claim that theirs is a translation "free, it may be, rather than literal, but a faithful translation neverthe­less, so far as we could compass it." Only by detailed study of large sections of the translation would it be possible to deter­mine to what extent the translators have allowed interpretation to creep in. This work will no doubt be taken up by many as the translation becomes better known. For the present, it will be of interest to consider the translation at specific points and assess its value at those places. This may give some pointers to what a more ex­tensive study will reveal. A passage from the Pauline writings, chosen at random, will be used to discuss the translation of a typical portion of Paul's didactic writings. Passages of special interest to Adventist doctrine will also be discussed.

Examination of the Translation

1 Corinthians 2:10-16 was selected as a typical Pauline passage for closer examina­tion in the new translation. It should be noticed at the outset that the N.E.B. in­terprets verse 10 as being closely connected with the quotation in the previous verse and inserts the phrase "these it is that" to make this connection obvious. It is not at all certain in the Greek that the connec­tion between the two verses is as close as this. Rather, there is evidence of the be­ginning of a new sub-thought at verse 10 (indicated by the use of gar, which looks forward to what follows in the succeeding verses), and ta bathe ton Theou (verse 10) is translated "the depths of God's own na­ture." The Greek is literally "the deep things [or "depths"] of God." Now, it is possible, perhaps even very likely, that God's nature is referred to, but the Greek does not indicate that this must necessarily be so. It could quite well be "the depths of God's mind" or "the depths of God's thoughts." Under such circumstances, when the Greek is open to interpretation, it is far better translation practice to leave the translation open to interpretation (e.g., "the depths of God") rather than for the translator to make the interpreta­tion himself. The N.E.B. translators, how­ever, have adopted the principle of making the interpretation in such cases. Because of this, they have often invaded the field of the commentator.

In verse 11 the following phrase appears: ta tou anthropou (K.J.V., "the things of a man"). This is translated "what a man is." This is an interpretation that unjustifiably narrows down the meaning of the Greek. Later in the same verse ta tou Theou is translated in the same way ("what God is"). But in verse 14 ta tou Pneumatos is translated "what belongs to the Spirit." This latter translation could also have been applied to each of the phrases in verse 11. It is true that the translators have adopted the wise principle of not attempt­ing to render the same Greek word (or phrase) everywhere by the same English word (or phrase), but this principle can be carried to excess.

The N.E.B. translates verse 12b, "so that we may know all that God of his own grace gives us." This translation is mislead­ing and interpretative. A closer translation of the Greek would be "in order that we may know the things which are graciously given to us by God." The emphasis is on the act and manner of the giving, not on the object that is given. The paraphrastic translation at this point has changed com­pletely Paul's basic idea. Another case of a paraphrastic translation that results in a changed meaning of the text is to be seen in verse 13a, "interpreting spiritual truths to those who have the Spirit." The Greek of this passage could provide several translations ("comparing spiritual things with spiritual things"; "interpreting spir­itual things to spiritual men," et cetera), but the translation of the N.E.B. is not a legitimate translation of the Greek. A sim­ilar translation is made at verse 15, "a man gifted with the Spirit," This entirely misses the point in Paul's discussion. The Greek word pneumatos here means a "spiritual" man, one who is the opposite of psuchikos ("unspiritual," "carnal") in verse 14. The emphasis is not on the man who has the gifts of the Spirit but on the man who is spiritual.

At a number of places in this passage the N.E.B. loses the impact of the original by inverting a phrase. This is particularly true where negatives are involved. In verse lib the Greek reads, "No one knows the things that pertain to God except the Spirit of God." The N.E.B. translates, "Only the Spirit of God knows what God is." The ef­fect of the negative in the Greek is par­ticularly strong because it is stated before the exception. The English can likewise emphasize the same point in the same man­ner. (See also verses 12a and 13.)

The paraphrastic nature of the N.E.B. is well illustrated by the following exam­ples where insertions that find no author­ity in the words of the original text have been made in the translation. (In each case the inserted words are italicized here, although not in the N.E.B.) 1 Thessalonians 4:13, "those who sleep in death"; Revelation 1:4, "in the province of Asia"; Colossians 1:22, "in his body of flesh and blood"; Matthew 18:10, Acts 12:15, "guard­ian angel"; Revelation 1:5, "his life's blood." In other cases the literal rendering is supplanted by a paraphrasis. "Saints" become "God's people" (Colossians 1:2, et cetera), "beloved" becomes "dear friends" (1 John 4:7), the parable of the "talents" becomes the parable of "bags of gold"

(Matt. 25:14-30).

There is a strange mixture in renderings between stilted, even archaic, expressions at places while at other places there are translations that border on slang. Exam­ples of the former group are the follow­ing: "believers incorporate in Christ Jesus" (Eph. 1:1); "the full tale of Christ's afflic­tions" (Col. 1:24); "one of those who bore us company" (Acts 1:21). At the other extreme are such expressions as the fol­lowing: "you can take it from me" (Gal. 5:3); "we might have made our weight felt" (1 Thess. 2:6) ; "they all left me in the lurch" (2 Tim. 4:16).

Of interest are the translations given to some of the passages that vitally concern Adventist doctrine. In both Revelation 12: 17 and 19:10 the translators have inter­preted Iesou as an objective genitive ("tes­timony to Jesus") rather than a subjective genitive ("testimony of Jesus"). The trans­lation of Revelation 19:10 is an extreme example of the extent to which the trans­lators have indulged in paraphrase and in­terpretation, "Those who bear testimony to Jesus are inspired like prophets." Even the alternative translation in the footnote is an extremely liberal rendering, "For the testimony to Jesus is the spirit that in­spires prophets." The translation of Ro­mans 10:4—"For Christ ends the law and brings righteousness for everyone who has faith" is interpretative. Although the alternative in the footnote is acceptable to Ad-ventists—"Christ is the end of the law as a way to righteousness for everyone who has faith"—it still contains an element of in­terpretation and rather goes beyond what is legitimate in a translation. Another translation that reveals a preconceived view is Matthew 24:34, "I tell you this: the present generation will live to see it all." This translation presupposes that Jesus was mistaken in His eschatological beliefs and teachings, that He believed He would return within the generation, and that in this He was in error.

An interesting interpretation is to be seen in Acts 20:7 where the N.E.B. trans­lates en de te mia ton sabbaton as "on the Saturday night." The literal translation is, of course, "on the first day of the week." The translators have taken the position that the Jewish system of reckoning was still practiced and that thus the evening meeting was on Saturday night. Perhaps a correct interpretation, but nevertheless an interpretation! The translation of Ga-latians 3:24 is as follows: "Thus the law was a kind of tutor in charge of us until Christ should come." In the footnote there is an alternative translation: "a kind of tutor to conduct us to Christ." The trans­lators claimed to eschew ambiguity in the translation, but in at least one controver­sial passage they have left a large question mark. Matthew 16:18 is translated "You are Peter, the Rock; and on this rock I will build my church." Do they mean, bv avoiding capitalization of the second "rock," that the church was not built upon Peter or do they capitalize the first "Rock" because it is a proper name (Petros), while the second "rock" represents the characteristics of the same person?

There is no doubt that the N.E.B. may be used with profit by the Bible student, for he will find many fresh renderings that will bring added meaning to the study of Scripture. At the same time it should be well understood that this is a free transla­tion, which does not hesitate to move into the realm of paraphrase and interpreta­tion. It therefore represents in some places the interpretation of the translators to a greater extent than is usually found in such translations as the King James or Re­vised Standard versions.