Reviewing The Today's English Version
Most of us are well familiar with the American Bible Society, as well as their efforts to produce the Bible for mass distribution in inexpensive copies. Their copies of the KJV can be readily found almost anywhere, and sell for almost nothing. Recently they decided to take another step, and brought forth their own version of the New Testament — "Good News For Modern Man, The New Testament in Today's English Version." Their purpose is set forth in the preface as follows:
As a distinctly new translation, it does not conform to traditional vocabulary or style, but seeks to express the meaning of the Greek text in words and forms accepted as standard by people everywhere who employ English as a means of communication. Today's English Version of the New Testament attempts to follow, in this century, the example set by the authors of the New Testament books, who for the most part, wrote in the standard, or common, form of the Greek language used throughout the Roman Empire. As much as possible, words and forms of English NOT IN CURRENT USE (caps mine — DPA) have been avoided; but no rigid limit has been set to the vocabulary employed.
One would be proned to think that surely with as much time and money as they have spent in spreading the Bible that this new translation ought to be of value (incidently, it sells 3 for only $1.00). In reading through it, I might add that they have made it very pleasant to read, almost like reading a story book. Some of their passages have very good translations. There has been a very obvious effort though to use identical wording for passages of similar wording. This is done to the extent that if one sets down and reads part of Matthew and then on into Mark, he can't help but feel he has lost his place and began reading the same parts over again. I think the translation might be recommended as a commentary, but as for being accurate and reliable, I frankly do not think it is worth the paper it is printed on!
There has been an effort to give this translation a universal appeal, and this was done (seemingly) by trying to include at least one good translation specifically designed for each denomination. As our review progresses, I believe this will become obvious to the reader. As a comparison in this review, I shall also be quoting from the New American Standard Bible N.T., which I shall be equally frank in saying is in my opinion one of the most accurate I have used. However, if you are using the Revised Standard, KJV, regular ASV, or some other, if you would also look up each passage quoted and compare it, this review will be much more edifying to you as a reader.
The most commonly quoted mistranslations are the first two we shall consider. The first is to be found in Acts 20:7, which ought to give a great deal of comfort to a lot of our liberal brethren: "On Saturday evening we gathered together for the fellowship meal. Paul spoke to the people, and kept on speaking until midnight, since he was going to leave the next day." There are considerable differences amongst scholars as to whether Luke was using the Roman or Jewish method of telling time, but the glaring part of this passage is the fact the original language plainly says "On the first day of the week," whether it be Sunday evening or Saturday evening. They have correctly translated it in every other passage, but taken the liberty here to change it to Saturday evening (ought to appeal to the Adventists too). Also, whether they partook of the Lord's Supper before or after Paul's lesson we are not told, but from the reading of this passage we are not even told if that was their purpose in gathering. They have translated "break bread" as just a plain old ordinary "fellowship meal." Now our liberal brethren and the denominations have authority for their church suppers, etc. There is no justification for taking this liberty in either translation.
The second widely quoted mistranslation is to be found in Matt. 16:18 -- "And so I tell you: you are a rock, Peter, and on this rock I will build my church. Not even death will ever be able to overcome it." Compare this with, "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock..." (New ASB). To say the least, it is a bad translation and designed to give comfort to the Catholics by taking the freedom to not only address Peter but to point out that he is a rock. Though not the rock the church is to be built on (which is in reality the confession of the deity of Christ), it adds to the confusion by so translating it, and contributes nothing to the meaning of the passage.
They have continued the old KJV confusion in the very vext verse as well, in spite of their famous claim to avoid "English not in current use" and to use only the up-to-date English. Here they continue: "what you prohibit on earth will be prohibited in heaven; what you permit on earth will be permitted in heaven." (Same translation also repeated in Matt. 18:18 and John 20:23). However, the actual words used here are in the past perfect case, and mean an action already completed, as correctly rendered by the New ASB: "Whatever you shall bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven." The disciples did not have the liberty to dictate the plans to God, but rather were only permitted to preach what God dictated to them (Jn. 16:13, I Cor. 2:13). Modern language and tenses cannot justify their translation here either.
But their appeal to denominationalism continues as we next take up Matt. 5:17-18.
Do not think that I have come to do away with the Law of Moses and the teaching of the prophets. I have not come to do away with them, but to give them real meaning. Remember this! As long as heaven and earth last, the least point or the smallest detail of the Law will not be done away with — not until the end of all things. (Emp. mine — DPA).
This simply affirms for the Adventists, etc., that the law of Moses was not to be abolished until the final day of judgment, but rather Christ came to give it added meaning or new emphasis. However, the passage is correctly rendered "I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished." (New ASB). Christ pointed out he did not come to teach people they had no need to respect the law (See Gal. 4:4-5) but to fulfill what was written in the Law and prophets. When this was accomplished, and only then, the law could be removed. It makes a big difference when a few words are rearranged.
In Matt. 15:2 the question is raised, "Why is it that your disciples disobey the teaching handed down by our ancestors? They don't wash their hands in the proper way before they eat!" This would imply their manner of washing was not in the same manner they were expected to wash in to conform to Jewish tradition. Is this correct? Let us again compare with the New ASB: "Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread."
In Matt. 26:74 the New ASB tells us "Then he (Peter) began to curse and swear, I do not know the man! And immediately a cock crowed." In this passage we find that Peter not only cursed, but swore (quoted an oath to endorse what he was saying). Just exactly what curse words he may have used, or upon what that oath was based (temple gold, alter, or even an appeal to God) we are not told. The TEV tries to make it up a bit by omitting the reference to Peter cursing, and has this explanation of what happened, "Then Peter made a vow: 'May God punish me if I am not telling the truth! I do not know that man!' Just then a rooster crowed." Rather interesting, in view of the fact no one else had this information since the days of the apostles. Who gave them the authority to take this liberty with the word of God? This same wording (exactly) and liberty is also taken in Mark 14:71.
Another example of their adding in what suited them is to be found in Matt. 27:16-17, where they have taken the liberty to assign a first name (in confusion of the times) to Barabbas:
At that time there was a well-known prisoner named Jesus Barabbas. So when the crowd gathered, Pilate asked them, 'Which one do you want me to set free for you, Jesus Barabbas or Jesus called the Christ?"
When men take these liberties, they show a lack of respect for the authority of God's word, and thus cast a shadow of unreliability on the rest of their work. This shadow need not be cast though, as the rest of their work is bad enough.
They have also taken the liberty to add in as it suits them in Luke 16:22. The ASB renders the passage accordingly: "Now it came about that the poor man died and he was carried away to Abraham's bosom; and the rich man also died and was buried." However, the TEV decided to flower it up a bit: "The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham's side, at the feast in heaven; the rich man died and was buried."
In John 4:9, Jesus was talking to the Samaritan woman and had asked her for a drink. The TEV says: "The Samaritan woman answered, 'You are a Jew and I am a Samaritan — how can you ask me for a drink?' (For Jews will not use the same dishes that Samaritans use)." From this we would get the impression that it was okay to talk to them, visit with them, and associate with them — just don't eat from their dishes! So she was unable to give Christ a drink, because he would then have to use a container. However, such was not the case. The Jews not only refused the same dishes, the dislike was even to the extent that they did not like to set foot on Samaritan soil. Thus the ASB correctly translates it: "How is it that You, being a Jew, ask me for a drink since I am a Samaritan woman? (For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans)." Their appeal to try and play up a long brotherhood of man and to play down the differences is taken in preference to the true meaning of the passage involved.
— 57 Long Beach Rd., Aurora, Ill., 60538