Revised Standard Version
An Apology.
I am not a scholar, but a humble disciple of the Lord. Therefore, I am in no position to pass upon the correctness of the translation of the Hebrew, Aramiac, Syriac, Latin and Greek Mss., used by men of letters, so I shall make no attempt to so do. My study in this paper shall be to, honestly, examine the uniformity with which the translators of this version, translate; and to point out any sign of religious prejudice or anti-Christian bias on the part of these thirty-two scholars of the Committee.
My Prejudice.
I must admit, I am somewhat prejudiced against the translators of the Revised Standard Version, because of the company I find them in, namely; NATIONAL COUNCIL OF THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST, which I believe to be manned by MODERNISTS. But in spite of this, I am going to give these scholars credit for strict honesty in their work as scholars. I find when men speak as scholars, they speak their honest convictions as such; and scuttle their theological leanings; however we, who do some studying, know that a word of any language may have different shades of meaning — too in the translation of Hebrew, Greek, etc., different English words may be selected. Therefore, I must insist, that in the examination of the Revised Standard Version, we should keep these things in mind, and too, we should remember also, that every translation of the Sacred Text, has brought protests from people who had become accustomed to some other version. It might be well for us to keep in mind, that a purer translation, might upset some pet theory, ruin some sermon or show-up some defect in our thinking; but if either is the case, and this throws me into a fit, this is an evidence that I am not seeking the truth as I should.
Some Passages Examined.
"Almah" is a Hebrew word and in some form is used seven times in the Old Testament, namely: Gen. 24:43; S. S. 1:3, 6:8; Ex. 2:8; Ps. 68:25; Pro. 30:19; Isa. 7:14. In the King James Version the word is translated respectfully: "virgin," "virgins," "virgins," "maid," "damsels," "maid," and "virgin." In the American Standard we have: "maiden," "virgins," "virgins," "maiden," "damsels," "maiden," "virgin." In the Revised Standard Version, we have: "young woman," "maidens," "maidens," "girl," "maidens," "maiden," "young woman." It seems to me, the only criticism is based on Isa. 7:14. If you will examine the American Standard Version, you will find in the marginal notes, "maiden," while in the marginal notes of the Revised Standard Version, we have: "virgin." Personally, I see nothing to become alarmed about. It just furnishes the Jew an escape; but he misses the "sign," which is the "Immanuel" born of the "virgin," "young woman" which would mark the end of the JEWISH KINGDOM, which did come to an end through this "Immanuel," thus born. Of course the writers of the New Testament, declared this woman of Isa. 7:14 to be a "virgin." To translate "almah" in Isa. 7:14 "young woman" does not in any way destroy the Deity of Christ. John 3:16 is translated, "only Son" as elsewhere in this version. This is also correct. The context shows that "only Son" means Deity, and not son by reason of the "new birth."
Mark 16:9-20, by the translators is placed in a note which explains the why; but these scholars do not even intimate that the passage is not genuine, but for the student, they give this information: "Other texts and versions add as 16:9-20." Being scholars they could not have done otherwise; but they were scholars enough to give an explanation. No scholar calls in question the genuineness of this passage. We ought to be big enough to fight this out on surer lines.
The Baptist.
I can understand why the Baptist in the south do not like the Revised Standard Version. Acts 2:38 is given: "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins." Acts 22:16, "And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name." 1 Peter 3:21, "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience." I could go further, discuss "eis" as translated by these scholars as in John 8:30,31; 12:42 and elsewhere; Romans 6:1-8 re: baptism as well as Gal. 3:26,27. Now turn to 1 Cor. 16:2 and they give us: "On the first day of every week." For the student who will run references to the KINGDOM, church — he will find that this translation is fair, just and scholarly and adds to the beauty of the cause we love. Now, I have stuck my neck out — you may use your saw, but be fair.
Ignorance.
Of course, many of us know by study, that there are many words in the King James Version, as in others, which must be explained by the context and others were never translated, such as the words from which we have, "church," "baptism," "hell" and others. It becomes necessary for us to rely upon what scholars say; but we know when scholarship is at stake, the scholars speak the truth; but when they speak as theologians they speak as such, claiming it makes no difference. We should remember that the truth has nothing to lose, from the standpoint of scholarship.