The Signs of the Times, vol. 56

December 10, 1929

Which Bible Version is the Most Accurate?

WWP

W. W. Prescott

SECOND IN A SERIES OF ARTICLES ON THE STORY OF OUR BIBLE

[Signs of the Times, December 10, 1929, The Story of Our Bible, Part 2, pp. 11, 12, 14]

In last week’s article we referred briefly to the translation of the Hebrew text of the Old Testament into what is usually designated as the Septuagint version, and I will now make some observations concerning the value of this Greek version. While the work was by no means perfect, and a variety of technical errors have been pointed out by critical scholars, yet the Septuagint is of considerable value to the textual critic and to the student of the Scriptures who seeks to ascertain the fullest and most correct meaning of the living oracles. It “gives evidence of the character and condition of the Hebrew MSS. from which it was made, with respect to vowel points and the mode of writing. This evidence often renders very material help in the correction and establishment of the Hebrew text. Being made from MSS. far older than the Masoretic recension, a revision made between the fifth and the eighth centuries, which established the chief text of the Old Testament, the Septuagint often indicates readings more ancient and more correct than those of our present Hebrew MSS. and editions; and often speaks decisively between the conflicting readings of the present MSS.” SITI December 10, 1929, page 10.1

SEPTUAGINT IN CHRIST’S TIME

We must not forget that the Holy Scriptures in the time of our Lord consisted of those books which we now find in the Old Testament, and that the version in common use at that time was this Greek translation. When, therefore, the writers of the New Testament wished to make use of a passage from their scriptures, it was only natural that they should take it from the Septuagint rather than from the Hebrew, as Biblical Hebrew was not understood by the common people. Furthermore, this Greek translation had a marked influence upon the language of Christian writers and teachers as they sought to show that the types, shadows, and prophecies of the olden time found their fulfillment in the person and work of Jesus of Nazareth. The high priest and the sacrifices of the ancient tabernacle were a prophecy of Him who “gave Himself for our sins,” and who “ever liveth to make intercession for” us, and the same words were used in the New Testament, although with a significance hitherto unknown. SITI December 10, 1929, page 10.2

During the second century A. D. there appeared Greek translations of the Old Testament by Aquila (whose purpose seemed to be to oppose the authority of the Septuagint), by Symmachus, and by Theodotion, so that “before the end of the second century there were, besides the Septuagint, three versions of the Old Testament in Greek, known to both Jews and Christians. All this could not fail in making the Old Testament Scriptures better known and more widely read.” SITI December 10, 1929, page 10.3

Various translations based upon the Septuagint appeared during the first four or five centuries, among which are the Old Latin, the Memphitic (or Coptic), the Thebaic (or Sahidic), the Ethiopic, the Gothic, and the Armenian. These translations have proved useful in bringing the Old Testament to different people in their own language or dialect, but the Greek translation has remained as the classic. SITI December 10, 1929, page 10.4

After the invention of printing toward the end of the fifteenth century, editions of the Bible in various languages began to be published. The first printed edition of the Septuagint appeared in 1518. The publication of the Complutensian Polyglot took place in 1552. The Roman, or Vatican, edition, based upon the ancient and valuable manuscript in the Vatican Library, was issued in 1587, and became in a general way the Textus Receptus of the Septuagint. “The researches of scholars for the last two centuries and a half have confirmed the verdict of the Roman editors in favor of the Vatican MSS. The text as published appears to present the actual Septuagint version such as it stood before the labors of Origen, with at least but few attempts at correction or revision.” SITI December 10, 1929, page 10.5

While the facts concerning the translation of the Old Testament into various languages are of interest and importance in establishing the history of the Bible, yet the average American reader may be more anxious to know about the vernacular translations now available. In later articles I shall deal with the leading translations and revisions that have been made since the invention of printing, and so will confine myself now to the consideration of some of the English translations of the Old Testament now in print. Within the last two or three years two English translations of the Old Testament have appeared and been rather widely advertised-one made by James Moffatt, an English scholar, and the other by several professors of the Chicago University. Those who wish to be informed as to the freedom with which Biblical scholars of the Modern School handle the original Hebrew text, amending and transposing it to make it conform to their own ideas of what the writers ought to have written, can secure this information by comparing these translations with the latest results of conservative scholarship. Those who prefer to regard as authoritative the text that is the result of the most conscientious textual criticism, will probably not consider it necessary to provide themselves with these modernistic translations. SITI December 10, 1929, page 10.6

THE WORD “JEHOVAH”

The two translations that are now commanding the interest and attention of Bible students in this country are the Authorized Version of 1611 with its later revisions, and the American Revised Version of 1901. Without entering at present into the history of these two translations, I shall now call attention to some of the differences between them, hoping that I may thus be able to help the average reader to an intelligent choice between them. This comparison will be confined to the Old Testament, as I am now considering that portion of the Bible, and I will first direct attention to some general differences. Two of the Hebrew words that are employed as names of Deity are represented by the same English word, “Lord,” in the Authorized Version, being distinguished by the use of small letters in the one case and of small capitals in the other. In the American Revised Version one word is translated “Lord” and the other “Jehovah,” and thus the difference is clearly marked. This difference is not one that affects any doctrinal teaching, and it might be easily passed over as nonessential. However, it may be helpful to consider briefly the real significance of these two words in Hebrew. SITI December 10, 1929, page 10.7

I am indebted to the English scholar, R. L. Ottley, for the following quotation: “The name Adonai implies that man’s relationship to God is one of loving trust rather than of fear.... Jehovah is absolutely self-subsistent and independent. With Him is the fountain of life; He has life in Himself. Further, the name points to the future. Jehovah is one whose intercourse with the human race is continuous, living, and progressive.... The appellations which the heathen gave to their deities, Baal, Milcom, and the like, point to little more than a relationship of abject dependence. The title Jehovah, on the contrary, implies that God’s dealings with His people are not those of mere arbitrary sovereignty, but those of covenanted love.” This interpretation of the name “Jehovah” is clearly warranted by the words of God to Moses in Exodus 6:2-8, from which it is clear that “Jehovah” is the covenant name, the redeeming name. As this title is used between six thousand and seven thousand times in the Old Testament, we may safely conclude that the great revelation is of God as the Redeemer. This revelation is brought to a climax in the New Testament, from which we learn that Jehovah of the Old Testament was manifested in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, “the Saviour of the world.” This wondrous truth is indicated by the general tenor of the revelation, and by the direct application to Jesus of texts from the Old Testament that are there applied to Jehovah, but also by the etymological signification of the name “Jesus.” The Greek word for “Jesus” is the transliteration of the Hebrew word for “Joshua,” as will be seen by comparing the text and the margin of Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8. But “Joshua” is a contraction for “Jehoshua,” which is compounded of “Jah” (the short form of “Jehovah”) and “Hosea,” salvation, so that “Jehoshua,” “Joshua,” “Jesus,” means Jehovah as salvation. Thus “Jehovah-Jesus” is as it were the message of the whole Bible compressed into a pervading personality. This suggests the importance of preserving the name “Jehovah” in the English text. SITI December 10, 1929, page 10.8

IMMODEST PHRASES CHANGED

Again, some forms of expression that may have passed without serious objection in the early part of the seventeenth century are decidedly objectionable now as being offensive to our sense of modesty. A translation has been employed in the American Revised Version which eliminates all immodest language without changing the real meaning. SITI December 10, 1929, page 11.1

Again, the meaning of some English words has been changed by usage during the last three hundred years, so that as they now appear in the Authorized Version they are likely to be misleading. One example is the word “peculiar” found in Deuteronomy 14:2 and other places. This change of meaning is recognized in the American Revised Version by a change in the translation. SITI December 10, 1929, page 11.2

Again, “the subdivision of the books of Sacred Scripture into chapters and verses, without regard to the sense, and frequently to its great injury, has thrown a most serious obstacle in the way of common readers.” This is remedied in the American Revised Version by paragraphing the text according to the sense, which sometimes leads to ignoring even chapter divisions, although the numbering of chapters and verses is retained. This is simply a return to the system which prevailed “before the Genevan New Testament of 1557 unfortunately broke up the text into divisions at once so minute and so arbitrary as the verses invented by Robert Stephen.” SITI December 10, 1929, page 11.3

I regret that my limited space will prevent me from considering all of the many differences in the translation of the same original texts, and I shall be compelled to confine myself to some of the more striking ones. The substitution in Genesis 3:15 of “He shall bruise thy head” is worthy of special notice. In Isaiah 43:10-13 we find the meaning of the expression “I am He” fully developed and emphasized. Note especially the significant statements, “I, even I, am Jehovah; and besides Me there is no savior.... Yea, since the day was I am He.” Connect with them the remarkable words of Jesus: “Except ye believe that I am He ye shall die in your sins.” John 8:24. The “He” of Genesis 3:15 is Jehovah, the only Saviour of Isaiah 43:11, who was manifested in Jesus of Nazareth who demanded faith in Himself, the Jehovah- (Continued on page 14) (Continued from page 12) Saviour, as the one and only condition of salvation from sin. This direct connection between Jesus and the promised seed of Genesis 3:15 is obscured by introducing the word “it” in the Authorized Version. SITI December 10, 1929, page 12.1

“Cherubim” and “seraphim” are the Hebrew plurals of “cherub” and “seraph,” but in the Authorized Version the English plural sign is added to these forms, and we have “cherubims” and “seraphims.” See Genesis 3:24 and Isaiah 6:2, 6, and many other passages. SITI December 10, 1929, page 14.1

The rendering, “Darius the Median took the kingdom” (Daniel 5:31), has given rise to much unfavorable criticism, inasmuch as Cyrus was the conqueror of Babylon; but there is no occasion for such criticism when it is rendered, as in the American Revised Version, “Darius the Mede received the kingdom.” Darius was evidently a vassal king who was indebted to Cyrus for his kingdom. SITI December 10, 1929, page 14.2

These few examples will serve as illustrations of the benefit that will accrue to the reader of the American Revised Version. At the same time I wish to reiterate what I have already stated, that these differences do not affect any Christian doctrine, and those who prefer to use the Authorized Version will find in it the blessed truths that will make us “wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” SITI December 10, 1929, page 14.3