by Rev. Donald MacLean, Glasgow
Readers of this Magazine would have read with interest the knowledgeable article on the above subject written by Rev. T. H. Brown, Secretary of the Trinitarian Bible Society, in the July issue. His remarks were occasioned by an article written by Rev. Donald MacLeod, Associate Editor of the Banner of Truth Magazine, and minister of Partick Highland Free Church of Scotland, which appeared in that Magazine in June. Mr MacLeod was giving advice in that article to correspondents who were troubled by critical attacks on the Word of God, and who had asked him to recommend “reading material on the composition and compilation of the Scriptures.” The advice given by Mr MacLeod was extremely unsatisfactory, as Mr Brown has shown, and the article showed a bias against the A.V. and the Greek text which lies at the back of the New Testament which is inexcusable. This prejudice is clearly seen in the reading material provided in his bibliography, in which he does not mention one book which puts the case for the A.V. with any conviction or fairness.
In the December issue of the Banner of Truth Magazine, Mr MacLeod returns to the attack, and in a long article of fourteen pages re-emphasises his position of prejudice against the A.V., and his consequent support of modern versions. It is only too evident that Mr MacLeod in this matter occupies a position far down the neo-evangelical stream, and that he is a thoroughly unsafe guide to any enquirer who wishes to reach a properly based conviction as to the authority of the Word of God.
Rev. Iain Murray, the Editor of the Banner of Truth Magazine, has recently become a Free Church minister. He found it necessary to make an editorial comment on the controversy which Mr MacLeod’s articles are bound to provoke. He obviously feels a bit uncomfortable at providing so much space for Mr MacLeod to air views which he must know are extremely distasteful to his more spiritually-minded readers, and which must have been read with a profound sense of shock by those who love the A.V. and feed daily upon it by the teaching of the Holy Ghost. He excuses himself on the ground that there is a danger that those who recently professed commitment to the Reformed Faith will accept the position that the Greek text upon which the A.V. is based is the true text. He holds that this position is untenable, since there are many more manuscripts available for consideration now than there were in the days of the Reformers. In this he is at one with Mr MacLeod, who states his position at the conclusion of his article as follows: “Theologically, the New Testament is the same in all the manuscripts and in all the versions. The Received Text is a text of the Word of God and the B-Aleph text is a text of the Word of God; the A.V. is a version of the Word of God; but so also are the R.V., the R.S.V. and the New English Bible.” This statement puts these modern versions on a par with the A.V., and the whole tone of the article is intended to convey the impression that they are superior. If this is so, why is there clear and irrefutable evidence of deliberate steps made in these versions to weaken the authority of God’s Word, and to cast doubt upon some of the cardinal truths of revelation? Both Mr Murray and Mr MacLeod are fond of speaking of “mainstream Reformed theologians” but they are very selective in their choice. Both Warfield and Machen are mentioned as those who accept the principles behind the W.H. text. This does not for a moment mean that either of these theologians would accept the R.S.V. or the N.E.B. In fact an examination of the work of their fellow-professor and colleague, Professor O. T. Allis, demonstrates that they most likely would not accept these versions.
Abbreviations — A.V.: Authorised Version; R.V.: Revised Version, 1881; R.S.V.: Revised Standard Version; N.E.B.: New English Bible; W.H.: Westcott and Hort.
While Dr Allis himself supported the R.V., his review of the Old Testament section of the R.S.V. has the highly significant title, “Revised Version or Revised Bible.” His conclusions are as follows: “No elaborate summing-up is needed. The evidence speaks for itself. It shows that the R.S.V. differs from the A.V. in one all-important aspect. It is not ‘a faithful rendering of the original.’ On the contrary, it treats the Old Testament with a freedom which is incompatible with that high regard for its trustworthiness and Divine authority which is so marked a feature of the version of 1611. This is the great reason that this ‘revision’, however excellent it may be in some other respects, cannot be satisfactory to Bible-believing Christians. It cannot be accepted by them as a ‘standard’ version. A version to be acceptable to them must tell them as accurately as possible what the Bible says, and not what some consensus of scholars, who, however learned, are after all mere mortals like themselves, think it ought to say.” His conclusion with respect to the New Testament section of the R.S.V. is in the following words: “It may have been the hope of some of those who were actively connected with this undertaking that the Authorised Version could be transformed into an ‘idiomatic’ ‘modern speech’ version by a simple process of revision. If so they were doomed to disappointment, for in the R.S.V. the work of revision has been carried to such an extreme that the result is much more a new translation than a revision; and a new translation is what the Revised Standard Version should be called.” Here we have a proper assessment of the true situation.
Mr Murray further proceeds blandly to hold to the belief that the A.V. “taken all-in-all has not yet been superseded in point of merit by any more modern version published in Britain.” He must excuse us if we confess to some considerable doubt as to his belief in this matter. One cannot praise modern versions in one breath and the A.V. in the next. We shall endeavour to consider this point in this article, although it has been done before now times without number. Mr Murray also criticises Mr Brown’s attitude, and asks what authority in the T.B.S.’s constitution support Mr Brown’s views. We leave Mr Brown to answer this, but it should be quite obvious to any honest-minded person from the fact that the T.B.S. is fully committed to the Authorised Version in English, that it must also be committed to the Greek text upon which it is based. Mr Brown is therefore perfectly entitled to write in defence of it, and to continue his exposure of the falsities of modern versions. We have no fear that these efforts on Mr Brown’s part will mean that “support for the T.B.S. will be sadly decimated,” as Mr Murray states, but we have no doubt that these articles by Messrs MacLeod and Murray will lead to a falling-off in support for the Banner of Truth Magazine. Serious-minded Christians have been deeply pained. Controversy has the effect of bringing out what is really in men, and this one is no exception. It is all very revealing, and in Mr Murray’s case, many will feel that it is particularly sad.
It is not our intention in a Magazine of this description to go through all the points raised by Mr MacLeod on the question of Textual Criticism. His arguments are well known and have been refuted adequately by others. However, one or two matters require to be mentioned. The Christian who takes the Authorised Version in his hands in his private devotions, at family worship, and in the public worship of God, should have a clear and solid conviction in his mind that he has in his possession “the Word of God which liveth and abideth for ever,” and that the Greek text which lies behind the New Testament is that text which has been preserved by the providence of God for his use. This Greek text was substantially the text of the church of God from the fourth century downwards. It was the Greek text preserved in the Greek Church during the Byzantine period (312-1453). When the light of the glorious Reformation broke upon the church, this was the selected text, and continued to be so for three centuries, and was the basis of the Authorised Version. It was only with the rise of nineteenth century criticism that it began to be attacked in a concerted way. An attempt has been made by the opponents of this text to infer that it is not an independent witness but a revision at some point in the fourth century. This point is raised by Mr MacLeod who states, “Scholars therefore regard it as highly probable that the Majority text is in fact that of Tucian’s recension.” The true facts are that there is no historical evidence for any such recension. The idea was a concoction of Hort’s probably borrowed from Greisbach, in order to bolster up his own theory and to denigrate the textus receptus. (Received or majority text).
It is further a fact that not all modern scholars accept the conception of a recension. One scholar, Jacob Geerlings, whom we are told has done extensive work on certain “family” branches of the majority text, has stated flatly concerning this text that “Its origins, as well as those of other so-called text types probably go back to the autographs. It is now abundantly clear that the Eastern church never officially adopted or recognised a received or authorised text, and only by a long process of slow evolution did the Greek text of the New Testament undergo the various changes that we can dimly see in the few extant uncial codices identified with the Byzantine (i.e. Majority) Text.” Thus the Westcott and Hort view is abandoned. It is no longer tenable. On the contrary, this scholar thinks that this text goes back to the autographs. Another point of major importance is that the majority of the manuscripts witness to this text, and a very telling point is made by Professor Z. Hodges when he points out that “the further removed in the history of transmission a text becomes from its source, the less time it has to leave behind a large family of offspring. Hence in a large tradition, when a pronounced unity is observed between, let us say, eighty per cent of the evidence, a very strong presumption is raised that this numerical preponderance is due to direct derivation from the very oldest sources. In the absence of any convincing contrary explanation this presumption is raised to a very high level of probability indeed. Thus the Majority text upon which the King James Version is based has in reality the strongest claim possible to be regarded as an authentic representation of the original text. This claim is quite independent of any shifting consensus of scholarly judgment about its readings, and is based on the objective reality of its dominance in the transmissional history of the New Testament text. This dominance has not, and — we venture to suggest — cannot, be otherwise explained.1 We therefore contend that the text which lies at the basis of the New Testament of the Authorised Version is the one which fulfils the statement of the Confession of Faith: “The Old Testament in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek, being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical.”
But Mr MacLeod will have none of this. Padding after his hero, Warfield, he adopts a different view of the matter. Says Warfield, “Just because we believe in God’s continuous care over the purity of His Word, we are able to look upon the labours of the great critics of the nineteenth century — a Tregelles, a Tischendorf, a Westcott, a Hort — as well as those of a Gregory and a Basil and a Chrysostom, as instruments of Providence in preserving the Scriptures pure for the use of God’s people.” Says Mr MacLeod, “The God who works all things according to the counsel of His will, seeing the end from the beginning, knew and foreordained that in the 19th century there would take place a revision of the text of Scripture etc.” Now we know that God foreordained the rising of these men and the work they intended to do, but it is a very grave assumption to think that He approved of their work. God foreknew the rise of Pharoah — indeed, He stated that His glory was to be shown forth in that connection — but that did not make Pharoah the servant of God or the friend of the church. He was the greatest source of its bondage. Upon what authority did Warfield conclude that these naturalistic critics were friends of the Word of God? Upon what authority did William Cunningham praise Greisbach’s text, saying it “is more pure and correct, approaches nearer to the original text of the inspired authors than the textus receptus, and I am disposed to think that this opinion is correct.” Mr MacLeod describes Dr Cunningham as “a master dogmatician” and with this we agree. We certainly do not agree that he saw all “the doctrinal implications of academic contentions and conclusions.” In fact, any reading of his life shows that he, like other leaders in the Free Church, did not properly grasp the serious implications of Criticism. Even Rabbi Duncan, who far outstripped Cunningham in personal piety, had as his assistant A. B. Davidson, the notorious higher critic, who poisoned the minds of the rising ministry in the Free Church to such an extent that when his most brilliant pupil, Professor Robertson Smith, was relieved of his Chair for his God-dishonouring critical views, two hundred and thirtyone members of an Assembly of over six hundred voted against the Motion and in favour of Robertson Smith. We have no confidence in Cunningham’s judgment in this particular matter, as he must have known that Griesbach was a German rationalist who wrote in 1771, “The New Testament abounds in more glosses, additions and interpolations purposely introduced, than any other book.” Scrivener, whose skill in Textual Criticism far exceeds that of Cunningham, states this: “The plain fact is that while disciples were regarding Griesbach’s system as self evidently true, their wiser master must have had many a misgiving as to the safety of that imposing structure his rare ingenuity had built upon the sand.” “Griesbach’s text can no longer be regarded as satisfactory, although it is far less objectionable than such a system as his would have made it in rash and unskilful hands.” Hort, too, spoke of the Received Text as “vile”, as Mr MacLeod tells us, and made known his attitude to the authority of Scripture in the following words: “For ourselves we do not introduce considerations which could not reasonably be applied to other ancient texts.” In other words, to him the Bible was just like some other ancient document, and his approach to it was exactly the same. We see no reason for holding these critics to be pious and Godly men, and we certainly have no reason to conclude that they viewed the Word of God as the supernatural oracles of the Holy Ghost. We part company here with Warfield and others like him. When men lay hands on the Word of God and take to do with the Divine oracles, we need to be convinced first of their piety, and only secondly of their scholarship.
Let us see now where this strange interpretation of God’s providential care of His Word leads us if we are to believe that the truth of Scripture had been more or less lost for fifteen centuries until it was produced by W.H. In the encircling gloom of the spreading apostasy overtaking the English-speaking church of the nineteenth century, one manuscript was found on a shelf of the Vatican library and is called B, while another was found deposited in a wastepaper basket in the Convent of St. Catherine at the foot of Mount Sinai, and is called Aleph. These two manuscripts were exalted to be the basis of the text of the English New Testament and were intended to displace the text behind the A.V. from which they differed in 5,700 places. Surely this is straining credulity too far, and we reject it utterly. Let us continue along the line and discover what happened to the W.H. text. Does this text now form the basis of modern versions? Let Mr MacLeod answer. “Contrary to much evangelical opinion, modern editions of the New Testament are not based on these two codices alone but on an eclectic text arrived at by collation of all the available manuscripts.” The W.H. text has been left behind, and a new system adopted. Upon what principles does this new system operate: Mr MacLeod does not tell us, but in the introduction to the N.E.B. we are informed, “There is not at the present time any critical text which would command the same degree of general acceptance as the Revisors’ text did in its day . . . The present translators therefore could do no other than consider variant readings on their merits” so they adopted those “which to the best of their judgement seemed most likely to represent what the author wrote.” In other words, the text was determined by the personal opinions of those who prepared it. Since most of those concerned with the R.S.V. and the N.E.B. were liberals and unbelievers in the true doctrine of Biblical inspiration, does Mr MacLeod think that the people of God will accept that the Providence of God left the Divine oracles in such unhallowed hands? Yet his doctrine of providential preservation leads him to this manifestly absurd position.
It is too early for Mr MacLeod and his friends to pronounce the funeral oration of the A.V. and the Received Text. We ourselves, quietly and confidently wait for a better day when the Lord will raise up men of piety and scholarship to undertake a new translation. In the present dark state of the church, we do not possess men of this calibre. We do not doubt but that when the Lord in the midst of the years will remember mercy and revive His work, such men will be raised up. Then we believe the Received Text will be truly valued and vindicated.
In giving advice to his unfortunate enquirers, with regard to new versions, Mr MacLeod says, “Preference should be given to versions prepared by groups of scholars, acting under ecclesiastical auspices, rather than to the work of individual translators. This will save us from the idiosyncrasies of individuals and assure us that the version, before publication, has been subjected to thorough communal criticism.” He fails to mention the obvious fact that this will not save the reader of a new version from the unbelief and infidelistic views of the members of these committees. For instance, in connection with the R.V. of 1881, we have already pointed to the views of Hort, and Westcott is not one whit better. Further, there was added to this committee a Unitarian. A Unitarian is one who denies the doctrine of the Trinity. He is one who has no right to be called a Christian at all. He is one who by his own profession is spiritually blind. What is to be thought of a committee that would invite such a man to serve on it in order to translate “the Word of God which liveth and abideth for ever”? With regard to the R.S.V. let us notice just one or two points about the members of that committee. Here is the view of Dr Bowie: “The incarnation of the Divine in Jesus was not some lonely miracle. It was the flowering in Him of that which in some measure is meant to come true in all of us.” Dr Burrows says that the idea of Divine inspiration must be definitely abandoned, and he holds that “what is ultimately authoritative for us is that which commands the assent of our own best judgment, accepted as the witness of the Spirit within us.” Dr Grant holds that “the fiery-tempered, jealous, vindictive Yahweh of the early Old Testament documents is not the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Dean Weigle states “for many years I have not taught as if Moses wrote the Pentateuch, or the Book of Isaiah had but one author, or Job or Jonah were historical.” Another of the translators was Dr Harry M. Orlinsky, a Jewish scholar of the Jewish Institution of Religion of New York. Here again we must ask the question, What can be said of a committee which adopts a Jew as a member of its panel of translators? A Jew is described in the Scripture as one who when he reads the Old Testament has a veil over his heart. Of what possible value can such a man be except to pervert the Word of God in an anti-Christian sense? Of course, we immediately recognise that a godless Gentile and an unconverted Jew are equally blind to the glory of Divine revelation, and should therefore have nothing whatever to do with translating the Divine oracles. Yet this is the version to which evangelicals, we are told, are turning!
The desire for the N.E.B. sprang from the Church of Scotland. It was desired that a committee of competent scholars be set up to make this new translation. Here again, these scholars, the majority of them, were of a liberalistic tendency, and the fact that the director of the translators was such a person as Professor C. H. Dodd is ample evidence that the liberal, modernistic line would be followed in the translation. He states categorically: “God is the author, not of the Bible, but of the life which the authors of the Bible partake, and of which they tell in such imperfect, human words as they could command. The importance of this fairly obvious and elementary distinction is that it exposes the fallacy of arguing from an admission that the Bible is ‘the Word of God’ to the conclusion that it must possess God’s own infallibility . . . Thus the words of the Epistle to the Romans carry just as much weight as we are prepared to allow to Paul as a religious teacher.” It should be abundantly plain that far from encouraging people to read versions prepared by such committees, a faithful servant of Christ would issue the most vigorous and stern warnings to avoid them.
The people of God are not textual critics. They do however have their own criteria for judging the value of professed versions of the Word of God. Through the unction from the Holy One they have been spiritually enlightened, convinced of their sins and misery, stripped of their own self-righteousness, and made to feel lost and utterly unable to deliver themselves from the just reward of their sins. In this sad and low condition, the Gospel of the glory of the blessed God brought to them, in the power of the Holy Ghost, a Saviour of Whom it is written, “For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.” (Matthew, xviii, 11). As they viewed by faith this most glorious and suitable Saviour, the peace of God which passeth all understanding flowed into their souls. They tasted and saw that God was good, and that who trusts in Him is blessed. The new song arose from their broken hearts as they sang the praises of Him Who loved them and washed them from their sins in His own blood. If they pay attention to Mr MacLeod and his neo-evangelical friends, and turn to the Gospel of Matthew in the R.S.V., look up chapter 18, and look for verse 11, then to their astonishment they will find that it is not there. It has been relegated to a footnote: “Other ancient authorities add verse 11, For the Son of man came to save the lost.” This is only one instance of how a soul to whom the words of Scripture have become the words of eternal life, a soul to whom the words of Scripture have become the voice of the Son of God, a soul who feeds upon Divine Truth, is shocked and shattered and pained by men who remove from the treasured record of God’s Word, words so indescribably precious.
This, of course, does not worry Mr MacLeod in the slightest. When faced with a list of omissions by Mr Brown, he states: “The first thing that strikes us is that many of the variations listed here are quite trivial . . .” So Mr MacLeod thinks it is a trivial matter that the Christian Church should be deprived of the last twelve verses of the Gospel according to Mark, and that the whole of the incident of the woman taken in adultery, amounting also to twelve verses, should be omitted from the sacred record! We find this quite inexcusable. We wonder also if Mr MacLeod knows that these two particular sections are restored in the recently issued Common Bible. The R.S.V. omits both the passages. The N.E.B. includes the passage in Mark, omits the passage in John, and publishes it separately at the end of that Gospel. This chopping and changing in different versions of these important parts of the Word of God indicate clearly the confusion which these new versions raise in the minds of readers. As mentioned, the Common Bible now restores the two parts to the text of God’s Word. This Common Bible is the first edition of the Bible since the Reformation to have the approval and blessing of the Protestant, the Catholic and the Orthodox Churches. This edition includes the Apocrypha bound up with the Bible, despite the fact that these books have always been rejected as not forming part of the canon of Scripture. The words of the chairman of the R.S.V. Bible Committee, Herbert G. May are of great significance in welcoming this Bible, demonstrating the real purpose of the original edition of the R.S.V.: “The R.S.V. Common Bible, bearing the approval of the three great branches of the Christian Church, is the natural culmination of the ecumenical role played by the R.S.V. since its inception.” This ecumenical role is intended to break down the distinction so clearly drawn at the Reformation between the true church of God and the church of Rome. This tendency is further emphasised in the N.E.B. where Matthew, xvi, 18 is made to read, “And I say unto you: You are Peter, the Rock: and on this rock I will build my church and the forces of death shall never overpower it.” This translation quite clearly teaches that Peter is the rock upon which the church is built, in contradistinction to the true teaching of the Word of God that Christ alone is the Rock and Foundation of the living church of God.
In the context of the above list of omissions, we come across a very strange idea advanced by Mr MacLeod in which he declares that many of the variations listed are “wholly devoid of theological significance.” We are all aware of the modernistic view of the inspiration of the Bible, which avers that the Bible is only authoritative when it speaks of redemption, but does not carry the same authority when it speaks of historical or scientific data. This concept is pure rationalism. Surely there is a strain of rationalism running through this concept advanced by Mr MacLeod, and if accepted, it leads to very serious consequences. Professor Dodd, referred to above as the Director of the N.E.B. translators, holds the rationalistic view that we can know very little about Moses. Here are his words from his book entitled ‘The Authority of the Bible,’ page 36: “We have no literature which can with any probability be attributed to that period. Moses has left us no writings. We know little of him with certainty. But it is scarcely questionable that the Hebrew religion, before the time when its literature begins, had felt the impulse of some tremendous personality. Tradition calls him Moses, and so may we. We are not however in direct touch with him, but only with men who drew their inspiration from the impulse he communicated.”
If challenged on this particular point, Dr Dodd, if he cared to take up Mr MacLeod’s concept, could very well say, “There is no theological significance in the fact whether there was such a person as Moses alive at any time.” Such a denial of the person of Moses, of course, affects the reliability and the historicity of the Word of God. There are multitudes of other instances in which the argument could be used that whether these instances are retained in the Divine record or not is of no real theological consequence, and that therefore their omission would be trivial. We cannot abide such trifling with the Scriptures.
But are the omissions of no theological significance? One of these is the substitution in Luke, ii, 43 of the words “His parents” for “Joseph and Mary.” Says Mr MacLeod, “What heretical purpose is served, what doctrine is jeopardised, . . . by substituting ‘His parents’ for ‘Joseph and Mary’ . . .” Mr MacLeod must be exceedingly naive if he does not see that there is quite clearly doubt cast upon the virgin birth of the Saviour in connection with these particular words. Let us remain with the R.S.V. for the moment. Matthew, I, 25 in the A.V. reads, “And knew her not till she had brought forth her first born son; and he called His names Jesus.” The R.S.V. reads, “But knew her not until she had born a son; and he called His name Jesus.” By the use of the word “firstborn” the A.V. makes it perfectly plain that Mary had no child before the Saviour was born, thus emphasising that the son born was not born by ordinary generation, but by extraordinary generation. The R.S.V. omits the word “firstborn” and therefore casts doubt on this doctrine. Luke II, 33 in the A.V. reads, “And Joseph and His mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of Him.” The R.S.V. reads, “And his father and mother marvelled at what was said about him.” The clear and unmistakable impression given by these words is that Joseph is the natural father of the Saviour. Consequently, when we come to the portion which Mr MacLeod dismisses as being of no theological significance, viz. Luke II, 43, the A.V. states, “And Joseph and His mother knew not of it.” The R.S.V. says, “His parents did not know it.” Here again while the A.V. clearly states and maintains that Joseph was not the natural father of Jesus, the R.S.V. confuses and clouds the issue by implying that Joseph and Mary were His natural parents. It is highly significant in this connection that even taking the R.S.V. translation as transcribed, we find the Saviour rebuking His mother on this very point. “And when they saw him, they were astonished; and his mother said to him, ‘Son, why have you treated us so? Behold your father and I have been looking for you anxiously.’ And he said unto them, ‘How is it that you sought me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father’s house?'” Here Mary uses the expression, “your father and I” and the Saviour corrects her by pointing to the One Whom His Father really was. Are these not points of theological significance?
Mr MacLeod also speaks of “another suspicion prevalent in some evangelical circles, namely, that whenever editors depart from the Received Text it is in the interest of what we might call a lower theology.” Mr MacLeod states quite categorically, “This is quite untrue.” Here, of course, we begin to despair of Mr MacLeod altogether. We wonder where he was when these versions were issued, for instance the R.S.V. in 1946 (N.T.) and 1952 (O.T.). Was he still at school, when he is apparently ignorant of the wide wave of protest occasioned by the publication of that version, and the many articles demonstrating its lower theology, leading to a person of Professor Allis’s stature designating it as “a revised Bible, rather than a revised Version?” Does Mr MacLeod really think that he will get anyone to believe that a version that had as its ecumenical purpose the bringing together of Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant churches on the basis of a common Bible, was not issued in the interest of a lower or consensus theology? We are persuaded that none whose eyes are opened to the dangers of the present day will agree with him.
In this Magazine, and in the Young People’s Magazine, the present writer has handled the subject of the mis-translations of the Word of God which point to a lower theology, both in the case of the R.S.V. and the N.E.B. It is sad to have to refer to points which are so evident once there, and this will only be done in a few instances. Low views of theology inevitably spring from low views of Divine inspiration. The A.V. clearly teaches the doctrine of inspiration in the following words in 2 Timothy iii, 16: “All scripture is given by inspiration of God.” The clear teaching here is that God is the Author of Scripture. The R.S.V. weakens this by stating “All scripture is inspired by God.” It is a well-known fact that the members of the committee of this version did not hold to the doctrine of plenary inspiration. Dr Moffatt, one of its members, in discussing the difficulties which the translator faces, says “Once the translator of the New Testament is freed from the theory of verbal inspiration, these difficulties cease to be so formidable.” The N.E.B. goes a step further giving as its translation of this particular verse, “Every inspired scripture has its use for teaching etc.” Here all reference to the Scripture being inspired by God is completely missed out, as well as teaching that it is only these parts of scripture which are inspired which are useful for the purpose of teaching, etc. One or two further instances may be given with respect to the Godhead of the Saviour:
A.V.
Acts xx, 26: “. . . the church of God which he purchased with his own blood.”
N.E.B.
“. . . the church of the Lord which he won for himself by his own blood.”
The translation in the A.V. has always been appealed to as a text which makes clear the Godhead of the Saviour Who is referred to as God. By the use of the word “Lord,” however, a doubt is cast on this, as one’s view of the matter would depend on how one viewed the Lord. If one viewed Christ as Lord and yet as mere man then the whole force of the efficacy of the blood of atonement is lost, and the text no longer proves the Godhead of the Saviour.
A.V.
Romans, ix, 5: “Whose are the fathers, and of whom concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever.”
N.E.B.
“Theirs are the patriarchs and from them, in natural descent, sprang the Messiah. May God, supreme above all, be blessed for ever.”
Here again the A.V. states clearly that Christ is God. By breaking the sentence, however, the N.E.B. avoids this and empties the text of its proof of the Godhead of the Messiah!
A.V.
1 Timothy, iii, 16: “And without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the spirit . . .”
N.E.B.
“And great beyond all question is the mystery of our religion. He who was manifested in the body, vindicated in the spirit . . .”
Once more the A.V. sets forth clearly that He who was manifested in the flesh was God. But when we come to the N.E.B. we are met with the simple statement, “He was manifested in the body.” Here again the verse has been emptied of its witness to the deity of the Saviour. These three scriptures indicate the seriousness of the changes made and the tremendous implications when coming to construct doctrines based on the new version.
Much more evidence could be, and has already been produced to confirm the contention that the modern versions do aim at a lower form of theology. The point put by Professor Allis is undeniable: “That the question would be raised whether the R.S.V. is ‘liberal’ or ‘higher critical’ was inevitable. There are two reasons for this, neither of which is far to seek. The first is the theological viewpoint of at least a large majority of the committee of revisers, the other is the translation itself. Unless the distinction between ‘conservative’ and ‘higher critic’ or ‘liberal’ is to pass utterly into the discard, few, if any will endeavour to maintain that this revision was prepared by a group of conservative scholars. Evidence to the contrary is too clear and too abundant.”
The views expressed by Mr MacLeod in these two articles raise, of course, another question. How widely are those views representative of the ministers in the Free Church? We have no hesitation whatever in saying that if any Free Presbyterian minister propounded these views in the way that Mr MacLeod has done his Presbytery would take to do with him by way of discipline. Will this be the case in the Free Church? However, if these views are held by a considerable percentage of ministers in the Free Church, there exists a far greater gulf between the Free Church and the Free Presbyterian Church than perhaps has been before realised. There are some, not noted for their intelligent grasp of the situation, who try to minimise differences between the two churches. If Mr MacLeod’s views are an expression of views generally held in the Free Church ministry, then the difference is very great indeed.
We are sorry for the correspondents who enquired for advice from the Banner of Truth Magazine with respect to the Bible and Textual Criticism. They got advice which was deplorable, and which will certainly not lead to any strengthening of such commitment as they may have to the Reformed Faith, but rather, in our judgment, to a weakening of the same.
“How sweet are Thy words unto my taste! Yea, sweeter than honey to my mouth! Through Thy precepts I get understanding: therefore, I hate every false way.” (Ps. 119: 103; 104).