Written by Joseph Charles
Philpot, Strict & Particular Baptist Minister in England
“Written in 1857 when the Revised Version was
contemplated”[i]
We take this opportunity to express our opinion
upon a question much agitated of late – whether it would be desirable to have a
new (or at least a revised) translation of the Scriptures. We fully admit that
there are here and there passages of which the translation might be improved,
as, for instance, “love” for “charity” all through 1 Corinthians 13; but we
deprecate any alteration as a measure that, for the smallest sprinkling of
good, would deluge us with a flood of evil. The following are our reasons:
1. Who are
to undertake it? Into whose hands would the revision fall? What an
opportunity for the enemies of truth to give us a mutilated false Bible! Of
course, they must be learned men, great critics, scholars, and divines, but
these are notoriously either Puseyites or Neologians[ii] –
in other words, deeply tainted with either popery
or infidelity. Where are there
learned men sound in the truth, not to say alive unto God, who possess the
necessary qualifications for so important a work? And can erroneous men, men
dead in trespasses and sins, carnal, worldly, ungodly persons, spiritually
translate a book written by the blessed Spirit? We have not the slightest
ground for hope that they would be godly men, such as we have reason to believe
translated the Scriptures into our present version.
2. Again, it
would unsettle the minds of thousands as to which was the Word of God, the
old translation or the new. What a door it would open for the workings of
infidelity, or the temptations of Satan! What a gloom, too, it would cast over
the minds of many of God’s saints to have those passages which had been applied
to their souls translated in a different way, and how it would seem to shake
all their experience of the power and preciousness of God’s Word!
3. But besides this, there would be two Bibles spread through the land, the old and the
new, and what confusion would this create in almost every place! At present,
all sects and denominations agree in acknowledging our present version as the
standard of appeal. Nothing settles disputes so soon as when the contending
parties have confidence in the same umpire and are willing to abide by his
decision. But this judge of all disputes, this umpire of all controversy, would
cease to be the looser of strife if the present acknowledged authority were put
an end to by a rival.
4. Again, if
the revision and re-translation were once to begin, where would it end? It
is good to let well alone, as it is easier to mar than mend. The Socinianising[iii]
Neologian would blot out “God” in 1 Timothy 3.16, and strike out 1 John 5.7,8,
as an interpolation. The Puseyite would mend it to suit Tractarian views.[iv]
He would read “priest” where we now read “elder,” and put “penance” in the
place of “repentance.”
Once set up a notice, “The Old Bible To Be Mended,” and there would be plenty of
workmen, who, trying to mend the cover, would pull the pages to pieces. The
Arminian would soften down the words “election” and “predestination” into some
term less displeasing to Pharisaic ears. “Righteousness” would be turned into
“justice,” and “reprobate” into “undiscerning.” All our good Bible terms would
be so mutilated that they would cease to convey the Spirit’s meaning, and
instead of the noble simplicity, faithfulness and truth of our present version,
we should have a Bible that nobody would accept as the Word of God, to which
none could safely appeal, and on which none could implicitly rely.
5. Instead of our good old Saxon Bible, simple and
solid, with few words really obsolete, and alike majestic and beautiful, we should have a modern English translation
in the pert and flippant language of the day. Besides its authority as the
Word of God, our present version is the great English classic – generally
accepted as the standard of the English language. The great classics of a
language cannot be modernised. What an outcry there would be against
modernising Shakespeare, or making Hooker, Bacon or Milton talk the English of
the newspapers or of the House of Commons!
6. The
present English Bible has been blessed to thousands of the saints of God;
and not only so, it has become part of our national inheritance which we have
received unimpaired from our fathers, and are bound to hand down unimpaired to
our children. It is, we believe, the grand bulwark of Protestantism, the
safeguard of the gospel and the treasure of the church; and we should be
traitors in every sense of the word if we consented to give it up to be rifled
by the sacrilegious hands of Puseyites,
concealed Papists, German
Neologians, infidel divines, Arminians,
Socinians,
and the whole tribe of the enemies of God and godliness.
[How much of this has come to pass in this day of
many translations!]
Taken from pages 103-105, Sin and Salvation: Selections from J. C. Philpot (B. A. Ramsbottom,
editor, Hertfordshire, England: Gospel Standard Trust Publications, 1987)
[i] “About the year 1855 the
question [of Bible revision] began to be mooted in magazine articles and
motions in Convocation…” Frederic G.
Kenyon
[ii] We
should say: Anglo-Catholics and Modernists.
[iii] Denying
the Godhead of Christ
[iv] Led by Newman and Keble,
the Tractarians
were moving towards Romanism.
No comments:
Post a Comment