Office Bearers

GS 1974 ARTICLE 182 –  Revised Standard Version

Advisory Committee III presents:

MATERIAL:

  • E  Report of the Committee on the Revised Standard Version.
  • E2 Overture of Church at London.
  • E3 Letter for the Committee d.d. August 29, 1974 (with enclosed archives).

A: Mandate:

OBSERVATION:

The mandate of the  Committee was (Acts 1971, Article 33)

  • a.  to invite the cooperation of all the Church members to send in any criticism on the RSV they may have
  • b. to receive, scan, and judge the criticism received and to pass it on to the Standard Bible Committee, and to do this before the deadline of September 1972.
  • c.  to continue with their work of checking the RSV and to pass on also their own criticism.
  • d.  from time to time to inform the Churches about the results of their investigations.

CONSIDERATIONS:

  • 1. the Committee did invite the cooperation of the Church members to send criticism on the RSV and reports that some members responded.
  • 2. the Committee, having received the information that there is no closing date for sending in criticisms, submitted two sets of recommendations to the RSV Bible Committee.
  • 3. the Committee reported that the RSV Bible Committee is responsive to recommendations and that improvements have been made. Major changes include the restoration of the text of several Bible passages. The Committee also reported that of the first 17 items of recommendations sent by our Committee, 11 were approved. Of the remaining 6, three had previously been approved and three were postponed for later consideration.
  • 4. the Committee, in checking the RSV, concentrated on the Book of Hosea and passed their criticism on to the RSV Bible Committee.

RECOMMENDATION:

Synod declare

  • 1. to express its appreciation for the work done by the Committee
  • 2. to approve of the action taken by the Committee.

ADOPTED

B: The Committee’s Findings and Recommendations

The Committee, having stated that there is much to commend about the RSV translation and that in some cases it is better than the King James Version and statistically more accurate, makes statements and conclusions which need separate consideration:

  • I evidence of an unscriptural influence.
  • II the mention made of other translations.
  • Ad I – evidence of an unscriptural influence.

OBSERVATIONS:

The Committee bases its conclusion that there is evidence of an unscriptural influence on five grounds:

  • a. the lack of consistency in translating related passages in the Old and the New Testament.
  • b. the lack of consistency in the usage of “Thou” and “Thee” when addressing God, even when the Lord Jesus is explicitly recognized as divine.
  • c. the lack of consistency regarding the usage of personal and impersonal pronouns regarding the Holy Spirit.
  • d. the absence of corrections in the 1971 New Testament Edition of the RSV in matters of the Son and the Spirit;
  • e.  The conclusion concerning the emendations in the Hosea Study.

CONSIDERATIONS:

  • 1. ad a The Committee did not show that the different wording of related passages is the result of incorrect translation;
  • 2. ad b. The Committee refers only to texts where the Lord Jesus is addressed.
  • 3. ad b. The RSV Bible Committee “decided regarding the second personal pronoun singular ‘to follow modern usage in language addressed to God’.” (Enclosure II p. 4) They explained their position in a letter dated February 25, 1974 as follows:
    • “The Scriptures declare the reality of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ as clearly as they declare His Deity. To hold that He did not live a real human life would be to contradict their testimony and to fall into the heresy of Docetism. For that reason the pronouns appropriate to his humanity are used in the record of his earthly life and appearances.” and:
    • “The rule of the Revised Version is to use ‘you’ where people addressed Jesus in the course of his earthly life and appearances and to use ‘thou’ where the address is to our Lord as the eternal Son of God, outside of his earthly life and appearances (e.g. Revelation 5:9, 10)”.
  • It appears that this rule is strictly applied, also in Mark 1:11, where God the Father addresses Jesus Christ, “Thou art my beloved Son.”
  • The usage of ‘thou’ and ‘thee’, if understood in the light of these quotations, does not show a “lack of consistency” and does not betray an unscriptural approach.
  • 4. ad c. The Committee refers to several Bible texts to prove inconsistency. Romans 5:5. 8:11. Ephesians 1:14 and I John 3:24 have “the Holy Spirit, which…” the same as the KJV. John 16:7 is mentioned to show the use of ‘Him’, also the same as KJV. Improvements are mentioned in Romans 8:16, 26 where the RSV has “the Spirit himself’ while the KJV has “the Spirit itself.”
  • 5. ad c. The Committee quotes with apparent agreement (Report page 4, 5) “a purely objective study of the N.T. as translated in the RSV would lead to an accurate doctrine of the Holy Spirit and His work.”
  • 6. ad d. The Committee bases its statement of absence of correction in matters of the Son and the Spirit on two texts, Romans 9:5, which it claims is still wrongly punctuated and Hebrew 2:11, which still has “of one origin” instead of the preferable “of one”.
  • However, by letter of April 18, 1974, the Committee admits, “We realize that the RSV maintains the deity of the Lord Jesus, and we do not want to use Romans 9:5 as an excuse to chastise the RSV. Perhaps in this light the words “wrongly punctuated” (page 6 of our report to Synod) are too strong. It is indeed open to different translations”.
  • In this light the translation of Hebrew 2:11, although subject to improvement should not be regarded as the result of an unscriptural approach, and it should be noted that the RSV has also affirmations of the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ, which the KJV does not have i.e. in Titus 2:13 & 2 Peter 1:1.
  • 7. ad d. The Committee’s statement regarding the “absence of corrections in the 1971 revision of the N.T. does not refer to the Committee’s own recommen­ dations in view of the date of their submissions.
  • 8. ad e. The Committee informs Synod that the purpose of the study of the book of Hosea was “to examine emendations in Hosea (RSV translation) with a view to seeing whether these emendations were justified and with a view to determining what principles govern the emendations made” (Report p. 7).
  • 9. ad e. The Committee reporting on unwarranted emendations, concludes, “that the emendations betray a theological position critical of the authority and trustworthiness of Scripture” of the translators of RSV.
  • 10. ad e. However, the Committee also states (Enclosure III observation e); “Instances of a translation being produced to reflect a specifically liberal theology are hard to find, if one were seeking them in the corrections the RSV makes in Hosea.”
  • Furthermore, the Committee also states that one should be cautious not to “immediately conclude on the basis of this point alone (namely excessive emendation) that excessive emendation is a definite proof of lack of “Schrift­ gelovig karakte’.”
  • 11. ad e. The Committee states that the final conclusion with regard to the book of Hosea was made “after careful study and in view of the other factors mentioned” in the Report, but does not make clear that the “other factors” are more than assumptions.
  • 12. ad e. The Committee itself concludes in Enclosure III that “it is dangerous to draw too many conclusions from such a brief study.”

CONCLUSION:

  • The Committee, in their five grounds (a – e) did not submit conclusive proof of an unscriptural influence in the RSV.
  • Neither did the Committee consider what is called “unscriptural influence” of sufficient importance to recommend the repeal of the “negative recommendation” by General Synod New Westminster, 1971.

RECOMMENDATION:

Synod declare:

  • The Committee has not adduced valid reasons to state that the RSV is unacceptable;

ADOPTED

Synod decide:

  • In accordance with the decision of General Synod New Westminster, 1971 Article 33 Recommendation 2 to leave the use of the RSV in the freedom of the Churches.

ADOPTED

B. II: Regarding Other Translations

OBSERVATIONS:

  • 1. The Committee recommends “that either the present RSV Committee or another synodically appointed Committee be given the mandate by Synod to study another (or other) modern translation(s) with a view to possible usage in our Churches.”
  • 2. As grounds the Committee points at
    • a. the weaknesses of the RSV as pointed out in their report.
    • b. their awareness of the existence of the New American Standard Bible and the New International Version.

CONSIDERATIONS:

  • 1. the Committee’s claim of weaknesses in the RSV has not been proven to be of such a nature that it warrants taking another translation of the Bible under study.
  • 2. having more than one modern translation under study with a view to use by the Churches, may lead to confusion.

RECOMMENDATION:

Synod decide:

  • not to adopt the recommendation of the Committee in this respect.

REJECTED

The following motion is discussed:

  • “After Observations a and 2, to be read:
    • On the ground of the above mentioned Recommendation of the Committee Synod decide
    • to appoint a Committee to look into other translations as for instance The New American Standard Bible and The New International Version”,

and rejected.

The following motion is rejected by tie-vote:

  • “Observation stands.”

CONSIDERATIONS:

  • 1. There are still weaknesses in the R.S.V. as is pointed in the Report of the Committee.
  • 2. Another translation – the NASB – is mentioned.
  • 3. The Churches should have the best translation.

RECOMMENDATION:

Synod decide

  • to adopt the Recommendation of the Committee in this respect, but confined to the NASB”.

C: Overture of the Church at London

OBSERVATION:

The Church at London proposes to Synod that “it adhere to the decision of the Synod of Orangeville 1968 when it says in Article 45B, IIIb ‘An improved edition of the Revised Standard Version is planned; the Churches should await its publication’ and express that Synod New Westminster 1971 should not have adopted recom­mendation 2 of Article 33” of the Acts.

CONSIDERATION:

  • 1. the Church at London mistakenly speaks of the “decision” of Synod Orangeville 1968, whereas the Acts clearly show that Article 45, IIIb is a ground for a decision.
  • 2. as a result of the study ordered by the Synod of Orangeville 1968, the Synod of New Westminster 1971 received new evidence on which it could base a decision.

RECOMMENDATION:

Synod decide:

  • not to grant the request of the Church at London, to express that Synod New Westminster 1971 should not have adopted recommendation 2 of Article 33.

ADOPTED

D: Mandate for the Committee on the Revised Standard Version

CONSIDERATION:

  • 1. The R.S.V. Bible Committee is receptive to recommendations and plans on yearly meetings in order to complete their review of the R.S.V. by the provisional deadline of the early or middle eighties (letter of R.S.V. Bible Committee March 21, 1974).
  • 2. The Committee rightly urges Synod to use the opportunities to forward recommendations to the R.S.V. Bible Committee.
  • 3. Since the R.S.V. Bible Committee received a copy of the Report of Synod, it is proper that they also receive a copy of Synod’s decision re that report.

RECOMMENDATION:

Synod decide:

  • 1. to continue the Committee on the R.S.V. with the mandate:
    • a.  to continue the work of checking the R.S.V. and to pass on their criticism to the R.S.V. Bible Committee.
    • b. to inform the Churches from time to time about the results of their investigations.
    • c.  to send a copy of this decision to the R.S.V. Bible Committee.
  • 2. to pass on the Archives of the Committee to the Committee to be continued.

ADOPTED