Newspaper Page Text
6 THE PRESBYTERIA
inii rtLHUW Ub CHESAPEAKE PRESBYTERY.
I, for one, want to say Amen to the resolutions of
Chesapeake Presbytery in regard to the Laymen's
Movement, in asking President Taft to make the opening
address.
1 have as much respect for Mr. Taft as President of
United States as any one and am ready at all times
and under all circumstances to pay him that respect.
But when it conies to ask him to take part in a convention
of Christian men, those who hold and teach
that Christ is the Son of God, and in every sense God,
equal to the Father, thereby necessarily recognizing
him as a Christian man and as such a part and parcel
of the Christian Church, he stands in a very different
light. I, for one. am totallv nnnn<;pH tr? cn/*h
_ , J ? vw WMVIi C*
movement as calculated to do almost irreparable harm
to the Church. I, for one, as much as 1 want to see
the movement on the part of the laymen grow and become
more and more useful in extending the Master's
Kingdom, would much rather see the laymen of our
Church withdraw from the association of all others
and have one of our own, than for even one of them.to
take part in a meeting where the Master is dishonored,
by indorsing one as a Christian man, belonging
to his Church, who utterly repudiates him as Lord,
and denies him as Mediator and Saviour.
God forbid any such move on the part oi any of our
W. W. M.
Statcsville, X. C., September 19.
THE NEW PROOF TEXTS AND THE AMERICAN
REVISED VERSION.
James L. Martin, D.D.
Your recent editorial on the above subject impels
me to lend a hand.
T - ??
i agree with you: "There arc many who feel that
there are serious defects in the American Revision, and
that if we will hut wait awhile a better translation can
be made. Others feel that there is a rationalistic tendency
in some of its renderings, in which they can
not concur."
I speak as one who has carefully read the whole of
this Revision from Genesis to Revelation, and am now
nearly through the second reading. I am thoroughly
satisfied a better translation can be given?not a compromise
translation, where conflicting tenets have oool
ed their interests and sacrificed the truth, or to say the
least, broken its point and hacked its edge. If this is
the best modern scholarship can give us as the "nearest
approach to the mind of the Spirit," then for me,
at least, "The old (King James) is better."
For example: Take Mark 10:14, and turn to the
Greek. King James version : ?"Suffer the little children
to come unto nit and forbid them not, for of such
is the Kingdom of God."
American revision : "For to such belongcth the King
nom 01 Uod."
In the original it is the genitive (of) yet in the
American it is translated to the sign of the dative.
Tn the original it is the simple verb of existence, estin
(is), yet in the American it is translated, unnecessarily,
"beloi\geth." Now which is nearest to the original and
therefore to the "mind of the Spirit"? I make no com
lN OF THE SOUTH. September 29, 1909.
ment 011 the animus of this change. The argument is
not weakened after all; for if the Kingdom of God belongcth
to the children, then, of course, to those children
must belong the "seal" of their own Kingdom,
equally as if the children belonged to the Kingdom.
Thus the compromise fails to accomplish its end. But
why subject the Word of God to such a compromise?
Why depart ruthlessly from the "mind of the Spirit"?.
Truly "the old is better." King James says in other
words substantially: "The children belong to the
Kingdom, ergo?Suffer them to come," etc. American
revision says literally: "The Kingdom belongeth to
the children"?whatever that may mean?ergo suffer,
etc.* But the question is, Which is the most faithful
translation of the inspired original? Shall our Assembly
endorse this in its proof texts? Never, I am sure,
if they be guided by the Spirit of Truth.
Now take another sample: Jno. 9: 35-38. "Jesus
heard that they had cast him out; and finding him. he
said, Dost thou believe on the Son of God? He answered
and said, And who is he, Lord, that I may believe
on him? Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast both
seen llini, and lie it is that speaketh with thee. And
he saith. Lord, I believe. And he worshipped Him."
The rendering in these verses is the same in King
James, Anglican and American versions. What I desire
to call attention to is the marginal foot note, which
uuiuaiiis uie critical comment ot the American Committee
of Revisions on the clause: "And he worshipped
Him," verse 3; and 011 the clause "Son of God," in
verse 35. That comment is as follows: On verse 35.
"Many ancient authorities read 'The Son of Man.' "
On verse 38, the comment is: "The Greek word denotes
an act of reverence, whether paid to a creature
(as here) or to the Creator." If the words in parenthesis,
"as here," do not teach that this act of reverence
was paid here to Jesus as a "creature" and not to
him as "Creator", then what do they teach? And if
the teachings of the foot note is not rationalism, then
what is rationalism? This foot note is part and parcel
of the American revision; it is incorporated as an in->
tegral part of their version, which was adopted and
authorized by the revisers, no matter whether the foot
note received the votes of all its members or twothirds,
or only a mapority, one thing is undeniable: at
this point in the work of revision, rationalism gained a
signal victory. Shall our Assembly endorse it? Truly
the* "old is better"?being minus this rationalistic foot
note. Is not this foot note sufficient warning to the
Church that rationalism at certain points, was a prevalent
factor in the American rcvicirkn? """
. V T awiv/ll X 11 (I I It w az>
not only prevalent but wide-awake, this foot note
gives ample proof. (This foot note is copied from
Bourgeois Reference edition of Thomas Nelson &
Sons, page 105.)
The reader will understand that my objection is not
to the critical exegesis of the Greek word translated
"worshipped", as applied to "creature," or to "CreaA
M I
tor ; out my cjiticism applies to the ,statement in
parenthesis,?"(as here)"?teaching, that in this instance
it was an act of "reverence" addressed to Jesus
as a "creature," and not a "Creator." Of course if
Jesus is a creature then he is not a Creator; and what
* more could rationalism ask or .teach?
Other samples of compromise with rationalism and
f