Sufficient time has elapsed since the publication of the New English New Testament in mid-March to allow an assessment of the initial reaction to this significant event. The reception with which it has met has varied from the uncritically laudatory to the hypercritically derogatory; but on the whole it has been acclaimed as a notable scholarly undertaking, excellent in intention, though not uniformly successful in execution.
In an article in the Church Times (Mar. 17) J. B. Phillips, renowned for his own New Testament in Modern English, writes: “Vital and commanding truths have been insulated from us by the familiarity of repetition, or frozen by sheer beauty into the immobility of jewels. For this reason I myself welcome this new translation with open arms, for there can be little excuse now for the ordinary man to say that the New Testament makes no sense to him.” Nevertheless, he devotes the major portion of his article to a discussion of “irritating blemishes on an otherwise splendid piece of work.” Among the examples of clumsy translation which he gives, he mentions John 1:1 where “we meet the extraordinarily infelicitous beginning, ‘When all things began, the Word already was.’ ” “I find it hard to believe”, he says, “that the team could not have improved upon this.” He gives instances of “the juxtaposition of words, some belonging to one century and some to another,” and of passages where the language is remote “from the English which is spoken today.” He draws attention even to examples where the English is bad or feeble or ridiculous, and declares that he “cannot understand how they could pass these lamentable expressions.” He deplores also “unhappy attempts to reach down to a current mode of speech” which “result in rather dated colloquialisms.” In listing instances of archaisms, he says: “I really cannot let the expression ‘robbers’ cave’ pass without comment (Mark 11:17). I wonder where we are now—in the Arabian Nights, in Pantomime, or in a game of Cops and Robbers?” He notices cases of “dubious paraphrase,” unwarranted insertions, and “questionable” and even “absolutely wrong” translations.
A serious instance involving the translation of hilasmos (propitiation) is found in 1 John 2:2: “He is himself the remedy for the defilement of our sins.” As Mr. Phillips observes, “You cannot translate hilasmos as ‘a remedy’ … and this is no way to speak of Christ’s action. In any case, you cannot have a remedy for a defilement!” Mr. Phillips does not fail to draw attention to “some pieces of especially live and illuminating translation.” “After reading and re-reading this translation,” he says, “I am left in no doubt but that it is a magnificent and memorable accomplishment.”
Professor Gordon Rupp advises (The Listener, Mar. 16) that we should “not pitch the new Bible too sharply against the Authorized Version, for it is not intended to replace it.” He thinks that freshness is “important for Christian readers, for whom the Bible can become so familiar that it ceases either to challenge or to shock,” and suggests that the strength of the new version lies in “plain narrative and clear argument.” It is his opinion, however, that “we must still turn to the Authorized Version for the rolling sonorous passages in Ephesians and Corinthians, for the eighth chapter of Romans, and the second of Philippians.” “As for the Prologue to the Fourth Gospel,” he adds, “and the beginning of the Epistle to the Hebrews, which come together as Gospel and Epistle for Christmas Day—I fear that the reading of these from the New Version will spread alarm and despondency rather than peace and goodwill.”
Dame Rebecca West, writing in The Times Supplement on the Bible in English (Mar. 27), finds that “it is better to read the Pauline books in the Authorized Version, which by the magnificence of its language proves that if our human habit of disputation burns up with fever it also irradiates us with glory, and though great men are men, and therefore part at least contemptible, they are also great. This new edition has not this revelatory power, and indeed it would be a miracle if that were attained twice in the span of a culture.” She complains that “it is often as if the translators were hostile to rhythm, like the misguided people who believe that when poetry is read aloud its metre should be disregarded.” There are, moreover, “a few phrases that are outside the pale,” which were “obviously used with an ingratiating intention, but surely the desire to please has taken a mistaken form. Many people call their houses ‘The Laurels’ or ‘Bideawee,’ but it would be useless to try to increase the enthusiasm for the monarchy by starting to call Windsor Castle by either of these names.”
This is but a minute selection from the great spate of appraisals which the new translation has called forth. Time alone will show whether it is to find a permanent place in the affections of the English-speaking peoples. Already it seems highly improbable that it will usurp the position of the Authorized Version—which, though also the production formally of a committee of scholars, was in fact mainly the fruit of the dedicated labors of one man of genius, William Tyndale. Not till God raises up another Tyndale is the Authorized Version likely to be supplanted. Yet Christian people can but welcome the universal interest, even excitement, surrounding this event, the extensive publicity it has received, and the phenomenal sales already achieved. Once again the Scriptures are in the hands of the crowds, and under God this could lead to a revival of true religion and a fresh reformation of the Church in our day. As J. B. Phillips says: “Striking and priceless truths, which have lain dormant for years in the deep-freeze of traditional beauty, spring to life with fresh challenge and quite alarming relevance to the men of the jet age. There is no need to argue about inspiration, for the Word of God is out of its jeweled scabbard and is as sharp, as powerful, and as discerning as ever.”
