Eutychus and His Kin: April 24, 1961

IMAGES

Did you ever feel on the back of your neck the fixed gaze of a store-window model? I never did either, until I listened to Jean Shepard late one night during a hypnotic turnpike drive. Jean Shepard is a radio tragedian who keeps asking religious questions under a thin disguise of banter, nostalgia, and zany boisterousness. “I mean, what’s bugging us? What’s really bugging us? All of us?” he asks, and waits for an answer. Casual shock is one of his specialties, and this program meandered backwards to the point with the planned indirection of a circus clown about to sit on a tack.

Mr. Shepard, it seems, had read about department store dummies in The New York Times. Did you know that there are fashions in these models as well as on them? Each metropolitan store has its type, and the sophisticated restraint common to all Manhattan models contrasts with the exuberance of models in other cities. What is more, these ageless plastic figures go out of date after a few years. It won’t do to dress a 1948 model in 1961 clothing. The fit may be perfect, but the face still wears wide lapels.

Since window models are patterned on real people, presumably people go out of date too. What is your type? Late Renaissance? Mid-Victorian?

But the punch line was still to come. What do they do with out-dated figures? The signature music heralding midnight had begun when Mr. Shepard gave the answer from the Times. They sell them to the military for use in target practice. The show came to a raucous conclusion as Mr. Shephard shouted firing orders for the execution of the images.

Our image-conscious society feels the impact of those bullets. We may not worship images with pagan directness, but the cult is real. We make images in our likeness, and then make ourselves like them. Merchants find profit in taking our self-image seriously; Hollywood’s priestcraft knows the sensual rituals of its service. Yet our images are no better than the idols of old. They were lying vanities; our images are empty dummies.

When I reported this promising sermon illustration to Pastor Peterson he had the last word, as usual. The saddest case, he said, is the intellectual who finds noble tragedy in men’s shattered idols. Man’s quest for images begins in the ruins of God’s image, but it refuses Christ who is the image of the invisible God. “He is the true God, and eternal life. Little children, guard yourselves from idols” (1 John 5:20b, 21).

EUTYCHUS

THE NEW ENGLISH BIBLE

F. F. Bruce’s review of the New English Bible (Mar. 13 issue) was much appreciated. However, the realization that the basic aim of the translators was to present a “meaning-for-meaning” rather than a “word-for-word” rendering came as a considerable disappointment to me.… I confess some amazement that so little is being said today about the implications of these two views of translation. Ultimately they are profoundly antithetical and give rise to some important questions regarding the essential character and function of Scripture. Under the view that the words of the original autographs are, by the miracle of inspiration, the very words of God, every facet of their structure and relationships becomes a potential source of much enlightenment from God. The aim of translators who hold such a view must be to give to the readers in another language as nearly as possible the same opportunities to examine all these facets and turns of truth as those who read the originals have.

DONALD G. MOSTROM

The Cornerstone Baptist Church

Union City, N. J.

In my opinion, the NEB is the most gripping and forceful English translation available.… Those whose theology is based on the KJV, or who are otherwise hopelessly wedded to it, should just come out and say so, and not try to imagine that there is something sinister or heretical in each new translation that appears.… I thought Bruce’s appraisal was very objective and fair.

SIDNEY J. SPAIN

First Christian Church

Marshall, Tex.

The fact is that this New English New Testament is not a translation at all: it is nothing but a paraphrase—and a clearly satanic one at that.… Among other perversions in the New English New Testament is the monstrous, utterly inexcusable distortion of the Greek text of Matt. 16:18 (O, how deliriously happy Rome will be with this one!): The New English reading here is: “You are Peter, the Rock.…” What an outrageous interpolation! As every Greek scholar knows well, the words “the rock,” after “Peter,” do not appear in any Greek manuscript whatever.

MEYER MARCUS

Staten Island, N. Y.

Why is it that the NEB translators employ Shakespearean English in the prayers of the New Testament, but nowhere else? Is God especially pleased with the use of a special dialect in conversation with Himself?

JOSEPH L. GRABILL

Malone College

Canton, Ohio

A major objection to the NEB is its translation of Romans 3:30: “He will therefore justify both the circumcised in virtue of their faith, and the uncircumcised through their faith.” The Greek does not say “in virtue of their faith”; and surely that is not what the Apostle Paul meant, for he emphasizes throughout his writings that the basis of justification is not our faith but the atoning work of Jesus Christ. Faith is simply the instrument whereby we appropriate the justifying grace of God which has been secured by virtue of Christ’s active and passive obedience. Thus, Paul continually speaks of justification as through faith, by faith, or upon faith; but never on account of faith, because of faith, or (the NEB to the contrary notwithstanding) in virtue of faith. (Incidently the RSV is open to the same objection at Romans 3:30.)

ROBERT W. ECKARDT

Emmanuel Orthodox Presbyterian

Wilmington, Del.

I think it to be evident that no other source has a call to translate the Word of God but the Church of Jesus Christ.

It is therefore not now the time to present a new translation to the people because the Church of Christ is divided into many parts. The nice jar of the Church of the Reformation has been broken down into many pieces. Which piece is now to be held responsible for this mighty task? I should say: none and all! None, because one piece is not the whole jar; all, because all parts together form that one Church insofar as they wish to adhere to the Reformation standards. How can all those pieces together nominate a joint committee for Bible translation, when their theological convictions differ even on important doctrines? In such translations man will always taste the sediment of this theological discord.

… Translation always implies interpretation.… I really cannot see the urgency of a new version; not the least in this ecclesiastical chaos in which we live!… One can translate a portion of the Scriptures from a philological point of view alone, but give not a true translation of what is really meant by the writer. I am aware of the difficulties which here arise, but wish only to point out the absolute incompetence for Bible translation at present due to the lack of spiritual life in the true sense of the word. The spirit that speaks from the newer versions is quite another from that of the versions of the “golden age” in spiritual life in the Christian Church.…

To what a confusion leads the use of different versions under the Christians. The Lord has said from Israel: “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge” (Hos. 4:6). Is that going to be repeated in the Christian Church today? Let us stay where we are and use the old versions. Let us hope that this will be a means for a united Christendom.

M. KUIPER

Vanderbijlpark, South Africa

THE NEW ISRAEL

When Dr. Aston argues (Mar. 13 issue) that the Servant passages refer to “Jesus Christ, and [him] … alone,” this reader wishes that he had tried to take into account Romans 9:6–8 and Romans 11, especially verse 5. No doubt the Servant passages refer to Christ principally, but yet as the head of his mystical body, the elect—and thus not to Christ “alone” in a nakedly individualistic sense. The true Israel, the mystical new Israel, also is the Servant, under Christ who is its head.…

ROY W. BATTENHOUSE

Indiana University

Bloomington, Ind.

THE ONLY CENSORSHIP

I am writing to correct a misimpression in your item “Eyeing Hollywood” (Feb. 27 issue). Referring to Mr. George Heimrich, Director of our West Coast Office, you say “some interpreted his remarks as suggestive of boycott or censorship, and criticism was heaped upon him even by members of the Commission. Dr. S. Franklin Mack, Executive Director of the NCC’s Broadcasting and Film Commission, dissociated himself from Heimrich’s position.”

I did not dissociate myself from his criticism of motion picture excesses. I have stated repeatedly that the only censorship which the National Council of Churches can espouse is the censorship exercised by the individual in his rejection and responsible choice of viewing fare.

As a constructive move, our Board of Managers voted to approve the selection of a certain number of films each year for church support at the box office.…

S. FRANKLIN MACK

Executive Director

Broadcasting and Film Commission

National Council of Churches

New York, N. Y.

KNOX AND JUSTIFICATION

Professor W. Stanford Reid states that in a book of mine on John Knox, The Thundering Scot, I “never once mention” justification by faith (Book Reviews, Jan. 30 issue). This is not true. It is mentioned on page 52 of the American edition and on page 43 of the British edition. Moreover, neither edition was published in 1959 as Professor Reid states; one was published in 1957 and the other in 1958. Finally, I am no longer of Bryn Mawr but of the University of Southern California. That all the Professor of History at McGill can find to say about my book consists of three separate factual errors does not diminish my suspicion that he is not very familiar with my writings.

GEDDES MACGREGOR

Dean

Graduate School of Religion Dean

University of Southern California

Los Angeles, Calif.

I would humbly confess to having (a) made a mistake by one year on the date of publication of the American edition of his book, a mistake which was perhaps understandable seeing that the Westminster Press did not place any date of publication on the title page, and (b) failed to discover that last year he left Bryn Mawr and went to the University of Southern California as Dean of the Graduate School of Religion. These are, however, but very minor points which do not affect my basic criticism of his book. In his letter he objects that I misrepresented him by stating that he had never mentioned the doctrine of justification by faith. In this he was formally right, but in reality and in truth I think my position is correct. The only mention of justification which he himself can point out … reads as follows: “… From another of his associates at St. Andrews, Henry Balnaves, Knox even received a treatise on the Lutheran doctrine of justification that Balnaves had composed in prison at Rouen, which Knox’s galley was then visiting. Knox not only read the treatise but wrote a brief commentary on it.”

The point of my comment was that in John Knox’s thinking, as shown by his writings, his preaching and all testimonies concerning him, the doctrine of justification by faith alone held a central position. It dominated his life and my feeling is that without an appreciation of this fact one does not understand Knox. To stress his political views as though they were of greater importance than his belief in Christ as his Saviour seems to me to misrepresent Knox and to place a wrong interpretation on both the man and his work.

Finally I do not see what this has to do with my familiarity with Dr. MacGregor’s writings.

W. STANFORD REID

McGill University

Montreal, Que.

CREDIT TO WHOM DUE

In compiling the statistics for articles in the missionary issue of CHRISTIANITY TODAY (Aug. 1 issue), I neglected to give due credit to the Missionary Research Library.

While not holding the library or its capable director, Dr. Frank W. Price, responsible in any way for the figures, I would like to express my appreciation for the kind of co-operation we received at the hands of this excellent research institution in New York City.

S. E. WIRT

Billy Graham Evangelistic Association

Minneapolis, Minn.

ESSENTIAL ELEMENT

I read with great interest the excellent article in “A Layman and His Faith” (Feb. 27 issue). In my judgment this is the finest short article I have read on the subject of revival.… It is a real uplift to see others writing and promoting the most essential element in Christianity … genuine revival. This is without doubt the answer to present-day modernism.

HENRY C. JAMES

Manager

Asbury Seminary Bookstore

Wilmore, Ky.

Have something to add about this? See something we missed? Share your feedback here.