Book Briefs: October 8, 1971

Old Wine In New Bottles

King James II Version of the Bible, by Jay P. Green (Associated Publishers and Authors), New American Standard Bible, edited by the Lockman Foundation (Creation House and Gospel Light), The Modern Language Bible, edited by Gerrit Verkuyl (Zondervan). The Living Bible, by Kenneth N. Taylor (Tyndale and Doubleday), all available in variously priced bindings, are reviewed by Robert G. Bratcher, who is translator of Good News for Modern Man and is working on the Old Testament counterpart for the American Bible Society.

The spate of revisions and new translations of the Bible continues to flow unabated. Last year two completely new translations were published: the New English Bible, by British Protestant scholars, and the New American Bible, by American Roman Catholic scholars. A new translation to be known as A Contemporary Translation (ACT) is being sponsored by the New York Bible Society; the Gospel of John appeared last year. And the American Bible Society hopes to publish the complete Today’s English Version in 1975; the New Testament (known as Good News for Modern Man) appeared in 1966 and the Psalms in 1970.

Why are these new Bibles published? Obviously because, in the opinion of those who prepare them, the new versions will meet a particular need not met by any other existing version.

The King James II Version has nothing to do with the son of Charles I who in his reign (1685–88) tried to reestablish the primacy of the Roman Catholic Church in the British realm. It is, rather, the old King James (I) Bible reedited, on the grounds that the newer translations, such as the ERV of 1885, the ASV of 1901, the RSV of 1952, and the NEB of 1970, are faulty, slanted, and dangerous. “It is certain that God’s people do not want a new Bible!” translator Jay Green tells us in the preface. “They just want the old one in a form they can read and understand and trust.” Why can’t they trust the newer versions? Mainly because the translators not only updated the English language of the King James but also used different Greek and Hebrew texts.

“Having tilted the foundation in their theological direction, they then paraphrased, interpreted, deleted and added to God’s words without regard to the evidencial [sic] facts available in all the manuscripts, the versions, and the fathers of the first centuries.” Green goes on to give an even dozen examples of these alleged perversions, showing the “biases and unbeliefs” with which they are replete.

Then he lists twelve gains of King James II. He states that “a pre-study of textual criticism encompassing more than 1,000 hours convinced us the best text was that used by Tyndale and the KJV scholars.” Of course, William Tyndale (whose New Testament was published in 1526 and who died in 1536, after having translated some books of the Old Testament) and the translators of the KJV (published in 1611) did not use the same text, but that is of little importance. What matters is Green’s claim that the so-called Textus Receptus of the New Testament, similar to numerous but late Greek manuscripts, is superior to modern editions of the Greek text, which are based on much older and, in the view of the overwhelming majority of textual scholars, much better manuscripts and other witnesses to the text. (A reliable and simple discussion of textual matters is found in Dewey Beagle’s God’s Word Into English, Harper & Row, 1960). The other three translations follow the majority position.

As for translation principles, “This Bible is translated word-for-word in an attempt to give a literal rendition of each and every one of God’s words.… None of God’s words were left out.” Any words that are added for sense are in italics.

What does it all add up to? Not quite a bowdlerized King James, but essentially one in which archaic and obsolescent words and expressions have been replaced by current English. This is harmless enough; few would object to it. But KJII goes beyond this; in places it changes not just the wording but also the meaning of the text. In Isaiah 7:14, where KJV faithfully translates “(a virgin) … shall call his name Immanuel,” KJII has “they shall call His name Immanuel,” in order to make it correspond exactly with the Greek text cited in Matthew 1:23.

The claim that “none of God’s words were left out” is slightly exaggerated. In First Kings 16:11, KJV literally represents the rather crude Hebrew expression for “man”; KJII changes this to “anyone,” whereas the correct translation is “any man/male.” In First Samuel 6:19, KJV has 50,070 men (the Hebrew is literally “70 men, 50,000 men”); KJII has changed this to “seventy men—fifty chief men.” In Matthew 16:19 and 18:18, KJV’s “shall be bound in heaven … shall be loosed in heaven” is changed to “shall occur, having been already bound in Heaven … shall occur, having been already loosed in Heaven.” Is this a “tilt”? KJII has difficulty with the two animals in Matthew 21:1–7. The quotation from Zechariah 9:9 is discreetly changed from “upon an ass, and a colt” to “on an ass, even a colt,” and in verse 7 KJV’s “brought the ass and the colt” becomes “brought the ass, even the colt”; but then KJII continues, “And they put their coats on them.”

An example of the KJII translator’s reasoning on textual matters is this: In Matthew 5:22 modern translations do not include the scribal addition “without cause” with the statement “every one who is angry with his brother”; this means, says Green, that they are saying “Jesus is in danger of the Judgment.”

Is the English language in KJII better than in the KJV? Not always. “Navel-band” in Luke 2:7, 12 is no better than “swaddling clothes,” “shepherd men” in verse 15 is inferior to “shepherds,” and “keeping them afresh in her heart” is hardly an improvement over “pondered them in her heart.” In Luke 16:5, 7 “a hundred baths of oil … a hundred homers of wheat” is less intelligible than the “measures” of the KJV.

Many Bible readers prefer the King James Version to newer translations; we recommend that they continue to read, use, memorize, and distribute the original, not this substitute.

The New American Standard Bible considers the ASV of 1901 “in a very real sense the standard for many translations,” the most faithful and reliable of all translations, “the Rock of Biblical Honesty.” Disturbed by the awareness “that the American Standard Version … was fast disappearing from the scene,” the Lockman Foundation of California “felt an urgency to rescue this noble achievement from an inevitable demise.” The revision was entrusted to an editorial board “composed of linguists, Greek and Hebrew scholars and pastors,” not further identified. Their principles, as given in the preface, include some rather curious statements about Greek tenses. The reader will do well to study the “Explanation of General Format” in order to understand the various devices and sigla used in the text. As a sample here is Luke 7:22:

And He answered and said to them, “Go and report to John what you have seen and heard: the BLIND RECEIVE SIGHT, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, the POOR HAVE THE GOSPEL PREACHED TO THEM.”

Not unlike the ASV, NASB is so painfully literal in places as to read more like a “pony” than a translation. John 1:43 is an example: “The next day He purposed to go forth into Galilee, and He *found Philip, and Jesus *said to him, ‘Follow Me.’ ” The * in the text “represents historical presents in the Greek which have been translated with an English past tense in order to conform to modern usage.” The archaic pronouns thou, thee, and thy are changed to you and your, “except in the language of prayer when addressing Deity.” But Thou is retained in Matthew 16:18 and Mark 8:29 (but not in the similar John 1:49; 6:69).

In places NASB changes the clear meaning of the ASV. In Second Samuel 24:1, ASV accurately translates the Hebrew: “And again the anger of Jehovah was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them, saying, Go, number Israel and Judah.” NASB has, “Now again the anger of the Lord burned against Israel and it incited David against them to say, ‘Go, number Israel and Judah.’ ” It appears obvious that this change is made because of the later account in First Chronicles 21:1, where it is Satan, not the Lord, who incites David to count the people. In Matthew 1:16 and Mark 1:10, where the Greek says that Jesus saw the heavens opening, NASB, by using lower-case he, makes John the Baptist see this; the marginal note in Matthew refers to John 1:32, where it is said that John saw the Spirit descending on Jesus. (This was originally done in the Amplified Bible, also sponsored by the Lockman Foundation.) Matthew 16:19 and 18:18 have been changed from “shall be bound … shall be loosed” to “shall have been bound … shall have been loosed.” The similar passage John 20:23 is changed to “their sins have been forgiven them … have been retained,” with a note in the margin explaining “I.e. have previously been forgiven” (and references to Matthew 16:19; 18:18).

On matters of text NASB is scrupulously exact. Kittel’s Biblia Hebraica and, in most instances, the twenty-third edition of the Nestle Greek New Testament (1957) have been followed. The book is well printed, the format is carefully done, and abundant notes on text and translation are given, together with references to other passages. Italics, as in the ASV, indicate that the original text has no verbal equivalent. This device sometimes serves other purposes, however; in John 18:37, ASV translates Jesus’ words, “Thou sayest that I am a king”; NASB has, “You say correctly that I am a king.”

A peculiar feature of this translation (not attributable to the ASV) in its treatment of the questions that in Greek have the negative mē, which calls for a negative answer. For example, instead of the KJV “Will ye also go away?” (John 6:67), NASB translates, “You do not want to go away also, do you?”

It is doubtful that the ASV merits this kind of revision. The NASB language is not really contemporary, the English is not idiomatic, and one wonders whether the revisers have reached their goal of making this Bible “understandable to the masses.”

The Modern Language Bible is a revision of the Berkeley Bible. The New Testament, translated by Dr. Gerrit Verkuyl, was originally published in 1945, and the Old Testament in 1959. Both have been extensively revised by “several experienced Bible scholars” appointed by the publishers. The names of the Old Testament translators are given (p. vii), and Dr. Verkuyl is identified as editor-in-chief.

The quality of this translation is certainly superior to that of KJII and NASB, as a glance at the sample passage accompanying this review will show. The most distinctive feature of MLB are the footnotes, which are a mélange of observations and information of all kinds, historical, textual, philological, expository, homiletic, moralistic, pietistic, and even some simply fanciful. In First Samuel 16:23, for example, the reader is advised to read Browning’s “Saul” and to see Rembrandt’s “David Before Saul” at the Maurits Art Gallery in The Hague. Psalm 45 is said to be a summary of the Song of Songs. There are other references to Browning (Ps. 31:15), as well as to Napoleon (Ps. 33:16), Immanuel Kant (Ps. 78:57; 94:2), and others. Many passages are either translated or identified in footnotes as speaking directly and explicitly of Christ, beginning with Genesis 3:15 (also Num. 24:17; 2 Sam. 23:2–7; Ps. 2:7; 16:10; 22:1; 34:7; 45:7; 72:13; 110:1). But moralistic notes predominate, and no doubt many readers will profit from reading them.

Surprisingly, however, there are very few, if any, textual notes in the Old Testament (at least in the portions I examined), as contrasted with the New. This may be justified on the grounds that this translation is meant for the average reader, not the scholar. But failure to provide some textual notes conceals the many agonizing problems a translator faces when the Masoretic Text is clearly deficient. An exception is found in First Samuel 13:1, where the Hebrew text is given in a footnote.

Occasionally there are harmonizations of the text, which should have been confined to footnotes. The Hebrew text of Second Samuel 21:19 says that Elhanan killed the giant Goliath; MLB translates “Elhanan … overcame Beth-Hal-Lahmi with Goliath of Gath,” and a footnote conjectures that the phrase originally read “Lahmi, the brother of Goliath” (as stated in First Chronicles 20:5). In Second Samuel 24:1 the text clearly says that God incited David to number Israel; MLB translates, “But the Lord’s anger was again inflamed against Israel, and one aroused David against them, saying …” The footnote refers to First Chronicles 21:1, where it is Satan who incites David.

An interesting example of harmonization is seen in the translation of the hours of the day in the Gospel of John. Dr. Verkuyl’s translation of 1945 correctly translated these by “about four in the afternoon” (1:39), “about noon” (4:6), “at one o’clock” (4:52), and “about twelve o’clock” (19:14). But MLB now has “about ten in the morning,” “about six in the evening,” “at seven o’clock,” and “about six in the morning” without footnotes explaining that John and the Synoptists used different ways of telling time. In Matthew 23:35 a murdered Zechariah is said to be the son of Barachiah, whereas in Second Chronicles 24:20–22, to which MLB refers, he is said to have been the son of Jehoiada. A footnote says that “doubtless Jehoiada was Zechariah’s grandfather, whereas Barachiah was his father,” but without explanation. At the Second Chronicles reference, MLB says that the murdered Zechariah is not to be confused with the son of Berechiah of Zechariah 1:1. (Disregarding such advice, the Harper Study Bible—the RSV annotated by Harold Lindsell and now, like MLB, published by Zondervan—does equate the Zechariahs of Matthew 23:35 and Zechariah 1:1.) In Matthew 27:9 the saying of Zechariah is attributed to Jeremiah; the text is translated faithfully, but the note says that “doubtless ‘Zechariah’ in vs. 9 is due to a copyist’s error.” This is possible, of course, but in the complete absence of any textual evidence to support it, one doubts the validity of “doubtless.” Indeed, the Harper Study Bible offers an explanation that sees no copyist’s error at all!

It seems the purpose of such handling of the text is to deal with apparent discrepancies. But this is certainly not the translator’s task; it is the annotator’s. The translator must render the text as it is, and not try to edit and correct it. Many of the textual problems we have first arose when ancient scribes could not resist “improving” the text as they laboriously copied it. One regrets that these things are still done.

MLB is gratifyingly lacking in any covert or overt attacks on other translations. All the publishers say is that “while some modern translations of the Scriptures tend to be paraphrases, this version of the Bible aims to achieve plain, up-to-date expression which reflects as directly as possible the meaning of the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.” This is fair enough, notwithstanding the pejorative sense given the word “paraphrase.”

2 Corinthians 10:13–16 In Five Versions

KJV

13 But we will not boast of things without our measure, but according to the measure of the rule which God hath distributed to us, a measure to reach even unto you. 14 For we stretch not ourselves beyond our measure, as though we reached not unto you; for we are come as far as to you also in preaching the gospel of Christ: 15 not boasting of things without our measure, that is, of other men’s labors; but having hope, when your faith is increased, that we shall be enlarged by you according to our rule abundantly, 16 to preach the gospel in the regions beyond you, and not to boast in another man’s line of things made ready to our hand.

MLB

13 On our part, we shall not boast extravagantly but rather stay within the limit of the sphere which God has allotted to us, the boundary of which stretches far enough to include you. 14 We are not overextending ourselves, as if we did not reach as far as you, for we were the first to reach you with the good news about Christ. 15 Neither are we boasting unduly about fields in which others are serving but we entertain the hope that your growing faith may enlarge our sphere of influence so greatly with your help, 16 that we may evangelize those beyond you, rather than brag about labor that has been accomplished in another’s field.

KJII

13 Now we will not boast as to the things beyond measure, but according to the measure of the rule which the God of measure gave to us, one reaching even to you. 14 For we do not outstretch ourselves, as though we did not reach to you. For we have come to you before also in the gospel of Christ—15 not boasting in other men’s labors, as to the things beyond measure, but we had hope—your faith increasing among you—to be increased more and more, according to our rule to overflowing abundance. 16 And this so as to preach the gospel to that region beyond you, not to boast in another’s rule in regard to the things ready to hand.

LB

13 But we will not boast of authority we do not have. Our goal is to measure up to God’s plan for us, and this plan includes our working there with you. 14 We are not going too far when we claim authority over you, for we were the first to come to you with the Good News concerning Christ. 15 It is not as though we were trying to claim credit for the work someone else has done among you. Instead, we hope that your faith will grow and that, still within the limits set for us, our work among you will be greatly enlarged. 16 After that, we will be able to preach the Good News to other cities that are far beyond you, where no one else is working; then there will be no question about being in someone else’s field.

NASB

13 But we will not boast beyond our measure, but within the measure of the sphere which God apportioned to us as a measure, to reach even as far as you. 14 For we are not overextending ourselves, as if we did not reach to you, for we were the first to come even as far as you in the gospel of Christ; 15 not boasting beyond our measure, that is, in other men’s labors, but with the hope that as your faith grows, we shall be, within our sphere, enlarged even more by you, 16 so as to preach the gospel even to the regions beyond you, and not to boast in what has been accomplished in the sphere of another.

I came to the Living Bible tremendously impressed with the work of Kenneth Taylor. The foreword “At Last!” to the last published volume in the series, “Living History of Israel,” is an eloquent statement of his emotions as he finished his work: “For now, at last, I lay down my commission and my pen—the task is finished to the best of my ability after these fourteen arduous years.” His closing prayer is in line with other great prayers, such as Augustine’s at the end of his De Trinitate (which is a good prayer for translators also, and not only for theologians). What Taylor has done is to take the ASV of 1901 and make a clear, plain, and idiomatic paraphrase. As he defines it (in his introduction to “Living Prophets”), paraphrasing attempts to retain the accuracy while removing the wordiness. “It tries to clear away from the fertile fields of Scripture the rocks and brush and rubble of literal translation.…” In the preface to “Living Letters” he stated it more precisely: a paraphrase is “a restatement of an author’s thoughts, using different words than he did.” No one can object to his aim, which is that of all good translators. For those who make an invidious distinction between “translation” (good) and “paraphrase” (bad), Ronald Knox has the scornful retort, “The word ‘paraphrase’ is a bogey of the half-educated.… It is a paraphrase when you translate ‘Comment vous portez-vous’ by ‘How are you?’ ” A translator of the New Testament wants to make the writers say in good, natural English of the twentieth century exactly the same thing they said in Greek in the first century. But what no translator can do and no paraphrase should do is to make the writer say something quite different from what he said or, under the furthest stretch of the imagination, what he would say if he were writing in English today.

So my initial good will began to dissipate somewhat as I found numerous instances of clear and obvious mistranslations. Second Samuel 24:1 is softened so as not to contradict First Chronicles 21:1; Second Samuel 21:19 is made in the text to conform to First Chronicles 20:5, with the correct translation in the footnote; First Samuel 13:1 is also correctly translated in the footnote, but not in the text. In Second Samuel 15:7 the Hebrew has the difficult “forty years,” but Taylor follows the Lucianic Septuagint, Syriac, and Josephus and has “four years,” without any footnote.

These are serious matters for a translator, even if they are not of tremendous consequence for the readers. The translator’s first, second, and last duty is to be faithful to the meaning of the text, and he must resist all attempts to improve it or correct it in any way. A high view of Scripture demands that we treat it seriously and faithfully represent its meaning. In this way we honor the Lord of the Scriptures. In the LB rendering of Matthew 5:18, the plain meaning of “Till heaven and earth pass away” (ASV) is evaded, and the two temporal clauses are telescoped into the non-troublesome “until its purpose is achieved.” Sometimes words are added, with the footnote “implied,” and so the reader knows that this is the translator’s understanding of the text: “premature” in Hebrews 5:7, “as proof of Christ’s death” in 9:18, and “sometimes” in Job 24:22 are examples. A reader will judge for himself whether the added information is really implicit in the text.

In Job 27:23, “Everyone will cheer at his death, and boo him into eternity” is somewhat free, and the subject “Everyone” cannot be sustained; it is either “it” (the wind) or “he” (God). Mark 13:30 and Matthew 24:34 do not represent the plain and obvious meaning of the text (both of the Greek and of the ASV). Mark 13:30 says (ASV), “This generation shall not pass away, until all these things be accomplished,” and Matthew 24:34 says identically the same thing. But Taylor has, “Yes, these are the events that will signal the end of the age” in Mark, and “Then at last this age will come to its close” in Matthew. Why should this be done? Could it be that the translator felt the text would cause difficulty to the reader and so must not be allowed to say what it clearly says?

In his preface to “Living Letters” Taylor deals with the question of what is a translator to do when the original text is not clear. He says that in this case “the theology of the translator is his guide, along with his sense of logic, unless perchance the translation is allowed to stand without any clear meaning at all. The theological lodestar in this book has been a rigid evangelical position.” Certainly when the original text is not clear, the translator cannot avoid letting other considerations affect his choices. But when the original is very clear, what right does the translator have to change its meaning? I regret having to be this negative in tone, especially when LB has so many excellent qualities.

In summary, I think that the King James II and the New American Standard are not sufficiently worthy improvements over their predecessors; in some places the new translation is a step backward. However, used with care, the Modern Language Bible and the Living Bible offer worthwhile additions to the great variety of translations of the Word of God that are available to the English reader.

Describing Dialectic

Great Dialecticians in Modern Christian Thought, by Ernest B. Koenker (Augsburg, 1971, 159 pp., $5.95), is reviewed by Bert B. Dominy, assistant professor of theology, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Fort Worth, Texas.

This author describes a dialectical thinker as one “for whom tensions and contradictions have been more fundamental than unity,” one who has refused “to reduce the mighty opposites which present themselves to human experience into a rational system.” However, dialectic is not adequately explained by contradiction alone, for a true dialectician seeks to overcome contradiction in reality or thinking by transcending the incongruities of life to arrive at a complex whole. Accordingly, much of the history of modern thought can be written as a description of dialectical thinking. What Koenker does is illustrate this history by describing the dialectical elements in the thought of ten representative theologians and philosophers since the Reformation. The ten are Luther, Boehme, Pascal, Hegel, Kierkegaard, Barth, Tillich, Heidegger, Bultmann, and Elert.

Koenker’s work is almost wholly descriptive. He presents the thought of his “dialecticians” with fairness and succeeds in clearly explaining the thrust of each man’s thought in a brief space. There is no attempt, however, at critical evaluation (except for a one-page criticism of Elert’s dialectic law and grace). Koenker affirms rather than argues his own perspective. He leaves no doubt of his belief in the adequacy of the dialectic method. For example, he insists that “where serious thinking is engaged, there dialectic, the examination of contradictions, is inescapable. The opponents of dialectic in this sense … are simply opposed to any genuine quest for truth, for even divine truth must be expressed in the earthen vessels of human words.”

The dialectical method has profound implications for theology. That Koenker is aware of these implications is evident in several passing remarks. With reference to Tertullian as an opponent of dialectic, he speaks of “a different theory of truth, the view that one must know absolutely if he can know at all, in contrast to the view that sees knowledge as always relative to circumstances.” Further, he writes that the “dialecticians have always dissolved fixations of doctrines: with their contradictions and insistence on dialogue they have introduced movement into thought, a movement which spurns provisional resting places and launches forth into the uncertainties of an endless quest.” Koenker’s failure to discuss directly the broader implications of dialectic for theology is disappointing and reduces the contribution of the book.

Yet a book should be judged not merely by what a reviewer thinks the author should have done but by the significance of what it actually accomplishes. Koenker has given us a readable introduction to dialectical thinking by surveying some of its notable practitioners. The book is a good starting place for those unfamiliar with dialectic and the thought of such men as Boehme, Hegel, Heidegger, and Kierkegaard. For help in dealing with the more substantive issues raised by the dialectical method, one will have to look elsewhere.

A Book With No Audience

Humanistic Psychology: A Christian Interpretation, by John A. Hammes (Grune and Stratton, 1971, 203 pp., $7.95), is reviewed by Glenn R. Wittig, reference librarian, Speer Library, Princeton Theological Seminary, Princeton, New Jersey.

The primary purpose of this book, written by a professor of psychology at the University of Georgia, is “to present the compatibility of scientifically established psychological truth with the truths proposed by a Christian frame of reference.” The intended audience is college students with little or no background in philosophy or theology. Despite some distinctive features, the book does not fulfill the author’s intentions.

Hammes begins his work with a deplorable scissors-and-paste presentation of eight views regarding contemporary man. No effort is made to establish a framework for this investigation, to present an overview regarding possible perspectives of man, or to justify the validity of presenting only eight points of view. The chapter serves no discernable purpose for this book.

Should the reader nevertheless be determined enough to proceed further, he will find in the remaining portion of Part One—“Basic Principles”—a most incisive examination of the methodology of science. Hammes clearly exposes the limitations of relativism and operationism as methods of science, and he admirably advocates the usefulness of philosophy and “divine revelation” for explaining human nature. To this extent he has satisfied his primary purpose. These several chapters constitute a solid piece of work, a truly Christian philosophy of science, and deserve very careful reading.

But the rest of the book leaves much to be desired. In Parts Two and Three, Hammes covers the broad basics of psychology, such as human nature and personal adjustment, from a Teilhardian frame of reference in combination with a vague conception of Christianity. The Ten Commandments, it seems, are the sole standard for man’s behavior. Moral development is possible through education, but there is no apparent need of reference to Christ or Christianity.

In Part Four the work falters even more noticeably. While Hammes proposes to present a synthesis of man’s origin, purpose, and destiny, he does little more than quote in proof-text fashion a sequence of Scripture verses. Very little original text, and no synthesis, accompanies the biblical material.

It is doubtful that this work could serve as a textbook. It has no unifying concept. It is too elementary for most of today’s college students, would have little appeal to lay people, and is hardly suitable for a high-school curriculum. The chapters are embarrassingly brief, and the subheadings fail to distinguish levels of discussion.

Tapestry Of Truth

Romans: Exposition of Chapters 3:20 to 4:25, by Martyn Lloyd-Jones (Zondervan, 1971, 250 pp., $5.95), is reviewed by Earl D. Radmacher, president, Western Conservative Baptist Theological Seminary, Portland, Oregon.

This is no average book. Nor will you read it indifferently. It is the kind of book that will grip your mind and heart as you soar with this great pastor-teacher in his superb exposition of the doctrines of atonement and justification as found at the heart of Romans—chapters 3:30–4:25. My life has been enriched by my encounter with these messages from Romans, first delivered by Dr. Lloyd-Jones at Westminster Chapel in London.

Several carefully interwoven skills are much in evidence in this book. First, what is said is exegetically sound. Throughout the book it is transparently clear that the author has given careful attention to time-honored principles of interpretation, such as the priority of the original languages, the progress of revelation, the unity of Scripture, and the law of the content. He practices what he preaches in such statements as, “Every statement in the Scriptures should always be taken in its context and in its setting.”

Second, Lloyd-Jones is theologically consistent in the results of his inductive studies. Though he is careful to give attention to the meaning of individual words, he is also very much aware that often scholars have sought to decide vital issues according to an odd meaning or shade of meaning of a word. For example, in dealing with the translation of “expiation” as opposed to “propitiation” in Romans 3:25, he pointedly demonstrates that “it is very rarely indeed that the philologist settles any question.” One must get the total teaching of the Word of God, not just a possible meaning of a word.

Another strong point of this volume, one that is often missing in commentaries, is the practical application of the truth to contemporary ideas and developments. For example, in speaking about our constant tendency to do violence to the doctrine of the Trinity, the author observes, with reference to Roman 4:23–25:

I sometimes have a fear that there is much today that passes as faith which never mentions the name of God at all. I am thinking of those who only speak about the Lord Jesus Christ. They always pray to the Lord Jesus Christ, and always speak about Him, and never refer to God the Father.

There tends to be a subtle development of a unitarianism of the Son or of the Spirit.

Finally, I appreciate very much the evangelistic thrust of the book. Lloyd-Jones keeps both content and methodology of evangelism constantly before his readers. In summary, it has been a long time since I have read a book I enjoyed so thoroughly as this. I anxiously await the rest of the series!

Mumbling Morality

Science and Human Values in the Twenty-first Century, edited by Ralph Wendell Burhoe (Westminster, 1971, 203 pp., $6.95), is reviewed by Tommy W. Rogers, associate professor of sociology, Georgia Southern College, Statesboro, Georgia.

Despite the potentially intriguing nature of the general topic, this volume is more promise than accomplishment. It contains papers by five scholars, written at the invitation of Pittsburgh Seminary on the occasion of its 175th anniversary. But it offers remarkably little general insight for the person seeking an understandable treatment of questions related to science and human values. Perhaps some readers accustomed to “communication” in seminars with minds of adequate conceptual ability would find meaning in such assertions as, “There is among us a growing sense of the cosmic relationship and involvement, and therefore of the cosmic consequentiality of everything we do and are.” Most people probably will not, particularly since the process is carried out ad infinitum.

There is very little appeal in this volume’s repeated pages of complex analogies. For example: “Once a water molecule is enlisted in a crystal of ice it is immediately constrained by its interactions with its neighbors and relaxes back into its initial state whenever it acquires sufficient energy to depart from its ordered position”—this is used to illustrate the need for “new means of thawing out our increasingly frozen and unresponsive social order.” This particular presentation—and it is very typical—is followed by what is called “another analogue of peculiar relevance”: “Given an inverted population in which a large fraction of the atoms are in a common high energy state, this ensemble can be triggered to yield, autocatalytically, the coherent rapid release of that energy into the intense, narrowly directed beam of the laser.” To the author this suggests “an affluent, leisured, human population that can be stimulated into a coherent, rapid release of much of their latent energy into very specific channels. Consider Woodstock or the space program.” Before the reader can utter a cry for help, he is assured that such “analogies from science are not just intellectual play, for out of cooperative interactive processes new phenomena arise, and what we humans call emergence is born.” This is representative of practically every page of the entire volume, and probably signifies a near total lack of general appeal.

There is mumbling about “integrating theology into the scientific myth or symbol system.” One writer proclaims that the “shortest path from A to C is the hypotenuse of the triangle, but often ‘morality’ says that we shall not go from A to C by this route but that we shall take the longer route ABC,” i.e., “keep off the grass.” One gets the feeling that some of it (e.g., “We now see that wholes are not only derivative, determined by their parts, but that the character and functions of the parts depend upon the wholes”) contains truths that Joe down at the barber shop would likely recognize in translation as things he himself had agreed with all along. Perhaps philosophers sometimes find that dense, complex language has the value of disguising the simplicity of the ideas being expounded.

Serious scholars have expressed doubts about the wisdom of permitting science and technology to continue their unabated progress. University of Maryland physicist Johannes M. Burger proposed a fifty-year moratorium on experiments that might lead to man’s duplication of himself. While some of these grave matters are touched upon in Science and Human Values in the Twenty-first Century, it is mostly by way of the incidental remark rather than through insight-lending analysis.

Newly Published

Turned On to Jesus, by Arthur Blessitt (Hawthorn, 1971, 242 pp., $5.95), The Jesus Kids, by Roger Palms (Judson, 1971, 96 pp., paperback, $1.95), Jesus People, by Duane Pederson (Compass, 1971, 128 pp., paperback, $1.25), and The Jesus Movement in America, by Edward E. Plowman (David C. Cook, 1971, 128 pp., paperback, $.95). The so-called Jesus movement is sweeping across the land, and these four books offer insight from a variety of vistas. Blessitt and Pederson tell of their own personal involvement as leaders, Palms probes attitudes and beliefs through extensive quoting of persons in the movement, and Plowman traces the movement’s beginnings and tracks its extent—from the street scene to the Catholic Pentecostal phenomenon.

I Married You, by Walter Trobisch (Harper & Row, 135 pp., $4.95; paperback, $1.95). A beautiful, moving story of the author’s experiences while lecturing on sex and marriage in an African city. Marriage problems of both Trobisch and his listeners are solved by applying concepts from the lectures.

Listen to the Green, by Luci Shaw (Harold Shaw, 93 pp., no price given), and Six Days, selected by H. Houtman (Wedge, 142 pp., $2.50). Luci Shaw’s slim volume and the anthology of Canadian verse are evidence that Christian poets can indeed keep pace with their secular counterparts.

The Church Music Handbook, by Lynn W. Thayer (Zondervan, 190 pp., $5.95). Rightly states that the heart of any church’s music program is the adult choir, and gives elaborate suggestions on how to better it. Unfortunately, ability to sing is not one of the requirements the author emphasizes. But overall, this could be a helpful handbook.

I Have Met Him: God Exists, by André Frossard (Herder and Herder, 125 pp., $4.95). The compelling, stimulating story of a young atheist’s conversion to the more mystical quarter of Christianity.

Growing Up With Sex, by Richard F. Hettlinger (Seabury, 162 pp., paperback, $2.25). Hettlinger explains male and female sexuality to teen-agers without talking down to them. Though not specifically Christian, his approach to problems of restraint, love, and early marriage is unusually realistic, tempering permissiveness with caution.

C. S. Lewis: Speaker and Teacher, edited by Carolyn Keefe (Zondervan, 144 pp., $3.95). An informative book for those who want to know more about Lewis as instructor or professor. The chapter “To the Martlets” by Walter Hooper is especially interesting.

New Gods in America, by Peter Rowley (McKay, 1971, 208 pp., $5.95), and The Complete Art of Witchcraft, by Sybil Leek (World, 1971, 205 pp., $6.95). Interest in the occult and Eastern religion continues to rise, especially among the young, making it strategically important for Christians to know content and appeal. Rowley gives a score of cults, mostly Eastern-spawned, the once-over-lightly survey treatment based on personal visits and interviews. For those wanting amplification of the witchcraft section, Miss Leek—“the world’s leading witch”—provides a biased but informative inside account of what it’s like to be a witch.

The Era of the Spirit, by J. Rodman Williams (Logos, 1971, 119 pp., paperback, $1.95). An important contribution to the theology of the charismatic movement by a prominent Presbyterian theologian. He relates Reformed doctrines to neo-Pentecostalism, and examines the references to the Holy Spirit by Barth, Brunner, Tillich, and Bultmann.

The Church Is Alive, by Lambert T. Dolphin, Jr. (Good News, 1971, 96 pp., $2.95). A series of somewhat disjointed articles on the need for—and illustrations of—change in church forms and structures; redeemed by the epilogue, a deeply moving account of a visit to Christians in India.

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Volume 7: Sigma, edited by Gerhard Friedrich (Eerdmans, 1971, 1104, $25). English translation of a standard German work published in 1964. One more volume is completed in German and the final one is in progress. This volume has articles on eighty-nine words and word-groups that begin with s. The longest are on the Greek words for flesh, sign, wisdom, synagogues, salvation, and body.

Counter Culture and the Vision of God, by Robert L. Johnson (Augsburg, 168 pp., $4.50). Convinced that Christians need to understand the counterculture, this campus pastor from the University of North Carolina attempts to explain youth to older, more conservative Christians.

The Marriage Affair: The Family Counselor, edited by J. Allan Petersen (Tyndale, 420 pp., paperback, $2.95). An anthology of eighty short, easy-to-read articles on problems of sexuality, marriage, parenthood, divorce, and widowhood. The conservative, evangelical perspective is unnecessarily narrow on political and social issues, such as male-female roles.

Popcorn and Parable, by Roger Kahle and Robert E. A. Lee (Augsburg, 128 pp., paperback, $2.95). A convincing case for the use of contemporary films in church programs as discussion instigators.

The Ghost in My Life, by Susan B. Anthony (Chosen Books, 1971, 221 pp., $5.95). This book could make even the most hardened cynic idealistic. The second Susan B. Anthony, great-niece of the first, tells of the agonies and joys of her life and of the power of God.

The Future Shape of Preaching, by Thor Hall (Fortress, 140 pp., paperback, $3.50). The James Sprunt Lectures, 1970, given at Union Theological Seminary, consider in depth the role of homiletics today.

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