SUPPLEMENT 24
THE REVISED STANDARD BIBLE VERSION
(Arts. 72, 148)

ESTEEMED BRETHREN:

The synod of 1966 appointed a committee to review the Revised Standard Version of the Bible. The mandate for this committee reads as follows: "Synod appoint a committee to prepare and present to the RSV committee its recommendations and suggestions regarding improvements, corrections, changes and modifications of the existing text of the RSV." The grounds for this decision were:

"a. Our interest in this venture is demanded because we are part of a broad Christian community which makes extensive use of the RSV.

"b. This procedure has been pursued by other denominations with a measure of success.

"c. The next major revision of the RSV is being contemplated for 1970, and therefore this matter has immediate urgency" (Acts, 1966, p. 57).

A second part was then added to this mandate: "Synod instruct its committee on correction of the Revised Standard Version to advise synod, after the committee has completed making recommendations to the Revision committee of the RSV whether or not reconsideration of the decision of 1954 is desirable." The grounds for this decision were:

"a. The committee has already been instructed to make a thorough examination of the Revised Standard Version.

 b. Some changes have been made in the text of the Revised Standard Version since 1954" (Acts, 1966, p. 58).

An initial progress report was submitted to the synod of 1968 (Acts, 1968, p. 199). The following is our completed report. Part I is a summary of recommendations presented to the Standard Bible Committee (i.e. the Revision Committee of the RSV), and Part II presents an evaluation of the decision of 1954.

I. RECOMMENDATIONS PRESENTED TO THE STANDARD BIBLE COMMITTEE
The first recommendations were submitted to the Standard Bible Committee in 1968. Some twenty-one recommendations were made concerning passages in the Old Testament and fourteen in the New Testament. Additional recommendations will be submitted this year, and a copy of these will be made available to synod by means of a supplementary report. The following is an explanatory summary of the first recommendations:

A. Old Testament
The list of texts from the Old Testament is divided into two main categories: Text and Translation. Parentheses following verse designations indicate the verse-number in the Hebrew Bible.

1. Text
The recommendations under this heading urge the RSV translators to reconsider the textual evidence for the readings on which they have based their translations. Items "a" thru "k" concern corrections (usually indicated by Cn. in RSV footnotes) where we question whether the RSV has sufficient warrant for following "the best judgment of competent scholars as to the most probable reconstruction of the original text" (RSV Preface). In these instances good sense can be made of the existing text. Items "l" and "m" indicate undue confidence in the readings found in ancient versions.

a. Genesis 9:26. The RSV translation, "Blessed by the Lord my God be Shem," requires an alteration of the vowels of the Hebrew. We have recommended that they accept the reading of the Hebrew text and translate it as they have done in the footnote.

b. Deuteronomy 33:7. The RSV has corrected the text by changing the suffix and the mood of the verb. In the absence of any support in the Hebrew manuscripts or ancient versions, this change is unwarranted.

c. Job 31:33. The RSV has corrected the text, which reads "like men," to read "from men." Since the Hebrew makes good sense and the change has no textual support, the Hebrew meaning should be retained.

d. Psalm 2:11, 12. We do not endorse the corrections of the text that the RSV has adopted. "Rejoice" is changed to "his feet," placed after the verb "kiss," and "the Son" is removed by another change. Hebrew (as in ASV): "rejoice with trembling. (12) Kiss the Son" RSV:"with trembling (12) kiss his feet." This change is so drastic and completely lacking in textual support, that we recommended a return to the translation found in the ASV.

e. Psalm 52:9 (11) "I will wait for thy name" apparently seemed awkward to the RSV translators, so they changed the Hebrew verb slightly to get "I will proclaim thy name." But if God's name can stand for his presence, or for God himself, then this is an unwarranted liberty that the RSV has taken.

f. Psalm 80:15 (16). In the text the RSV has omitted an entire clause, relegating it to a footnote. This material should be restored to the text; there is no textual support for its omission and it does not violate the context.

g. Psalm 88:1 (2). Hebrew: "O Lord, God of my salvation." RSV: "O Lord, my God." The Hebrew makes good sense and is supported by the ancient versions, and hence the RSV footnote should be in the text.

h. Psalm 91:9. The RSV has changed a suffix ("my refuge" has become "your refuge") and rearranged the word order. The Hebrew is understandable without being corrected and there is no textual evidence that would call it into question.

i. Psalm 97:10. This is another instance of unwarranted correction. The RSV's footnote belongs in the body of the text.

j. Psalm 106:7. Hebrew: "at the sea." RSV corrects this phrase to read "against the Most High," and thus avoids the repetition of "the sea" in the text. In the absence of textual support we advised putting the footnote reading back into the text.

k. Psalm 144:2. Hebrew: "My steadfast love." RSV: "My rock." This emendation of the Hebrew Text is based solely on contextual considerations and an appeal to Psalm 18:2. This is unwarranted and unnecessary, and it assumes an unlikely kind of copyist's error.

l. Deuteronomy 11:14, 15. In Hebrew the speaker is Moses who says, "I will give rain. . . . I will give grass. . . ." The RSV has followed the ancient Greek and Latin versions which avoid ascribing this to Moses. We suggested, however, that Moses can be so identified with the One whose word he speaks, that he can speak in this fashion. It is unnecessary to avoid this prophetic form by departing from the Hebrew.

m. Psalm 51:8 (10). The RSV has adopted a variation found in the Syriac version, "Fill me." The Hebrew and other ancient versions read, "Let me hear" or "Make me to hear." We saw no warrant for adopting this lone witness to an unnecessary departure from the broader textual tradition.

2. Translation
The recommendations in this category question the way in which the accepted Hebrew text is translated and recommend an improved rendering. Some of these passages involve the question of the unity of Scripture and the nature of messianic prophecy.

a. Genesis 9:20. The Hebrew allows two possible translations: "Noah began to till the soil" or "Noah was the first tiller of the soil" (RSV). Since the latter alternative contradicts the clear statement of 4:2 and the obvious implication of 5:29, we recommended a translation that follows the first possibility.

b. Genesis 12:3; 18:18; 28:14. These are some of the texts in which Abraham receives the promise that through him God's blessing will extend to all the families of the earth. Throughout these promises the verbs used alternate between two different forms: one that is clearly reflexive ("bless themselves"), and another, as in the passages listed above, where the passive is to be preferred ("be blessed"). The RSV has used "blessed themselves" throughout, but we recommended the passive where it is indicated. This avoids the apparent discrepancy between the Old Testament text and the New Testament quotations in Acts 3:25 and Galatians 3:8, which read "be blessed."

c. Genesis 22:17,18; 26:4; 28:14. The Hebrew noun "seed" is translated in the RSV as "descendants," whereas in the New Testament quotations the RSV has "offspring" in Galatians 3:16 and "posterity" in Acts 3:25. We recommended that a singular or collective noun be used in these Old Testament passages as in the New Testament quotations.

d. Psalm 45:6 (7). RSV has "your divine throne." We recommended "your throne, O god." This is grammatically the most probable meaning and it avoids the needless discrepancy between the Old Testament passage and the New Testament quotation (Hebrews 1:8).

e. Psalm 68: 4 (5). A verb that normally means "cast up a highway" has been translated "lift up a song," and a slight correction has changed "deserts" to "clouds." Assuming that immediate contextual considerations prompted this translation, we pointed to the broader context and Isaiah 40: 3, 4 to show that the RSV's rendering in the footnote is linguistically and textually preferable.

f. Psalm 73:1. By dividing the Hebrew form of the word Israel, the RSV has unnecessarily changed the translation to read "the upright." Judging this to be quite arbitrary, we recommended putting their footnote in the text: "God is good to Israel."

g. Psalm 109:8. The RSV translation "goods" is a possible but rare meaning of the Hebrew word. "Office" is the more common meaning. The Greek version of the Old Testament and the New Testament quotation (Acts 1:20, a reference to the election of an apostle to replace Judas) understood the word to mean "office." We recommended "office" for linguistic reasons and to avoid unnecessary confusion for the reader.

h. Psalm 110:1. According to Matthew 22:44 and parallels, David is referring directly to Christ when he says, "my lord," and when he speaks of "your enemies" and "your footstool." We have therefore urged the RSV translators to capitalize "I" (my Lord) and to use "thy" before "enemies" and "footstool." The reader of the Old Testament would then be alerted to this direct reference to the Messiah by the same method of translation that the RSV uses in the New Testament quotations of this verse.

B . New Testament
The recommendations concerning the New Testament can be divided into the following three categories:

1. Explanatory footnotes
The recommendations in this category are intended to improve existing RSV footnotes or to add explanatory notes where the present text has none. One recommendation pertains to footnotes which explain the value of the monetary unit mentioned in the text. For example, at Matthew 18:24 the RSV has the footnote, "This talent was probably worth about a thousand dollars," and at 18:28, "The denarius was worth about twenty cents." In the recently published Catholic Edition of the RSV New Testament, these monetary units are explained in terms of the yearly or daily wage of a laborer. For example, at Matthew 18:24 the footnote reads: "A talent was more than fifteen years' wages of a laborer," and at 18:28: "The denarius was a day's wage for a laborer." It was recommended that the footnotes found in the Catholic Edition of the RSV be substituted for the ones currently found in the RSV at the following places: Matthew 18:24, 28; 20:2; 25:15; Mark 6:37; 14:5; Luke 10:35; 15:8; 19:13; John 6:7; 12:5; and Revelation 6:6.

Other recommended improvements in the footnotes were of a slightly different character. Where the RSV has the word "convince" in the text of John 16:8, it was recommended that a footnote be added which would read, "Or convict." At I Corinthians 7:25, 28, 34, 36, 37, and 38, the RSV has rendered the Greek word for "virgin" or "virgins" by a variety of words, such as, "unmarried," "unmarried woman or girl," and "betrothed." It was recommended that the text remain the same but that appropriate footnotes be added (i.e. "Greek virgins" or "Greek virgin") to let the reader know that these are different translations of the same Greek word. The phrase, "which you have in Christ Jesus," in Philippians 2:25 may also be translated, "which was also in Christ Jesus." It was recommended that the latter be added by way of a footnote. Similarly, at I Thessalonians 4:4 the RSV has "how to take a wife for himself," but this may also be translated, "how to control his own body." The difficulty focuses on the correct interpretation of the Greek word which literally means "vessel." It was recommended that the RSV text remain the same but that two footnotes be added: following the word "wife," a footnote stating "Greek vessel," and following the phrase "for himself," a second footnote stating "Or how to control his own body."

2. Matters of textual criticism
The recommendations in this category involve additions to or deletions from the text based on a reassessment of some textual critical problems. It was recommended that the footnotes, which contain the following verses or parts of verses, be inserted into the text: Matthew 21:44; Luke 24:3, 6, 12, 36, 40, 51, and 52. In these instances the RSV has followed the shorter text. However, in the light of recent finds which have demanded a reconsideration of the value of other early manuscripts, the evidence supports the restoration of these verses to the text. For similar reasons it was recommended that in John 1:18 the footnote be placed in the text so that it will read, "the only God," and that in Luke 24:5-2 the phrase "within us" be dropped from the text.

3. Improvements in translation
The recommendations in this category suggest improvements in the translation of certain words or phrases. In John 5:18 the RSV reads, "(he) called God his Father, making himself equal with God." It was recommended that the emphasis of the Greek text be added by inserting "own" before "Father," making John's description indicate that Jesus "called God his own Father. . . ."

In Romans 5:5; 8:11; and Ephesians 1:14, the RSV uses the impersonal relative pronoun "which" in a construction that refers to the Holy Spirit as its antecedent. It was recommended that the personal relative pronoun "who" be substituted for "which" in these three cases.

In I Corinthians 7:26 the RSV reads, "I think that in view of the impending distress it is well for a person to remain as he is." A footnote by the word "impending" reads "Or present." The latter is the correct rendering here and it was recommended that the text read, "in view of the present distress." A difficult phrase in Galatians 4: and Colossians 2:8) 20 is translated by the RSV as the "elemental spirits of the universe" and a similar but shorter phrase in Galatians 4:9 as "elemental spirits." There is no explanatory footnote. It was recommended that the text in the first three instances be changed to "elemental powers of the world" with a footnote giving two alternatives: "elemental spirits of the universe" and "elementary ideas belonging to the world." It was recommended that the phrase in Galatians 4:9 be translated "elemental powers."

In Titus 3:5 "by the Holy Spirit" or "through the Holy Spirit" was recommended in place of the RSV's "in the Holy Spirit." At James 2:7 it was recommended that a more literal translation, such as "the honorable name which was pronounced over you," be substituted for the RSV's "that honorable name by which you were called."

C. Initial Response by the Standard Bible Committee
These recommendations were acted upon by the Standard Bible Committee meeting in June, 1968. Favorable action was taken on recommendations concerning the following passages:

Genesis 9:20; John 5:18; Deuteronomy 11:14, 15; I Corinthians 7:25, 28, 34, 36, 37, 38;
Job 31:33; I Corinthians 7:26; Psalm 51:8; I Thessalonians 4:4; Matthew 18:24 etc.; James 2:7

The committee was also favorable toward the recommendations concerning Matthew 21:44 and Luke 24, but they postponed action to await further decisions by the scholars editing the two major editions of the Greek New Testament. Since it is known that these new editions will contain the substance of these recommendations, there is no doubt that the Standard Bible Committee will adopt them. The other recommendations were referred for study to the Old Testament or New Testament Sections of the Standard Bible Committee. These sections will report to the next meeting of the committee to be held in 1970.

In a letter from the Standard Bible Committee informing us of this initial action, Dean Weigle, acting chairman of the committee, added the following comment: "I hope that this brief interim report will indicate to you that we are prepared to give to your recommendations the serious and sympathetic consideration which they deserve. Do not hesitate, in due time, to present to us whatever additional recommendations you will choose to make."

D. The Present Status of Such Recommendations
The RSV is being subjected to a continuing re-examination by the Standard Bible Committee. There is at present a ten-year-moratorium on changes in the printed text which runs until 1972. During this interval the committee is meeting biennially to study recommendations presented to it by its own members and by other interested persons or groups. So far only two denominations have officially given the RSV a serious review. The committee of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod presented its recommendations in 1959. The Christian Reformed Church is the second to do this.

The Standard Bible Committee acts upon the recommendations before it at its biennial meetings. Some of its procedures are as follows: All changes in translation from the text of the ASV have been and will be introduced only by a two/thirds majority vote. A negative vote by the committee removes an item from the agenda, but that same item may be restored to the agenda at a later date if someone requests it. The affirmative votes presently taken are tentative in nature. They express the conviction of the committee at this time, but later other factors will have to be considered before they become a part of the new revision.

So far none of our recommendations has received a negative vote. Out of thirty-five recommendations presented, twenty-three have been referred to sections for further study and action in 1970. Two will undoubtedly receive favorable action and ten have received it. This affirmative vote, however, does not mean that these changes will necessarily be found in the new edition. At such time the committee will have to consider the number of proposed changes, the matter of continuity, the requirements of ecumenicity, and many other matters that can best be called matters of prudence. The affirmative vote does mean that the committee is convinced that these readings are improvements over the present text of the RSV.

The moratorium on changes expires September 30, 1972, but it appears now that few, if any, changes will be made at that time. The process of re-examination will take longer, there is a desire for an extended period of usage before changes are introduced, and consequently the target date for changes is now somewhat later than 1972.

II. THE 1954 SYNODICAL DECISION CONCERNING THE RSV

Since an awareness of past decisions and their rationale is important for the present evaluation, it is essential first to present a brief history of these decisions concerning Bible versions before discussing the report of 1954.

A. A history of synodical decisions preceding 1954
The first request for synodical approval of an English version of the Bible was denied in 1916. The synod refused to make a decision because such a decision had never been taken previously in the history of the Dutch Reformed Churches, and more importantly because such a decision would require a very thorough piece of scientific work. A similar request appeared at the synod of 1922 and a committee was appointed which reported in 1926. This committee felt that the versions selected should be a reliable and a representative translation. It favored the ASV because it was based on a better critical text, exhibiting greater faithfulness to the original text, was not a modernized Bible, and was gaining in popularity. The synod of 1926 refused to adopt "either the Authorized Version or the American Standard as the official version of the Bible in our churches." It refused because in order to adopt an official version one must first be able to determine the original text, and this the synod asserted it could not very well do. It also did not wish to condemn the use of either version. It recommended the ASV because of its similarity to the text of the Dutch Bible, and because the synod believed that the KJV would eventually be replaced by the ASV (Acts, 1926, pp. 46-47).

In 1934 a consistory requested synod to reverse the decision of 1926 and adopt the KJV. This request was denied and the previous decision defended in a seven point reply. Two of these are listed because they may be instructive in our present situation: "It is also fair to bear in mind that in the case of important omissions the American Revised usually places the omitted words in the margin;" and "Upon the position of the consistory that a church assembly which recommends a particular Version of the Bible must furnish incontestable proof that its renderings are correct and its omissions justified, synod would not be able to recommend either one of the Versions" (Acts, 1934, p. 102).

Thus prior to 1954, the ASV was recommended to our churches but not adopted as the official version, and the KJV was allowed but no decision was ever taken concerning it. The report of 1926 considered the KJV to be textually inferior to the ASV. In these actions prior to 1954 one notices a refusal to require synod to furnish scientific proof for its decisions concerning versions, and a strong desire to use a version which was used also by other churches in the English speaking world.

B. A Summary of the report of 1954
In order "to advise synod. . . whether or not reconsideration of the decision of 1954 is desirable," it is necessary to examine the grounds given for that decision.

Officially only a single ground was given: viz., "that, on account of a number of passages, the Revised Standard Version shall not be used in our pulpits as a translation approved by synod in public worship" (Acts, 1954, p. 42). However, this ground undoubtedly reflects the argumentation of the report from which it was taken. The passages criticized in that report were selected because it was believed that these passages reflected an unacceptable theological bias on the part of the translators: a bias concerning the unity of Scripture, the nature of Messianic prophecy, and the deity of Christ. In addition, there was some slight concern with textual matters, but this plays no significant role in the report of 1954. There were also many comments concerning the literary style of the RSV, and the general conclusion was that tM RSV is inferior to the KJV. However, the KJV was severely criticized on other grounds, and the report recognized that the RSV showed some improvement over the ASV in matters of literary style. Although considerable space was given to this matter, the question of literary style played no role in the recommendation submitted by the committee.

The crux of the case made against the RSV by the report of 1954 is the translation of certain key passages. The report lists some twenty-five passages. Not all of these are crucial to the case against the RSV: several are mentioned to indicate preferable readings in the RSV, several concern relatively insignificant matters, and one concerns a matter already incorporated into the present edition of the RSV (viz., the omission of the footnote at Matthew 1:16 re Joseph as father of Jesus).

The key passages are the following:

1. Genesis 9:26: RSV "Blessed by the Lord my God be Shem," instead of "Blessed be the Lord the God of Shem." The report states that deep truths are contained in the latter translation but lost in the RSV.

2. Genesis 12:3; 18:18; 28:14. RSV "by you all the families of the earth will bless themselves." The report favors the translation found in the footnote, "in you all the families of the earth will be blessed." Although the Hebrew can be translated either as a reflexive or a passive, Galatians 3:8 interprets it as a passive. Hence the report sees this as a weakening of the unity of Scripture.

3. Genesis 22:18; 26:4. RSV "by your descendants all the nations of the earth shall bless themselves." The report raises again the question of reflexive or passive as above, but is concerned more with the change from a collective noun (seed) to a plural. In the light of Galatians 3:16, the report asserts that "the collective is better, for it is a unity that has its bond of unity in Christ."

4. Psalm 2:11. RSV "Serve the Lord with fear, with trembling kiss his feet." Although the footnote of the RSV asserts that the Hebrew is uncertain, the report points out that the RSV translates the same Hebrew word as "son" in Proverbs 31:2 and therefore should do the same here, especially in the light of Psalm 2:7.

5. Psalm 45:6. RSV "Your divine throne endures for ever and ever." The report objects to the use of "your" since the RSV uses "thy" as the address for God. It also believes that the translation as such is very questionable, and "does not do justice to the unity of Scripture, nor to the deity of Christ, nor to Messianic prophecy, nor to ordinary Hebrew syntax."

6. Psalm 109:8. RSV "may another seize his goods." Since the more common translation of the Hebrew word is "office," and since it is so quoted in Acts 1:20, the conclusion is that "the RSV does not do justice to the unity of Scripture, nor to Messianic prophecy here, nor to the ordinary usage of the Hebrew word concerned."

7. Psalm 110:1. RSV "The Lord says to my lord: Sit at my right hand, till I make your enemies your footstool." The report objects to the failure to capitalize "lord" and to the use of "your" as the possessive pronoun referring to "lord." Since in the quotation of this passage in the New Testament the RSV capitalizes "Lord" and uses "thy," the report asks whether the RSV is suggesting that the New Testament misinterprets Psalm 110 with respect to the deity of "my Lord." It asserts that "at any rate the RSV does not do justice to the unity of Scripture and to Messianic prophecy in Psalm 110:1."

8. Isaiah 7:14. RSV "Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." The footnote reads "Or virgin." The report asserts that as far as the evidence goes the Hebrew word designates an unmarried young woman. It would allow the translation "young woman" provided it were stated that she was unmarried. Consequently, the best brief translation is "virgin," and this is in line with the unity of Scripture. It is so translated in the Septuagint and quoted by Matthew.

9. Zechariah 6:12, 13. RSV "Behold, the man whose name is the Branch. . . . It is he who shall build the temple of the Lord and shall bear royal honor, and shall sit and rule upon his throne. And there shall be a priest by his throne, and peaceful understanding shall be between them both." The report favors the translation which identifies King and Priest and considers this a Messianic prophecy. It argues that since the same identification is found in Psalm 110 which receives a Messianic interpretation in the New Testament, the unity of Scripture favors a similar identification in Zechariah 6:12, 13.

10. Matthew 14:33; 16:16. The report objects to the use of "you" as an address to Jesus. It asks what this implies concerning his deity because the RSV uses "thou" as address to God.

C. An Evaluation of the report of 1954
The dominant issues in the passages listed above are the unity of Scripture, the nature of Messianic prophecy, and a possible slighting of the deity of Christ.

Since the report of 1954 does not stress this last point, perhaps a comment or two about it will be sufficient. It is clear from the RSV as a whole that it clearly affirms the deity of Christ. Its use of the pronoun "you" in the record of Jesus' earthly life is intended only to reflect an emphasis on the reality of the Incarnation and an avoidance of Docetism. In fact, as the report of 1954 recognized, the RSV has translated two passages as affirmations of the deity of Christ which were not so translated in the KJV: viz., Titus 2:13; II Peter 1:1. Actually the question raised by the report of 1954 in connection with certain key passages in the Old Testament (Psalm 45:6; 110:1) is not primarily a question about the deity of Christ. It is rather a question concerning the nature of Messianic prophecy and its fulfillment.

From the materials contained in our report to the Standard Bible Committee listed under LA. above, it is clear that our committee agrees with the translation preferred by the report of 1954 in items 1 thru 4, 6 and 7 listed under II.R above. The agreement on item 5 (Psalm 45:6) is partial and is more a matter of form than substance. Recognizing that Psalm 45, is an indirect Messianic Psalm, that it is addressed first of all to the king of Israel, and that persons other than God are addressed as 'elohim, our committee prefers the translation "your throne O god." Thus we agree with the RSV's use of "your," that the Psalm is addressed to the earthly king first of all, and that the New Testament application (Hebrews 1:8) contains a dimension that transcends the explicit statement of Psalm 45:6. This does not deny an implicit continuity and fulfillment, but neither does the translation found in the RSV. In addition, it should be added that the RSV contains alternative translations in a footnote.

We agree with the report of 1954 in the translation preferred in items 1 and 2, but would add that the alternative translation is contained in a footnote, and that although the use of the reflexive in item 2 introduces a verbal discrepancy with its citation in Galatians 3:8, this need not be interpreted as a material discrepancy. The matter of blessing one's self by another and being blessed can be interpreted as applying to the same act, and is thus not necessarily a weakening of the unity of Scripture. The committee prefers the passive reading but does not see in this the same issue that is stressed in the report of 1954.

A similar comment can be made concerning item 3. Although the use of a collective noun is preferred, it should be noted that in the interpretation of Galatians 3:16 one must handle the plurality inherent in the collective "seed" and show how and why it finds its unity in Christ. The use of the collective would clarify the formal point of Paul's argument, and therefore we prefer it, but the material side of the argument remains the same whether one uses a collective or a plural noun in Genesis 22:18; 26:4.

Psalm 2:11 (item 4) is not quoted in the New Testament, and thus is involved in the issue of Messianic prophecy only because of its relation to Psalm 2:7-9. We prefer the translation "Kiss the Son" which does give this verse messianic implications, but this matter must be debated in terms of Psalm 2 and therefore is not directly related to the question of the unity of Scripture and the fulfillment of prophecy.

We agree with the basic argument of the report of 1954 on items 6 and 7. There seems little reason for the RSV's use of "goods" in place of "office" in Psalm 109:8 (item 6). Although it is one of the meanings of the Hebrew word, word usage supports the traditional translation more strongly. The term "office" also clarifies more directly the background for the New Testament application of this passage in Acts 1:20. The debate over Psalm 110 (item 7) does not concern the meaning of Hebrew words but rather the question whether it is a psalm that refers only to the Messiah. The committee thinks it does, i.e., that it alone is directly a messianic psalm and that Matthew 22:44 points in this direction. The translation in the RSV places Psalm 110 in the category of the other messianic psalms having an immediate as well as a messianic reference.

Our committee submitted no recommendations to the Standard Bible Committee on Isaiah 7:14 or Zechariah 6:12, 13. The majority of our committee judged that in terms of linguistic evidence the intent of the word almah is not specifically to affirm virginity but simply to designate a young woman of marriageable age (without of course denying virginity). In addition there is the matter of the context. Some are of the opinion that this prophecy finds an initial fulfillment in the days of King Ahaz, and that the fulfillment in Jesus Christ in many ways transcends this initial fulfillment. Such a view strongly favors the translation found in the RSV. Others interpret this prophecy as being fulfilled only in the Messiah and would strongly prefer the translation "virgin." Even though the concept of virginity is found in the Hebrew word only by implication, it does have in this place the support of the Septuagint. For this reason the RSV places the word "virgin" in the footnote as an alternative translation. Scholars are divided on this issue, but in any case the RSV rendering is not a denial of Isaiah 7:14 as a prophecy finding its fulfillment in the virgin birth of Jesus Christ.

Although Zechariah 6:12, 13 has been interpreted traditionally as a prophecy depicting the unity of the kingly and priestly offices in the Messiah, our committee submitted no recommendation because the translation found in the RSV is both linguistically and contextually possible. Since the New Testament does not quote Zechariah 6:12, 13 as it does Psalm 110, there is no evidence by which one can argue conclusively for or against either the traditional interpretation or that found in the RSV.

In summary, although our committee agrees with the translation of certain key passages favored by the report of 1954, we do not believe that the translations found in the RSV necessarily imply an unacceptable view of the unity of Scripture or of the nature of messianic prophecy. It is true that the RSV does not allow the New Testament fulfillment to determine the translation of the Old Testament text. In several places where a verbatim equivalent is linguistically possible, the RSV chooses for a different translation in the Old Testament text. Some of the committee would prefer verbatim equivalents where possible for pastoral and other reasons, others feel less strongly about this matter.

In any case, the unity of Scripture involves more than such possible verbatim equivalents. Many prophecies, e.g., most of the messianic psalms and probably Isaiah 7:14, have an application in history prior to their fulfillment in the Messiah himself. Consequently, the fulfillment in Jesus Christ adds a dimension to the prophecy that was not always seen by those who had only the prophecy. Many New Testament quotations of Old Testament texts are simply not verbatim quotations. The relationship between fulfillment and prophecy is often based on points of correspondence rather than exact equivalence. There is mystery in prophecy, not everything is perfectly clear initially, and as a result there is astonishment when the prophecy is fulfilled. The New Testament event frequently clarifies and makes specific the Old Testament prophecy. To point this out in translation does not destroy the unity of Scripture nor cancel a biblical view of the fulfillment of prophecy.

D. An Additional Appraisal of the RSV

1. Literary Style
Appreciation of style is highly subjective, and it should be remembered that appreciation even for the stylistic qualities of the KJV was not immediate. Although the literary qualities of the RSV have been criticized, it is beyond dispute that the RSV uses more modem English than either the KJV or the ASV. It has eliminated, for example, the use of "thou" except in direct address to God or to Jesus when viewed as divine, all archaic verb endings, and some other archaic expressions. It is dignified, yet it is idiomatic and to a large extent contemporary. It is not a "modem speech" translation. Stylistically it is conservative for it consciously attempts to preserve the "flavor" of the Tyndale-King James-American Standard tradition. In fact, because of this at times the RSV retains traditional phrases that today border on the archaic (e.g., Matthew 11:29 "heavy laden"). Nonetheless, the general judgment must be that the RSV communicates in a meaningful way, and is very suitable for liturgical use as well as private study and devotion.

2. Text
There is little criticism of the text adopted for the translation of the New Testament. The RSV translators have used the best text presently established by textual criticism, and with a view to a future revision they are considering the adoption of certain variants made plausible by recent findings.

In their approach to the text of the Old Testament the RSV translators have indicated that their revision is based on the consonantal Hebrew and Aramaic text as fixed early in the christian era and revised by Jewish scholars of the sixth to the ninth centuries. They also accept "in the main" the vowel signs which were added by the Massoretes, but "where a more probable and convincing reading can be obtained by assuming different vowels, this has been done." It is further stated that "departures from the consonantal text of the best manuscripts have been made only where it seems clear that errors in copying had been made before the text was standardized." Most of these departures are corrections based on the ancient versions "which were made before the time of the Massoretic revision and therefore reflect earlier forms of the text" (RSV Preface).

In the abstract no biblical scholar would disagree with these principles of textual criticism. The debate centers around the kind of evidence required for establishing the probability of a textual error in the Massoretic text. Where the probability of error is established by means of the ancient versions, the RSV is not open to criticism of method. One may disagree in specific cases concerning the intelligibility of the Hebrew text and the readiness with which appeal is made to the Versions; however, unanimity of opinion is hardly to be expected in all matters of textual criticism. Several of our recommendations to the Standard Bible Committee are based on such disagreements (d. LA.t. 1,m. above).

In the opinion of many the RSV is most vulnerable in that area where corrections have been made without manuscript evidence. In these cases it is the opinion of the RSV translators that the text has suffered in transmission and that it was necessary to attempt the most probably reconstruction of the original text. Such corrections are noted in the footnotes and usually followed by a literal translation of the Massoretic text. Sometimes such corrections are necessary since the Hebrew text is in places unintelligible. However, sometimes corrections are made even where it is possible to make sense out of the Massoretic text. Thus it is true that the RSV does not adhere as rigidly to the Massoretic text as some scholars prefer, and as the ASV in fact did. Some of our recommendations to the Standard Bible Committee concern this matter (d. I, A. 1, b-k above).

Textual criticism has not yet established with any degree of certainty the text of the Old Testament. Hence there are problems concerning the correct reading at many places. The stance of the RSV on such matters does not necessarily demonstrate a "liberal view of Scripture." The question is rather one of the application of the canons of textual criticism and of required adherence to the Massoretic text.

3. Versions and Ecumenicity
Frequently criticism of the RSV has come from those who wish to defend the KJV. It is easy of course to praise the stylistic beauty of the KJV, but this is not the real issue. Our church, although recognizing the beauty of the KJV and allowing its use for reasons of tradition, has consistently recognized the inadequacies of the KJV. Consequently, in 1926 it recommended the ASV to our churches.

However, in 1926 the synod believed that the ASV would eventually replace the KJV. It believed, therefore, that it was recommending a version that would eventually be used by most churches in the United States. But such is not the case. Today we are virtually the only church using the ASV. Since the intent of the decision of 1926 was to recommend a representative version, and since the RSV is certainly a much more representative version than the ASV, should not this lead the synod to open the way for the use of the RSV in our churches today?

This is not to suggest that the church should bind itself exclusively to the RSV. The desire for uniformity in the use of Bible versions in the church is good, but may prove increasingly to be an impossible goal. Many new versions are appearing, and several of these are very good and may some day prove to be liturgically acceptable. The whole concept of what constitutes acceptable liturgical practice is changing rapidly, and this change affects very directly the kind of Bible version the church will desire. Some denominations today are moving in the direction of an eclectic approach in the use of Bible versions in the liturgy, selecting from the RSV, the New English Bible, Phillips, and the Jerusalem Bible. The committee is not suggesting that this be our practice, but the church should be aware of present trends. In addition, among our own churches various translations are being recommended for special purposes, e.g., Today's English Version (Good News For Modern Man) is used widely in certain areas of mission work.

In view of all this, the church should consider appointing a standing committee on Bible Versions in order to receive continuing and competent advice on the quality and usefulness of these new translations.

E. Recommendations

1. That synod reconsider the decision of the synod of 1954 "that, on account of a number of passages, the Revised Standard Version shall not be used in our pulpits as a translation approved by synod in public worship" (Acts, 1954, p. 42).

Grounds:
a. Our examination of the RSV has led us to question the validity of some of the arguments presented in the report of 1954.

b. The continued study of the RSV as well as its use by many individuals and churches has shown that the RSV is more acceptable to evangelical churches than was thought in 1954.

2. That synod designate the Revised Standard Version as one of the versions acceptable for use in worship services.

Grounds:
a. Though having its weaknesses, the RSV is on the whole superior to the King James Version and the American Standard Version, both of which are considered acceptable for use in the public worship of the Christian Reformed Church.

b. The need for a modern translation for pulpit and other use in our churches is apparent. At present the RSV is the only modern translation available that is reasonably qualified to fill this need.

c. The concern for a representative version expressed by the synods of 1926 and 1966 supports this action.

3. That synod appoint a standing committee on Bible Translations with the mandate to advise synod concerning the designation of Bible versions to be used in worship services, and to inform the churches concerning the quality of new translations.

Grounds:
a. According to article 47 of the Church Order it is incumbent upon
synod to designate the Bible versions to be used in the worship services. Article 52b of the Church Order makes it the duty of the consistory to see to it that the synodically-approved Bible versions are used.

b. Numerous new translations have become available during the past few decades; other new translations are scheduled for publication in the future; a corrected edition of the RSV is planned for publication sometime in the 1970's. Thus it is necessary that information be made available regarding the quality of such translations.

4. That synod grant Dr. David Holwerda the privilege of the floor when this report is discussed.

Respectfully submitted,
Andrew Bandstra, chairman
David Holwerda, secretary
Vernon Geurkink
Bastiaan Van Elderen
Marten Woudstra
Sierd Woudstra

SUPPLEMENT 24-A
THE REVISED STANDARD BIBLE VERSION
(Arts. 72, 148)

ESTEEMED BRETHREN:

The RSV study committee had hoped to complete its work in time for a final report to this synod, but it is now apparent that one or two meetings will be needed this summer to complete the work. The committee believes that the materials contained in its major report are sufficient to enable synod to pass judgment on the recommendations submitted.

The passages considered since the major report was submitted fall into the general categories of "textual criticism" and "improvement in translation;" as such, they are much like some of the materials previously submitted. The major difference is that none of these additional passages concern prophecy and its fulfillment, and hence are not involved in the kinds of theological judgments that weighed so heavily in the decision of 1954.

For the sake of a complete record, we wish to inform synod that we will be making recommendations to the Standard Bible Committee on the following passages:

Exodus 8:12; 28:32a
I Kings 8:12
II Chronicles 36:9
Isaiah 42:10; 52:2
Ezekiel 5:7; 19:8; 21:22; 25:10
Micah 5:6b; 7:4
Mark 3:14, 16
Luke 14:5; 17:24; 19:8; 22:19b; 22:20; 22:43, 44

In many instances these recommendations involve a different assessment of textual evidence and suggest that material presently found in the RSV footnotes be restored to the text. Several involve a clarification of the present English translation.

In the meetings planned for the summer the committee intends to consider a few more passages of a similar nature. All of these will then be compiled into a report to be sent to the Standard Bible Committee. With the completion of that report, your committee will have completed both parts of its mandate.

Respectfully submitted,
Andrew Bandstra, chairman
David Holwerda, secretary
Vernon Geurkink
Bastiaan Van Elderen
Marten Woudstra
Sierd Woudstra