188 - The New English Bible

The New English Bible
By Henry J. Cadbury

This first installment of an entirely new translation of the Bible ¹ into "timeless" English coincides with the three hundred and fifteenth anniversary of its most famous predecessor, the King James or "Authorized" Version of the Bible. It has long been anticipated and will be widely scrutinized and reviewed, but from differing points of view. The pious layman will want to know how it compares with the Englishman's favorite "well of English undefiled" of 1611 or "St. James" version as he calls it. The litterateur will attempt to evaluate it aesthetically-an almost impossible task to perform objectively since the familiarity of the old makes the modern "good uncouth." The theologian will have a keen nose for suspected nuances of doctrinal unorthodoxy. The preacher will be on the lookout for catchy texts-what are called "preaching values." We may discount in advance such reactions, both too favorable and too unfavorable. As in 161 1, the translators know that to produce a new version at all will be regarded as a tacit or overt criticism of the old. Perhaps again as with the Revised Version of 1881 some believer will comment on Hades (Luke 16:23): "Hell was good enough for mother; it is good enough for me." Alas for "the landmarks which the fathers have set"!

The present reviewer approaches his task from a different angle. Sympathetic from similar experience with the problems of those who produced the volume, he conceives it as his responsibility to explain their problems to those not thus experienced and to illustrate the alternatives before them. "The way of the translator is hard," not because he will be blamed, but because he is inwardly aware of the impossibility of satisfying completely his own conscience. His work requires such an abundance of very close choices, that demand all his best judgment and still leave him with the frustration of inevitable imperfection. His choices arc of several kinds. Before translating at all he has to decide what wording of the original to select. In

¹ The New English Bible; The New Testament. Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press. 1961. xiii + 447 pages. $4.95,

189 - The New English Bible

many passages the ancient authorities or witnesses, as they are here called, leave a balanced uncertainty between alternative Greek words. He then has to decide what the given words mean-not simply as the dictionary says, but mean in this period of the Greek language, in this author, and in this passage. Translation is the art of finding an English equivalent that most nearly renders the thought within the words. Beyond that, since English expressions even when of like meaning have different flavor, the translator has to determine what flavor is most appropriate for his task as a whole and even for the quite different styles within the New Testament itself. In a brief introduction, quotable at every stage, this volume voices the translators' consciousness of their difficult task. Also in the footnotes they remind the reader occasionally of the first two sorts of choices, as acute difficulties require acknowledgment of alternative readings or renderings. Unfortunately one of the two British editions, though not the present American edition, omits both the notes and the introduction. It has for hundreds of years been a great loss to readers of the King James Version that its masterly preface, "The Translators to the Reader," was similarly denied them by parsimonious printing.

I

The main facts about this new version will already be familiar to most readers of this journal. They will have seen its attractive format one column to the page being possible because of the brevity of a volume containing the New Testament without the Old. The text is paragraphed according to sense, the verse numbers placed down the margin so as not to interrupt the reading but to be available for reference. Nor is the text marred like many printings of earlier Bibles by aids to pronunciation of proper names, whatever the real practical value of these markings may be. Footnotes are not numerous but I should suppose would seem to the translators indispensable. Without them no fraction of their honest uncertainty about text or meaning is made known to the reader. They do not disfigure the page. They can be ignored in public reading. They inform the lay user of a more important and really more pervasive background than their unobtrusive extent and position indicate.

The translation naturally invites comparison in America with the Revised Standard Version (RSV). Like that it was made by a small

190 - The New English Bible

group of scholars working under the supervision of a larger body representing, in this case, the principal Protestant groups of England, Scotland, and Ireland (named on the page facing the title page). The names of the supervising committee and of the panels for this and for subsequent translations of the Old Testament and the Apocrypha are not prominently advertised, but so far as known deserve confidence. The ultimate work is collective, though initially drafted section by section by individuals. It would be bard now to distinguish by inner variation any residue of earlier unhomogeneity of authorship. Against these points of general resemblance between the NEB and the RSV may be noted certain intended differences. This one is avowedly an entirely new book; the Standard Bible Committee was instructed to revise older versions. This one is not intended for use in public worship; the RSV had no such stated restriction. To the present reviewer these distinctions do not appear very important. Actually the RSV had to weigh with equal care words retained from the older version and words newly introduced. It is impossible to predict that between public and private use the versions will differ as expected. The NEB may also find favor and disfavor where it little expected it. The words 'new' and 'revised' in the two titles will become formal and little remembered. One wonders in fact how long the New English Bible will retain the name. Sometimes as in New England and New York and New College (Oxford, A.D. 1379) the term lasts on for centuries, but New English as an adjective for the first is obsolete and the New English Dictionary (1888-1933) is already generally known also as the Oxford English Dictionary, or OED. In the past Bibles have shown a tendency to acquire nicknames, like 'breeches,' I treacle,' 'wicked,' not to mention 'authorized.'

Since the NEB and the RSV shared a common method, common textual resources, and common scholarly presuppositions one may ask why this duplication of effort was not avoided. Is not the needless multiplication of new translations unfortunate? The answer to this is very simple. When the RSV was projected British scholars were consulted about collaboration. The proposal gained no headway and soon the Second World War made the idea less feasible. The American project went forward alone and the New Testament of the RSV was published early in 1946. A few months later, in May 1946, first steps were taken in Scotland leading to the present venture

191 - The New English Bible

in Great Britain. Each version will supplement the other and indeed become an ally where they agree in conception rather than a rival where they differ in detail.

It will now be in order to make some comments about each of the major areas mentioned above in which the procedure of the new translation can be illustrated.

II

Greek Text. When the Revised Version of 1881 was made in England one scholar, F. J. A. Hort, was the most influential in the matter of text. The printed text that goes under his name and Westcott's was practically the same as that of the Revisers. This was of course a great advance over the late and few MSS behind the printed editions available in 1611. Today textual knowledge is more widespread and valuable sources are more numerous so that a team of translators can discuss the questions as peers yet with continued uncertainty. Apparently variant readings were dealt with simply in their places. This is not to say decisions were made ad hoc or that an eclectic text was created. In many respects we are in our knowledge of text much where we were last century in spite of the newly discovered early papyri-some extensive as the Bodmer John and the Beatty Paul.

The notes, which run uniformly: "Some witnesses read [add, etc.]," call attention to passages where the British scholars felt alternative readings sufficiently important to indicate both. Besides choosing these passages, and they are not numerous (there are 27 in Matthew, 54 in Luke, 37 in Acts, to mention only the three longest books) it was necessary to select the most probable one for the text and to place the alternate or alternates in the margin. Without going into detail I would say that the choices show often heavy dependence on the evidence of Marcion and the early church fathers or versions as commending readings not too well attested by Greek manuscripts. The cases where 'one witness' is regarded as having a reading worth mention in the notes or adoption in the text are not usually Codex Vaticanus or the new papyri.² There is no conspic-

² The 'one witness' mentioned at Matt. 1:16 is the Sinaitic Syriac, at 6:28 an obscured first-hand reading of Codex Sinaiticus, at Mark 1:41 mg. two old Latin MSS, at John 19:29 text codex 476*, at Rev. 2:22 mg. the Armenian (?). At Lk. 11:33 the text is supported by only the. Beatty papyrus and a few other witnesses, and at Hebrews 12:1 another Beatty papyrus is the one witness which reads: "The sin which all too readily distracts us." At Acts 10:19 mg. the one witness is Codex Vaticanus.

192 - The New English Bible

uous tendency to give greater value than in the past to the Western Text but cf. Mark 1:41 text, Luke 11:42 mg., 12:14 mg., 12:27 text, Acts 20:4 text. Many of the most famous Western variants are not noted at all.

III

The Greek Vocabulary. There are few comments needed under this score. At least once we are told in the notes that "the Greek is obscure" (Mark 14:41), and again that "the meaning of the Greek word is uncertain" (Acts 23:23). But I take it that the same is true of other words or phrases. In fact more than half of the footnotes, introduced by "Or," required, as with textual variants, a choice of such cases to be mentioned, and an allocation to text and note respectively of the preferred and the less preferred alternative. I suppose this may be the first of the standard English versions to suggest even in the notes the proposed meanings of 'what you can afford for Ĭ ­ÅÌÅı in Luke 11:41, 'within your grasp' for ­ÅÄÌ ͼÉÅ in Luke 17:21, and 'do not use vessels in common' at John 4:9 (text) for ¿Í ÃųÇÁÉÅı¹.³ At Luke 15:13 'turned into cash' was anticipated by Moffatt. But I miss in text or notes the suggestion at Acts 9:34 'has healed' and at Hebrews 11:27 (with W. Bauer) 'he kept his eyes constantly upon him who is unseen.'

There still remain many uncertainties, many more than even the notes suggest. Thus at Phil. 4:8 neither the text 'gracious' nor the note 'of good repute' exhausts the quite plausible alternatives here of the single Greek adjective µËÆ·¼¿Â. In this area of semantics, however, unless I have overlooked some flagrant errors, the translation is on firm ground, and shows marks of real competence. Even when one disagrees with a rendering, its reasonableness is hard to deny. It should be remembered that in Greek the indicative and imperative are often identical and so are the interrogative and declarative. And of course modern quotation marks and the use of capitals require decisions not obvious in the non-committal Greek. Consistency in the latter (as e.g. in Gospel-gospel; Sabbath-sabbath; Spirit-spirit) is hard to attain. And as for the Holy Spirit, the Greek frequently gives us no clue as to whether we should call it 'he' or call him 'it.' In John 7:39 'which' is used, but in the Comforter passages in the later chapters of John (here translated 'Ad-

³ For the last two see respectively Harvard Theol. Review, 41 (1948) 1-8, and later articles, and Journal of Biblical Literature, 69 (1950), 137-147.

193 - The New English Bible

vocate') 'he' and 'whom' are employed. So 'he,' 'himself' in Paul. The problem is sidestepped, skilfully at Acts 5:32 'the Holy Spirit given by God,' but not so skilfully at Romans 5:5 'through the Holy Spirit he has given us.' For the beast in Revelation it (its) is consistently used now. The King James Version, which never employs 'its' anyhow, had always 'his' and 'him.'

Conversely a distinction which the Greek does make in pronouns is obscured by English 'you' for both singular and plural. This distinction is lost in passages like much of Matt. 6. At Luke 22:31 ' all of you,' and in Acts 25:26 and in the letters to individuals 'you all,' unlike its American singular use, shows where the plural is meant. As in other modern translations thou is used only in address to God. With it are the verb forms wilt, dost, hast, hadst, etc., and thee and thy. Even 'thine' is used before h or vowels, thine own (John 17:5), thine altars (Rom. 11:3) but also thy house (John 2:17), thy hands (Heb. 1: IO), thy enemies thy footstool (Heb. 1: 13, cf. Mark 12:36 and parallels, your enemies your footstool), and never 'mine' before vowels but always my own, my account, my angels, etc.

IV

The English Rendering. This is a major problem of any translation. At most I can deal with a few general and specific problems. The translators themselves may be quoted at some length from their Introduction (p. ix), for they state their procedure well:

The older translators, on the whole, considered that fidelity to the original demanded that they should reproduce, as far as possible, characteristic features of the language in which it was written, such as the syntactical order of words, the structure and division of sentences, and even such irregularities of grammar as were indeed natural enough to authors writing in the easy idiom of popular Hellenistic Greek, but less natural when turned into English. The present translators were enjoined to replace Greek constructions and idioms by those of contemporary English.

This meant a different theory and practice of translation, and one which laid a heavier burden on the translators. Fidelity in translation was not to mean keeping the general framework of the original intact while replacing Greek words by English words more or less equivalent. A word, indeed, in one language is seldom the exact equivalent of a word in a different language. Each word is the centre of a whole cluster of meanings and associations, and in different languages these clusters overlap but do not often coincide.

194 - The New English Bible

The place of a word in the clause or sentence, or even in a larger unit of thought, will determine what aspect of its total meaning is in the foreground. The translator can hardly hope to convey in another language every shade of meaning that attaches to the word in the original, but if he is free to exploit a wide range of English words covering a similar area of meaning and association he may hope to carry over the meaning of the sentence as a whole. Thus we have not felt obliged (as did the Revisers of 1881) to make an effort to render the same Greek word everywhere by the same English word. We have in this respect returned to the wholesome practice of King James's men, who (as they expressly state in their preface) recognized no such obligation. We have conceived our task to be that of understanding the original as precisely as we could (using all available aids), and then saying again in our own native idiom what we believed the author to be saying in his. We have found that in practice this frequently compelled us to make decisions where the older method of translation allowed a Comfortable ambiguity. In such places we have been aware that we take a risk, but we have thought it our duty to take the risk rather than remain on the fence.

This manner of translating is particularly evident in the Pauline epistles, and involves breaking up long sentences into short ones, dividing relative clauses into separate statements, rearranging clauses and even smaller units. One device frequently employed throughout is the repetition of a word in rather loose sentence structure. One can have no quarrel with such rearrangements as place the first person after nouns or pronouns of other persons as in English idiom, e.g. John 2:4, 'Your concern, mother, is not mine' (AV 'what have I to do with thee?'); 10:30 'my Father and I'; in 1 Cor. 4:6 'Apollos and myself'; in I Cor. 9:6, Gal. 2:9 'Barnabas and I (myself).' In Revelation, hot and cold, great and small, slave and free, bride and bridegroom are apparently adjudged to be more natural English order than their opposites when the latter occur in the Greek But in Paul slave and free is retained at Gal. 3:28 and reversed at Col. 2: 11 . Day and night is the regular sequence in the Greek of Revelation and is retained in the English. Night and day is the order in the epistles and is also retained there. But when it occurs in Luke-Acts it has been transposed. A longer reversal is year and month, day and hour (Rev. 9:15).

In the Greek NT Priscilla is mentioned before her husband twice out of three occurrences both in Paul and (except the Western text) in Acts. This is kept in the NEB. So in the case of a somewhat different matter of sequence, 'Christ Jesus,' found in Paul and some

195 - The New English Bible

other writings, the translators retain the order where they find it, as they do 'Jesus Christ' when it occurs. Since the reason for this variation is obscure, so unevenly distributed but related apparently to case or construction, they had little other option.

There can be little objection to "adding" words in translation if they are really needed. In the following passage from the beginning of Revelation that qualification may be queried of the words in italics which are not in the Greek (italics are not employed by the NEB):

Happy is the man who reads, and happy those who listen to the words of this prophecy and heed what is written in it. For the hour of fulfilment is near.

John to the seven churches in the province of Asia. . . .

To him who loves us and freed us from our sins with his life's blood, who made of us a royal house, to serve as the priests of his God and Father-to him be glory and dominion forever and ever! Amen.

Behold, he is coming with the clouds! Every eye shall see him, and among them those who pierced him; and all the peoples of the world shall lament in remorse. So it shall be. Amen.

Actually I suppose one of the words added most often in this translation without the corresponding Greek is "God." This was practiced in one expression of the King James version which regularly rendered the strong negative ¼® ³­Å¿¹Ä¿. ⁴ by 'God forbid.' Of such locutions in the New version the regular use of 'God's people' for ¿¯ ¬³¹¿¹ ('the saints') is one of the most frequent and noticeable. In Galatians alone the word 'God' is added in the English at 1: 15; 2:2, 8; 3:5; 4:23, 28; 5:4, 8, 10; and 6:14.

The use of two nouns for one in the Greek is understandable when ´¹¬½¿¹± is rendered at Col. 1:21 'heart and mind' or when 'limb(s) and organ(s)' translates ¼µ»¿Â (-·) at Rom. 12:4, 5; 1 Cor. 12:12, 18; but at Luke 16:17 the phrase 'one dot or stroke' seems too full for the single ¼¹±Å ºµÁ±¯±Å, cf. Matt. 5:17 'not a letter, not a stroke' for ¯Éı ­Å ® ¼¯± ºµÁ±¯±. At 1 Tim. 3:2 the double rendering 'our leader or bishop' looks like a compromise of controversy within the panel of translators.

Less conspicuous I think are the kinds of situation where a Greek word is omitted in the New English Bible. Greek authors still in

⁴ The skill in variation is well exemplified by the renderings of this single phrase: God forbid!; By no means; Of course not; Certainly not!; No, no!; Never!; Far from it!; No, never!; I cannot believe it!

196 - The New English Bible

the first century A.D. generally maintained the classical custom of beginning with a connective particle or avoiding asyndeton. Hence one of the commonest omissions in NEB is initial "And" (º±¯ or postpositive ´­). And another use of º±¯ is with equal propriety unrepresented in the English. That is when it appears in a relative clause or in the apodosis of a condition. The King James version over-translated it in such instances by 'also,' as 'who also betrayed him,' 'which also they did,' 'whom also he named apostles.' Examples of its appropriate omission after an 'if' clause will be found in 2 Tim. 2:11, 12.

The translators explain that they deliberately vary the English equivalents of the same Greek word. There are legitimate reasons for doing so. The original has more than one nuance and not in every occurrence does the same English satisfy. The variation can be made simply to avoid monotonous repetition. But the practice has its drawbacks. It obscures the actual repetition of the original, both when that was intentional and when it is a mark of the author's indifference to recurrence. For the former I cite the repetition in 2 Cor. I and 7 of the word for comfort, noun and verb. But NEB uses for the verb 'comfort' and for the cognate noun 'consolation.' For the latter phenomenon note the repetition in Mark 12:41-44 of ²¬»»É ('cast,' six times) and ³±¶±ÆÅ»¬º¹¿Å ('treasury,' three times). The NEB has for the first 'drop' twice, 'give' four times, for the other 'chest' twice. They were perhaps unconsciously following the example of Luke in 21:1-4, who made similar and other improvements of Mark.

This practice of NEB means, as it meant in KJV, that in parallel passages, synoptic or otherwise, the reader cannot trust the English text to indicate faithfully the degree of likeness and difference between the parallels. Evidently attention was paid to this difficult matter, but in places the English is unnecessarily more identical or less identical than the Greek, e.g. in parallels between Luke and Matthew and between Ephesians and Colossians. (Jesus) Barabbas in Matthew over against Barabbas in the other gospels is a noticeable case. In two gospels 'a cock crew,' in two 'the cock crew.'

In different contexts one can understand variant English for the same Greek word, e.g. pigeons of the temple and its market, doves elsewhere. But why in a genuinely new translation unless under the influence of the King James and earlier Protestant versions is 'whore' used only in Revelation, elsewhere 'harlot' or 'prostitute' for the same Greek word?

197 - The New English Bible

Understandable but not therefore justifiable is the sensitivity with which some readers will scrutinize the translation of certain religious terms-whether ecclesiastical or theological. We may be sure that not doctrinal prejudice but some good reason lies behind the careful choices the translators have made. We have already mentioned one such: 'God's people.' This, except at Matt. 27:52, means what we would call Christians. That too is a term used much more frequently in English, including Paul's letters, than the Greek word that it transliterates is in Greek text. And in all three instances of the Greek (Acts 11:26; 26:28; 1 Pet. 4:16) there is a nuance or even a dating for the word that its wider currency in NEB seems to ignore. 'Christian' is also used as an adjective, for example in I Timothy ' To 'Christian faith,' 'Christian brothers, non-Christian public.' To be able to speak of Jewish Christians, Gentile Christians, fellow Christians, or Christian brothers is a great convenience for the translator; so too the Christian movement for 'the way.' Several other new words for members of the Christian movement or fellow believers are used, like [God's] dedicated people, one of our company, comrade, comrade-in-arms, the brotherhood, and most original of all the adjectival 'incorporate in Christ,' at the beginning of several of Paul's epistles (cf. Romans 6:5 'incorporate with him'). Paul's phrase 'in Christ' in other connections has required resourceful ingenuity to render. But in the gospels Christ is mostly translated by 'Messiah.' This I suppose was an attempt to avoid anachronism. But where Christ may be thought of as parallel to pagan saviors the word used for him is 'deliverer' (Luke 2: 11, Phil. 3:20); but in John 4:42; 1 John 4:14 Saviour (or saviour) of the world.

The local church Is regularly called congregation or community. It may include individuals called deacon (but not deaconess), elder and bishop. The first day of the week is simply Sunday. Beside the day of Pentecost there is Whitsuntide (I Cor. 16:8). At the last supper when a blessing is said and a hymn sung these are 'the blessing' and 'the Passover hymn.'

Such details do not do justice to the evident care to deal with general problems wisely. The rendering of À¬Â (all) extensive with abstract nouns, shows it and so does the treatment of the word ìÁ¾ (flesh). A study of the occurrences of this word would be a good example of the variety and resourcefulness of the translators. It is only one of the ancient physiological idioms that are not meaningful when literally translated. Since this and heart and bosom and face and bowels are so understandingly dealt with, one regrets that the

198 - The New English Bible

passage about the single and evil eye was not as masterfully and freely translated. I should commend for study the renderings of Ìù¿Â or õ¼ÅÌ and their derivatives. Where I am puzzled by an item I am prepared to reserve judgment and to assume that there are good reasons. But the reasons are mostly transparent if one has studied the passage with care.

Here are examples of treatment of famously difficult passages: Matt. 26:25 et al., The words are yours [margin: Or It is as you say].

Acts 26:28, You think it will not take much to win me over and make a Christian of me.

Rom. 1:17 et al., he shall gain life who is justified through faith. (Heb. 10:38 . . . and by faith my righteous servant shall find life.)

1 Cor. 15:8, In the end be appeared even to me; though this birth of mine was monstrous (with inversion of clauses in the sequel).

2Cor. 5:16, With us therefore worldly standards have ceased to count in our estimate of any man; even if once they counted in our understanding of Christ, they do so now no longer.

Phil. 2:5f. (with alternatives in the notes to two of the phrases), Let your bearing towards one another arise out of your life in Christ Jesus. For the divine nature was his from the first; yet he did not think to snatch at equality with God.

1 Tim. 3: 12, A deacon must be faithful to his one wife [Or married to one wife, or married only once]. Similarly 3:2; Tit. 1:6; and (without any note) 1 Tim. 5:9.

Among those who will welcome parts of this new version are those who without benefit of any knowledge of the original feel confident of their own ability to tell a translator what the original must mean and like Job's "comforters" accuse the older translators of 'speaking unrighteously for God.' No phrase has seemed to these persons more improper than the prayer to God to 'lead us not into temptation.' Such intuitive correction had changed God to Satan when the Chronicler wrote 'Satan provoked David to number Israel' for 'God moved David' (2 Samuel), or when James wrote, "Let no man say when he is tempted I am tempted of God, for God . . . does not tempt any man," or when the Lord's prayer was rendered by Torrey 'let us not yield to temptation' or by Lamsa 'do not let us enter into temptation,' a translation which claiming the Peshitta as original did much to commend his version to laymen in spite of its completely erroneous hypothesis of the relation of Greek and Syriac. The present translators evidently with good conscience

199 - The New English Bible

render: 'And do not bring us to the test,' though they follow (in Matthew) with the wording: 'But save us from the evil one,' and keep the word 'temptation' in James.

Even more striking and welcome to some theological preference is the almost complete omission of the phrase 'wrath [ÌÁ³·] (of God).' This is not because it is anthropopathic (cf. love) or because wrath is obsolescent or archaic in English. It is used in John 3:36 (God's wrath) and Rev. 19:15 for ¸Å¼ÌÂ, and 'anger' is a natural personal substitute. The translators prefer 'retribution' or 'divine retribution' in Paul, 'judgment' in Ephesians (Colossians), 'vengeance' in Revelation. What is in effect a justification of this interpretation appears by coincidence in the recent publication of the Presidential Address of S.N.T.S. by G. H. C. Macgregor.⁵

V

The General Style of English. Obviously this translation succeeds generally in avoiding archaic English, as it aimed to do. Its phrasing is often fresh and idiomatic as well as felicitous in sound and faithful to the original meaning. One cannot criticize occasional and restricted freedom to paraphrase. The translators speak of their English as timeless. That is a courageous claim, if it refers not to the past but to the present and the future. Here again only the past is secure. Can one claim in either language or belief quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus? Each reader will have his instances of doubt as well as of assent. Perhaps what seems unfamiliar in America is current in England. I may set down without comment, order, or even references a number of phrases for others to savor (or savour) for themselves. These instances are all from the narrative books.

took to their heels, came down at the double, with the devil in charge he made off, rounding on (i.e. rebuking) him, fell foul of him (elsewhere, found him a stumbling block);

their attempt to catch him out, let us toss for it, feel the pinch, shoot the net to starboard, leaving it on our port beam;

travel barefoot, with belts fastened, on a courtesy visit, in full state, touched them on the raw, got wind of it, our high standard of living, the maid on duty at the door;

hubbub, meal-tub, a perfect pest, saltness, hole-and-corner, to go the whole way (elsewhere, to be all goodness);

⁵ New Testament Studies, 7 (1961), 101-1 10.

200 - The New English Bible

in synagogue (like at church, for singular or plural with or without Greek article);

Where does he get it from? Make do with your wages. My sister has left me to get on with the work by myself. Tell her to come and lend a hand. It seemed too good to be true. The worker (elsewhere, workman) earns his keep.

The frustrations which translators must feel amid their difficult devices deserve our sympathy. Besides those mentioned before they include the question, When does legitimate variety become illegitimate inconsistency? In the choice of general level of English there is also a dilemma. If the wording is fresh, contemporary, and idiomatic it will make the text not only understandable but natural and vivid. At the same time it will obscure the fact that these are ancient minds of a different world or mentality from our own. Perhaps the reader is kept aware of this better by more formal not to say archaic style. To keep a translation life-like but also true to antiquity and history is to combine two almost incompatible aims. In an unexpected way the old King James Version has come in time to fulfil one of them and to sacrifice the other. It remains to be seen and felt whether the new translation merely reverses the imbalance.

Such delicate choices-archaizing versus modernizing-will have an unconscious reaction from lay readers. The new version, as did the King James itself, at first, will meet objection just because it is new. Let us hope that its critics will not add the quite irrelevant prejudices-ecclesiastical, economic, and political-displayed by some opponents of the RSV in America. Perhaps the fact that this version is not officially tied to any National Council of Churches or as promptly subjected to the guilt by association technique will exempt it from some unworthy fault-finding even in this country. What indirect motives for criticism it may have to face in its own market cannot be predicted. It deserves well of its own people. Twenty years ago during the Battle of Britain Churchill's words about the Royal Air Force became a favorite slogan: "Never did so many owe so much to so few." As millions of copies of this product of the little group of scholarly translators are circulated and read by their eager fellow-countrymen, the same words may be applied but in a very different context.