The Revised Standard Version - Editors "theology"

(From Dr O T Allis, "Revision or new translation? The Revised Standard Version of
1946". Appendix. Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing Co)

A DISTINGUISHED theologian who was both a prolific writer himself and a frequent reviewer of the writings of others—Dr. B. B. WarfieId of Princeton, once remarked to the writer that he did not like to review a book unless he knew something about the author. By this he meant that it is helpful and at times even necessary to know an author's general position, the "school" of thought to which he belongs, in order to understand and appraise his utterances along any special line Or on a particular subject. Our concern is primarily with the RSV. But it will be of interest to the reader to learn, and he is certainly entitled to know, something about the theological viewpoint of the men who prepared "The Most Important Publication of 1946," in order that he may form some idea as to their attitude to this great undertaking which was committed to them by the International Council of Religious Education.

According to Doctor Bowie, "the incarnation of the divine in Jesus was not some lonely miracle. It was the flowering in him of that which in some measure is meant to come true in all of us" (The. Inescapable Christ[1925],p.46). In The Renewing Gospel (1935, Yale Lectures on Preaching), he argues, as repeatedly elsewhere, that the Birth Narratives in Mt. and Luke are poetry and represent an explanation of the incarnation which is not needed today(p.96). His statement is so illuminating in the light it throws on his attitude to the authority of Scripture that it may be quoted at some length: "Of course, there are those who will say that this is a misleading and inadequate description[that the infancy narratives represent the 'poetry of worship']. The doctrine of the Virgin Birth, they maintain, was based upon a direct communication of the facts from Mary herself and therefore is history. But to say the least, it is obvious that this can never now be proven, and it is further true that our developed thought of the uniqueness of Jesus does not depend- upon the explanation which the early Church thought appropriate and convincing. As poetry, the story of the Virgin Birth has imperishable loveliness; because it was the symbol, true and natural to that age, of that matchless significance of the Child of Mary which all succeeding ages equally have known. Recognition of the incomparable, spiritual power of Jesus does not in this period of Christian development make itself dependent upon assurance that he was miraculously born"(p.96).

Doctor Burrows is convinced that "the idea of mechanical inspiration and verbal infallibility," which is his understanding (we believe it would be more accurate to say, misunderstanding) of the Biblical doctrine of the plenary inspiration and divine authority of Scripture, must be definitely abandoned; and he holds that "what is ultimately authoritative for us is that which commands the assent of our own best judgment, accepted as the witness of the Spirit within us"(An Outline of Biblical Theology[1946],p.50). Consequently, we are not surprised to find that Doctor Burrows does not hesitate to reject specific statements with which he does not agree. Without citing any textual evidence to support his statement, he declares that "The 'Trinitarian Formula' of Mt.28:19f. is not authentic"(p.80). This apparently means that at the time when Matthew was written the "process of deification"(p.112) of Jesus had not gone far enough to justify the placing of these words—"baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost—on the lips of the Risen Jesus. So Doctor Burrows cuts them out of the Great Commission as "not authentic"(cf. p.84).

Doctor Cadbury in The Peril of Modernizing Jesus(1937) avoids the necessity of "an evaluation of the gospel evidence" by saying, "I can avoid it partly because I can say in a general way that I accept the findings of modern criticism." He goes on at once to say "I shall be especially cautious about using the Fourth Gospel as history at all and I shall assume that the other three, and the oral tradition which preceded them, have been already affected by the interests of the early church"(p.45f.).

Doctor Craig tells us in The Beginnings of Christianity (1943) that he accepts "form criticism," agreeing in general with Dibelius (p.61f.). One of Dibelius' five classifications is "legends." Craig says of the account of the death of John the Baptist in Mark: "Clearly, we have to do here with a popular legend"(p.74). As to the Virgin Birth he tells us: "We are not in position to trace just how in certain circles of Hellenistic Judaism a belief in the virgin birth of the Messiah originated"(p.208). As a further illustration of his attitude to the authority of the NT we quote the following: "How early," he asks, "was Jesus called 'the Lord'?" The answer is "Luke puts the term in the mouth of Peter at his first sermon, but it is unlikely that it began that, early"(p.209f.).

Doctor Goodspeed's position is set forth in his little companion volumes, The Story of the Old Testament(1934) and The Story of the New Testament(1916; 4th impression, 1934). The positions taken in these books are broadly speaking those of the critical school. Thus, he rejects the Pauline authorship of Timothy and Titus, places Jude "early in the 2nd century," and declares that the words, "and brother of James," were probably added of a later copyist. 2 Peter he places still later. He commends Moffatt's introduction as "the most complete and valuable introduction to the whole literature." Doctor Goodspeed attaches great importance to the Apocrypha. Thus he tells us: "The Apocrypha, whatever we may think of their value for religion, form an indispensable introduction to the New Testament, for it is they and not the Old Testament that constitute its immediate back-ground"(p.31). This statement is to be weighed by the fact that on the average every page of the NT contains one or more quota-dons from or references to the OT(Angus-Green counts the one as 263, the other as 376), while it is not certain that the NT ever directly quotes the Apocrypha. It certainly does not quote it as Scriptural Yet Doctor Goodspeed regards it as "an indispensable introduction to it," and The Complete Bible: An American Translation of which he was an editor-in-chief includes the Apocrypha. This seems to indicate that the battle over the Apocrypha which resulted more than a century ago in its exclusion from the editions published by the British and Foreign Bible Society and the American Bible Society may have to be fought all over again.