New Unitarian Bible Translation: Revised English Version (REV)

I’ve just received word from the folks at Truth or Tradition?, a Unitarian website of the Socinian variety, operated by former members of The Way International, that they’ve come up with a new Bible translation called the Revised English Version.  They describe the project saying:

This New Testament, the Revised English Version® (REV®), is the version that we are developing. We are currently calling it the REV because we are presenting a revised version of earlier English versions, primarily the American Standard Version of 1901 (ASV), which we have used as the base text for our work, modifying it when we feel it is appropriate.

We have worked to keep the REV as a literal translation whenever appropriate, like the ASV or King James. It is not a “dynamic equivalent translation,” such as the NIV, although there are times when, to make good sense in English, we had to depart from a strictly literal translation. Our goal is to eventually have an “essentially literal” translation of the Bible that more closely represents biblical truth than any other translation currently on the market, and also one that is written in today’s English.

We think we can do that because we believe a person has to understand the meaning of the text correctly to be able to translate it correctly. Furthermore, one’s theology always affects the way that person will translate the text. It is our assertion that there are theological issues that we understand more correctly that most translators, and thus our translation will reflect that theology.

How refreshing to see them stating their obvious theological bias up front!  Because they understand the Bible better than most translators their Unitarian translation is therefore more correct.  Makes perfect sense, right?  My perusal of the Johannine Prologue yielded exactly the results I’d expect, i.e., ‘Word’ is not capitalized, the pronouns in vs. 3-4 are translated as ‘it,’ they’ve gone with the ‘Son’ (υἱός) over God (θεὸς) in vs. 18.  The commentary (oh yeah, there’s a commentary!) isn’t overly surprising either.  The very first note says:

1:1. The last phrase should not be translated, “the Word was God.” Moffatt has “the logos (#3056 λόγος) was divine.” The New English Bible has, “what God was, the Word was,” which perhaps best carries the sense.

Substantive, I know.  I’d prefer to see an argument for why exactly their translation is not only possible, but preferable.  I’d like to see the reasoning behind Moffatt’s translation since they saw fit to cite him.  I’d prefer not to see Strong’s numbers but I suppose that can be overlooked.  And most of all I’d like to know exactly why 1:1c should not be translated, “the Word was God” contra a good majority of major English translations.  The note on vs. 18 is much better even if ultimately unpersuasive:

1:18. “has made him known.” See note on “related,” Luke 24:35.
“only begotten son.” In John 1:18 (KJV) there is a controversy involving transmission. At some point of time the Greek text was changed, and either “only begotten Son” or “only begotten God” is original. The manuscript evidence is quite evenly divided, showing that the controversy, even early on in the Christian era, ran verydeep. We have concluded to our satisfaction that “only begotten son” was the original text in John 1:18 based on several facts. First, our study of the scope of Scripture reveals that Jesus is not God. Second, there is no other reference anywhere in the Bible to the “only begotten God,” while there are other Johannine references to the “only begotten son” (John 3:16; 18; 1 John 4:9). Furthermore, there is no evidence that anyone in the culture of the time of John would have understood the concept of a “begotten God.” To both Jews and Christians, God was never born. That makes the “only begotten son” a more standard, and thus more likely, biblical phrase. Furthermore, the context is about truth being revealed by Jesus (John 1:17) and that no one had ever seen “God.” To call Jesus in that context “the only begotten God” would not help, because as God, why would he be more visible? The point is that the “Son” is contrasted with the “Father,” and thus can make known the Father. 

Of course μονογενὴς is better understood as ‘one of a kind,’ i.e., ‘unique’ rather than ‘only begotten,’ and if there’s one thing that scholars like Bauckham and Hurtado have persuasively shown, it’s that first century Jewish monotheists certainly did view their God as ‘unique.’  I also don’t think they realize that other examples of μονογενὴς υἱός works somewhat against their position as it seems more likely that scribes would want to smooth out the more difficult reading and make the text conform to the less difficult. 

I’m sure at some point in the future I’ll have more thoughts to offer on this only begotten, er, I mean, unique translation and commentary.  For those of you who love collecting Bible translations, bookmark that page, and I’d suggest downloading the PDFs in case the site goes offline for some reason.

B”H