BIBLE TRUTH KEYS |
The Bible Translated To Christians the Bible is a divine revelation, written by holy men of old, who wrote as they were moved by the Spirit of God. (II Pet. 1:21) However, it was not originally given in the convenient form in which it is now possessed by millions throughout all parts of the earth. Neither were the original copies of the Bible written in the English language. All modern versions of the Bible are translations. Today, it seems, a new translation of the Bible appears every few years. Ever since the Revised Version, published in 1884, appeared with corrected errors of the authorized King James Version, which is so widely used in the Christian world, many new versions came upon the scene. About the same time, (1872 -- 1st edition; 1902 -- 3rd edition) Rotherham's Emphasized Bible was published. Ferrar Fenton's, "The Holy Bible in Modern English," issued in 1903, was republished with slight modifications several times into the 1940's. |
Hartford Bible Students * P.O. Box 493 * Manchester, CT 06045 Send mail to BibleTruthKeys@cs.com with questions or comments about this web site.
|
Bible Research > English Versions > 20th Century > Berkeley Version
Gerrit Verkuyl, Berkeley Version of The New Testament from the Original Greek with brief footnotes by Gerrit Verkuyl, Ph.D.; D.D. New Testament Fellow of Princeton. Berkeley, California: James J. Gillick & Co., 1945.
Gerrit Verkuyl, ed., Holy Bible. The Berkeley Version in Modern English, Containing the Old and New Testaments; Translated afresh from the Original Languages and Diligently Compared with Previous Translations; With Numerous Helpful Non-Doctrinal Notes to Aid the Understanding of the Reader. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1959.
The Modern Language Bible; The New Berkeley Version; A Completely New Translation From the Original Languages; With Informative Notes to Aid the Understanding of the Reader. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1969.
Gerrit Verkuyl (1872-1967) came to America from the Netherlands in 1894, at the age of twenty-one. He received a Bachelor of Arts degree from Park College (Missouri) in 1901, a Bachelor of Divinity degree from Princeton Theological Seminary in 1904, and a Ph.D. from the University of Leipzig in 1906. Thereafter he was employed as an educational program supervisor by the Presbyterian Church, U.S.A. He served as a District Educational Superintendent for the Presbyterian Board of Education and as District Secretary of the Presbyterian Board of Publication and Sabbath-school Work. In these positions he was responsible for evaluating and supporting Sunday School programs in Presbyterian churches. He retired from his employment in the Presbyterian Church in 1939.
Verkuyl’s translation of the New Testament was first published in 1945 by a small publisher in Berkeley, California, where he resided at the time. The name “Berkeley Translation” was probably suggested by analogy with the “Chicago Translation” published by Goodspeed and other faculty members of the University of Chicago earlier in the same decade, but the version has no connection with the University of California at Berkeley. Afterwards the publication rights to the version were bought by Zondervan Publishers in Grand Rapids, Michigan, which aimed to make it into a complete version of the Bible by adding to it a new translation of the Old Testament. Zondervan was a publisher of relatively conservative authors, and so they contracted with evangelical scholars for a translation of the Old Testament, under the editorial supervision of Verkuyl. The completed Bible was published in 1959, when Verkuyl was eighty-six years old. In 1969 (two years after Verkuyl’s death) a minor revision, called The New Berkely Version, was published, and in 1971 the name of the version was changed to The Modern Language Bible.
Verkuyl gives some account of his reasons for producing the version in his prefaces (which we reproduce below) and in an article published in the The Bible Translator in 1951. In these sources we find little indication of a serious scholarly interest or motive for the work. Instead, he seems wholly focused on the supposed demands of piety and upon stylistic and interpretive issues that would be considered important only by teachers in a Sunday-school setting. The 1945 preface emphasizes “the need of employing current words and phrases” and “the language in which we think and live.” The Bible Translator article states rather grandly, “The child is entitled to language in which it thinks and lives and in this right all human beings share,” which seems to imply that the version was designed for children. The same article reveals a particular interest in ameliorating things that are not suitable for children. It expresses, for instance, an anxiety about possible misunderstandings of “Whoever comes to me without hating his father … cannot be my disciple” in Luke 14:26, an unwillingness to translate the word πορνη as “harlot” in Hebrews 11:31, and a particular satisfaction in having softened the dominical saying in Mat. 15:26 by the use of the word “doggies” instead of “dogs.” He explains that he has translated απο του πονηρου as “from the wicked one” in the Lord’s Prayer partly because this is how he learned to say the Prayer as a child: “So I learned to pray as a little child in Holland and so I have continued praying, although in public I must audibly follow the popular translation.”
Nevertheless, when one examines the version itself, the descriptions in the Prefaces and in the Bible Translator article are seen to be inadequate, because the translation is not really adapted to the needs of children. The vocabulary is literary, not colloquial, and we often find poetic language and literal reproductions of Hebrew idioms, such as “he who has not lifted up his soul to falsehood” in Psalm 24:4 and “the habitation of Thy house” in 26:8. Also in the epistles of Paul we find a literary vocabulary, as for example in Romans 4:13-17.
13 Mind you, the promise to Abraham or to his offspring to inherit the earth, came through no Law, but through righteousness produced by faith; 14 for if devotees of the Law are the inheritors, then faith is futile and the promise is abrogated. 15 Because the Law eventuates in indignation; but where there is no Law there is no transgression.
16 For this reason it is a matter of faith, so that the promise may be made sure as a matter of grace to all his descendants; not only to the devotees of the Law, but also to the adherents of Abraham’s faith, who is thus father to us all, — 17 as it is written, “I have appointed you a father of many nations.” All this in the presence of God in whom he believed, who makes the dead live and calls into existence what has no being.
These verses also show how Verkuyl has interpreted the text for the reader in various ways. The γὰρ at the beginning of verse 13 is interpreted “Mind you,” which seems unnecessary. Rather than giving a literal translation of διὰ δικαιοσύνης πίστεως “through the righteosuness of faith” he interpets the genitive as a genitive of result: “righteousness produced by faith.” Instead of the literal “those who are of the Law” for οἱ ἐκ νόμου he interprets it “devotees of the Law.” Paul’s eliptical Διὰ τοῦτο ἐκ πίστεως, ἵνα κατὰ χάριν is expanded to “For this reason it is a matter of faith, so that … as a matter of grace,” and τῷ ἐκ πίστεως Ἀβραάμ (lit. “to those who are of the faith of Abraham”) is interpreted as “to the adherents of Abraham’s faith.” These renderings represent interpretations, and they are more explicit than what Paul actually wrote. Some of them are questionable. For instance, τῷ ἐκ πίστεως Ἀβραάμ should probably be understood “to those who have the same kind of faith as Abraham did.” The word “adherents” is not appropriate here. And διὰ δικαιοσύνης πίστεως probably means more generally “through the righteousness of faith.”
Verkuyl displays an independent spirit by employing renderings not seen in other versions. Some of these renderings have real merit, as for instance “placed in the position of sinners … placed in the position of righteous ones” in Romans 5:19, which is an unusual attempt to convey one sense of the verb καθιστημι. One might fault the version at this point for not including a footnote giving the alternative “made sinners … made righteous,” but then one might also fault the other versions for not doing likewise. The quality of the translation is however uneven. Some of his peculiar renderings are plainly unacceptable. For example, we find in 1 Corinthians 11:2 the eccentric rendering “suggestions” for the Greek παραδόσεις. This is hard to account for; but looks very much like a misunderstanding of the rendering “Anweisungen” in Weizsäcker’s German version of 1875, which Verkuyl mentions in the Preface as being one of his sources.
Regarding matters of textual criticism, Verkuyl says that he has used the text of Tischendorf (1869) as his basis. This is unusual for his time, and he does not explain the reason for it, but probably it is because Weizsäcker’s version was based on Tischendorf’s text. He does not strictly adhere to Tischendorf, though, and in his Bible Translator article he says that he has inserted additional material from the Textus Receptus for the sake of the “little ones,” as he calls them, whom “we do well not to offend” by omitting such “precious” sayings as, “The Son of Man has come to save the lost” (Mat. 18:11). The Preface states that these additions are put in parentheses, but in the version itself one finds that this is not always the case. The apocryphal Story of the Adulteress is inserted in the eighth chapter of John’s Gospel without any marks. A note informs the reader that “Although 7:53-8:11 is not in older found manuscripts, the incident has such a Christlike ring to it, the omission of it would be a great loss. We accept it as a true report.” But the additional clauses from the Textus Receptus that are included in marks of parenthesis are no less “Christlike.”
For the Old Testament, the 1959 Preface lists twenty translators. The list includes some well-known evangelical scholars, but it does not tell us which books were translated by each. We assume that Verkuyl, as the editor of the version, has made some changes to the translations submitted by these scholars.
Bibliography
At least two valid reasons for fresh translations are clear to the thoughtful reader: First, the discovery of earlier and more reliable Greek manuscripts than those from which our Authorized Version was translated more than three centuries ago. Second, the need of employing current words and phrases rather than those that have become obsolete. As thought and action belong together so do religion and life. The language, therefore, that must serve to bring us God’s thoughts and ways toward us needs to be the language in which we think and live rather than that of our ancestors who expressed themselves differently.
Each new translation by a qualified and honest student is a contribution to the treasures of our Christian wealth, for it offers an added glimpse at the many riches of divine revelation. But in consulting the Versions that have come out during the last half century we grew aware of certain lacks which we hope in a measure to supply.
It is never easy and at times it proves impossible to translate a word or phrase adequately; at best the translator may then attempt approximate interpretation. We have therefore undertaken to clarify expressions without making such interpretations part of the Sacred Writings. Besides, we explain situations and conditions that may otherwise puzzle the reader. Which means that a brief commentary accompanies this translation.
To the best of our ability we have tried to determine the dates of events, of sayings, and of writings. For sake of reverence and of clarity we employ for such pronouns of Deity as He and Him, the initial capital; but where His disciples are still unaware of His deity, and certainly where His enemies accost Him, the use of initial capitals and of Thee and Thou would not reflect their attitude. This is a phase of the humiliation He voluntarily entered. And as Christ is Himself the Word His sayings are not in quotation marks.
Our basic Greek is Tischendorf’s, but we have at all points consulted Nestle’s edition. Leusden’s edition of the Greek and Latin New Testaments has also been consulted, as well as Luther’s and Weizaeker’s German Versions and another in the Dutch language. Among the British we have observed the translations of Fenton and of Weymouth, and of Americans those of Moffatt, Goodspeed, and Ballantine. Also, of course, the Authorized Version, some words of which, if not based on early Greek manuscripts, are shown in parentheses. For the aid of them all in finding the choicest form of expression we are devoutly grateful, but we have earnestly striven to make this Version our own.
May the perusal of these Scriptures prove as helpful to the reader of our day as once the Holy Spirit enlightened and strengthened the authors and as more recently their study gave joy and comfort to the translator. And so it will be if with humble invocation of the Spirit’s gracious presence we receive and follow these divine suggestions.
G.V., Berkeley, California
This is not just another revision; it is a completely new translation. We have turned to the original languages of both Testaments, assured that “holy men from God spoke as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” Neither is this a paraphrase, for that leads so readily to the infusion of human thought with divine revelation, to the confusion of the reader. Instead of paraphrasing, we offer brief notes, related to, but apart from, the inspired writings, to clarify and to give a sharper view of the message.
Throughout both Testaments we employ our language according to its choicest current usage. Even mention of weights, measures and monetary values is made in modern terms, so that the reader does not need to be a linguist to understand the information.
As far as feasible, this is a complete translation. The skilled and faithful plowman turns over every inch of soil his plow can reach. So the Bible translator must leave no word untouched, if its equivalent is attainable — a requirement rarely met in the many versions and revisions we have studied.
We have striven for clearness to render God’s revelation in the revealing way it was intended. This brings embarrassments. “I shall not want” in our beloved Shepherd Psalm does not today reflect the psalmist’s meaning. “I shall not lack,” is equally poetic and is more true to the original. The word translated “evil” may also be translated “calamity,” carrying, like our word “bad,” either an ethical or a physical meaning. But in our daily use the word “evil” has come to stand for wickedness, so that “Shall there be evil in the city and the Lord has not done it” should have “calamity”; so “reverence” rather than fear as related to God, and “grief” rather than repentance on God’s part. In all these uses the translators of this version have exercised commendable caution.
To be both brief and clear we make liberal use of Arabic numerals, a shorthand method we all have daily employed, as in the use of punctuation marks for which the Hebrews made repeated use of waw, formed like our comma and corresponding to our “and.”
We have returned to dating, for which we claim no inspiration, and we are aware of disagreements on the part of scholars regarding even important dates. But the Bible mentions considerable dating, and events did occur at certain times which are scripturally related one to another.
We are in tune with the “Authorized Version” of 1611 in fidelity to the Messianic Promise, first made as soon as man had sinned, renewed to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, narrowed to Judah’s offspring and later to David’s descendants. This promise remained the hope of the worshiping Hebrews, whose prophets stimulated their faith, and Jesus reminded the Emmaus pilgrims of it, “starting from Moses and through all the prophets ... in all the Scriptures that referred to Himself.”
To be faithful to this everlasting Evangel we simply needed to be faithful to the original Scriptures. Where, in the Old Testament, Hebrew words were lacking or hard to decipher, we have made use of available Greek or Aramaic. Where the Old Testament is quoted in the New (taken from the Greek), the language may differ, but the thought is the same. The Dead Sea Scrolls that contained passages from the Old Testament speak volumes for the accuracy with which the ancient Hebrew manuscripts were preserved and transcribed. And where those scrolls contain items that bear vitally on our translations, we have profited from consulting them.
Hebraic scholars of various denominations, mostly professors of their respective seminaries, have labored in season and out of season to prepare this Berkeley Version. Each translated portion has been reviewed by at least two other members of our staff and many books by several of them, but no translator is responsible for the work of any other translator. The responsibility remains with the translator, the editors and the publishers. The notes below the translation are not necessarily in every case those of the translator; some of these were supplied by the editor-in-chief and his assistants.
We are grateful for the cooperation of the men whose time and talents were so unstintedly devoted to this exacting task, and we marvel at their endurance. We thank God that not one of them who started the work was laid aside by illness while the actual work of translation was in progress. It pleased the Lord, however, shortly before we went to press, to take unto Himself our esteemed friend and colleague, Dr. George L. Robinson.
With expectant joy and acknowledgment of our Father’s sustaining grace we surrender the results of our endeavors to the readers of the Bible, supremely grateful to Him who first inspired its contents. We pray that this version may be instrumental in the Fulfillment of God’s purpose, a translation of His teachings into Christlike living. This will most amply reward our labors.
GERRlT VERKUYL
Berkeley, California, February 10, 1959
We desire also to express appreciation to others who gave their critical reading to portions of the manuscript and rendered valuable suggestions. Among these we include Prof. Dewey M. Beegle, Ph.D., Biblical Seminary of New York; Prof. Gerhard E. Lenski, Ph.D., Lutheran Theological Seminary, Berkeley, California; the Rev. Charles D. Krug, Th.M., San Francisco Theological Seminary (Presbyterian); the Rev. Sidney A. Hatch of Los Angeles; Prof. L. M. Farr, Baptist Bible College, San Francisco, who rendered valuable assistance twice a week over a period of many months; and to Mr. Robert E. Hink of Berkeley, whose special help contributed much to the project. Also to the Rev. Garrett Pars of Cleveland, Ohio, and the Rev. Peter De Jong of Seattle, Washington, who made valuable suggestions and criticisms on the basis of their reading portions of the manuscript, and to Mrs. Frances E. Siewert of Pasadena, California, who gave much valuable editorial assistance.
[Editor’s Note: The following abridgement of an article by Gerrit Verkuyl was intended to explain the approach and principles of his translation. It appeared in an unidentified publication many years ago and is reprinted here because of its potential interest to the members of our Society].
The conviction that God wants His truth conveyed to His offspring in the language in which they think and live led me to produce the Berkeley Version (BV) of the New Testament. For I grew increasingly aware that the King James Version (AV) is only, in part, the language of our people today.
It is true that many have read and appreciated the thoughts, expressions, and choice passages of the Authorized Version. The easy flow and cultured rhythm of its Elizabethan phrases are so appealing that many precious verses have been memorized for both private and public use. No modern version has matched it for dignity and beauty. It has so readily lent itself to use in devotional thought and prayer, affording a vocabulary to which all later translations would be compared. Like some great hymn or lofty anthem, the 1611 translation can lift the drooping heart and quench the thirsty soul, while modem versions often leave one cold.
While the KJV serves to guide our daily living to higher planes, it may, indeed, be the preferred translation people turn to for the accustomed passages in their devotional reading. But if this steeping of our minds in archaic expressions hinders our unity of worship and life, then we face serious danger. There were few sins our Lord more roundly denounced than the Pharisees’ separation between their devotions and their daily living.
It is significant that on the Day of Pentecost “every man heard them speak in his own language.” Accordingly, we rejoice in the effort of those today, who labor to bring the blessed Word to tribes and peoples throughout the earth in their respective tongues. But while we encourage the dissemination of the Gospel over land and sea, shall we neglect our own people? If the language of 1611 is not the language of 1950, is it well to insist that it be the sole translation for our growing generation?
A little girl from a Christian home asked me, “Why do I have to suffer to come to Jesus?” (Matt. 19:14, AV). Upon my reply that Jesus loves children and makes those happy who come to Him, she quoted what she had learned in Sunday School, and what she understood Jesus had said, “Suffer, little children to come to me.” How utterly contrary to our Lord’s intention was this small child’s conclusion! Divine revelation is intended to reveal His thoughts, but to this child the words of the AV failed to convey our Lord’s gracious invitation and no amount of dignity or rhythm can make up for such a failure. That child is entitled to a language in which it thinks and lives, and this is a right all human beings deserve.
Who knows how many new converts, young or old, have grown discouraged as they conscientiously tried to read their Bible and came across so many unfamiliar words and unaccustomed word-endings that they could not easily comprehend the meaning! Were they really Christians? If so, why did they not find these sacred words more interesting? Why are they so different from their native tongue?
During my years working with children and youth up and down this land, these facts kept glaring me in the face. Many years ago I began to translate passages from the AV into current language. Most of it was done as I was relaxing, away from home, at odd spare moments, and almost all of it from the Old Testament. In fact, the story of baby Moses in Exodus 2 got me started. Read it and you will see why! No child could understand the first four verses and few adults could do much better. Through the years stacks of typewritten pages have been piled high on my shelves that will never be published. But they served to prepare me, though unintentionally, for my translation of the New Testament which was to come later.
My interest in Greek began during my freshman year in college. For me those first two years of preparatory work were quite enjoyable but the study of Greek was almost too much. Our young professor infused us with his love for everything Hellenic and made us believe that this was a course we could not afford to neglect. So naturally, at Princeton Seminary, New Testament studies became my specialty and a fellowship was granted, enabling me to continue studying abroad.
My life work, serving on my church’s Board of Education, allowed me little time for additional studies, besides those required for my teaching. But since my work was in the field of Christian education, it allowed me to make use of the New Testament in the original language in hope that some day I might do my own translating of it.
My first reason for beginning work on such an arduous a task has been given: to provide God’s Word in today’s language. I learned that others had felt a similar urge half a century before. There was Moffatt, whose vocabulary is remarkable, and Goodspeed, who purposely used more common words. Also Weymouth, the Englishman, whom I liked the best. These men served their generation well, but my urge was to do my part by providing for areas of translation which they had not touched. The Revised Standard Version (RSV), which came out after mine, would not have altered my plans. For I aimed at a translation less interpretive than Moffatt’s, more cultured in language than Goodspeed’s, more American than Weymouth’s, and less like the King James Version than the RSV.
As an example of the latter, turn to Matthew 9 and you will count the use of “and” six times in four verses. These conjunctions were needed in the original language because it had no punctuation marks. They are mostly superfluous in modern English but the RSV retains five of them. “Behold” occurs twice, a word that is not used today, but perpetuated in the RSV. Even the exclamation, “God forbid!” is used in the RSV, the equivalent of which is nowhere found in the original language of the entire Bible. Yet it appears in Luke 20:16, though in the Pauline writings it is eliminated in favor of a more proper translation.When I began my translating work I did not know that Weymouth had supplied footnotes, but I soon realized there was a need for them, if only to avoid including interpretation within the text, as Moffatt so often does. Phillips. whose Letters to Young Churches did not come out until 1947, marvelously succeeded in combining translation with interpretation as he candidly admits. But this approach remains dangerous. It has been said about Moffatt, with some justification, “Hard telling where revelation ends and Moffatt begins.”
To many readers the use of brief footnotes renders a helpful service, and at times a translator cannot do well without them. For example, in Gen 2:23, the word “flesh” obviously means the physical body. However, in Gen. 6:3, it does not appear to have that precise meaning. The man who resists God’s ways is called “flesh,” — not referring to his body, but to his whole being. When Paul mentions “flesh” he is thinking in terms of the human being, particularly the soul, as it lacks the Spirit of God, i.e., ungodly human nature. All of this would be hard to translate, but a brief footnote can clear up the matter.
Another example concerns the use of “love” and “hate.” In Luke 14:26 our Lord tells the crowds. “Whoever comes to me without hating his father…cannot be my disciple.” But in John 13:34 He says, “I give you a new command, that you love one another.” How can these two opposite sentiments be reconciled? It may help us to consider what Jesus said in John 21:15-17. Self-confident Peter had exclaimed before they entered the garden of Gethsemane (Matt. 26:33). “Though all the rest feel scandalized on your account, I never!” The love, of which Jesus spoke, has its roots in appreciation; it is agape, the love of John 3 16. “Do you prize Me more dearly than these do?” Jesus asked. How could Peter say that he did? He could not, so used philia, a word for love that implies friendship. This happened twice. Then Jesus used Peter’s own word for love and let him through on that.
It is this “prize dearly” of which the verb “hate” in the above admonition is the opposite, so it really means: “Whoever comes to me without prizing less dearly his father, cannot be my disciple.” A brief footnote helps wonderfully in rendering this verse more understandable.
For most Bible readers there is a need for some degree of chronology. We now have better data, which allows us to ascertain when most of the events recorded in Scripture occurred. Between what is given in the New Testament itself along with historic witnesses, we are in a good position to approach fairly close dates in most cases. But occasionally there is the need for footnotes.
History tells us that King Herod I, died in March, 4 BC. The Wise Men visited him before traveling to Bethlehem and he awaited their return before having the boy babies murdered. But Joseph and Mary had taken Jesus to the temple when he was forty days old and had brought the most inexpensive sacrifice possible, indicating that the Wise Men had not yet been there. Upon arriving, they went to a house, not to the stable. So it would seem that Jesus was born at least two months before Herods’s death. The traditional date of December 25 seems not far wrong; but not the traditional year of 1 Anno Domini. The year 5 BC seems more likely. So a footnote can clarify all this. Luke informs us that Jesus began His ministry at age thirty and that John the Baptist, six months older, began preaching in the 15th year of Tiberius, who became emperor in AD 11-12. In John 2:20 the Jews assert that their temple has been under reconstruction for 46 years and we know that Herod commenced the rebuilding in 20-19 BC, making it AD 27, with John appearing in AD 26. If there were four Passovers in connection with Jesus’ ministry, then He was baptized in late 26 or early 27, and was crucified in early April of the year 30. Again, footnotes can indicate all this. The early part of Acts is dated by the ascension, forty days after Christ’s resurrection. The stoning of Stephen, which could hardly have occurred while there was a governor over the land, probably happened after Pilate had been removed in 37 and before his successor had arrived. Acts 12 reports the death of Herod Agrippa, who slew the apostle James, both occurring in 44. The opening of the 18th chapter tells of the expulsion of the Jews from Rome by Claudius, who died in 54 and had for many years favored the Jews. In the same chapter, Gallio is called proconsul of Achaia, a title that would not apply before 53. Such information appears in footnotes. Another distinctive feature, which we feel should be observed in all translations, is a pronoun for Deity beginning with a capital letter, both for reverence and for clarity. In the Gospels this plan requires close scrutiny, for the question is not whether our Lord deserves the distinction but whether those who addressed Him regarded Him as Deity. Certainly his opponents did not at any time. And, His followers did not customarily do so until after His resurrection. The final distinctive feature of this translation is the retention of words, clauses, and passages not found in the Greek manuscripts we used, but are found in the manuscripts used by those translating the AV. Naturally, my translation omits some of these. So, to those who are accustomed to the AV, these omissions would come as a shock. We would do well not to offend those who are accustomed the AV. As stated in the Preface, we indicate such omitted portions by means of parentheses.Concerning another element of my translation I am not equally confident, but nevertheless feel I should observe. Both Heb.11:31 and James 2:25 made use of the Septuagint, which designated Rahab of Jericho a harlot. We know that she managed an inn; she was therefore a woman who entertained men overnight. Perhaps all such women were called harlots (?). But, the Hebrew word translated into the Septuagint Greek is Zona, and may mean innkeeper. We so translate it because of Rahab’s personal qualities which do not suggest the harlot we think of today.
We conclude with another correction of some importance, in the last clause of Rom. 4:25, which reads in the AV, “...and was raised again for our justification.” We have it in the fifth edition, “by reason of our justification,” with the following footnote: “His resurrection was God’s declaration that. . . believers are judged righteous.”