Journal: Central Bible Quarterly
Volume: CENQ 01:2 (Summer 1958)
Article: The “Correction” Notes Of The Revised Standard Version
Author: Duane Wriedt

---

CenQ 1:2 (Summer 1958) p. 21

The “Correction” Notes Of The Revised Standard Version

Duane Wriedt

Condensed from B. D. Thesis at
Central Conservative Baptist Theological Seminary

The Revised Standard Version of the Bible employs a questionable practice in its Old Testament footnotes which was not used in the Authorized and Standard Versions of the past. Among the numerous marginal notations, there are approximately three hundred and forty footnotes which are indicated by “Cn”. The preface of the RSV explains that the abbreviation “Cn” stands for “correction” and is used in those instances where the text has supposedly “suffered in transmission.” The RSV translators have given what they conceive as “the most probable reconstruction of the Hebrew” in the text and noted such changes in the footnotes with the abbreviations “Cn”.

In these instances when a “competent scholar” has corrected the text according to his best judgment the correction is indicated in the footnotes by the abbreviation “Cn”, and a translation of the Masoretic Text is added,. The RSV committee means that the modern “correction” is placed in the text and what the Hebrew says is indicated in the footnotes. This is contrary to usual practice of using marginal notes. Previous English Versions had translated what the originals said and put suggestions or possible variations in marginal notes.

With each Cn note, the critics are supposed to have recorded the literal translation of the Hebrew plus any versions or texts which are used as a basis for abandoning the Masoretic (Hebrew) text. If in a Cn note one finds a passage translated entirely foreign to the Hebrew text, then one must investigate any evidence given, or not given, for that change. We should ask ourselves, Is the judgment of the “competent scholar” greater than the Hebrew text and the ancient versions? Also another question arises, Why does not the scholar supply any evidence in those cases where none is listed?

It is to be regretted that the RSV abandoned certain good qualities of past English versions such as the use of italics in those places where additional English words are supplied to “round out” the meaning of the originals. By also adopting this practice of placing critical conjectures in the text rather than in the margins or footnotes (this is where the Cn notes are used) they immeasurably reduced the value of their work.

CenQ 1:2 (Summer 1958) p. 22

The gravest objection raised against the RSV has been its doctrinal bias evident in many passages where translations implying modernistic and liberal teachings are used, without basis often times. From the standpoint of a student of the Scriptures, this is unfair and unsch...

visitor : : uid: ()