CTR in China

More Photodrama films

Bible House family - 1906

The date 1906 is written on the back of one collector’s copy of this photograph. However, another copy came to me with the date August 1907 attached to it, but with no documentary evidence. Yet another copy surfaced which just said pre-1909, which obviously has to be true because that is when they moved to Brooklyn. Also Estella Whitehouse married Isaac Hoskins (both in the picture) in January 1908. If any readers have positive documentary proof for the date it would nice to know.

Most will recognise a few of the people. Bohnet, Van Amburgh and Hirsh leap off the page for me. CTR is not there (a fanciful thought, maybe he was behind the camera) and neither is his sister Margaret, although Margaret’s daughter, Alice Land, is there.

I had a little difficulty working out rows one and two until I carefully checked the feet in the photograph. The rows are counted from the front to the back.

Addenda: I have it on very good authority from someone who has checked all the directories year by year for Allegheny that this group of people were there in 1907. A future article will cover the personnel in Bible House year by year. When that article is eventually published it will replace this one, which will be taken down at that point.

Some you win... Some you - don't...

This is a brief tale of a search that in some ways led to disappointment. Being based in the UK I was asked if I could find the last resting place of the Edgar family. As well as their speciality of pyramidology three of the Edgars, John, Morton and Minna (two brothers and a sister) also wrote a series of little booklets. One of them by John “Where are the dead” was instrumental in attracting the interest of a young man named Fred Franz before the First World War.

We knew from printed accounts that they were buried in a family plot in the Eastwood Cemetery, Glasgow. There are two cemeteries of this name, an Old and a New, but the date of the first interment identified the site as being in the Old.

Were there memorial headstones? Would there even be a pyramid? That is not as fanciful as it sounds. Here is the grave for Piazzi Smyth.

And here from a Bible Student publication is a grave marker in Yeovil, Somerset, for a Bible Student, William Hallett, who died in 1921.

The cemetery records in Glasgow had not been transcribed, let alone posted on the internet. But I was able to make contact with a Family History Society in Glasgow and a member very kindly did a search for me. Almost immediately the burial registers for the family were found.

John bought three adjoining plots and later a fourth was added, totalling plots numbered A-950-953. Sixteen members of the extended family were eventually buried here. The last interment was in 1968. Any modern generations of the family, if they still exist, obviously moved elsewhere.

The next step was a visit to the area and again a willing volunteer from the area visited the site and took the following photograph. The graves numbered A-950-953 are both sides of the tree in the foreground. One wonders what size the tree was when these plots were sold originally.

There are a few memorials standing, which at least enable one to fix the correct site, but alas, none for the Edgar family. In UK cemeteries vandalism and sheep with itchy bottoms have eliminated a lot of memorials, but it would appear from the photographs that the Edgars never did have a lasting memorial installed.

Realistically, had there been anything like a pyramid there, it would have been found and publicised long before now.

So this is a non-story really. But you never know until you follow everything up what may or may not be discovered.

Photodrama films

Those who love the Photodrama of Creation will recognize these frames from the end of the sequence on the flood, with the tinted sequence of the ark that ends with the rainbow appearing.

After the footage was meticulously copied frame by frame, the key nitrate stock in private hands was donated to the George Eastman museum as they have the professional facilities for its preservation.

Also the following document has come to light from the time which details the order and contents of all the slides and moving pictures from the production.

Interestingly it is dated November 17, 1914, and stresses that this revised schedule should be followed “implicitly.” Although the Photodrama started life as a three parter for a very short time, it had been shown in four parts for most of 1914. The extra part was not so much adding extra material as making each performance of a more manageable length for audiences of the day. But one wonders what changes were deemed necessary by November of that year.

Handling the Tetragrammaton in English translations

William Tyndale’s translation from Exodus 6 as first published in 1530.

This blog has already republished two articles from the journals of The International Society of Bible Collectors, one on Herman Heinfetter and one on Age to Come Bibles. This third article, which dates from 1988, was published originally in Bible Collectors’ World. It has not been updated since its original publication.

The article was specific to translations of the commonly called Old Testament. It has no direct connection with the Bible Student movement (although ZWT used the name Jehovah over two thousand two hundred times, starting with the supplement to the very first issue of July 1879 through to the end of 1916). And the modern Watchtower Society has produced the New World Translation, which extensively uses the form Jehovah. As such, the subject matter may be of interest to some blog readers.

Footnote numbers are printed in red.

A past issue of The Bible Collector (No. 57) contained an article on “The Divine Name in Bible Translation.” This described some Bible versions of the past 150 years that restored the Divine Name in the text in some readable form, generally as Jehovah or Yahweh. The purpose of this article is to illustrate how this translation problem has been handled in at least a dozen different ways in English language versions of the Old Testament (OT).

The background only need be covered briefly here. The special name for God in the Hebrew text is written as four letters (Greek: tetragrammaton, hereinafter abbreviated at TG). These letters are usually transliterated as YHWH. By about 700 AD Jewish “masters of tradition” (Massoretes) were adding a system of vowel points to indicate the accepted pronunciation. When handling the TG, vowel points for Adonai (Lord) and Elohim (God) were deliberately inserted. This reminded the reader that “Lord” or “God” should be substituted in public reading. It had long been Jewish practice not to pronounce the sacred name. When translations were made into Greek, and later Latin, it became accepted practice to substitute words such as “Lord” in the translation. The first English versions from the Latin simply passed on this earlier decision.

This background has resulted in two opposing viewpoints amongst translators today. One is to follow the long established practice of substituting a title for the TG, usually LORD in all capitals. Smith and Goodspeed’s American Translation calls this following “the orthodox Jewish tradition.” 1 However, there are certain texts such as Exodus 6:3 where many feel the sense is incomplete without a proper name. On such occasions many leave tradition and insert a form of the TG. This pattern, started with Tyndale, was popularized by the KJV which used the form Jehovah on four occasions. 2

The alternative view is that the name should be consistently restored in the English version, wherever this can be supported by the Hebrew text. Depending on the actual text used this can vary between 5,500 3 and nearly 7,000 4 times. It is held that later Jewish tradition should not be the determining factor. If the earliest extant manuscripts (including the Dead Sea Scrolls) use a distinctive name so many times, then accurate translation demands the same. But what form should the name take?

There are of course many translations that do not fit comfortably into either above category. Some appear very inconsistent, using names or titles on the apparent whim of the translator (cf. Living Bible). The New Berkeley Version (1969) even manages to contain both Jehovah (Exodus 6:3) and Yahweh (Hosea 12:5) within the same translation!

An attempt will now be made to describe some different ways the TG has been handled in the history of OT translation. The following survey does not claim to be exhaustive. The dates in brackets relate to OT publication, which in many cases will mean the complete Bible. An asterisk (*) following the date indicates that the volume is featured in Herbert. 5

LORD/GOD

The reasons for substituting the title LORD have been outlined above. Versions consistent in this practice include Revised Standard Version (1952*), New American Bible (1970), New American Standard Version (1971), Good News Bible (1976) and New International Version (1978). These are amongst the most popular versions in use. The general reading public for whom they are addressed can easily remain unaware of the TG, unless they check a forward or footnote. Even in Exodus 6:3 the form LORD is retained.

It is interesting to note that the supervising translator of the Good News Bible, Robert Bratcher, has recently commented: “A faithful application of dynamic equivalence principles would require a proper name, and not a title, as a translation of YHWH…In the matter of the names for God, the GNB is still far from being a ‘perfect’ translation.” 6 It can also be noted that the NIV text used in Kohlenberger’s Hebrew Interlinear (1979-86) has restored the form Yahweh.

Other popular versions of the 20th century that generally use LORD, but make an exception in Exodus 6:3 include New English Bible (1961*). American Translation (OT 1927*), and Basic English (1949*). The usual practice is to print LORD in capitals when it substitutes for the TG. (This is not always the case. The much reprinted Douay-Challoner version uses small case letters, creating a problem of identity in Psalm 110 v. 1: “The Lord said to my Lord.”) Where the Hebrew text reads Lord, YHWH, rather than the obvious tautology Lord, LORD, most versions read Lord God (with or without capitalization). In such cases, the word God becomes a substitute word in translation for the TG.

To try and make a distinction in Exodus 6:3 some RC versions have transliterated the Hebrew word for Lord as ADONAI – cf. Douay-Challoner and Knox (1955*).

JEHOVAH

The three vowel sounds in the pointing used by the Massoretes led eventually to the sound Jehovah in Latin and then English. The first to use this form in English translation (as Iehouah) was William Tyndale (1530*). Some writers still erroneously credit him with inventing this spelling.7 Tyndale used Iehouah at Exodus 6 v. 3 and LORD elsewhere. The earliest English version to regularly use Jehovah where the TG occurs appears to be that of Henry Ainsworth (1622*). This writer has the 1639 folio of Ainsworth’s Annotations upon the five books of Moses and the books of Psalms, printed by M. Parsons for John Bellamie, and Jehovah (or Iehovah) is used throughout. According to Herbert, Ainsworth’s Psalms first appeared in 1612, and the Pentateuch from 1616. In his annotation on Genesis 2 v. 4, Ainsworth commented: “Iehovah - this is Gods proper name.

It commeth of Havah, he was, and by the firft letter I. it fignifieth, he will be, and by the fecond Ho, it fignifieth, he is…Paft, prefent and to come are comprehended in this proper name as is knowne unto all…It implieth alfo, that God hath his being or exiftence of himselfe before the world was, that he giveth being unto all things…that he giveth being to his word effecting whatfoever he fpeaketh.” (Although outside the scope of this article it should be noted that the form Jehova was previously used extensively in the Latin Bible of Tremellio and Junio first published in four parts over 1575-79.)

A little later in the 17th century than Ainsworth, the poet John Milton published his translation of the first eight Psalms (c. 1653 and now sometimes found bound with his poetry) in which he uses Jehovah fourteen times.

The 18th century saw a number of portion translations use Jehovah extensively, such as Lowth’s Isaiah (1778*), Newcome’s Minor Prophets (1785*). Dodson’s Isaiah (1790) and Street’s Psalms (1790*). The 19th century brought a flood of new translations that consistently used this form for the TG, including those by Benjamin Boothroyd (from 1824*). George R. Noyes (from 1827*), Charles Wellbeloved et al. (from 1859*). Robert Young (1862*), Samuel Sharpe (1865*). Helen Spurrell (1885*) and John Nelson Darby (1885*). The 20th century has seen other forms of the TG gain in popularity, but Jehovah has still been the consistent choice of the American Standard Version (I901*), the RC Westminster Version (from 1934*), New World Translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (from 1953*), Steven T. Byington’s Bible in Living English (1972), Jay Green’s Hebrew-English Interlinear (1976) and less consistently in Kenneth Taylor’s Living Bible (1971). The popular New English Bible (1961*) uses Jehovah in such verses as Exodus 6 v. 3.

A large number of portion translations and lesser known works could be added to this list. However unusual the sound might appear to an ancient Hebrew, after centuries of use “Jehovah seems firmly rooted in the English language.”8

YAHWEH

Based partly on studies of proper names that incorporate the TG, many scholars favor Yahweh as the correct pronunciation. The use of this Hebrew form has steadily increased in recent years.

Who then was first to use Yahweh in translation? It is not so easy to be categorical. Certainly the first major translation of the complete OT to consistently feature Yahweh was J. B. Rotherham’s Emphasized Bible. The OT was first published in 1902*. Rotherham devotes much space to explain his use of Yahweh in preference to the popular form Jehovah. 9 Interestingly, in his later Studies in the Psalms (1911) Rotherham reverted to Jehovah on the grounds of easy recognition.10

However, Rotherham was not the first in print with Yahweh. Just one year earlier in 1901* James McSwiney’s translation of the Psalms and Canticles used the form YaHWeh on occasion. If McSwiney should prove to be first this is perhaps a little unfair on Rotherham. His OT translation was already completed by 1894, when the publication of Ginsburg’s Critico-Massoretic Hebrew Text caused him to delay publication to revise the whole work. 11

Since the turn of the century many others have followed these examples. The Colloquial Speech Version (from 1920*) published by the National Adult School Union used Yahweh. So did many translations of portions, such as S. R. Driver’s Jeremiah (1906), Gowen’s Psalms (1930), Oesterley’s Psalms (1939) and Watt’s Genesis (1963). The 1960s saw a number consistently use this form including the Anchor Bible (from 1964) and the popular Jerusalem Bible (1966).

A. B. Traina’s Holy Name Bible (1963) uses Yahweh, and is also consistent in Hebrewizing other names as well. In Traina’s NT (1950*) Jesus is Yahshua. 1979 saw the commencement of Kohlenberger’s NIV Hebrew Interlinear using Yahweh. Additionally, many popular versions that use LORD have chosen Yahweh for Exodus 6 v. 3, including An American Translation (1927*) and the Basic English Bible (1949*).

Returning to the question of who was first to use this form - if one allows for variant spelling, one can go back at least to 1881* when J. M. Rodwell’s Isaiah used the form Jahveh. The same spelling was used in T. H. Wilkinson’s Job (1901*) and G. H. Box’s Isaiah (1908*). Other spellings since then include Jahweh used by Edward J. Kissane in Job (1939*) and Isaiah (two volumes: 1941-43*). In his Psalms (two volumes: 1953~54*) Kissane reverted to the traditional spelling: Yahweh. Another slight variant is Iahweh used in Bernard Duhm’s translation of The Twelve Prophets (1912). Yet another is Jave used on a number of occasions by Ronald Knox in his OT (two volumes: 19490)12 In the popular one volume Bible of 1955 Knox dropped this completely and reverted to LORD in the text and Yahweh in occasional footnotes. Then there is Yahvah used in the Restoration of Original Sacred Name Bible (1976), a revision of Rotherham’s translation. Like the similar work of Traina this also Hebrewizes other names. In the NT (1968) Jesus becomes Yahvahshua.

TETRAGRAMMATON

Another approach has been to literally include the TG as four letters in the translation. “In the Beginning - A New Translatin of Genesis” by Everett Fox, consistently uses YHWH in the main text. Of course this is unpronounceable! In his forward (p. xxix) Fox discusses the use of Lord, Jehovah and Yahweh, and advises “as one reads the translation aloud one should pronounce the name according to ones custom.” Here we have a modern translator truly being “all things to all men” (1 Cor. 9 v. 22 NIV).

This device had previously been used by several late 19th century versions. J. Helmuth’s literal translation of Genesis (1884) and E. G. King’s Psalms (1898) both favored the form YHVH. Another slight variation was provided by the Polychrome Bible (c. 1890s) which used JHVH. Additionally, a number of Jewish versions use the TG in Hebrew characters at Exodus 6:3 with a footnote advising the reader to substitute “Lord” – cf. New Jewish Bible (from 1962) and JPS ed. Margolis (1917*).

While these forms are unpronounceable, they can at least be recognized by the average student. But what does one make of the Concordant Version OT (Genesis 1958*) that consistently uses Ieue? On close examination of the CV’s transliteration key Ieue proves to be none other than YHWH. The pronunciation guide suggests it should be read as Yehweh - which at least looks more familiar! After publishing all the prophets using Ieue, the translators with Leviticus (1983) reverted to the form Yahweh.

ETERNAL

Jehovah, Yahweh and similar forms are often described as transliterations since they incorporate in some way the four letters YHWH (JHVH). In this area of semantics, Eternal is a rare attempt at actual translation; in other words, an attempt to express the meaning of the name! 13 Most authorities link the TG with the Hebrew verb “to be” (or “to become”) and it has been variously defined as “the one who is, who was and who will be,”14 “to exist - to be actively present”15 and “he causes to be.”16 (cf. Henry Ainsworth quotation above).

As translation “The Eternal” has been criticized 17 and apart from James Moffatt (1924*) few others in English have used it, although it is popular in French translations like Segond. In his forward Moffatt explains how he was poised to use Yahweh, and had he been translating for students of the original would have done so, but almost at the last moment followed the practice of the French scholars.18 Isaac Leeser (1854*) had previously used Eternal in Exodus 6 v. 3, Psalm 83 v. 18, and in an unusual combination for a Jewish version at Isaiah 12 v. 2 as “Yah the Eternal.”

Even if it could be agreed that Eternal (or another expression) accurately conveys the meaning, all other names in translation remain as names. Why should different rules apply here? One awaits with some trepidation an English version that translates the meaning of all names. The appearance of a “Sacred Meaning Scripture Names Version” can only be a matter of time.

This article has concentrated on the TG in the OT and the various decisions translators have made. Over the years a few NT translations have appeared that have also included the TG in some recognizable form. The basis for this has usually been in OT quotations, and more recently on the evidence of some early Septuagint fragments. This more controversial area can perhaps form the basis of a future article.

Footnotes

1 - An American Translation, preface p. xiii.

2 - Exodus 6 v. 3, Psalm 83 v. 18, Isaiah 12 v. 2 and 26 v. 4 (also in a few compound place names)

3 - Jay Green: Interlinear Hebrew/English Bible (1976) preface p. xi.

4 - J. B. Rotherham: Emphasized Bible (1902) Introduction p. 22.

5 - Historical Catalogue of Printed Editions of the English Bible 1525-1961, Darlow and Moule (revised A. S.

Herbert) BFBS 1968. A number of the portion translations mentioned in this article are not in Herbert.

6 - Bible Translator, Vol. 36, No. 2 (Oct. 1985). pp. 413. 414.

7 – cf. Dennett: Graphic Guide to Modern Versions of the NT (1965) p. 24. The spelling Iohouah was used by

Porchetus de Salvaticus in 1303 (Victoria Porcheti adversus impios Hebraeos).

8 - Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (1 and 2 Samuel) 1930 edition. Note 1. On the Name Jehovah. p. 10.

9 - Rotherham: Forward. pp. 22-29.

10 - Studies in the Psalms (1911). Introduction, p. 29.

11 - Rotherham: Forward, p. 17.

12 - Knox (1949 two volume edition) Psalm 67 v. 5. 21; 73 v. 18: 82 v. 19; Isaiah 42 v. 8; 45 v. 5, 6; etc.

13 - Bible Translator, Vol. 36, No. 2 (Oct. 1985). pp. 401, 402.

14 - Idem. p. 402.

15 - Lion Handbook of the Bible (1973) p. 157.

16 - Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (1962) Vol. 2, p. 410.

17 - Steven T. Byington: Bible in Living English (1972). Preface p. 7: “much worse by a substantivized adjective.”

See also Bible Translator Vol. 36, No. 2 (Oct. 1985), p. 411.

18 - James Moffatt: Forward pp. xx, xxi.

The promised article on New Testament translations using some form of the Tetragrammaton was never completed, but some of the research ended up in the book Your Word is Truth: Essays in Celebration of the 50^th Anniversary of the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, edited by Anthony Byatt and Hal Flemings (published 2004).

Laura J Raynor

A sister in law of Charles Taze Russell

From Highwood Cemetery, Pittsburgh

Laura Raynor, Maria Russell’s older sister, was a keen supporter of ZWT theology for a number of years, although you wouldn’t know it from her obituary in the Pittsburgh Press, 23 July 1917.

The obituary mentions her siblings, Lemuel Ackley (whose murder is covered in the article “Lemuel” earlier on this blog), Selena Barto (who featured indirectly in Lemuel’s demise), and of course Maria and Emma who married the Russells, son and father.

ZWT mentions a “Sister Raynor” sharing in colporteur work in 1887. Laura had been widowed some years before this in 1873. Her husband, Henry Raynor had been under 40 years old at the time, leaving her with three children, Howard M Raynor (c.1867-1946), Selina Raynor, who never married (c.1865-1948), and Maria Raynor (c.1873-after 1941). Maria Raynor married S Frank McKee and she is named as May Raynor McKee on his death certificate in 1941. The whole family and offshoots stayed in the general Pittsburgh area.

At the time she was mentioned as a colporteur in 1887, Laura’s children would have been of an age to be mainly independent; Selina would have been around 21, Howard around 20, and Maria (May) around 14. They were also all listed as living in the same home as Laura’s mother, Selina Ackley, back in the 1880 census.

Laura is mentioned several times in subsequent issues of ZWT. In the May 1, 1892 issue for example, there was a meeting at her home. In the 1894 troubles, she signed a document with her sister Maria and others supporting CTR. However, in the 1897 troubles between CTR and Maria, she supported Maria.

Contact Card

The above contact card was for Mrs M A Boder. Mary Ann Dunbar (1860-1948) was from Scots-Irish background and married William F Boder in Allegheny in 1889. They had one son, William Dunbar Boder (1891-1980).

Mary is mentioned once in ZWT in the issue for August 15, 1908.  She signed a document giving support to “the vow” as part of the Avalon class (Avalon, Allegheny, Penn.)  The document was also signed by W D Boder. This was not her husband but her son who would be about 17 years old at the time.

Mary remained with the IBSA and her funeral announcement in 1948 mentioned Jehovah’s Witnesses. From the Pittsburgh-Sun Telegraph, March 7,1948, page 33.

I do not know her son’s subsequent religious history other than that he claimed exemption on his 1917 WW1 Draft card on the grounds of being a member of the International Bible Students. From a document dated June 5, 1917.

Colporteur's prospectus

A 1904 edition of Divine Plan of the Ages with the prospectus for all six volumes bound as the cover. Very shortly after this was produced the title of the series was changed to Studies in the Scriptures.

Age to Come Bibles

Any detailed history of Watch Tower antecedents must contain references to the Age to Come movement. This was a very general movement covering different viewpoints that grew in the 19^th century. When CTR and his family met in Quincy Hall, Allegheny, this was originlly a combined group of both Second Adventists and Age to Come believers, and advertised in their respective papers. In the 1870s this tended to fall apart, as separation and denominationalism came into being. The article that follows was published in the specialist magazine Bible Review Journal Volume 2 number 2 (Fall 2015). A previously posted article on this blog on Herman Heinfetter was published in an earlier journal of this group,The International Society of Bible Collectors.

Keen collectors of Bible translations will often group different versions into “families”, both by style and any underlying theology. Stylistically they can range from extremely wooden literal versions to free – sometimes wildly free – paraphrases. Under theology you can find what might be called Catholic Bibles, Jewish Bibles, Baptist/immersionist Bibles, Unitarian Bibles – to name but a few. Most Bible students are happy to have a representative selection of all types for comparison purposes, even if they personally hold views that are not always supported as they would wish by all the versions on offer.

This article is going to discuss what I have perhaps arbitrarily called Age to Come Bibles. This general grouping came to prominence in the 19^th century, and is sometimes confused with the Adventist movement with whom some fellowshipped for a time. Ultimately, other than a mutual interest in the return of Christ – there were sufficient differences in belief to cause separation as the 19^th century wore on. This led to clearly defined Adventist groups, and clearly defined Age to Come groups – the latter including such names as Church of God, One Faith, Living Hope, Abrahamic Faith, and Christadelphian.

As a rough and general description, Age to Come believers, are non-Trinitarian, and generally Socinian in outlook (i.e. they do not believe that Jesus’ literally existed before his human birth). They often disbelieve in the concept of a personal devil. They believe that immortality is conditional and future, dependant on resurrection. So immortal-soul and hell-fire theologies are rejected. And they believe that man’s destiny is on the earth – (what some would call heaven on earth) - and generally that prophecies about Israel will literally be fulfilled with natural Israel.

Bibles produced from such a background may have subtle difference when compared with, for instance, the King James Version. Understandably, the theology of translators will reflect their beliefs – especially when there are translation problems that might arguably be rendered in more than one way. As such, some readers may be interested in examining them further.

To find what I have called Age to Come Bibles there are probably two texts to check. The key one is Luke 23:43. In the King James or Authorized Version it reads:

And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

This has been carried on in the majority of translations since then. But the question is raised, did Jesus actually mean he and the criminal would be in paradise such as heaven that same day, or was he speaking on that day about some future time and place? Groups that believe in the inherent immortality of the human soul would say that while Jesus body was in the grave, his spirit/soul went straight to heaven. Groups that believe in conditional immortality and soul-sleep (such as Age to Come believers) would argue that this paradise promise related to the future, not that actual day. The understanding of the passage will determine where the translator puts the comma, since there are no commas in koine Greek.

The second text to check is probably the automatic one most readers would go to – John 1:1. Since these groups are normally non-Trinitarian, the King James Version’s rendering of the last clause as “and the Word was God” can be problematic, unless the definition of “Word” still allows for a non-Trinitarian approach.

There are three Bibles we are going to consider:

Benjamin Wilson’s Emphatic Diaglott (NT only)

Duncan Heaster’s New European Version (complete Bible)

Anthony Buzzard’s The One God, the Father, One Man Messiah Translation (NT only)

The history of Wilson and his Diaglott is well documented, so little needs repeating here. Benjamin Wilson and John Thomas (from whom came the Christadelphians) were in fellowship in the mid-19^th century, but there came a parting of the ways. Subsequently, Wilson produced his Diaglott. In 1902 the copyright came into the possession of Charles T Russell, president of the Watch Tower Society. By the time the copyright lapsed, the Watchtower Society’s policy was to make no charge for literature, so there was no point in anyone else producing it until their stock was exhausted. Since then a Church of God group with help from Christadelphians has produced an edition, and being out of copyright there are several ways it can now be obtained.

The New European Version is a modern revision of the KJV and ASV rather than a new translation from original languages. It is produced from within the Christadelphian movement, and has an extensive commentary by Duncan Heaster. The NT first came out in 2009 and the complete Bible in 2011. It is published jointly by Carelinks Publishing and the Christadelphian Advancement Trust.

Anthony Buzzard’s The One God, the Father, One Man Messiah Translation is an original translation based on the United Bible Society’s Standard Greek Text (edited by Bruce Metzger). It was published in 2014 by Restoration Fellowship. It is a NT produced from within the Church of God movement. Buzzard taught for decades at their Bible College. Part of the Church of God’s history can be traced back to the ministry of Benjamin Wilson, who as noted above had been a co-worker with John Thomas, before doctrinal differences split them up.

So how do these three Bibles approach our two key texts?

First - Luke 23:43.

Each of them places the comma to support their belief that Jesus’ reference to “paradise” was in the future.

Benjamin Wilson:  And said to him the Jesus: Indeed I say to thee to-day, with me thou shalt be in the Paradise.

Duncan Heaster: And he said to him: Truly, I can say to you today right now, that you will indeed be with me in paradise.

Anthony Buzzard: Jesus replied, “I promise you today, you will indeed be with me in that future paradise.”

There is more divergence in the way they handle John 1:1.

Wilson’s main text is similar to the KJV, reading: “the Logos was with GOD, and the Logos was God” – although a distinction is made between GOD and God by the use of capitals. However, Wilson’s interlinear rendering “and a god was the Word” provoked controversy. 

It has to be said that the translation “a god” goes back a long way, at least to Edward Harwood’s Liberal Translation of 1768 ("and was himself a divine person").  It was popularised by the Unitarians who got hold of Archbishop Newcome’s New Testament and “improved” it. Newcome’s Improved Version of 1808 reads “and the word was a god” in the main text. This was picked up by the Abner Kneeland translation (1822), and then Wilson in his interlinear. Others like Herman Heinfetter (1851) in the UK did likewise.

However, whilst Wilson’s John 1:1 interlinear raised criticism from mainstream Christendom, it did not sit all that well with some Age to Come believers. If the Word is “a god” – and by that is suggested a literal person – whose existence can be linked right back to “in the beginning” – that presents a conflict with a Socinian belief that the literal person of the Christ only came into existence with his human birth – having previously being an idea or plan in the mind of God.

So our other two Age to Come Bibles handle John 1:1 quite differently, because to them, the Word refers to Reason, or a Thought or Idea in the mind of God.

First, Heaster’s reads:

In the beginning was the word (logos), and the word was towards God, and the word was Divine.

The translation “Divine” is quite a common rendering – found in Moffatt, Smith-Goodspeed, Schonfeld and others. It basically takes the word “theos” without the article and makes it an adjective, a descriptive word.

But then from verse 2 onwards in John’s gospel in the NEV, this word (uncapitalised) is not “he” but “it”. But from verse 10 onwards including verse 14 where “the word became flesh” the pronoun changes to “he” for the rest of the chapter. Heaster makes it quite clear in his commentary that he views the word as the inner thought, or plan or message of God.

Anthony Buzzard’s translation is even more obvious in the way it understands John 1:1. It reads:

In the beginning there was God’s grand design, and that declaration was with God, related to Him as His project, and it was fully expressive of God himself.

Buzzard’s commentary identifies the word as the thinking or concern or promise of God. And like Heaster he uses the neuter pronoun “it” until verse 10 when the word becomes “he”.

There are other Bibles that could probably fit into this family, but I have restricted myself to the Diaglott and its two obvious daughters, both in presentation and in the history of their publishers. But in passing we could mention the New World Translation of Jehovah’s Witnesses, which has some similarities. For example, the comma in Luke is placed to show the paradise promise as future, and “a god” is in the main text for John 1:1.  However, unlike Wilson, the modern witnesses believe in the pre-existence of Jesus, a personal Devil, and reject that natural Israel still has a part to play in God’s plan.

Then there is the plethora of translations produced by strands of the Sacred Name movement. 

(Historically most Sacred Name groups can be traced back to 20^th century schisms in the 19^th century Church of God Seventh Day). Starting with Angelo B Traina’s Sacred Name Bible (1950 NT, whole Bible 1963), they include L D Snow’s and R Favitta’s Restoration of Original Sacred Name Bible (1970) and Jacob Meyer’s Sacred Scriptures Bethel Edition (1981) and Yisrayl Hawkins’ The Book of Yahweh (1988). These have been joined by some internet-only versions in more recent years. These Sacred Name Bibles have doctrinal similarities with Wilson et al. as reflected in our two key texts, Luke 23:43 and John 1:1, but add their own distinctive take on Divine Names and titles. Some would argue that “translation” is a misnomer for more recent examples, “adaptation” being more accurate. The ability to get hold of an existing but out of copyright Bible translation in electronic form and simply substitute their “corrections” means that any Sacred Name group (however small) can still retain its individuality by producing its own Bible. But these are outside the scope of this article.