Phillips' New Testament

Later Phillips completed a translation of the entire New Testament. The Phillips Version suffers from the same defects as others which employ the use of free paraphrase. However, unlike The Living Bible, Phillips does not employ crude language.

The Trinitarian Bible Society has pointed out a number of specific mistranslations (Trinitarian Bible Society, Tract No. 28). These include:

Clearly the latter is an entirely different statement from that of the King James Version, which accurately reflects the Greek original. Christ’s message to us is lost.

It will be noticed that the correct translation promises God’s grace in His judgment to those who are not judgmental. Phillips’ Version altered this sublime truth to focus our minds upon our fellow men and their criticism of us. Thus a divine truth is deliberately deleted.

It will be noted that in the correct translation God’s righteousness is said to be revealed from faith to faith. This wording indicates that God’s faith imparted to the believer from Him generates further faith.

Twice in this text Phillips has failed to translate the Greek word parthenos as virgin, rather translating it as young woman and girl. Although Phillips translates the Greek word as virgin elsewhere (Matthew 1:23) his failure to do so in this text in inexcusable. In biology this term is used in parthenogenesis. No biologist would fail to understand that parthenos refers to a female who has not had sexual relations.

Once again Phillips has altered the initial words of the text. The use of the word God instead of the Word in Phillips’ first sentence leaves one in doubt whether the reference there is to the Father or to the Son. Indeed the powerful implication is the former, for when God is correctly translated in Phillips’ second sentence this reference quite clearly is to the Father. But the original Greek refers to the Word and this, the context makes plain, is a reference to Jesus.

In attempting a smooth paraphrase, Phillips has virtually removed God’s hand from the bestowal of His blessing.

Christ’s words, as recorded by Matthew, were carefully chosen. He intended to convey that the golden rule is the essence of Scripture, which in His day was the Old Testament. In an age when aspersions are frequently cast upon God’s first Testament, suggesting a tyrannical, unloving God, the potent affirmation of the gentleness and love of God as expressed in the Old Testament, has been totally forsaken by Phillips’ assumption that he is at liberty to place altered words into the mouth of our Saviour.

Once more we note a marked alteration in meaning. Paul’s expression to the Galatian believers clearly refers to those who are seeking justification. Phillips took license to change that meaning to refer to those who understand justification. These are two entirely different matters. Surely, the Bible student is entitled to know what Paul, writing under inspiration, really wrote to God’s flock in Galatia.

Two further examples are cited below:

It is apparent that Phillips introduces his own interpretations quite frequently. He justifies this practice by claiming:

We suggest that rather should the sensibilities of modern English readers be guided by the Word of God.

These examples, selected from among many, suffice to alert the reader of God’s Word that when he reads Phillips’ paraphrase, he quite frequently is not reading the inspired Word, but rather the human notions of J.B. Phillips. Thus the version falls far short of the requirements of one diligently desiring to know God’s will.

As in almost all of the modern versions, it is not unknown for the reader to be confounded by the adoption of words far more difficult to comprehend, especially by the young or the foreign reader, than the delightfully simple words chosen by the translators of the Authorized Version.

Let us cite one example from Phillips:

Ignoring that Phillips’ examples have been inserted from his mind and are not found in Paul’s original letter, we note that he has used the word attributes in place of things and the word discernible as an alternative to seen. Now these are perfectly correct translations as are those in the King James Version, and they are good words. The point made here is that they are much more complex than their simple synonyms in the King James Version.

As with other modern translations, Phillips’ defective version, because of his use of paraphrase, is further compounded by his reliance on the corrupted manuscripts. We will not elaborate on this matter, for it is well illustrated in other chapters of this work.

While Phillips uses no vulgarities in his paraphrase, his vocabulary is less than elegant at times. Three examples are cited without comment:

Even in the headings, Phillips at times uses less than acceptable language. We illustrate by the one preceding Romans 11:30-36.

Phillips’ version would have been greatly improved if he had fully believed one of the texts in his version.

But it is quite obvious that he did not take that passage to heart, for in his preface he revealed his true attitude to the sacred manuscripts he had chosen to paraphrase. There he wrote,

Could we safely rely on a version prepared by a man with such a cavalier approach to God’s Holy Word? How different was Paul’s assessment of his inspired writings!