The Recovery Version
Bible
I recently had someone ask me about the “Recovery Version” Bible. I told her I was not
familiar with this Bible and would do some research and get back.
A little more looking, however, and I soon found out that the
“recovery” in the title did not have to do with addiction but recovery or
restoration of primitive Christianity.
I discovered that the Recovery Version of the Bible is
produced by Living Stream Ministry (I’ll refer to the Recovery Version
Bible as RVB and the Recovery Version New Testament as RVNT), connected with
and publishers of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee. Watchman Nee (1903-1972) was a dynamic
Chinese teacher who founded an independent “local church” movement that has
spread to several other Asian and Western (including the US) nations. I had
heard of Nee before and had seen a few of his books on the shelves of Christian
bookstores. Witness Lee (1905-1997) was Nee’s protégé who became a leader in
the movement and Nee’s successor at his death. Lee was apparently the general
editor of the RVB.
An odd copyright note
I wanted to look at a copy of the RVB. The NT can be found online here. I found this rather odd note,
however, on the opening page:
We hope that many will benefit from these spiritual
riches. However, for the sake of avoiding confusion,
we ask that none of these materials be
downloaded or copied and republished elsewhere, electronically or otherwise.
Living Stream Ministry retains full copyright on
all these materials and hopes that our visitors will respect this.
So, readers can
view the text online but “for the sake of confusion” the material cannot be
“downloaded or copies and republished elsewhere, electronically or otherwise”?
This is odd.
More on Living Stream Ministry
A quick Google
search for “Living Stream Ministry” brought some interesting information,
including several sites which raised questions about the theology of Nee and
Lee, and the practices of their church movement. Findings included this “open letter” signed by 70 mainstream evangelical Christian leaders and this 2007 press release about this open letter. The
concerns expressed in the open letter center on four areas in the teaching
of Witness Lee: (1) doctrine of God (especially the Trinity and Christology);
(2) the doctrine of man; (3) the doctrine of the church (“the legitimacy of
evangelical churches and denominations”); and (4) lawsuits with evangelical
Christians.
Citations are
given from Lee’s writings to illustrate concerns. With regard to the doctrine of the church,
the charge seems to be that Lee has disparaged the legitimacy of Christian
churches outside his own movement. Among
passages cited are those from the RVNT on Mark 16:18 (describing “apostate
Roman Catholic and Protestant denominations”) and Revelation 3:8 (describing
the “apostate church … denominating herself”).
The “local
church” organization (I’ll call it the Living Stream Ministry Church, LSMC),
then, appears to a restorationist movement, with questions about the legitimacy
of other churches, and especially denominations, outside their circle.
I also visited the website for
the LSMC in Charlottesville, which modestly calls itself
“The Church in Charlottesville.” The
picture on the opening page looks like it came from a retreat and shows it to
be a group primarily consisting of young people (I would guess many are
students at UVA or elsewhere), with many Asians or, possibly, internationals.
The doctrinal statement has 8 bullet points and
seems to reflect a general non-denominational, Arminian evangelicalism
theology.
The FAQ page notes that they do not belong to
a denomination but have fellowship with other churches (presumably, however,
only with other LSMC churches). It also notes their exclusive use of the RVB
and speaks in glowing terms of Nee and Lee, even comparing Nee to Wycliffe,
Tyndale, Luther, Bunyan, etc. It is interesting that there is no explicit
listing of the names of any church officers (pastors, elders, deacons), though
it is noted that the church treasures “apostles, prophets,
evangelists, and shepherds and teachers (Eph. 4:11).” Do they believe that the
office of “apostle” still exists today?
Getting a hard copy of the RVB
After reading the
online copyright note for the NT and wanting also to read the OT of the RB, I
thought I might try to order a hard copy. On Amazon I discovered that the
entire RB is quite expensive ($129 for the hardback and $99 for the softback!),
though there were less expensive paperback versions of the NT alone. I also discovered that Living Streams will
send a free copy of the NT, so I requested one and got it in the mail about a
week later.
This review comes
from my examination of that text.
A Brief Review of the RVNT
As we will see
the RVB is really a study Bible with copious notes, written by Witness Lee
giving the LSMC interpretation. This review will not be extensive but
suggestive of the content.
First, the front matter and introduction (“A Brief
Explanation”):
The title page says the text was translated by The Editorial Section of Living Stream
Ministry.
It adds that the
outline, footnotes, charts, and references were written by Witness Lee.
The print version
also has a copyright warning against transmission in any form without
permission.
The first edition
was printed in 1985 and the revised edition in 1991.
In the “Brief
Explanation” it is noted that the RVNT “attempts to avoid biases and inaccurate
judgments.” It is also states that a
proper translation requires not only a proper understanding of “the original
language” but also “the divine revelation in the holy Word.”
It has a high
view of the RVB noting it is the apex of past study and understanding. Both the
translation and the notes are the “consummation” and “crystallization”
of two thousand years of previous study.
In its desire to
recover “the original Greek text” it makes used of the NA 26th
edition of the Greek NT, with some departures.
Text:
As noted, the
“Brief Explanation” states that the translation accepts the modern critical
text and a restorationist perspective. A glance at the text of the RVNT, however, shows
that it is a mixed text with readings from the TR and the modern critical text.
Examples:
Examples
of readings following TR in RVNT
|
Doxology of the Lord’s Prayer included: Matt 6:13
|
Mark 16:9-20 included with no bracket. Footnote at v.
9: “Many ancient MSS omit vv. 9-20”
|
John 1:18: “only begotten Son”
|
John 5:3b-4 included. Footnote at v. 3: “Some MSS
omit this last part of v. 3 and all of v. 4.”
|
John 7:53—8:11 included without brackets. Footnote at
v. 53: “Many ancient MSS omit 7:53—8:11.”
|
Acts 8:37 included. Footnote at v. 37: “Many ancient
MSS omit this verse.”
|
Examples
of readings following modern critical text in RVNT
|
Mark 1:12: “as it is written in Isaiah the prophet”
|
Mark 9:44, 46: Omit verses. Footnote at v. 46: “Some
MSS insert v. 46”; see also footnote at v. 48.
|
1 Tim 3:16: “He was manifested in the flesh”
|
1 John 5:7b-8a: CJ omitted with no footnote
|
Rev 16:5: “who is and who was, the Holy One”
|
Rev. 22:19: “tree of life”
|
Translation:
My surface
impression is that just as the text is "mixed" (with TR and modern critical text readings) so the translation is "mixed," in that it
combines Tyndale/KJV and modern readings.
Notes:
Each book is
preceded by an extended outline. The notes are extensive, often swallowing up
and eclipsing the text. One might well call the RVNT a NT commentary that
provides the text of the Bible, rather than a study Bible. Given that this is the only approved
translation for use in LWMC churches one wonders why there is not more
confidence in simply printing the text of the Bible itself without the
extensive notes.
Image: sample pages from the RVB showing proportion of text (above) to notes (below).
Problems with
notes relating to ecclesiology at Matt 16:18 and Rev 3:8 are cited above.
Another major
issue with the notes and accompanying charts is the dispensational
pre-millennial theology reflected in them. With dispensationalism also
comes other issues like the law, the church, etc.
Image: a chart on the kingdom of heavens and the kingdom of God from the RVNT
Image: a chart on eschatology from the RVNT
Overall:
Though it has
existed since 1985 I was unaware of the RVB until this year. As the review
indicates, I do have some serious concerns about this translation and cannot
recommend its regular use. It has a mixed text in the NT and I am not in
agreement with the theological viewpoint of the notes. I also do not think it
would be safe to attend a church that would require exclusive use of this
translation of the Bible.
JTR
Note: After completing my review, I also ran across these two reviews of the RVB by Murray Grindlay.
