Philippians 3:11 and the "Earlier Resurrection"

E. Gruss, a vocal and outspoken critic of Jehovah’s Witnesses, makes the following comments in one of his long winded attacks on the New World Translation:

“In Philippians 3:11 the Greek exanastasis (resurrection) is erroneously translated ‘earlier resurrection.’”

But does his claim that “earlier resurrection” is “erroneous” really hold any water, or is it just another distortion of the facts by an anti-‘cult’ fanatic?

I see no real reason not to use the Insight on the Scriptures reference here, as it directly addresses the issue and is 90% quotation of outside sources anyways.

“Resurrection.” Insight on the Scriptures Vol. 2, p. 787

The apostle Paul speaks of this first resurrection also as “the earlier resurrection from the dead [literally, the out-resurrection the out of dead (ones)].” (Php 3:11, NW, Ro, Int) On the expression Paul uses here, Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament (1931, Vol. IV, p. 454) says: “Apparently Paul is thinking here only of the resurrection of believers out from the dead and so double ex [out] (ten exanastasin ten ek nekron). Paul is not denying a general resurrection by this language, but emphasizing that of believers.” Charles Ellicott’s Commentaries (1865, Vol. II, p. 87) remarks on Philippians 3:11: “‘The resurrection from the dead;’ i.e., as the context suggests, the first resurrection (Rev. xx. 5), when, at the Lord’s coming the dead in Him shall rise first (1 Thessalon. iv. 16), and the quick be caught up to meet Him in the clouds (1 Thess. iv. 17); compare Luke xx. 35. The first resurrection will include only true believers, and will apparently precede the second, that of non-believers and disbelievers, in point of time . . . Any reference here to a merely ethical resurrection (Cocceius) is wholly out of the question.” One of the basic meanings of the word e·xa·na′sta·sis is getting up from bed in the morning; thus it can well represent a resurrection occurring early, otherwise called “the first resurrection.” Rotherham’s translation of Philippians 3:11 reads: “If by any means I may advance to the earlier resurrection which is from among the dead.

And here is a picture of Philippians 3:11 as it appears in that 1902 version of Rotherham’s translation (or, the Emphasized Bible):

And is the Emphasized Bible really a translation that we can simply write off as being “fringe” or “subpar”? Consider Charles R. Erdman’s glowing review of Rotherham’s work in the 1906 Princeton Theological Review, Vol. IV, p. 573:

These four volumes form a unique and invaluable addition to our modern equipment for Bible study. It is impossible to imagine how more light could be thrown upon Scripture in a word of briefer compass. Each page is a striking example of multum in parvo. The simple devices of printing offer suggestions on a single page which it would require a commentary to express, while the translation enables those who are not acquainted with the Hebrew and the Greek to understand the force of the original text. It is those who are best acquainted with these languages who are loudest in their praise of this admirable work. All classes of Bible students and readers will find in these volumes a scholarly and helpful interpretation of the Scriptures.

Rotherham clearly understood (as did Robertson, Ellicott and the NWT translators) that in this instance, the context demanded something more than just the single term “resurrection,” or even the perfectly literal rendering “out resurrection” (since that phrase does not really mean anything to a modern English speaker). Using “resurrection” alone without any farther qualifiers causes the reader to lose the original meaning and intent of the verse; and after all, isn’t the whole fundamental purpose of translation the clear communication of meaning from one language to another?