10. Adventures in the King James Version

Back in January, I started once again to try to capture my hermeneutical journey. Reviewing what I wrote so far, I feel like it's turned out pretty well. I think I might now continue plugging through this journey on Mondays.

Thus far:

1. The Memory Verse Approach

2.1 Adventures in Interpretation
2.2 Adventures in Jewelry

3.1 Beginnings of Context
3.2 Adventures in Hair
3.3 What was 1 Corinthians 11 really about?

4.1 Keeping the Sabbath
4.2 The Sabbath as Conviction
4.3 The New Testament and Old Testament Law
_______________________
1. As I've mentioned, I grew up reading the King James Version. It didn't seem too hard to understand, although in retrospect I'm sure I would have understood a great deal more if I had been reading something like the New Living Translation (NLT) or The Message. Of course they didn't exist at the time. 

The main alternatives in my youngest years were the Revised Standard Version (RSV) and the Good News Bible New Testament (GNB). In the late 70s, the full New International Version (NIV) came out. 

The RSV was in a different social plane from mine -- Methodists and higher church folk. I wasn't exposed to it until seminary. It was the version used at Asbury Seminary when I went there in 1984. My grandfather Schenck so despised th GNB that he used it to even out his bed, I heard.

When the NIV came out, a friend of my family pitched it to the morning Bible study (it might have been a special afternoon meeting) at Frankfort Camp Meeting. Paul Sebree had gone to Frankfort with my mother. My dad returned from the session a bit disgruntled. In typical fashion, Sebree had suggested parents were putting their children's souls in danger to have them read the King James when something so much more understandable was available.

I believe my parents gave me my Thompson Chain Reference KJV as a high school graduation present in 1984. I took it to college and tried to read a chapter a day. It was fairly easy going until I would get to Exodus 21. Then what was obscure legislation commenced, cubits and all. The prophets were also tough sleding for me since I didn't know much about the context. I would read until I got to a verse quoted in the New Testament and then, suddenly, Jesus was there in a verse. Then it returned to the incomprehensible.

When I got to Exodus 21, I would often lapse in my daily reading for some time until I managed to push through Leviticus. I do believe I was attention deficit, although I was never diagnosed. It was excruciatingly difficult to hold my attention. I didn't discover the focusing effect of coffee until England, unfortunately. 

In retrospect, Dr. Sebree probably had a point about the NIV, although he presented his case abrasively, as was his style, as I recall.

2. I remained a KJV advocate in college. My mother began to feed me resources, as she increasingly came under the spell of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church in Fort Lauderdale and its radio station. (Those were also the days of the rise of the Christian bookstore.) One was Edward F. Hills' The King James Version Defended. I also had a copy of Ted Letis' compilation on the Majority Text when it came out in 87.

This was the first of an unfortunate pattern where my mother would feed me fundamentalist literature that I was eager to receive but that eventually I came to conclude was not correct. She thought I was rebelling, but that was not the case. I remained uncertain for some time about many of these things. But eventually, you have to make up your mind.

I also didn't have a guide into this literature. I have often wished that I could go back in time and explain what I was trying to read to myself. I was recently complimented for having a gift at taking difficult concepts and being able to break them down so that they are more understandable to the uninitiated. I will take that compliment for it is born of the difficulty of trying to grasp so many hard things myself.

In my final year at Central Wesleyan College, Dr. Bob Black came. I think he was hands down the best professor I had at CWC, although I loved them all. I had him for the whole year for church history. In the fall of 1986, I wrote my final paper arguing for the corruption of the manuscripts (the handwritten copies) behind modern versions of the Bible.

3. I probably should take a moment to explain. We do not have any of the original copies of the Bible. All we have are copies of copies of copies. The oldest copies of New Testament books go back to the 100s and there aren't many of them, and none of them are the whole New Testament. The oldest copies of the Old Testament go back to the 100s BC.

This is nothing to worry about, in my opinion. Everything we know suggests that the manuscripts we have are pretty reliable. There are variations among these manuscripts -- handwritten copies, but they leave us with a relatively small degree of uncertainty. No doctrine is in danger (although the KJV of 1 John 5:8 would help a lot with the Trinity if it were original).

The majority of manuscripts date to the Middle Ages, AD900 and later. These all tend to read similarly and support the Greek behind the KJV. The Greek text behind the KJV is sometimes called the "textus receptus" or the "received text." Sometimes this tradition is also called the Majority Text because most manuscripts read this way. [1]

Case closed? Probably not.

The reason is that the oldest manuscripts tend to read a little differently than these medieval manuscripts. The reason modern versions of the Bible tend to agree against the KJV text is because most of them follow the older manuscripts. There's a famous rule of "textual criticism," which is the science of trying to determine what the original text said. The rule goes like this: "Manuscripts must be weighed, not counted." More on all this in a moment. 

4. My thesis in Dr. Black's class was creative. The pro-KJV crowd likes to blame modern versions on two manuscripts from the 300s, "Codex Sinaiticus" and "Codex Vaticanus." [2] To be fair, Bishop B. F. Westcott and Fenton Hort in the late 1800s had effected a revolution in the text of the New Testament using these two manuscripts at the center of their arguments. I had read somewhere that these two manuscripts might have been part of an initiative by Eusebius under Constantine's charge to have 50 copies of the Bible made.

Here comes the creativity. Eusebius and Constantine argued for a compromise position on the Trinity at the Council of Nicaea in AD325. (By the way, this month and year is the 1700th anniversary of Nicaea) They suggested that perhaps Christ was of a similar substance (homoiousios) to God the Father, while the orthodox position would end up being that he is of the same substance (homoousios).

So, argued I, these "heretics" were behind Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Therefore, they were bad manuscripts. Therefore, modern versions of the Bible are bad. Brilliant!

I received an ever so kind note from Dr. Black on my paper. The problem with my argument is that the overwhelming majority of the variants in the manuscripts have nothing to do with theology (and absolutely nothing to do with the homoousios/homoiousios debate). The vast majority of variations are actually pretty mundane, like spelling errors or omissions because of eye skips. I had made a clever argument. Just not a good one...

[1] There is technically a difference between the Majority Text and the Textus Receptus. The story of the Greek text of the Textus Receptus is a fun one involving some clever entrepreneurship. This is specifically the text that was used in 1611 to create the KJV New Testament. 

Although they are very similar in content, the concept of the Majority Text distances the debate from the historical particularities of the KJV story. More or less, the idea is that the majority of manuscripts have always been right. All we need do is count them, and we will know the text of the Bible that God chose to preserve. This sounds compelling at first, although I'll argue that, in the end, it just doesn't seem to be the same as the original text.

[2] A codex is a book form. Prior to this point in history, books tended to be on scrolls. However, it can be argued that the desire to have all the books of the Bible together caused a movement toward the book format.

The Week in Review (September 30, 2023)

I always start these posts feeling like not much has happened this week, but then the posts seem to fill out as I start writing.

1. In my work, I have been working extensively with putting together what we are calling "micro-courses" with Kingswood University. I do believe these are going to turn out to be a major resource for the Wesleyan Church. This week I focused on finishing Steve Lennox's micro-course on the Old Testament and Abson Joseph's similar course on the New Testament. Previously, I put together two leadership courses by Laurel Buckingham.

2. Our partnership with Oklahoma Baptist continues to be incredibly fruitful in relation to dual enrollment and a dorm-filling initiative, and other schools are lining up. I continue to mourn the fact that we couldn't get any Wesleyan school in the US to partner on some of these initiatives. I do think history will shake its head at this fact. So many missed opportunities handed on a plate and shunned. Our last-minute dual enrollment venture this fall so far has accrued over 50 students from a dozen high schools. Imagine what this initiative will become when it has lead time and grows. 

3. I've tried to continue inching forward with my book-selling project. I will aim to market a Gabriel's Diaries sequence in early December. In the meantime, I may try mid-October to launch another bundle. Here's what I'm thinking:

• Give away an e-book version of Who Decides What the Bible Means? for free to generate an email list of interested readers.
• Then offer at a discounted rate a "God bundle" of 1) Chats about God,  2) The Problem of Evil and Suffering, and 3) God and Creation for about $19.99 (a savings of about $11)

I'll redo the covers of three of these and give the content another edit. Thoughts?

4. Little by little, I've been evaluating another translation. I'm less impressed with this one. It does give one a vision for what an exciting paraphrase might look like. I always think of the Jewish targumim when I'm reading paraphrases. These were interpretive renderings and expansions of Old Testament texts. They indicate that at least some Jews felt free to do Message and Passion type ventures with the biblical texts. What could a hyper-interpretive paraphrase look like that was somewhere between a study Bible and a more formal translation?

As an example of what I'm thinking, take Galatians 2:16. Let me give first a formal translation and then a "targumic" paraphrase:

• "knowing that a person is not justified by works of Law except through faith of Jesus Christ, even we have put faith in Christ Jesus so that we might be justified by faith of Christ and not from works of Law, because from works of Law no flesh will be justified."
• "Since we know that you cannot come to be in right standing with God by paying close attention to aspects of the Jewish Law like circumcision, the food and purity rules, or Sabbath observance. Many in the Jesus movement think that will get you a long way toward a right standing, but everyone in the movement would agree that you must also trust in the faithful death of Jesus our Messiah. For that reason, everyone in this debate has trusted in Messiah Jesus so that we can be in right standing with God, as it were, by "the faith of Christ." I'm using a double entendre here. I mean both the faithfulness that Jesus showed in going to the cross and dying and the fact that we have put our faith, our trust, in Jesus as well. Notice that we all agree that Jesus is essential to this right standing. Everyone agrees that the particulars of the Jewish Law--especially those that separate Jew from non-Jew, will not get you there by themselves alone. This reality is indicated even in Psalm 143:2, which implies that no Jew is inherently right with God just by being a good Jew and keeping the Law."

Imagine doing that with the whole New Testament!

I will leave these notes at that. Thoughts welcome!

Reviewing a translation of Matthew

Thanks to Jerry Pattengale, I have a side project for the next few months. My job is to examine a particular translation for theological and other bias. Should be fun.

The task begins with Matthew. So the work of mine that I want to feature this week is my Explanatory Notes on Jesus' Birth. The book does commentary on the birth stories in Matthew 1-2 and Luke 1-2. It also has John 1. 

Matthew is the most Jew-oriented Gospel in my view. I suspect Mark, Luke, and John were all written primarily to Gentile audiences. (John could be an exception, but I currently doubt it.) Matthew is the most apocalyptic Gospel. It is the most concerned with the Law. It is the harshest toward the Pharisees (a.k.a., the competition). Still, it has the Great Commission, so it fully embraces the Gentile mission as well.

The journey of life continues...
 

Quick Bible Answers for the Pastor...

Kelly Hunt, who's in my Bible as Scripture class this week at Wesley Seminary, suggested I put together a little booklet with quick answers a pastor can give when they get a predictable question from someone in their church. So the next thought was, what kinds of questions do you pastors get of this sort? Or if you're not a pastor, what kinds of questions would you like a little "cheat sheet" on?

Here's the question that sparked the thought for him this morning:

Question: Revelation says that you can't add or take away from the Bible. So how can it be good for there to be different versions of the Bible? Either some have verses missing or some have verses added.

Answer: Before getting to the reason why versions are different, this probably isn't what Revelation 22:18-19 was talking about. First, originally it was just talking about the book of Revelation itself, since the other books weren't attached to Revelation yet (at that point it was just on its own scroll). And it probably wasn't talking about individual words like, "star." It probably was talking about adding or taking away from the prophecies of Revelation, not the individual words of Revelation (we ask this question because we come from a literary culture, whereas they thought more in oral terms).

But to explain why some versions have different words, we don't have any of the original "editions" of the Bible. We have lots of copies--more than any other ancient book in fact. They overwhelmingly say the same things. But there are a few--and I mean only a few--famous differences between them.

You shouldn't worry about it though. Every copy has all the basic teachings of Christian faith, and there is no teaching of the Bible that is lost from one copy to the next. There are only a handful of what we might call "big" debates. Was the ending of Mark (16:9-20) in the first copy of Mark? That's the biggest. Was the doxology at the end of the Lord's Prayer in the first copy of Matthew 6:13?

It's important to realize that there's nothing wrong with the ending of Mark, even if it wasn't in the first copy. Everything in it is true. There's nothing wrong with the doxology in the Lord's Prayer, even if it wasn't in the original copy of Matthew.

Scholars aren't trying to cut stuff out. They're only asking the historical question. Does the evidence seem to say that the first copy of Mark had these verses? Or does it seem like the evidence points to them being added later?

The fact that there are minor differences between the copies suggests that God is more concerned with the message than the small details of the wording. God can speak through the King James Version, even if these verses were added later. And God can speak through the NIV, even if these verses actually were in the original versions.

P.S. Would something like this be better in bullet form? In other words, pick the bullets you like.

My Mistake (Genesis 1:27)

I was looking at the Hebrew of Genesis 1:27 again tonight and noticed it's not quite as obvious as I thought.  I still think the normal interpretation is correct (i.e., that of the NRSV, NIV2011, NLT, Message), over against the ESV and HCSB. It just isn't as obvious as I was saying.

Here's the Hebrew (it goes from right to left):

וַיִּבְרָא אֱלֹהִים אֶת־הָֽאָדָם בְּצַלְמֹו
 in his image    the 'adam          God      and he created = "And God created the 'adam in his image"

בְּצֶלֶם אֱלֹהִים בָּרָא אֹתֹו
  him   he created    God    in the image of = "In the image of God he created him"

זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה בָּרָא אֹתָֽם
them   he created  and female male = "male and female he created them"

Where I was wrong is that I thought the "him" of the second line was a "them," but the exegesis is still the same:

1. The "him" of the second line must include both male and female because the third line unpacks the second.

2. Therefore, the 'adam is not a reference to the person Adam or to "man" as a reference to males.  It is a reference to humankind in general.

It is difficult to bring this into English.  I still maintain the NRSV is the best rendition.  Languages like Hebrew have to pick a gender for the object of the second line, and since 'adam is grammatically masculine, "him" was the appropriate grammatical choice.  But in English, him means a male, even though in Hebrew it is not sexual here.

So I stand by my claim that by choosing to go with "him," the ESV and HCSB actually change the meaning into a masculine bias it did not have in Hebrew.

Driscoll and the ESV 6

I've been responding to the 6 reasons Mark Driscoll says Mars Hill uses the ESV. Bottom line: None of them bear up to the barest of examinations. He basically doesn't know what he's talking about.

Throughout, I have affirmed the ESV as a pretty good formal equivalence translation.  I've also suggested that on the few occasions where its biases come out, they are not Wesleyan-Arminian.  That's why I've suggested the NIV2011 is still probably the best translation for Wesleyan churches to use.

I debate whether I should have written in such a sarcastic tone.  I don't know. I don't expect Driscoll to read or even hear about these posts.  I promise I would have been the model of courtesy if he or any of his friends had engaged me. My point was not really to attack Mark Driscoll but to give you just a hint of how flimsy his understanding of the Bible is. Why? Because I don't want his thinking to infect my part of the Christian world.

Previous posts include:
1. The letter kills, the Spirit gives life.
2. All translation involves interpretation.
3. Stay out of semantics; keep your day job.
4. Driscoll likes big words.
5. It was translated for the elect.

Now his final point:
6. The ESV is complementarian.
Now we hit pay dirt.  All the rest of that stuff, all the theorizing?  Smoke and mirrors.  The final point is the real point.  Let me tell you a story.

There are differing versions of the origins of the ESV.  Obviously there was talk of it before the Colorado Springs guidelines that opponents said Zondervan violated when it came out with the TNIV. A sizable group opposed Zondervan coming out with a translation that used "brothers and sisters" where the Greek read "adelphoi," and when Zondervan published the TNIV, it lost the support of fundamentalist America.  This is the real reason the ESV is enjoying so much political support.

Regardless of how long the ESV was in the works, it has only taken the place Driscoll's church and others are giving it because of the backlash against Zondervan over "inclusive language." Driscoll himself corroborates this in his last point. In his last point, he connects together versions like the NIV2011 and the NLT with the extreme The Bible in a More Just Language, which intentionally tries to change the meaning of the text.  Suffice it to say, the NIV2011 and NLT are dramatically different from this revisionist version.

First, let me address the "brothers and sisters" debate.  Perhaps "brothers" is a more formal equivalence translation.  The reason I debate even this statement is because in patriarchal languages, you use the masculine plural if there is a male in the group, even if most of the group is female.  That is to say, "brothers" can actually refer to a group that is technically "brothers and sisters." For that reason, "brothers and sisters" is at least a legitimate dynamic equivalence translation of the masculine Greek "adelphoi."

Here is an important point. The NIV, NLT, NRSV have only translated adelphoi as "brothers and sisters" when they believe women were also being addressed. So is Paul only addressing the men in the Thessalonian church when he tells them to flee sexual immorality (1 Thess. 4)?  Only when these translation committees believed women were also being addressed did they include the sisters or the mothers.  They did not see themselves making the Bible more inclusive but as bringing out an inclusivity that was already there.

Now I respect those who prefer a translation that does not do this sort of thing.  But I do think the more dynamic sort of translation is probably more effective at communicating the biblical meaning to people today than the older approach.

However, once again, Driscoll seems off in his interpretations.  Take the Hebrew word 'adam.  It certainly can be used of a male, but the best reading of Genesis 1:27 seems to include women in it.  Here's a straightforward translation of the Hebrew: "And God created the 'adam in his image. In the image of God he created him. Male and female he created them."

The "him" in the second clause seems to include both male and female, because the third clause unpacks it as including male and female.  And the "him" in the second clause is expanding on the 'adam of the first clause. Therefore, the best translation of 'adam in this verse seems to relate to all humans, both male and female--all humankind.

And why is it so important to Driscoll in Psalm 8 that 'adam only refer to men? Surely it is because his misguided theology doesn't have room for women leaders. Surely it is because it is important to him that God have only subjected the earth to men, not to women as well.

Sorry Charlie, the command to rule the earth in Genesis 1:28 is in the plural, given to both male and female from the previous verse. (At this point you should here the swirling sound of Pac Man when the little fellow dies, indicating the failure of Driscoll's apparent attempt to cut women out of the dominion of the earth).

You can see why I don't think the ESV is the best translation for Wesleyans. It's subtle biases rub against our grain, not to mention accuracy.  We're a denomination that believes that sons and daughters prophesy (Acts 2:17), that Priscilla may have taken the lead in instructing Apollos (Acts 18:26), that Phoebe was a deacon of the church of Cenchrea (Rom. 16:1), and that Junia was quite possibly an apostle like Barnabas (Rom. 16:7).

The Greek word anthropos is just as generic as 'adam, maybe even more.  1 Peter 3:4 says that a woman's adornment should be the hidden anthropos of the heart.  Clearly it isn't saying women have a little man inside of them.  The word itself means "person."

These are reasons why the TNIV translators considered it "gender accurate" rather than "gender neutral" or "gender inclusive."  They intended only to translate generically when that's what the Bible actually meant.  In that respect, it is the ESV that has more likely screwed up the gender connotations by making them sound less inclusive than they were.

The ESV is a pretty good formal equivalence translation, but not quite ready to be crowned king of the universe.

Driscoll Linguistic Confusion 3

This is now my third post burning Driscoll's hermeneutic in effigy. Again, the ESV is an excellent formal equivalence translation with a few Reformed edges.  I don't recommend it for Wesleyans, but it's a fine translation if you're a Calvinist. I'm attempting to excoriate Driscoll's arguments for why he thinks the ESV should stuff your NLT or NIV down the toilet.

So far:
1. The letter kills, the Spirit gives life.
2. All translation involves interpretation.

His third reason he thinks the ESV is the best is because...
3. Words carry meaning.

I was a little puzzled at what he was arguing here.  Was he going to mount a sophisticated argument against deconstruction, which holds that words do not have stable meanings and that the meaning of texts is inevitably uncertain?  If so, I do believe that words can have stable meanings when we know the context in which they are used.

Was he going to mount an attempt to undermine Wittgenstein and the sense that the meaning of a word is in the way it is used?  Was he going to argue for the picture theory of language Augustine had?  That would have been foolish, because a few simple examples would have unraveled that attempt.

Was he even going to argue against the likes of card-carrying conservative evangelical D. A. Carson and pooh-pooh the very notion of word fallacies like

• the lexical fallacy (which supposes that all instances of a word carry around some root meaning), 
• the etymological fallacy (which supposes that the history of a word in some way tells you the meaning of a word today), or 
• the overload fallacy (which reads too much ideology into an individual instance of a word).

Carson's pretty scary.  I think he would have lost.

Nah, nothing that sophisticated.  I think he's just sayin' that the meaning of a sentence somehow adds up the meanings of the individual words, such that if you try to translate thought for thought instead of word for word, you've changed the meaning.

Is that what he's really saying, because that's just plain dumb? Let me give you a word for word translation of Galatians 3:17: "covenant having been ratified by the God the after four hundred and thirty years having come to be Law not nullify into the to cancel the promise." You can't really recapture the emphasis of this sentence in English because you pretty much have to put the object after the verb: "The Law [that] came into existence after 430 years cannot nullify a covenant that was ratified by God with the result that it cancels the promise."

That would be a pretty good formal equivalence translation, with some words added even there. Notice that it's impossible to come up with a good translation without moving the words around, adding some to make the English flow and taking away a couple others.

Now how about this as a dynamic translation: "The Law of Moses, which did not exist until 430 years after God made his promise to Abraham, cannot cancel that promise." Have I changed the meaning by adding words like Moses and Abraham?  Or have I actually clarified the meaning that was already there?

Basically, Driscoll seems to be making a fool of himself here. Paul Ricoeur has in fact argued against the deconstruction I mentioned above by suggesting that meaning is more a matter of sentences than individual words. The meaning of individual words is slippery in themselves. What does the word "fire" mean?

• Ready, aim, fire!
• You're fired.
• Come on, baby, light my fire.
• Fire!
• Is that a fire?

It is the sense of word collections, coupled with the likely context each sentence assumes, that equates to a sense of the meaning. Driscoll's way out of his depth on this one.

Driscoll Shark-Jumping 2

OK, I couldn't wait till tomorrow.  Mark Driscoll has, in my opinion, gone too far in trying to make the ESV the new KJV of evangelicalism.  He has six reasons why his church uses the blessed ESV.

In a previous post, I was a bit mocking of the contradiction of saying God is obsessed with the precise wording of the Bible and yet using an English translation at all, let alone one that does not represent the wording most Christians have used in worship throughout church history. Let's call that post, "The letter kills, but the Spirit gives life."

In his second point, his eminence tells us all not to use dynamic equivalence translations like the NLT or the Message.

2. What it says comes before what it means.
Driscoll is saying that commentaries should unpack what the Bible means but that a translation should try its best to render the text as it is.  A translation that tries to stick fairly closely to the sentence structure of the original is called a formal equivalence translation.  One that tries to render the thought in idiomatic English is a dynamic equivalence translation.  A free translation or paraphrase is one that is very free in trying to translate the basic thoughts in equivalent categories in the target culture.

Again, don't get me wrong. I myself prefer formal equivalent translations like the ESV and RSV. But for preaching, I prefer a translation that brings out the message the sermon is about. It should be a both/and, not an either/or.  Even among formal equivalence translations, it is good to use more than one.

There are two rubs here.  The first is that all translation involves interpretation.  It is impossible simply to translate "what it says" and leave the "what it means" to the interpreter. A translation often has to choose to go one way or another. That's why it is good to use more than one if you do not know Greek and Hebrew.

In fact, it is with fiendish delight that I notice Driscoll contradicting himself on his #6, where he compliments the ESV for translating in a complementarian way.  So take Romans 16:7.  The NIV2011 gives us exactly the kind of translation Driscoll is talking about: "Greet Andronicus and Junia... They are outstanding among the apostles."  No doubt he prefers the ESV's version: "Greet Andronicus and Junia... They are well known to the apostles."

The ESV wants to make sure you don't think Junia, a woman, was an apostle.  Accordingly, the ESV has given us a "dynamic" translation that is possible, but it does exactly what Driscoll is condemning the other translations for--doing the interpretation for us.

Physician, heal thyself.

The more important rub is that the NT authors wouldn't know what the heck he's talking about.  As I mentioned in the last post, the NT authors felt entirely free to change the wording of OT texts they were quoting because it was the spirit rather than the letter of Scripture that they were interested in.  A free translation like The Message is a far better example of how the NT authors used the OT than the ESV.

I came across one such passage this afternoon in John 7:38: "Whoever believes in me, as Scripture has said, rivers of living water will flow from within them."  The problem is, what text is Jesus/John quoting???  The best suggestion I've heard is Isaiah 55:1--"Come, all you who are thirsty, come to the waters."

Yep, you know what you're talking about, Mark.  Jesus sure was preoccupied with a literal translation, wasn't he?

Driscoll Jumps the Shark on the ESV (part 1)

Mark Driscoll occasionally has some good things to say, I believe. But in general, I think of him as someone whose overall effect on American Christianity is more negative than positive.  Today, however, I would like to talk about him being the occasional idiot.

Before well meaning Wesleyans read his recent, almost "ESV only" rant, I want to make my position clear. You see, when some well-meaning Wesleyan takes up his ideas, I'll be very civil in my disagreement.  But since I don't know Mark Driscoll and it isn't an issue in my circles--and I want to keep it from being one--I feel quite free to mock his nonsense with all the gift of satire you know me to possess.

Now don't get me wrong.  The ESV is a pretty good translation for the most part, I think.  It is not a Wesleyan-preferred translation, because of Driscoll's #6 (complementarian). But in most places it is a very good formal equivalence translation.  I like formal equivalence translations myself, not because they are the best translations but because I personally like my translation to be as close a window into the original languages as possible. In other words, I use them to slack off reading the Greek and Hebrew itself.

In any case, here are Driscoll's 7 reasons why Mars Hill uses the ESV.  P.S. I kept thinking of "KJV only" people as I read this.  Of course he has the same spirit as those people.  He's just a twenty-first century version.  I think of these sort of people as conservative in their ignorance.  They try to hold on to as much of the ignorance of the past as possible, while only becoming just as much more enlightened as reality forces them to. The next generation of them will mock Driscoll, but maintain the same attitude in relation to whatever the issue is then in the future.

1. ESV holds that the Bible is the literal words, not just thoughts of God.
I had a talk with a former KJV only person a couple weeks ago.  Funny, he brought up these sorts of verses. I pointed out Galatians 5:14 where Paul says the Law is fulfilled in one word--"Love your neighbor as yourself." A word, in this context, is an entire thought, as we would expect in an oral, non-literate culture (rather than a literary one).

There is an inevitable circularity to arguments like these from people like Driscoll and Piper. This verse means what words mean in my twentieth century vocabulary so that I can tell you what they mean today. But these weren't words written in twentieth century English. Their meanings come from what words meant in the ancient Hebrew and Greek used at the time and place when they were written down, informed by their socio-cultural context (such as the fact that it was an oral culture). This is why NT Wright was able to give John Piper a thorough spanking on justification some time back. Piper insists on defining Paul using Calvin's sixteenth century definitions to words instead of those the Jews were actually using two thousand years ago.

Everything we know about the way both the biblical authors and the copyists of biblical texts operated suggest that it was the spirit of the text that they were interested in. Listen to Matthew's paraphrase of who knows what verse in Matthew 2:23.  The words of the prophets, plural, somehow suggest that Jesus will be born in Nazareth?  Nazareth didn't exist at the time.  The sentence structure is a little like Judges 13:7, but that's talking about a Nazirite, something completely different. A word similar to Nazareth is used in Isaiah 11:1, but read that verse and see if Matthew 2:23 comes across as paying close attention to the word-for-word like Driscoll is talking about.

In short, Driscoll has NO IDEA what he is talking about.  An actual examination of the way the NT interprets the OT undermines his claim here so seriously that he runs the risk of causing a faith crisis in the lives of any in his congregation who ever go on to do serious study of the Bible. As is typical, he makes his points by his modern definitions of the Bible's words, but he does not look at what the Bible actually does with those words, which is where their real meaning is revealed.

More to the point, if the wording is that important, he'd better stop using an English translation altogether. He should go like the Muslims and only read the Quran in Arabic. If the individual words are that important, then ANY English translation mucks it up.

And why isn't he arguing for the text of the King James then?  If the word-for-word is that important to God, why did God allow Christians to use the "wrong" text for fifteen hundred years?  The ESV is based on the older manuscripts, not the majority of manuscripts.  The ESV implicitly does not assume that God preserved the exact text of the Bible in the worship of believers for over a 1000 years.

I'll tell you why. It's because that's not the social group in which Driscoll is located or its issues.  In his inherited tradition, the KJV thing isn't an issue, but complementarianism is. He supports the ESV ultimately because of the politics of the ESV's creation.  All the rest is smoke and mirrors, arguments invented after the fact to maintain as conservative an ignorance as possible.

More to come tomorrow...

"Brothers and sisters" in translation

I had an "I'm stupid" a-ha moment a week or so ago in relation to the use of "brothers and sisters" to translate the Greek word "brothers" in the New Testament.

Ever since the TNIV, I've been explaining to others that versions like the NRSV, the NLT, the TNIV, and now the NIV2011 only used "brothers and sisters" when they thought Paul already included them.  So when Paul tells the brothers to flee sexual immorality in 1 Thessalonians 4, he was surely not letting the sisters in the congregation off the hook.

That's all true, but I (stupidly) just caught on that this is not just a dynamic equivalent translation.  It actually can be justified grammatically.  Up until recent days, when you were speaking or writing to a mixed group of people in a gendered language, the convention has been to go with the masculine plural ending.  This has previously been true, for example, in Spanish.  If you were speaking to a group of men and women, you would normally say "amigos" and use the masculine plural ending.  You have to pick a gender, so up until recent times you would have naturally used the masculine for a mixed group.

It hit me like a ton of bricks.  It would be normal for a Greek speaker to address a mixed group of men and women with "brothers," fully including the women in the masculine plural ending.  The implication is that in an age where it has become appropriate to be explicit about references to women in one's language, the best translation of "brothers" actually becomes "brothers and sisters."  This is not just because they are implied in Paul's meaning.  They are implied grammatically as well.

So I repent of my stupidity.  Brothers and sisters actually becomes a more accurate translation, and versions like the ESV actually turn out to be inferior translations in this regard.

Review of new NIV

Ben Witherington posted this link on his blog to an excellent review of the NIV.  It's excellent because of the way it breaks down the issues of choosing a translation.  If you're interested, have a look!

Translation Recommendation for Wesleyan Church

The Wesleyan Church has used the NIV generally for decades, but as we now know, the old NIV is being phased out and churches are having to decide what to use now and what to put in their pews.  I have waffled on a recommendation, but one has finally crystallized in my mind.  I'm recommending the new NIV 2011.  Here are my reasons:

1. Continuity
There are many other fine translations out there.  Some Wesleyans, for example, were involved in the translation of the NLT.  The NRSV remains the version that most scholars use and that you will use if you go to Asbury.  The ESV is now very popular among Calvinist evangelicals. The CEB is a new translation that has many fine features.

But to decide in any one of these directions requires a new direction for Wesleyans, and it is unclear that any of these are so much better as to tip the scales in their direction.  Our people are used to the NIV.  Why not stay with it?

2. It is an improvement on the old NIV.
To be honest, I used to make fun of the NIV from a scholarly perspective.  It added words here and there, wore its theology on its sleaves.  It was also a product of its age, meaning that it used "he" and "man" all over the place when it isn't actually there in the Greek or Hebrew. A lot of people think that the new NIV is caving in to political pressure in taking most of this language out.  But much of the time, it's actually more accurate to go neutral.

In fact, I think some who pushed the ESV for this very reason were surprised to find out how much of that language it took out.  Much of the time, the Greek doesn't specify the gender, meaning that doing away with this language is actually more accurate.

I came across this example.  Someone was concerned that the new NIV of 2 Corinthians 5:17 reads, "If anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come."  They thought the ESV was more accurate to say, "If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation."  But the Greek simply says, "If anyone is in Christ, new creation."  The ESV here thus makes the original more masculine than it was.

There are numerous places where the new NIV has improved things that I used to critique.  For example, the old NIV of Colossians 2:14 read that Christ had "canceled the written code, with its regulations." The NIV incorporates good evidence from archaeological discoveries that have led almost all scholars to agree that what Christ cancelled here was "the charge of our legal indebtedness." The translation of 2 Corinthians 5:17 above in another example of taking into account some recent scholarship on 2 Corinthians.

Bottom line: The new NIV is a better translation than the original NIV, and it was headed by evangelicals with absolutely solid evangelical credentials like Doug Moo of Wheaton.

3. Even more Wesleyan now!
I would claim that the NIV was originally a product of the primarily Calvinist-evangelical powers that be, despite the fact that Stephen Paine of Houghton was involved with it.  In my opinion, the ESV has become the new baby of this power block.  The new NIV, interestingly, seems to fit better with Wesleyan theology than the old one did or than the ESV does.

Notice, for example, that the new NIV calls Phoebe a deacon in Romans 16:1.  The ESV, since it was produced by people who generally resist women in ministry, could not bring itself to do this.  So in the ESV, Phoebe is just a servant of the church.  Meanwhile, while Junia in Romans 16:7 of the NIV is outstanding "among" the apostles, in the ESV she is "well known" to the apostles.  The new NIV lets you decide if she was an apostle.  The ESV doesn't want to give you the chance to think something awful like that.

Let's be clear about this "gender neutral" stuff.  The NIV only uses "brothers and sisters" when that's what we would all agree the original meant.  It never adds women to the translation when they weren't there originally in the meaning. While a translation would not have to do this, certainly it fits well with Wesleyan theology.  Sometimes rendering the neutrality of the original requires changing a singular to a plural to make good English, but in some places this may actually be less of a change than translating with "he."

All translations involve a loss of meaning.  You simply cannot render the exact meaning of something in one language into another.  All translations are approximations and interpretations.  If we are really this concerned about precision, we had better stop using translations altogether and learn Greek and Hebrew. Fine with me.  We'll do away with all translations and read the real Bible. ;-)

I wish everyone could do a quick study of the way the NT authors use the OT.  What you'll find is that they definitely fall in the "dynamic equivalence" camp.  Think The Message.  They make the new NIV look like the King James.

So there's my recommendation to the church.  Let's stick with the NIV.  It's our tradition.  It's more accurate than the old NIV.  It's more Wesleyan than the ESV.

Back to the NASB

I hate that I repeatedly find myself cheating off the NASB when I don't have time to linger with the Greek.  ESV, NIV sometimes or often grind theological axes respectively.  NRSV uses inclusive language, which is fine by me, but sometimes deceives me as far as the original.  NLT, CEB are dynamic so don't help me cheat.

Oh that there were a more or less scholarly formal equivalence translation on the market.  I bounce between NASB, NRSV, and ESV when I'm trying to cheat.

Celebrating the King James Version

Part 1
It's 2011, and some time this year I should post something to celebrate the fact that in 1611, the King James Version was published.  I love the magnificent KJV the way I like Shakespeare, and accordingly, believe it is generally an obstacle to the church's mission in the world.  It points toward a congregation that is more inwardly than outwardly focused.  It should thus be used sparingly at best within public worship today, especially when there are likely to be visitors among you (it's kind of like tongues in that regard--an obstacle to unbelievers in your midst).  I'm sure there are exceptions, but it's hard to think of them.

Small groups that aim at discipleship can certainly use it.  No problem there because the focus is more on personal growth rather than mission.  But even if most of the people in your church use it, the ideal would be to wean them off it in public worship in a gentle and slow manner, because churches are meant to impact their surrounding context, and the KJV is a major linguistic obstacle in our current day and age.  Move them to the NKJV (although don't cause a split over it--it's not worth that).

I know I must sound from time to time like I'm flippant about things that are very sensitive to others, but to have perspective on the ease with which I say such things you have to know that most of these things did not come easy to me at first.  I felt the horror with which some might read some of my comments the same as you might--it's just that I did it 25 years ago.  I preached and read from the KJV in college.  I reacted with the same protest as others when a revivalist once scolded a camp meeting for putting an obstacle to faith in front of their children with the KJV.  It's time that allows me to make such bald statements.

Most people don't understand how language works (I'm sure I don't either).  Words change meanings over time.  Old meanings fall out of the dictionary.  New meanings enter.  The KJV was never treated as a linguistic fossil to be maintained until the last century or so.  It was regularly updated until the late 1700s (the version you buy in the bookstore is not the 1611 version but a version that has already been updated about 5 times).  Those who think they understand the language of the KJV just fine probably don't--they don't know that the word that looks familiar actually does not mean the same thing that it did two hundred years ago when the KJV tradition fossilized (e.g., intercourse, conversation).

The KJV is thus a magnificent piece of art today.  It is not, however, a magnificent piece of communication to anyone but those who have been schooled in it like learning a different language.  It is thus a very bad tool to use with a view to the church's mission in the world.

Interestingly, the KJV was a compromise translation.  The Puritans used the Geneva Bible at the time, with its Calvinist study notes.  King James didn't like it because some of those notes were perceived to be anti-monarchy.  Meanwhile the Puritans eschewed the Bishop's Bible, believing that it did not have a strong enough reverence for the authority of the text.  The KJV was thus a compromise--a fairly "literal" translation using what was already slightly archaic language with no study notes.

It took about a century to catch on and I have heard some argue that that the Puritans who first came to America came as much with the Geneva Bible still as the KJV.

Part 2
There are other things I like about the KJV--things that are both strengths and weaknesses.  For example, it is a formal equivalence translation.  I personally like those sorts of translations (NASB, RSV, NKJV, ESV) because they come closest to giving you a window into the original wording and sentence structure.

It's important to recognize, however, that while this fact is nice for people who want to study the text in detail, such an orientation actually works against them being good translations as such.  A good translation renders the thought of the original sentence in fluid English.  If you have ever learned another language--especially one that is a little further removed from English than Spanish--then you know that different languages don't put words in the same order or in the same way.  The American Standard Version of the late 1800s was very "wooden" in trying to follow the original Greek and Hebrew--and it is one of the worst translations of all time.

Another strength of the KJV is that it follows the catholic text of the church of the ages.  No, I'm not being mischievous and pointing out that the original KJV included the Apocrypha (although it did ;-).  I mean that the text of the KJV basically reflects the words of the New Testament as Christians had read it for 1200 years.

Again, it is only because I have some 25 years of study behind me that I say with relative ease that this precise wording of the original texts (not talking about the way they are translated now but in what the precise words were in the original that you are translating in the first place), while completely appropriate for Christians to use in worship if they wish, is not at all likely to reflect the precise wording of the original text of the Bible at a few points.  This may require a little more explanation.  We do not have the original copy of any book of the Bible, only copies of copies of copies.  There are variations between what these copies say at various points, and one branch of biblical studies is dedicated to working through the variations to try to decide what the very first copy of, say, Mark actually said in Greek.

We are not talking about a lot of passages, only a few.  No one should get worried.  In fact, if you're that focused around the details of the biblical text, your faith is probably out of focus.  No one can lay any foundation but that which is laid: Jesus Christ... not the Bible!

But you should know as a preacher that it is very unlikely, for example, that Mark 16:8-20 was part of the original copy of Mark.  There's nothing incorrect in those verses.  I actually don't mind a person preaching from these verses because the church has preached from them for 1600 years.  But you should know that the overwhelming majority of those who know the issues involved do not believe they are original.

When you are first encountering these issues, they can seem significant, but no doctrine is lost with this small handful of variations.  And, if you know my theology, a lot of our theology has come as much from Christians reflecting on the text as on the original text itself anyway, and there's nothing wrong with that.  We have often been too focused on "getting back" rather than on how God brought us forward.

An educated pastor should know the key verses of this discussion.  The story of the woman caught in adultery could be historical, but it was not likely in the earliest versions of John.  1 John 5:7 almost certainly did not exist in its KJV form until the Latin translations of the 400s.  Acts 8:37 is not there because the verse divisions come from the 1550 Greek New Testament of Stephanus.  It's a great verse... just not at all likely original.  They wisely did not change the versification when printing modern versions so the verse now does not appear at all in modern translations.  There are others but these are the best known.

Can a case be made for the originality of these sorts of verses?  Sure. But know thyself.  Those who argue against such things are almost certainly oriented around whether it is possible to maintain what I grew up believing rather than around what is the most probable truth.  There is no question, however, that those who are willing to come to either conclusion have overwhelmingly come down on the side of almost all modern translations (as far as I know, the Holman Standard is the only exception outside the KJV tradition).

This may seem like a strange celebration of the KJV.  But we cannot celebrate it properly until we understand it.  It was a magnificent work of art and millions have heard and experienced God through it.  There's no other translation I'd rather hear the Christmas story from.  For many, it is still the best version for them to have their devotions in or for their small group to study from.  Long live the King James!

NIV 2011 and Romans 16:1

I was happy to see at least that the NIV 2011 got its head out of the sand and translated Romans 16:1 with the word "deacon."  The wimpy NIV 1984 as usual wore its Calvino-evangelical theology on its sleeve and translated her as a "servant" of the church at Cenchrea.  We all know this is bias.  If it had been a guy, there's little question they would have identified her as a deacon in the first place.

Original Meaning Translation: Romans 7:13-8:2

For previous parts of Romans.

13 Therefore, has the good become death?  May it not be!  But Sin, so that it might appear as sin, was working death in me through the good, so that Sin might become incredibly sinful through the commandment.  14 For I know that the Law is spiritual, but I am fleshly, having been enslaved under Sin. 15 For I do not know what I am doing. 16 But if I am doing what I do not want [to do], I agree with the Law, that [it is] good. 17 But now I am no longer doing it, but the Sin that dwells in me. 18 For I know that good does not dwell in me--that is, in my flesh.  For the will is present in me, but to do the good is not. 19 For I am not doing the good that I want [to do], but I am practicing that bad that I do not want [to do]. 20 But if I am not doing that which I want [to do], it is no longer I doing it but the Sin that dwells in me.


21 Then, I am finding the "law" in me--the one wanting to do the good--that the bad is present in me.  For I delight in the law of God in my inner person, 23 but I am seeing a different "law" in my [body] parts, warring against the "law" of my mind and subjugating me with the "law" of Sin which is in my [body] parts. 24 A wretched person [am] I!  Who will rescue me from the body of this death?  25 But thanks [be] to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!  


Therefore then, [to summarize the default state of the good-desiring Jew], I myself am serving the law of God with the mind, but the "law" of Sin with the flesh.

8:1 Then now [there is] no condemnation to those in Christ Jesus, 2 for the "law" of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has freed you from the "law" of Sin and death...

Original Meaning Translation: Romans 5:12-17

OK, I'm going to translate this section.  For when I started: http://kenschenck.blogspot.com/2011/02/original-meaning-translation-romans-116.html

12 For this [reason], just as through one person Sin entered into the world and through Sin, death, and so death passed to all people because everyone sinned--13 (for Sin was in the world before the Law, but sin is not added up when there is no law. 14 But Sin ruled from Adam to Moses and over those who did not sin in a similar way to Adam's transgression, who is a type of the one who was coming.

15 But even the act of grace is not like the transgression.  For if many people died because of the transgression of the one person, how much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one person Jesus Christ abound to the many.  16 And the gift dispensed [is] also not like [what came] through the one who sinned.  For the judgment from the one [resulted] in condemnation, but the act of grace [resulted] in being righteous out of many transgressions. 17 For if death ruled through the one person because of the transgression of the one person, how much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness rule through the one person, Jesus Messiah.)

CEB on Romans 5:18

I find this a peculiar translation:

"So now the righteous requirements necessary for life are met for everyone through the righteous act of one person, just as judgment fell on everyone through the failure of one person."

Here is a wooden translation:

"Therefore, as through one transgression to all people into condemnation, so also through one righteous act to all people to the justification of life."

I smell someone's theology tweaking the translation...

Hebrews 1:1-4 (CEB, Wesley Study Bible)

Over the course of the summer, I hope to work through the new Common English Bible (CEB) translation of Hebrews, as well as the notes for the NRSV Wesley Study Bible on Hebrews.  So since I didn't have any juicy comments to say about politics or Rob Bell today, I thought I would post on the much less popular topic of the Bible (I've been surprised at the massive spike in readership to my blog these last couple days ;-)

CEB
1:2--"in these final days"
This is a fairly good equivalent to the literal expression, "in these last days" which echoes Jeremiah 31.

1:3--"The Son is the light of God's glory"
I suppose most interpreters go with "radiance" as the connotation of the word here.  The interesting thing, though, is that the parallel, "imprint," fits much better with another possible translation of the word, namely, "reflection."

1:3--"He maintains everything with his powerful message"
Interesting choice.  Some sort of spoken word seems to be pictured.  I'll have to think if I like "message" as a translation.

1:4--Christ became greater than other messengers, such as angels.
Very interesting.  I'm not sure that the author at this point of the sermon had any messengers other than angels in view. It is an interesting take, though, that fits with an introduction that speaks of various ways God has spoken in the past.  But I often think that interpreters see more profundity in passages than the original author's meant.  This quote of Udo Schnelle pointed out by Nijay Gupta struck me that way.

I feel that way sometimes about interpretations by people like N. T. Wright and Richard Hays.  I used to think, man they see so much depth that I didn't see. I'm so stupid.  Now I think.  That's deep and you are really smart, guys.  But Paul wouldn't know what you were talking about.  Be honest that you're playing a theological descant that transcends the original meaning.

Wesley Study Bible
Very nice and succinct words on this opening to the sermon.  deSilva (I think) gives the main point--the accomplishment of purification.  He gives the clear contrast between the many revelations before and the unique revelation now in Christ.  He mentions the intriguing allusion to Christ as Wisdom.  Perhaps it is wise that he does not try to explore what that allusion might mean.  I certainly have ideas, but one will not find any consensus here.

The NIV 2011

I know I've posted on this before, but I got an email today asking, "Do you know anything about a new version of the NIV?"

Here's the state of my answer.  The NIV 2011 is two things:

1. an admission of political/economic defeat in relation to the TNIV
2. an updating of the NIV

So is it better than the NIV?  Yes.  If you are happy with the NIV, go ahead and upgrade with the NIV2011.  It is better.

Is it the best translation out there as a translation?  No, not in any category.  The NLT, CEV, and in some places CEB are better dynamic translations. The ESV, and in many places CEB and NRSV, are better formal translations, in my opinion.

Right now I'm using the NRSV and CEB in my writing.