Category Archives: Bible

The Greek Text, the KJV, and English translations

Alexandrian text-type (image courtesy Wikipedia) King James (Authorised) Version, (image courtesy Wikipedia)

By Spencer D Gear

A fellow wrote on an Internet forum, ‘If your bible is not translated from the Textus Receptus, then you have only and imitation bible, not authentic’.[1] This was the response:

I’m not sure you know what the TR [Textus Receptus] even is.

The term “Textus Receptus” is mostly an anachronism. A term applied to a textual lineage that influenced the translations of the Reformation and post-Reformation period during the 16th and 17th centuries.

But there did not exist a “Textus Receptus” as a singular, uniform textual edition until later. Rather, the TR is a composite of numerous critical editions of the Greek New Testament that includes several editions from Erasmus alone, in addition to critical editions produced by Stephanus and Beza. None of these critical editions agreed entirely with one another, and even throughout Erasmus’ scholarly career his critical edition went through numerous edits and changes.

The Authorized Version of King James I of England was a translation from these many Greek texts, with the various scholars working and choosing which variants were preferable and in some cases lifting entire portions piecemeal from previous English translations such as Tyndale’s Version. Beyond these, the translators relied upon traditional readings taken from the Vulgate (such can be seen in the KJV translation of Isaiah 14:12 which retains the Vulgate’s “lucifer”). Even after the 1611 edition, it went through numerous re-edits until the situation with the Authorized Version had become a total mess, and a standardized text was put forth in 1769, which is the “King James Version” we all know today.

Why should we limit translations to an arbitrary set of competing and conflicting–and outdated–critical editions of the Greek text (i.e. the Textus Receptus) when we have a far larger library of textual manuscripts available, far superior critical editions at our disposal, and nearly five hundred years of adept scholarship at our collective fingertips in order to present far superior translations of Holy Scripture for our benefit and edification?[2]

Bruce Metzger’s assessment of Greek New Testaments

(image courtesy Wikipedia)

[3]I recommend one of the outstanding textual critics of the 20th century, the late Dr. Bruce Metzger. In The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration (Metzger 1992), you will learn:

1. ‘In 1514 the first printed Greek New Testament came from the press, as part of the Polyglot Bible’ (1992:96);

2. ‘Though the Complutensian text was the first Greek New Testament to be printed, the first Greek New Testament to be published (that is, put on the market) was the edition prepared by the famous Dutch scholar and humanist Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam (1469-1536). It cannot be determined exactly when Erasmus first decided to prepare an edition of the Greek Testament, but on a visit to Basle in August 1514 he discussed (probably not for the first time) the possibility of such a volume with the well-known publisher Johann Froben…. The printing began on 2 October 1515, and in a remarkably short time (1 March 1516) the entire edition was finished, a large folio volume of about 1,000 pages which, as Erasmus himself declared later, was “precipitated rather than edited” (praecipitatum verius quam editum). Owing to the haste in production, the volume contains hundreds of typographical errors; in fact, Scrivener once declared, “[It] is in that respect the most faulty book I know.’ (1992:98, 99).

3. ‘Here and there in Erasmus’ self-made Greek text are readings which have never been found in any known Greek manuscript–but which are still perpetuated today in printings of the so-called Textus Receptus of the Greek New Testament. Even in parts of the New Testament Erasmus occasionally introduced into his Greek text material taken from the Latin Vulgate. Thus in Acts ix. 6…. This … became part of the Textus Receptus, from which the King James version was made in 1611′ (1992:100).

4. ‘The second edition [of Erasmus’ Greek text] became the basis of Luther’s German translation…. It has often been debated how far Luther’s translation rests on the Greek text’ (1991:100; 100 n. 2).

5. ‘Subsequently Erasmus issued a fourth and definitive edition (1527), which contains the text of the New Testament in three parallel columns, the Greek, the Latin Vulgate, and Erasmus’ own Latin version’ (1992:102).

6. ‘Thus the text of Erasmus’ Greek New Testament rests upon a half dozen minuscule [i.e. running writing] manuscripts’ (1992:102).

7. ‘Subsequent editors, though making a number of alterations in Erasmus’ text, essentially reproduced this debased form of the Greek Testament. Having secured an undeserved pre-eminence, what came to be called the Textus Receptus of the New Testament resisted for 400 years all scholarly efforts to displace it in favour of an earlier and more accurate text’ (1992:103).

8. “The first edition of the whole Bible in Greek was published in three parts in February 1518 at Venice by the celebrated Aldine press. The New Testament, which is dedicated to Erasmus, follows the first edition of Erasmus so closely as to reproduce many typographical errors–even those which Erasmus had corrected in the list of errata’ (1992:103).

9. ‘Theodore de Beze (Beza, 1519-1605), a friend and successor of Calvin at Geneva and an eminent classical and Biblical scholar, published no fewer than nine editions of the Greek Testament between 1565 and 1604, and a tenth edition appeared posthumously in 1611….The importance of Beza’s work lies in the extent to which his editions tended to popularize and to stereotype the Textus Receptus. The King James translators of 1611 made large use of Beza’s editions of 1588-9 and 1698’ (1992:105).

10. ‘The next stage in the history of New Testament textual criticism is characterized by assiduous efforts to assemble variant readings from Greek manuscripts, versions, and Fathers. For almost two centuries scholars ransacked libraries and museums, in Europe as well as the Near East, for witnesses to the text of the New Testament. But almost all of the editors of the New Testament during this period were content to reprint the time-honoured but corrupt Textus Receptus, relegating the evidence for the earlier readings to the apparatus. An occasional brave soul who ventured to print a different form of Greek text was either condemned or ignored’ (1992:106).

**Is the New Living Translation a paraphrase or dynamic equivalence?**

A fellow on the Forum wrote: ‘the NLT is a paraphrase’.[4] I had stated that the NIV and NLT used dynamic equivalence. To check out which philosophy of translation the NLT uses, I looked up my hard copy of the NLT and the NLT website. This is what I found:

(image courtesy NLT)

INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW LIVING TRANSLATION

Translation Philosophy and Methodology

English Bible translations tend to be governed by one of two general translation theories. The first theory has been called “formal-equivalence,” “literal,” or “word-for-word” translation. According to this theory, the translator attempts to render each word of the original language into English and seeks to preserve the original syntax and sentence structure as much as possible in translation. The second theory has been called “dynamic-equivalence,” “functional-equivalence,” or “thought-for-thought” translation. The goal of this translation theory is to produce in English the closest natural equivalent of the message expressed by the original-language text, both in meaning and in style.

Both of these translation theories have their strengths. A formal-equivalence translation preserves aspects of the original text—including ancient idioms, term consistency, and original-language syntax—that are valuable for scholars and professional study. It allows a reader to trace formal elements of the original-language text through the English translation. A dynamic-equivalence translation, on the other hand, focuses on translating the message of the original-language text. It ensures that the meaning of the text is readily apparent to the contemporary reader. This allows the message to come through with immediacy, without requiring the reader to struggle with foreign idioms and awkward syntax. It also facilitates serious study of the text’s message and clarity in both devotional and public reading.

The pure application of either of these translation philosophies would create translations at opposite ends of the translation spectrum. But in reality, all translations contain a mixture of these two philosophies. A purely formal-equivalence translation would be unintelligible in English, and a purely dynamic-equivalence translation would risk being unfaithful to the original. That is why translations shaped by dynamic-equivalence theory are usually quite literal when the original text is relatively clear, and the translations shaped by formal-equivalence theory are sometimes quite dynamic when the original text is obscure.

The translators of the New Living Translation set out to render the message of the original texts of Scripture into clear, contemporary English. As they did so, they kept the concerns of both formal-equivalence and dynamic-equivalence in mind. On the one hand, they translated as simply and literally as possible when that approach yielded an accurate, clear, and natural English text. Many words and phrases were rendered literally and consistently into English, preserving essential literary and rhetorical devices, ancient metaphors, and word choices that give structure to the text and provide echoes of meaning from one passage to the next.

On the other hand, the translators rendered the message more dynamically when the literal rendering was hard to understand, was misleading, or yielded archaic or foreign wording. They clarified difficult metaphors and terms to aid in the reader’s understanding. The translators first struggled with the meaning of the words and phrases in the ancient context; then they rendered the message into clear, natural English. Their goal was to be both faithful to the ancient texts and eminently readable. The result is a translation that is both exegetically accurate and idiomatically powerful.[5]

What is dynamic equivalence?

Wycliffe Bible Translators (and SIL) are experts in translating the Bible into languages for which there has been no Bible in print. These are their definitions of ‘formal equivalence’ and ‘dynamic equivalence’ for translations.

It was linguist, Dr. Eugene Nida, who introduced the concept of dynamic equivalence. Wycliffe Bible Translators website explains:

Throughout his travels as a consultant, Dr. Nida urged translators to learn the culture as well as the language of the people they served. He was also concerned that they understand the culture of the Bible so they could translate the meaning of the text from one culture to another, rather than attempt a literal word-for-word translation. This led him to write several landmark books on what is now termed “functional equivalence” or “dynamic equivalence.” While there is debate about “literal” versus “functional equivalence” translation methods, there is little doubt that Nida’s influence has allowed millions of people around the world to read the Word of God in a language that speaks to their hearts.[6]

Nida explained the meaning of ‘dynamic equivalence’:

In such a translation one is not so concerned with matching the receptor-language message with the source-language message, but with the dynamic relationship…, that the relationship between receptor and message should be substantially the same as that which existed between the original receptors and the message.

A translation of dynamic equivalence aims at complete naturalness of expression, and tries to relate the receptor to modes of behavior relevant within the context of his own culture; it does not insist that he understand the cultural patterns of the source-language context in order to comprehend the message. (Nida 1964:159)

Stated as a kind of formula, we may say that for the type of message contained in the New Testament, we are concerned with a relationship such as can be expressed in the following equation:

That is to say, the receptor in the circle culture should be able, within his own culture, to respond to the message as given in his language, in substantially the same manner as the receptor in the triangle culture responded, within the context of his own culture, to the message as communicated to him in his own language. (Nida 1964:148-149)[7]

For an exposé on dynamic equivalence, see the article by Robert L. Thomas, ‘Dynamic equivalence: A method of translation or a system of hermeneutics’. See also D A Carson, ‘The limits of dynamic equivalence in Bible translation’.

Conclusion

The Erasmus Greek text that became the Textus Receptus and had so much influence on the text used for the translation of the KJV New Testament, but it is based on a ‘debased form of the Greek Testament’ (Metzger’s words).

Better Greek manuscripts are available in the twenty-first century and most of the new translations are based on these texts. The Greek text gathered by Erasmus that became the Textus Receptus is not the most reliable Greek text available for NT translation. The manuscripts found since the time of Erasmus and the eclectic Greek text of Nestle-Aland 26, which is used in the United Bible Societies Greek NT (edition 27 is now available), provide a more reliable Greek text from which to translate. The latter Greek text is used in such English Bible translations as the RSV, NRSV, ESV, NET, NIV, NASB and NLT.

However, there is no point in trying to convince a dogmatic KJV-only supporter of these details.

Works consulted

Metzger, B 1992. The text of the New Testament: Its transmission, corruption and restoration. New York / Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Nida, E A 1964. Toward a science of translating. Leiden: E J Brill.

Notes:

[1] Christian 12#93, Christian Forums, Christian Scriptures, ‘King James Version why the best?’, available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7656653-9/ (Accessed 21 July 2012).

[2] Ibid, CryptoLutheran#106.

[3] I posted this in ibid., OzSpen#127.

[4] Ibid., Michaelrh1325#126. Part of my response to him was that he needed to know what he was talking about.

[5] New Living Translation website, available at: http://www.newlivingtranslation.com/05discoverthenlt/nltintro.asp (Accessed 21 July 2012).

[6] ‘Eugene Nida’, Wycliffe, available at: http://www.wycliffe.org/Go/careers/typesofwork/languagework/translation.aspx?CaseStudyId=94&ModuleID=831&printerfriendly=yes (Accessed 21 July 2012).

[7] Glenn J. Kerr 2011. Dynamic equivalence and its daughters: Placing Bible translation theories in their historical context. Journal of Translation 7(1). SIL. Available at: http://www.sil.org/system/files/reapdata/77/94/02/77940241319795795123525485356849279212/siljot2011_1_01.pdf (Accessed 1 June 2016).

Corn or grain? KJV or NIV in Matthew 12:1

Corn or maize (Wikipedia) Oats, barley & food products from cereal grains (Wikipedia)

By Spencer D Gear

In Matthew 12:1, the KJV states that Jesus and his disciples went “through the corn”. The NRSV and NJB use “cornfields”. The NIV translates as, “through the grainfields” on the Sabbath. The ESV, NET, NLT, and NASB agree with the NIV’s “grainfields”. Which is it? Corn or grain?

There was a discussion of this on Christian Forums. One poster came across this difference in translation between KJV and NIV:

I don’t think that the KJV is the best translation. I just came across this verse today.

At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred (sic), and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat. (Matthew 12:1 King James Bible, Cambridge Edition)

Corn was discovered in the western hemisphere and brought back to the eastern hemisphere. Corn was not grown in Israel. Other translations say “grain” which is more accurate. The greek word is stachuas[1] and means “the heads of grain”.[2]

A KJV-only supporter responded,

Nope. Corn and grain are the same thing. Always have been just like wheat, barley, and oats are also grain.
Def; grain – A small, dry, one-seeded fruit of a cereal grass, having the fruit and the seed walls united: ( it even includes sugar according to the Free Dictionary definition). [3]

[4]When we seek a definition of a NT word, we do not go to dictionary.com for an English definition. We go to the Greek language. The word used for “the corn” (KJV) and “the grainfields” (NIV) is stopimos in the plural. Arndt & Gingrich’s Greek Lexicon tells us that:

The etymology of the word is “sown”, i.e. that which is sown;
The meaning is “standing grain, grain fields”.[5]

So the meaning is NOT corn, but the generic grain fields. Therefore, the NIV is the more correct translation. The word is also used in Mark 2:23.
In Mt. 12:1ff, the context tells us that when the journey by the disciples through the grain fiends was made, it happened during or shortly before harvest time as they “began to pick some ears of grain” (NIV). It is literally, “began to pick ears [of grain]”.

Notes:

[1] This is the word for “head” and not “grain”.

[2] Christian Forums, Christian Scriptures, ‘King James Version why the best?’, Timothew #72, available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7656653-8/ (Accessed 11 July 2012).

[3] Martyrs44 #73, ibid.

[4] The following information is my response as OzSpen #78, ibid.

[5] Arndt, W F & Gingrich, F W 1957. A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature.[5] Chicago: The University of Chicago Press (limited edition licensed to Zondervan Publishing House), p. 770.

The meaning of Revelation 22:18-19

ChristArt

By Spencer D Gear

It is a common ploy to make these two verses apply to the entire Bible. Here is an example that I met on Christian Forums:

All the newer bibles are garbage that have been changed by Satans children to subtlety change Gods messages , not unlike what Satan did in the garden of Eden when speaking with eve[1]…. I have only spoken the truth showing thru scripture what happens when one changes the word of God, I would think one would be able to make an informed view that the newer bibles are in direct conflict with Gods warning in revelation 22 [verse 19][2]…. He changed Gods word and for this his name was taken away from the bible just as God promised in revelation 22:19.[3]

Revelation 22:18-19 states:

¹⁸I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, ¹⁹and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book. (ESV).

It speaks of “the book of this prophecy”. Which prophecy? The Book of Revelation.

We know this because the Book of Revelation was a prophecy given by “John to the seven churches that are in Asia” (Rev. 1:4). What was to be done with this prophetic Book of Revelation when it was first written?

“Write what you see in a book and send it to the seven churches, to Ephesus and to Smyrna and to Pergamum and to Thyatira and to Sardis and to Philadelphia and to Laodicea.” (Rev. 1:11 ESV).

So this Book of Revelation (not the entire NT) – only this one book – was sent to the 7 churches of Asia [we now know that these churches are in what we call Asia Minor]. So, what was written in Rev. 22:19, if it were to have any meaning to the people in the 7 churches of Asia Minor COULD NOT have been referring to the entire Bible as it is one book, the Book of Revelation, that was in “the words of the prophecy of this book” and “in a book” and this one book was sent. It would have been strange to have the warning of Revelation 22:18-19 to apply to the whole of the OT and the NT for the “seven churches” of Asia Minor when only one book was sent to them to hear.

Therefore, the only meaning of this warning is to the prophecy of the Book of Revelation. The seven churches of Asia would know that, but people in the twenty-first century want to change that to give it a meaning that was not possible for the churches of Asia Minor to have understood.

Why don’t these people understand the intent of the writing of this book that had only one meaning to the people who first read it in Asia Minor – they had only one book, the Book of Revelation, and the warning against adding to the prophecy of this book could have only one meaning to them? It referred ONLY to the one book they heard or read in Asia Minor– the Book of Revelation.

Notes

[1] Christian Forums, Baptists, ‘The New International Version (NIV) Bible completely removes the word ‘Godhead’, Azadok2day#22, 5 July 2012. Available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7669527-3/ (Accessed 7 July 2012).

[2] Ibid., #49, 6 July 2012.

[3] Ibid., #53, 6 July 2012.

‘All Scripture’ in 2 Timothy 3:16

Bible Globe

ChristArt

By Spencer D Gear

I used to understand that 2 Tim. 3:16 and the reference to “all Scripture” was referring back to the OT. Gleason Archer wrote in his consideration of 2 Tim 3:16:

‘It would never have occurred to the Greek-speaking recipients of 2 Timothy to suppose that Paul could be referring to any other writings but the inspired and authoritative books of the Hebrew canon. Nor is there the slightest suggestion in any of the recorded utterances of Jesus Christ or His apostles – or indeed in any of the writings of the New Testament authors – that there were any portions of the Hebrew Scriptures that were not authoritative and inspire’ (Archer 1982:417, emphasis in original).

In recent times I’ve been asking some further questions of 2 Tim. 3:16-17 and 2 Peter 1:20-21. The following is some tentative thinking (I have not reached a conclusion yet).

1. Let’s look at 2 Tim. 3:15-17[1], including the verse before the two that are mentioned, (vv. 16-17):

Second Tim. 3:15-17 (ESV),

“and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. [16] All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, [17] that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.”

Here we have two groups of writings distinguished: “the sacred writings” of v. 15 and “all Scripture” of v. 16.

“All Scripture” (v. 16) seems to indicate everything that the Holy Spirit gave to the church as canonical and authoritative, OT and NT. When Paul wrote these words, was he referring to a body of literature that was more than the OT. We know this from:

1 Tim. 5:18 (ESV), “For the Scripture says, ‘You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,’ and, ‘The laborer deserves his wages.’”

These two sayings are clearly co-ordinated. If the first is Scripture, than so is the second. Here we have a word spoken by Jesus that is on the same level of authority as a saying from the OT canon.

1. “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain” comes from Deut. 25:4 (You’ll find a similar use by Paul in I Cor. 9:8-12).

2. Where do we find the saying, “The laborer deserves his wages”? Its precise wording is in Luke 10:7 (ESV), “And remain in the same house, eating and drinking what they provide, for the laborer deserves his wages. Do not go from house to house.” There is a slightly different form in Matthew 10:10 (ESV), “No bag for your journey, nor two tunics nor sandals nor a staff, for the laborer deserves his food.”

It is not an impossibility that Luke’s Gospel had been completed at the time of Paul’s writing to Timothy. My ESV Bible gives the date for 2 Timothy as “the final letter written by Paul (A.D. 64-68). The ESV states that ‘Luke, a physician and colleague of Paul, probably wrote this account in the early 60s A.D.”. If that is true, then the apostle Paul could have been quoting from Luke’s Gospel. But there is another possibility that Paul was quoting from a collection of sayings or oral tradition that was in circulation and used as a source for Luke (see Luke 1:1-4).

3. So, when we combine these two quotes in I Tim. 5:18 we are beginning to see that “Scripture” may refer to both OT and NT. So “all Scripture” (2 Tim. 3:16) also could refer to all that is breathed out by God — OT and NT.

We should not find this surprising, based on John 14:26 (ESV), “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.”

There’s further information in 2 Peter 3:15-16 (ESV),

“And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, [16] as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.”

Peter, the apostle, confirms that Paul’s writings are of the SAME class as “the other Scriptures” (OT and NT).

I have not come to firm conclusions, but the above considerations do cause me to think again on the meaning of “all Scripture” in 2 Tim. 3:16.

These are just some thoughts from a fellow traveller.

Notes:

[1] I received the basic information for the following content, from William Hendriksen, I & II Timothy & Titus (New Testament Commentary). Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1957, pp. 182, 301.

Works consulted

Archer, Gleason L 1982. Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Regency Reference Library (Zondervan Publishing House).

Are there two creation stories in Genesis?

ChristArt

By Spencer D Gear

It is a common view promoted by liberal theology and sceptics that there are two creation stories in Genesis 1 and 2. Here are a few examples:

In the Skeptics Annotated Bible, they outline, ‘The two contradictory creation accounts’;
Arthur Weiser: ‘It is evident that the Pentateuch cannot be the continuous work of a single author. This is shown by the existence of two differing accounts (doublets) of the same event: thus e.g. the story of the creation in Gen. 1 and 2:4ff’,,[1]
The Wikipedia article on the ‘Genesis creation narrative’ states that ‘The opening of [Genesis] verse 2:4 provides a “bridge” connecting the two accounts of the creation narrative’.

At the popular level, I encountered this view on a www forum, Christian Fellowship Forum. Jim Parker replied to me:

You seem to be rejecting out of hand, without consideration, the possibility that there could be more than one version of the creation and flood stories among these ancient people. That flies in the face of the existence of a variety of creation and flood stories among the ancient Mesopotamian people.[2]

I replied: Noah’s flood and the Gilgamesh epic have been answered over and over, but you trot it out again.[3]

Kermit: << There is only one creation story >>[4]
Jim: My Bible has two. One begins with: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. (Gen 1:1)
The other one begins with: This [is] the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and [there was] no man to till the ground; but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground. (Gen 2:4 -6)
Kermit: <<There is …only 1 flood story.>>
Jim: There are two. I already posted the facts. If you don’t want to know then that is your choice.

Spencer:[5] Can’t you see what you did? You confused your view that there are two creation stories with two flood stories.
Genesis 2 does not present a different creation account to the one in Genesis 1. Genesis 2 presupposes God’s completed work of creation from Genesis 1. What we have in Gen. 2:1-3 is the logical conclusion of carrying on the information from Genesis 1, using the same vocabulary and style as was used in chapter 1.

What Genesis 2 does is lay out the completion of God’s primary work done in Genesis 1 with the sanctity of the 7th day conferred as a memorial of what God had created.

Then Genesis 2:4 sums up the sequence of what had been surveyed previously with the words, “These are the generations of heaven and earth when they were created, in the day that Yahweh God made heaven and earth”.

Since Moses (yes, author Moses) had now finished the overall survey of the subject, what does the author do? He then develops in detail one important feature, the creation of human beings.

It is Kenneth Kitchen who writes in Ancient Orient (p. 117):

“Genesis 1 mentions the creation of man as the last of a series, and without any details, whereas in Genesis 2 man is the center of interest and more specific details are given about him and his setting. Failure to recognize the complementary nature of the subject-distinction between a skeleton outline of all creation on the one hand and the immediate environment on the other, borders on obscurantism”.[6]

How do you like that description of what you have tried to do with trying to convince us of two creation accounts – obscurantism?

You have provided the argumentation of the historical-critical method and your presupposition comes gushing forth.

Conclusion

There is a reasonable contextual explanation for affirming that Genesis 1 and 2 form the fabric of one creation account and not two.

I recommend the article by Wayne Jackson, Apologetics Press, “Are there two creation accounts in Genesis?’ The straightforward biblical answer to the question, if one follows the Genesis text, is, NO! There is only ONE creation account in the Book of Genesis.

Notes:

[1] In Wayne Jackson, ‘Are there two creation accounts in Genesis?’, Apologetics Press, available at: http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=1131 (Accessed 9 June 2012).

[2] Christian Fellowship Forum, Contentious Brethren, ‘Dawkins won’t debate creationists’, #41, 5 June 12, available at: http://community.compuserve.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?tsn=40&nav=messages&webtag=ws-fellowship&tid=121081 (Accessed 6 June 2012).

[3] Ibid., ozspen, #49.

[4] Ibid., FatherJimParker, #45.

[5] Ibid., ozspen #51. The following information is from Gleason L. Archer 1982. Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Regency Reference Library (Zondervan Publishing House), pp. 68-69.

[6] Ibid., p. 69.

Paul was in error when he wrote Romans! Really?

ChristArt

By Spencer D Gear

What do you say to someone who states that Paul, the apostle, was in error when he states that “there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God” (Romans 13:1 NIV).

I’ve been in a back and forth discussion on Christian Forums with 2knowhim on the topic of God and secular governments. He wrote to me:

When Paul said that all scripture was inspired by God he surely was not including his writings as scripture, that is somethings that men later concluded and we are here to debate the wisdom of such an endorsement.

In order for scripture to be considered scripture it must be put through a vigorous set of standards and it is obvious to me that the churches of Asia got it right by forsaking Paul.

Can scripture be considered as God breathed if it is obvious that they are both fallible and wrong? You say they aught to be accepted because some men, at some point of time, claimed them to be the inspired word of God and you seem to reject any reasonable challenges that clearly show that the writings of Paul are in err because it has always been believe that the compiled writings of Paul’s are in a book you claim is the infallible word of God. But that book we have shown is both fallible and not inspired by God and that only goes to show that the writings in question should not be considered as inspired writings. Jesus’ teachings are a part of the collective of the writings in the bible but they were never put into a book by God but by men and the bible is a fallible book of collective writings of men, which I believe happen to contain true God breathed writings in the teachings of Jesus the Christ.

Is my reasoning in err (sic) then lay out your argument.[1]

The following is my response:[2]

You may be correct when you state that when Paul wrote all Scripture was inspired [theopneustos = God breathed] of God that he was not including his own writings. But I wouldn’t be so brazen as to state that categorically as you did. Why?

In fact, he was referring probably to the OT. However, William Hendiksen and Simon Kistemaker in their commentary on the pastoral epistles commented on the meaning of

all Scripture. in distinction from “(the) sacred writings” (for which see on verse 15) means everything which, through the testimony of the Holy Spirit in the church, is recognized by the church as canonical, that is, authoritative. When Paul wrote these words, the direct reference was to a body of sacred literature which even then comprised more than the Old Testament (see 1 Tim. 5:18). Later, at the close of the first century A. D., “all scripture” had been completed. Though the history of the recognition, review, and ratification of the canon was somewhat complicated, and virtually universal acceptance of all the sixty-sic books did not occur immediately in every region where the church was represented – one of the reasons being that for a long time certain of the smaller books had not even reached ever corner of the church -, it remains true, nevertheless, that those genuine believers who were the original recipients of the various God-breathed books regarded them at once as being invested with divine authority and majesty (Hendriksen & Kistemaker 1955:301-302).

ChristArt

One of your major errors is your view that Paul was in error because “when Paul said that all scripture was inspired by God he surely was not including his writings as scripture” (your words). This is where you show your ignorance of another portion of the NT:

14 So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with him. 15 Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction (2 Peter 3:14-16 NIV, emphasis added).

Here the apostle Peter writes of Paul the apostle who wrote in his letters and how does Peter compare Paul’s writings? They are among the Scriptures as he wrote of “the other Scriptures” in the same breath he was writing about what Paul wrote.

The apostle Peter regarded Paul’s writings as Scripture.

But how do you regard them?

Can scripture be considered as God breathed if it is obvious that they are both fallible and wrong? … the writings of Paul are in err … But that book we have shown is both fallible and not inspired by God and that only goes to show that the writings in question should not be considered as inspired writings.

Even Paul’s “hard to understand” writings are Scripture. What is Peter’s instruction to people like you who claim that Paul is in error? Peter is very clear:

ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

These are not my words, but Scripture places you in the category of “ignorant and unstable people” and what do you do? You “distort” Scripture. What is the consequence for people who do this? “Their own destruction” is coming.

I am not making this accusation against you. This is what Peter, the apostle, in the inspired Scriptures states about those who distort what the Scriptures of Paul state. When you state that Paul in Romans 13:1-7 is in error in what he states about human governments, and you state that he was wrong, and that “the bible is a fallible book “, you are the one who brings “destruction” on yourself.

It is horrifically judgmental on yourself when you do this, but you are without excuse. Peter, under the inspiration of God, has told you what your outcome will me.

It is very sad for me to point this out to you, but it seems that you are ignorant of the nature of NT Scripture – especially the writings of Paul.

This statement by you is abominable:

The bible is a fallible book of collective writings of men, which I believe happen to contain true God breathed writings in the teachings of Jesus the Christ.

And you have the temerity to place it in bold.

Works consulted:

William Hendriksen and Simon J. Kistemaker 1955. New Testament Commentary: Thessalonians, the Pastorals, and Hebrews. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic.

Notes:

[1] Christian Forums, Christian Apologetics, ‘Can a person discriminate against women and be a Christian? 2knowhim, #38, 16 May 2012, available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7654554-4/ (Accessed 16 May 2012).

[2] Ibid., OzSpen, #42.

Whytehouse Graphics

What does historical-critical theology do to the Bible?

(image courtesy of ChristArt)

By Spencer D Gear

It is not surprising to hear theological liberals, who deny the authority of Scripture, come out in defence of critics who denigrate the Bible. I encountered this recently on Christian Forums, the largest Christian forum on the www.

A person was commenting about the evidence for Jesus and about that evidence, for sceptics, that is located outside of the Bible.[1] An orthodox Christian wrote:

The only “question marks” come from the higher critics whose sole purpose in life is to deny the Bible as God’s truth. He who has a preconceived agenda has no real interest in the scholarship required to prove or disprove the literature in question. He has already reached his conclusion, and facts just get in the way.[2]

A contributor, who generally has a reputation of posting comments more in line with liberalism than evangelical Christianity, wrote:

I suggest your statement too much of a generalization. The purpose of higher criticism is not to deny the Bible but to gain a better understanding of just what is God’s ‘truth’ by cutting through the smoke and mirrors.[3]

How should we respond to such a view of higher criticism?[4]

Wayseer was building a straw man logical fallacy. He must be living blind-folded to the presuppositional bias against the supernatural of Scripture in the works of much of higher criticism. The purpose and outcome of much of higher criticism has been to deny the authenticity and reliability of the Bible. He has to be blind to what historical critics are doing to make that kind of statement.

Eta Linnemann, a former insider, exposes higher criticism

Eta Linnemann: 1926-2009 (Wikipedia)

Eta Linnemann (1990:17) was a student of the radical demythologiser, Rudolf Bultmann, as well as the liberals, Ernst Fuchs, Friedrich Gogarten and Gerhard Ebeling. She was baptised, immersed, convinced, indoctrinated in historical criticism. Since she rejected that worldview and its sceptical premises, she has written, Historical Criticism of the Bible: Methodology or Ideology.[5] She knows historical criticism from the inside out and these are some of her statements about that discipline of liberal theological scepticism:

Linnemann’s statements of some presuppositions of higher-critical theology

1. In her chapter 6, “The Study of the Historical-Critical Theology”, she stated that ‘research is conducted ut si Deus non daretur (“as if there were no God”). That means the reality of God is excluded from consideration from the start…. The standard by which all is assessed is not God’s Word but scientific principle’ (Linnemann 1990:84).

2. ‘Underlying the historical-critical approach is a series of prejudgments which are not themselves the result of scientific investigation. They are rather dogmatic premises, statements of faith, whose foundation is the absolutizing of human reason as a controlling apparatus’ (Linnemann 1990:111).

3. ‘Whoever maintains that the Bible can only be made understandable with the methods of critical historiography is putting a thoroughly atheistically conceived science in charge of the treasures of divine revelation…. This atheistic, anti-Christian science is recognized by historical-critical theology as furnishing the only proper access to God’s Word, so everyone who wishes to be regarded as theologically educated should endorse this outlook’ (Linnemann 1990:116).

4. Kummel’s[6] historical-critical statement is that ‘the Bible must be historically investigated as the work of human authors in order to understand its actual meaning’. Linnemann’s assessment of this statement is: ‘That is not first demonstrated; it is, rather, presupposed from the outset. And that is not the private opinion of Kummel; it is, rather, the common assumption of historical-critical theology…. They are not permitted to cross-examine in any meaningful way the assumptions of historical-critical theology’ (1990:118, 119).

5. Kummel, using his historical-critical theology, stated, ‘It is easy to see that it is basically impossible to confront the writings of the New Testament as a man making judgments in research and at the same time as one who hears in faith’ (in Linnemann 1990:122).

6. ‘Since the inspiration of Scripture is not accepted, neither can it be assumed that the individual books of Scripture complement each other’ (Linnemann 1990:86).

7. ‘Since the content of biblical writings is seen as merely the creations of theological writers, any given verse is nothing more than a non-binding, human theological utterance’ (Linnemann 1990:86).

8. ‘The undeclared yet working basic principle of Old Testament and New Testament science is: What the text clearly states can, by no means, be true’ (Linnemann 1990:87).

9. ‘For historical-critical theology, critical reason decides what is reality in the Bible and what cannot be reality; and this decision is made on the basis of the everyday experience accessible to every person. Nothing is accepted as fact unless it is generally held to be possible. That which is spiritual is judged using fleshly criteria. Experiences of God’s children are totally disregarded. Due to the presuppositions that are adopted, critical reason loses sight of the fact that the Lord, our God, the Almighty, reigns’. As for miracles, ‘the theologians write them off as popular religious drivel’ (Linnemann 1990:88, 89).

10. ‘In its own eyes, historical-critical theology wants to lend assistance to the proclamation of the gospel through an interpretation of the Bible that is scientifically reliable and objective. There is, however, a monstrous contradiction between what it says it wants to do, on the one hand, and what it actually does on the other. In the light of all I have already said, it should be patently obvious that the manner in which historical critical theology handles the Bible does not further the proclamation of the gospel, but rather hinders it – in fact, it even prevents it’ (Linnemann 1990:89).

11. ‘But worse yet, it is by no means clear that we are dealing here with an approach that yields objective and scientifically reliable interpretation of the Scripture as it claims. It is simply not true that historical-critical theology has replaced subjective impressions with a well-grounded discovery of the truth through careful weighing of arguments’ (Linnemann 1990:89).

12. ‘If one assumes that the parable of the ten virgins (Matt. 25:1-13) was not spoken by Jesus himself, but rather that it arose in the early church, then one places it in a different context. It gives information, not about Jesus, but about the early church. To analyze it one compares it to what is known of the early church, not to what is known about Jesus’ (Linnemann 1990:93).

13. ‘If one assumes, on the basis of the differences between John’s Gospel and the three other Gospels, that the author of John is not John the disciple of Jesus, then a series of inferences naturally flows: In this case the author himself did not personally experience what he asserts about Jesus. He must have modeled his presentation on earlier sources. This raises the questions about the nature of these earlier documents. And this in turn raises the further question of how John’s Gospel is distinct from the sources it is based upon’ (Linnemann 1990:93).

14. ‘Basic assumptions are placed on the same level as fact, not theory, of course, but certainly in practical application. That is, one makes use of them as if they were facts. Anyone who incorporates these basic assumptions into his thinking is influenced and ultimately changed by them’ (Linnemann 1990:96).

15. For these historical-critical scholars, ‘Christian literature from Bible-believing authors is practically taboo. The productions of some publishers are not taken seriously and cannot be listed in the bibliography of a formal term paper, unless one is prepared to get a lower grade for doing so. The professor is not really familiar with these works either’ (Linnemann 1990:97).

16. As for the prophetic future, for historical-critical scholars, ‘there is no such thing as a knowledge of future things given by God’ (Linnemann 1990:110).

17. Linnemann’s assessment, based on her many years of indoctrination by the historical-critical method, is that Kummel’s compromise solutions do not justify ‘his groundless contention that it is a fact that believing reception of the New Testament message can occur only through the hearing aid of historical-critical theology…. But Kummel subsequently sets forth the thesis once more: “Hence there is no other access to the understanding of the New Testament writings than the method of historical research, which is valid for all antiquity”‘ (Linnemann 1990:122).

18. Linnemann’s assessment of her genuine Christian conversion from the historical-critical liberalism is: ‘I am so grateful that Jesus’ blood has washed away my errors! I was no better; in fact I was worse, and I likewise made such irresponsible statements. And whoever gets involved in historical-critical theology will end up in a similar situation. One can no more be a little historical-critical than a little pregnant’ (Linnemann 1990:123).

19. Read Eta Linnemann’s testimony of her conversion to Christ after years of dedication to theological liberalism, HERE. See Eta Linnemann’s, ‘Historical-Critical and Evangelical Theology’.

In the midst of this kind of evidence from one who was involved deeply with the historical-critical method, wayseer had the audacity to state: ‘The purpose of higher criticism is not to deny the Bible’.

That is a plainly false statement as any examination of the historical-critical writers will demonstrate. He has a sub-standard understanding of the historical-critical method to conclude that its purpose is not to deny the Bible. My reading of historical-critical writers demonstrates that for many of them the purpose is to deny the authority and integrity of the Bible – BIG TIME.

I’m in the midst of working my way through the presuppositions of the historical-critical ideology of John Dominic Crossan in a doctoral dissertation (so I can’t share them at this stage) but Crossan is but another example of the desire to denigrate the Bible, whether that be by modernistic or postmodernistic presuppositions. An example would be Crossan’s statement (1991:423), the nineteenth century dream of ‘uncommitted, objective, dispassionate historical study’ is ‘a methodological screen’. Instead, he challenges the readers through his method and historical hermeneutics as they presume ‘that there will always be divergent historical Jesuses’ with resultant ‘divergent Christs’. The structure of Christianity, for Crossan, will be, without variation, ‘This is how we see Jesus-then as Christ-now‘ (emphasis in original).

Theological liberalism is inundated with historical-critical presuppositions, thus creating an ideology that tries to destroy the integrity of the Bible.

And have a guess what? When it is promoted in any denomination, it destroys that denomination as a Gospel-presenting church. We see that with much of the Anglican church in Australia (except for the Sydney diocese, some of the Melbourne diocese, and the occasional other evangelical Anglican churches like the one near me in Petrie, Qld).

The ‘cutting through the smoke and mirrors’ (wayseer’s language) of historical-critical methodology, is really the imposing of a secular worldview on the biblical text and making it mean what the critic wants it to mean, and that is generally contrary to the intent of the biblical text.

On the popular level, the theological liberalism promoted by John Shelby Spong, is an example of how he sets about to destroy the Bible – and losing 40,000 people in the Episcopal church diocese when he was bishop of Newark, NJ. See ‘Spong’s deadly Christianity‘.

There are presupposition of the historical-critical method that force historical-critical scholars to eek sources outside of the Bible. This often means a downgrading of the historicity of the NT.

One of the criteria for historicity that these historical scholars like to use is multiple attestation and not single attestation. If it is attested (stated) once only in the NT, that is not good enough for historical veracity for many of these historical scholars. What I’m finding in assessing the methodology of John Dominic Crossan is that he does not maintain this criterion of multiple attestation with complete consistency. There are times when one record of a Jesus’ action is accepted by him.

However, most scholars using a framework of historical criticism that I have assessed, denigrate the Bible and elevate their own (or another scholar’s) human reason as more authoritative than the Bible.

Robert Funk, founder of the Jesus Seminar, stated:

The aim of the quest [for the historical Jesus] is to set Jesus free. Its purpose is to liberate Jesus from the scriptural and creedal and experiential prisons in which we have incarcerated him (1996:300).

That’s what we are dealing with when we see historical-critical study inflicted on the Scriptures. Funk’s and the Jesus Seminar’s views are more important than the scriptural version of Jesus.
Also see I. H. Marshall’s, ‘Historical criticism’.

Conclusion

The historical-critical method is destructive of biblical Christianity.

The Word of God is homogeneous and unified; it is entirely and totally God’s Word. To classify its various parts according to our own evaluation system is insolence. It is, nevertheless, standard procedure in historical-critical theology to accord different levels of validity to different portions of God’s Word (Linnemann 1990:149).

Works consulted

Crossan, J D 1991. The historical Jesus: The life of a Mediterranean Jewish peasant. New York, NY: HarperSanFrancisco.

Funk, R W 1996. Honest to Jesus. Rydalmere, NSW: Hodder & Stoughton.

Kummel, W G 1973. The theology of the New Testament. Nashville: Abingdon.

Linnemann, E 1990. Historical criticism of the Bible: Methodology or ideology. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House.[7]

Linnemann, E 1992. Is there a synoptic problem?: Rethinking the literary dependence of the first three gospels. Tr by R. W. Yarbrough. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House.

Linnemann, E 2001. Biblical criticism on Trial: How scientific is ‘scientific theology’? (online). Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, also available (online) at: http://books.google.com.au/books?id=JkOq91KGIGIC&pg=PA207&lpg=PA207&dq=%22Eta+Linnemann+Spurgeon%22&source=bl&ots=n0qieDcBfc&sig=IxX6hhcZfzXtFRhQjosgJE7R1J0&hl=en&ei=BSXnTJjUKcfXcYDd3d0K&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=true (Accessed 20 November 2010).

Notes

[1] ebia #5, 25 March 2012. ‘Did Jesus Really Exist? Proving Jesus without the Bible’, Christian Forums. Available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7643394/ (Accessed 3 April 2012).

[2] WinbySurrender #9, ibid.

[3] wayseer #10, ibid.

[4] I responded as OzSpen#49, available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7643394-5/ (Accessed 3 April 2012). I have rewritten a few phrases to make it in the third person.

[5] See the other writings of Linnemann (1992, 2001).

[6] Linnemann is referring to Kummel (1973). See Linnemann (1990:114, n. 1).

[7] This book is now published by Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel Books, 2001.

The myth that the Genesis record is based on mythology

Moses in the bulrushes by johnny_automatic - a drawing of the baby Moses in the bulrushes from a pre-1920s program from the Library of Cnngress

Alleged myth: Moses in the bulrushes

(Courtesy: Open Clip Art Library)

By Spencer D Gear

It is not uncommon to hear statements like this to try to associate the Genesis record with mythology:

The Bible begins by simply plagiarizing ancient Babylonian myths. They weren’t anything new or divinely inspired….. Genesis 2 doesn’t coincide with the other parts that were clearly taken from Babylonian myth. It was purely Hebrew. Whether it was inspired or just plain made up is the disagreement![1]

Another statement of this ilk, came from Peter Bycroft, writing in The Australian newspaper. He was reflecting on the Australian Anglican church, which secular humanists like the most. Then in discussing the decline in interest in the Christian story in Australia, he stated:

For some, this “awakening” of Australians reflects, in part, the progress of archeological, cultural and historical research that is defining the Bible as essentially a book hybridised by well-meaning authors from previous mythologies, built on half-truths, Bronze Age fables and inaccurately referenced historical events.[2]

These claims are often made in association with the Enuma Elish (EE) which is a Mesopotamian or Babylonian myth about creation that described a struggle between order and chaos in the cosmos. It has been described as “a myth of the cycle of seasons”. The EE name comes from its opening words which are recited on the fourth day of the ancient Babylonian New Year’s festival. You can read a copy of the EE at: “Enuma Elish: ‘When on high’”, by Dennis Bratcher.

Bratcher explains that the story exists in a number of forms from the Babylonian area and his translation is from

“Akkadian, an old Babylonian dialect, and features Marduk, the patron deity of the city of Babylon. A similar earlier version in ancient Sumerian has Anu, Enil and Ninurta as the heroes, suggesting that this version was adapted to justify the religious practices in the cult of Marduk in Babylon”.

This version of EE had been estimated to have been written about the 12th century BC in cuneiform[3] on seven clay tablets. The tablets were found in the mid 19th century in the ruins of the palace of Ashurbanipal in Nineveh. They were first published by George Smith in 1876 as The Chaldean Genesis.

Because there are parallels with the Genesis account, some have contended that the Genesis record adapted the Babylonian accounts/myths/story. Because of the nature of the authority of Scripture, some have maintained that there are no parallels with this Babylonian account. However, there are some parallels between the two accounts and some considerable differences. Bratcher states:

There are simply too many similarities between the accounts to deny any relationship between the accounts. There are significant differences as well that should not be ignored. Yet there is little doubt that the Sumerian versions of the story predate the biblical account by several hundred years. Rather than opting for either extreme of complete dependence or no contact whatever, it is best to see the Genesis narratives as freely using the metaphors and symbolism drawn from a common cultural pool to assert their own theology about God

Archaeologist, Alfred J. Hoerth (1998:187), explains that while the sequence of creative acts is similar in Genesis and the Babylonian account (firmament, dry land, celestial luminaries, humans) and both stories commence in a watery chaos and end with God or gods at rest. He says that ‘the similarities are not meaningful; they can be explained as expected coincidences in two works on the same theme’. While he rightly states that archaeology cannot excavate the remains of creation, texts such as EE reveal what these ancient cultures had to say about creation events. He explains that while the biblical account of creation is not as complete as many would like it to be,

it owes nothing to other ancient cultures or their myths. The complete Enuma Elish reveals many dissimilarities with Genesis. The omnipotent God in Genesis is very unlike the frightened, feuding, and foul gods of the epic. Necessarily there are similarities, but the Genesis account shows no dependence. The fledgling Hebrew nation should have been thankful when God brought them out from the “bewildering variety” of opinions on their origin and, through Moses, told the story as it happened. Viewed only as a creation story, Genesis is unique, but viewed in comparison with these other stories, Genesis is lucid and complete.

For another statement on how unlikely it would be for Genesis to be based on the Babylonian myth, see, ‘Does the Genesis creation account come from the Babylonian Enuma Elish?’, CARM. Its view is that,

Knowing the issues of the differences, the monotheistic and polytheistic natures, the obvious influence from the Mesopotamian region, and the unsettled dating of the recording, it is safe to conclude that it is highly unlikely that Moses borrowed or was influenced by the Enuma Elish. Genesis is far different in nature than any of the ancient Near Eastern creation myths and therefore must not be considered among that fold.

The view of Genesis being based on a Babylonian myth has been refuted over and over by competent OT scholars but it is pushed rather frequently on the www.[4] Of course there will be theological liberals and sceptics who want to promote this view, as they have a very low view of Scripture.

Here is the conclusion by Gary Brantley, “Pagan mythology and the Bible”, at Apologetics Press:

We need not deny that some similarities exist between pagan and Hebrew literature. But, these similarities do not imply that pagan mythical texts directly influenced biblical writers. The literary quality of biblical poetry argues against such dependence. To illustrate, scholars have identified at least one pagan modification of a Hebrew Psalm (an Egyptian adaptation of Psalm 20, dating to ca. 125 B.C.), whose literary quality is far inferior to the original. This Egyptian document (written on papyri) was discovered sometime before the turn of the century. Egyptian philologists soon identified the script as demotic—a cursive kind of hieroglyphic writing which came into use around 650 B.C. For years, however, its contents remained an enigma to experts.

Progress in deciphering the text occurred in 1940 when Professor Raymond Bowman and Egyptologist George R. Hughes discovered that, though the text was written in demotic script, the actual language was Aramaic. The Egyptian document contains Jewish words such as YHWH (i.e., Yahweh) and ‘adonay, but it also mentions an assortment of pagan gods (e.g., Horus, Sahar, Mar, and Baal). These features, and its familiarity of language and composition to Psalm 20, indicate that it was adapted from the Hebrew Psalm. The text, however, is riddled with scribal errors of such nature that indicate the scribe did not understand what he transcribed (see Shanks, 1985). Such is not characteristic of biblical poetry. Its literary quality, according to some scholars, is far superior to that of pagan stock (see Wheeler, 1992). This certainly would be one indication of its originality.

Further, along with its distinguished literary quality, the Bible’s ethical and spiritual concepts are unparalleled by pagan sacred literature. For instance, the gods of pagan myths are guilty of degenerate behavior of all sorts; the true God is infinite in purity. Practitioners of pagan religions constantly worked to pacify their angry gods; worshipers of Yahweh, Who was quick to forgive, received undeserved blessings from His gracious hands (Psalm 32:1-5). Thus, the similarities between biblical and pagan literature are eclipsed by the enormous differences. Actually, there is no better indicator of the Bible’s inspiration than to put it side by side with its pagan counterparts. Such comparative literary analyses bolster our conviction that “all scripture is given by inspiration of God…” (2 Timothy 3:16).

Tony L. Shetter has written, “Genesis 1-2 In Light Of Ancient Egyptian Creation Myths” to refute this view. His conclusion is that

the author/redactor(s) of the Genesis creation accounts share certain concepts of the makeup of the world with other ancient Near Eastern cultures. However, it is especially with Egypt’s worldview that the author/redactor(s) are familiar. Evidence for this lies in the many allusions to Egyptian creation motifs throughout the Genesis creation accounts. But, rather than being a case of direct borrowing, they demythologize the Egyptian concepts and form a polemic against the Egyptian gods. Thus, they elevate Yahweh-Elohim as the one true God, who is transcendent and who is all powerful. He speaks his desire and it comes to pass. He does not require the assistance of other gods to perform the acts of creation. He alone possesses the power and means necessary to effect the creation of the world. This paper has compiled a list of the more significant parallels between Egyptian cosmology and the Genesis creation accounts, and has shown that Egyptian cosmology and the Genesis creation accounts share more affinity with one another than the Genesis creation accounts share with Babylonian cosmology.

The article, “Is Genesis stolen from Babylonian myths?” by Tekton Education and Apologetics Ministry, refutes this view.

Our summary conclusion: The views of EE proponents simply do not correspond with the data – and thus it is not surprising that most borrowing-proponents have sought their parallels elsewhere. (For more on those other stories, see the series here by the Christian ThinkTank.)

A better conclusion is that while there may be parallels with early mythology, parallels do not equate to the biblical text plagiarising Babylonian or Egyptian mythology. While there may be convergences with Babylonian mythology, the radical differences are too great to promote a view that the Genesis record, for example, was built on mythology.

The Genesis record promotes Yahweh-Elohim as the one true, transcendent and all-powerful almighty God of creation and of His people. This is very dissimilar to the gods represented in the Babylonian epic.

This leads to the obvious question of the nature of the OT. What was Jesus’ view of the OT? He spoke of the events, including miracles, and people of the OT as historically factual. We see this in how Jesus affirmed the authenticity of the destruction of Sodom including the death of Lot’s wife (Luke 17:29-32). The manna fell from heaven (John 6:31) according to Jesus. Who was Daniel? Jesus affirmed him as a genuine prophet (Matthew 24:15). Jesus confirmed the validity and historicity of Jonah and the whale. (Matthew 12:39-40). Jesus spoke of those who were created male and female in the creation account (see Matthew 19:4-6).

Jesus said, “The Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35). Jesus directed us to the OT, asking, “Have you not read what was spoken to you by God?” (Matthew 22:31).

When 2 Tim. 3:16 as “all Scripture is breathed out by God” (ESV), he was referring to the OT as the NT canon was not yet formed.

References

Hoerth, Alfred J 1998. Archaeology and the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books.

Notes

[1] KhaosTheory #11, a post on Christian Forums, Christian Apologetics, “Understanding the Bible”, available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7640465-2/#post60032437. My response, OzSpen, is at #17, and includes the material that refutes this plagiarism of the Babylonian mythological view.

[2] Peter Bycroft 2011. Sometimes love, even if a gift from Jesus, is not good enough. The Australian, 25 June. Available at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/arts/sometimes-love-even-as-a-gift-from-jesus-is-not-good-enough/story-e6frg8nf-1226080049755 (Accessed 19 March 2012).

[3] ‘One of the earliest forms of writing, cuneiform was (probably) invented in Uruk, Mesopotamia around 3000 BC. The word is from the Latin, meaning “wedge shaped”; we don’t know what the script was actually called by its users. The symbols are formed from wedge-shaped objects pressed into soft clay tablets which are then fired (accidentally or intentionally), “Cuneiform”, Archaeology. Available at: http://archaeology.about.com/od/cterms/g/cuneiform.htm (Accessed 15 March 2012).

[4] Another example is the Religious Tolerance site and the article, ‘Comparing two creation stories: From Genesis and Babylonian pagan sources’ (Accessed 15 March 2012).

Blue-Metal

Whytehouse designs

Is the New Living Translation gender-inclusive in its translation?

(image courtesy Pinterest)

By Spencer D Gear

Gender-inclusive language is where there is an attempt not to be specific about gender, whether male or female. It is meant to have a neutral meaning. This is found in certain more recent Bible translations. Consider James 1:2:

KJV: My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations;

NKJV: My brethren, count it all joy when you fall into various trials;

NASB: Consider it all joy, my brethren, when you encounter various trials;

ESV: Count it all joy, my brothers,^[a] when you meet trials of various kinds.

[the footnote for the ESV,^[a], states: “James 1:2 Or brothers and sisters. The plural Greek word adelphoi (translated “brothers”) refers to siblings in a family. In New Testament usage, depending on the context, adelphoi may refer either to men or to both men and women who are siblings (brothers and sisters) in God’s family, the church; also verses 16, 19″]’

NRSV: My brothers and sisters, whenever you face trials of any kind, consider it nothing but joy;

NIV (1984): Consider it pure joy, my brothers, whenever you face trials of many kinds;

NIV (2011): Consider it pure joy, my brothers and sisters,^[a] whenever you face trials of many kinds [The footnote, ^[a] , states:”James 1:2 The Greek word for brothers and sisters (adelphoi) refers here to believers, both men and women, as part of God’s family; also in verses 16 and 19; and in 2:1, 5, 14; 3:10, 12; 4:11; 5:7, 9, 10, 12, 19];

NLT:: Dear brothers and sisters, when troubles come your way, consider it an opportunity for great joy.

Of all of these translations, only the NRSV, NIV (2011) and NLT are gender neutral, by translating the Greek, adelphoi, as “brothers and sisters”. This is the meaning in Greek when it is referring to siblings (brothers and sisters) in the body of Christ. Why don’t you trace the use of the Greek, adelphos (nominative case, singular) and anthropos (nominative case, singular) in the NT Greek? Do you have access to an interlinear NT (English translation under the Greek) where you could do that?

Differences with translations of gender

Notice the difference between the use of the Greek, anthropos [man, mankind, people) in the ESV versus the NLT:

James 1:12 ESV: Blessed is the man who remains steadfast under trial, for when he has stood the test he will receive the crown of life, which God has promised to those who love him.

James 1:12 NLT: God blesses those who patiently endure testing and temptation. Afterward they will receive the crown of life that God has promised to those who love him.

The NLT is accurately gender-inclusive in its translation in certain areas. This is what the “Introduction to the New Living Translation” states:

Gender-Inclusive Language
The English language changes constantly. An obvious recent change is in the area of gender-inclusive language. This creates problems for modern translators of the ancient biblical text, which was originally written in a male oriented culture. The translator must respect the nature of the ancient context while also accounting for the concerns of the modern audience. Often the original language itself allows a rendering that is gender inclusive. For example, the Greek word anthropos, traditionally rendered “man,” really means “human being” or “person.” A different Greek word, aner, specifically means a male.”

There are other occasions where the original language is male-oriented, but not intentionally so. For example, in the Pentateuch most of the laws are stated in language that is replete with masculine pronouns. But since it is clear in many cases that the recipients of these laws were both male and female, we have used gender-neutral language where appropriate. Another example is found in the New Testament epistles, where the believers are called “brothers” (adelphoi). Yet it is clear that these epistles were addressed to all the believers- male and female. Thus, we have usually translated this Greek word “brothers and sisters” or “Christian friends” in order to represent the historical situation more accurately.

Finally, we have attempted to use a gender-neutral rendering where the text applies generally to human beings or to the human condition. For example, a traditional rendering of Luke 9:62 reads: “No man who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the Kingdom of God.” We have translated it: “Anyone who puts a hand to the plow and then looks back is not fit for the Kingdom of God.” In many instances we have used plural pronouns (they, them) in place of the gender-specific singular (he, him). For example, a traditional rendering of Proverbs 22:6 is: “Train up a child in the way he should go and when he is old he will not turn from it.” We have rendered it: “Teach your children to choose the right path, and when they are older, they will remain upon it (1996. Holy Spirit Encounter Bible, New Living Translation. Orlando, FL: Creation House, p. xlii).

The SIL controversy: Are Wycliffe Bible Translators and SIL being subversive?

(Images courtesy Wycliffe.org.au)

By Spencer D Gear

In January–February 2012, there was an eruption in certain quarters about the translations of Father, Son and Son of God, that Wycliffe Bible Translators (WBT) and Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL) are using for translations in countries that are mostly Muslim. I was alerted to this issue by a retired pastor friend who sent a group email to others and me and he stated that this new Bible translation is “ABSOLUTELY SHOCKING!” (his emphasis)

He asked who had the right to change a biblical text for political correctness. He gave Revelation 22:18-19 for support (See Appendix A, below, for an interpretation that these verses do not apply to the entire Bible, but only to the Book of Revelation). These verses state:

I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, ¹⁹ and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book (ESV).

My pastor friend who wanted to apply these verses to all of Scripture, also used Psalm 12:1, 6-7 to support his claims of what happens when Scripture is changed, as SIL is alleged to be doing. He wanted to challenge SIL and stated that what it was doing was ‘blasphemous’ and he hopes that there is sufficient protest to cause the publishers to cease publication.

Why the kafuffle?

This pastor friend sent me a link to the article by Jihad Watch, 29 January 2012: ‘Report: American Bible translators bowdlerize scriptures to avoid offending Muslims: no “Father” and “Son”‘.

What are the issues? It was over WBT, SIL, and Frontiers for allegedly removing the words, Father, Son and Son of God, and replacing with different words in a translation for the Muslim world. Jihad Watch quoted an article from Yahoo! Contributor Network, ‘“Father” and “Son” ousted from the Trinity in New Bible Translations‘. This article claimed that

Concerned Christian missionaries, Bible translators, pastors, and national church leaders have come together with a public petition to stop these organizations. They claim a public petition is their last recourse because meetings with these organizations’ leaders, staff resignations over this issue and criticism and appeals from native national Christians concerned about the translations have failed to persuade these agencies to retain “Father” and “Son” in the text of all their translations.

Biblical Missiology, a ministry of Boulder, Colorado-based Horizon International, is sponsoring the petition.

The Petition

Based on the reactionary statements by my pastor friend, ‘absolutely shocking’ and ‘blasphemous’, I read no further and proceeded to sign my name to this public petition sponsored by Horizons International, Colorado, USA on its homepage.[1] Based on my further research, I emailed Horizons International and asked them to remove my name and address from the Petition as I am not convinced that the Horizons’ Petition is what I want to support, as I explain below.

Within 24-hours of asking for my name to be removed from the Petition, I have received 4 different email responses from around the world, from those associated with Horizons International and Biblical Missiology, including one from a pastor in the Arabic-speaking world. All of them opposed the WBT and SIL translations regarding God, Son, and Son of God in Muslim countries. These were some of their emphases:

Native believers in Turkey and the Arab world ‘completely disagree’ with the Wycliffe translations.
Former Muslims want the literal translation of Father and Son of God.
‘Wycliffe consistently refuses to address’ this issue.
The claim that the NT Greek, huios (Son), should not be translated as ibn Allah (son of God), is ‘strange’ and is certainly not based on linguistics.
All Christians want to communicate the clear meaning of the Bible, but what concerns us is the removing the words Son and Father from the biblical text as these are critical words to describe the nature of God and Christ.
There should be no replacement words for Father and Son, such as Messiah, the one and only, the beloved of God, etc., that SIL is using.
‘The whole plan of salvation is at stake’ with the SIL translations.[2]
God as Father is a most attractive attribute of God for Muslims.
I have evidence of hundreds of Muslims who have become Christians, who have been attracted to the Fatherhood of God, rather than the stern image of Allah from Islam.
The humble God who loves people enough to sacrifice his only Son drew many Muslims to Christ.
One survey of 100 Muslim converts to Christ found that 85% said that the fatherhood of God drew them to Christ.
No commentaries can explain adequately the nature of the Trinity and the Father-Son relationship. The matter is spiritual and has to be revealed to people.[3]
Please don’t deny Muslims the translation of the intimate attributes of God and Jesus.
Please do not be fooled by the words WBT-SIL has claimed.
WBT state they are committed to accuracy, but then they remove Father and Son from the Middle Eastern Bible. This brings confusion. National churches are angry about what WBT are doing.
It is a ‘shame’ that American Christianity is giving up on this doctrine of the Father and the Son.
We, Horizons International/Biblical Missiology, are ‘legitimate’ and have found ‘many unfaithful translations’.[4]
They want the Petition against WBT’s translations of Father and Son to cause WBT to think twice before eliminating Father and Son from translations.
The issues are complex and translations shouldn’t be a commentary. In their view, they consider that Father should still be Father and Son to be Son as all cultures understand the Father-Son relationship.
They can give further explanations in footnotes.
The Pakistan Bible Society has severed relationships with WBT/SIL. The Presbyterian Church of Pakistan has objected to what WBT is doing.
Before SIL makes changes to the current Bible translation it should ‘take into confidence all major Christian denominations and church leaders’.
Church leaders in countries such as Pakistan, Bangladesh, Iran, Turkey and Malaysia have called for an end to the WBT translations of Father and Son, ‘but to no avail’.
Those who speak Arabic, Turkish, Urdu, Bengali and other majority-Muslim languages reject the Wycliffe rationale for removing and redefining Father, Son, and Son of God.
If the Holy Spirit does not apply the message to the person, passion for lexical work and exegesis will come to naught.[5]
An underlying presupposition in this debate is that the problem with Muslims is ‘informational’, that by ‘massaging’ the message going to them, they will be more ready to come to the Lord. Historically, this involved the great divide between Augustine and Pelagius. This person wanted to place the blame with the assumption that a human being has an ability of choose Christ and correct information will help to guarantee that kind of result.[6]
As for dynamic equivalence vs formal equivalence (literal), that is found in above-ground structures, but the stuff below the ground involves the doctrines of ability or inability (of a person to choose salvation or not to choose salvation in Christ). This person stated that it is always good to examine the foundation.[7]
WBT dismisses the view that the disagreement is based on WBT presuppositions.[8]
I, a person living in the Arabic world, have no problem using Allah for the God of the OT and NT as it is not disputed by Arabic Christians because Allah was used for God before Islam commenced.
There is a long list of Turkish pastors (former Muslims) who have spoken out against the WBT-SIL translation into Turkish. There is no need to change it in 2012.
What do you think Muslims could say when they note that Bible translations Christians have used for centuries with Son of God and Father are suddenly being changed?[9]

There are certainly some valid concerns expressed here

These include:

1. Since God, Son, and Son of God have been used in Arabic and other Middle Eastern translations for centuries, why change to dynamic equivalence now?

2. Since Allah was used for God before the entrance of Islam, it is valid to continue such use in modern translations.

3. The Father and Son relationship in the Trinity and its familial relationship, attract Muslims to Christianity when compared with the strict kind of monotheism of the Allah of Islam.

4. There is a mystery in the nature of the Trinity.

5. The Petition against the WBT-SIL translation of God, Son, and Son of God, has gotten a response from WBT-SIL and they have put a moratorium on all such translations which some linguistic experts examine the issue.

6. How does one determine if a translation is correct or incorrect?

7. Presuppositions are important in any kind of writing or translating.

8. When Christians change translations that are centuries old, Muslims could be suspicious about what they are doing.

In this article, I examine some of these matters.

Here is another opposing article against the WBT position, ‘Wycliffe Bible Translators accused of downgrading Jesus “for Muslim sensitivities”‘, which states: ‘There is absolutely no question of Wycliffe Bible Translators being engaged in some subversive activity to undermine the Christian faith in order to make Scripture somehow more palatable to Muslims’.

Subversive? Questionable, maybe! But this evangelical organisation (Wycliffe/SIL) that works closely with local churches when engaging in Bible translation in a new language group, could not be charged with being subversive as, to my knowledge, they are openly discussing translational issues with local churches. However, where these SIL translators are working is, and should remain, a secret for their own security.

After investigation, my conclusions are that WBT and SIL are not being subversive, undermining the Christian faith and being blasphemous, to make the Bible palatable for Muslims. What then are the issues?

My response

The main issues in this controversy seem to be:

(1) Are Wycliffe and SIL orthodox mission organisations? And

(2) How does a translator communicate the meaning of “son of God” in a new culture, especially a Muslim culture, where “son of God” would have a meaning quite different to what the Greek text states?

(3) Explaining to people in the receptor language that it is not the translation that is inspired of God, but the original documents.

Let’s be fair in our analysis of what is happening, by looking at these three issues:

(1) We know that WBT and SIL are orthodox evangelical organisations and from their statement of belief, they are clearly Trinitarian, stating in, Our Doctrine, that ‘we believe in one God, who exists eternally in three persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit’. Also, their view of Jesus, the Son, is orthodox as this statement from ‘Our Doctrine’ indicates:

We believe that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, born of the virgin Mary, is fully God and fully human; He demonstrated God’s love for sinners by suffering the penalty of death in their place, rose bodily from the dead and ascended to heaven where He intercedes for His people.

(2) When translators translate for a new culture, they want to convey the meaning, say, from the Greek NT to the new culture. This is a translational issue. ‘Son of God’ (huios tou theou) for the Muslims has a different understanding to what I understand, as I have been raised in orthodox, evangelical Christianity. Since I’m an expository preacher, when a term such as Father, Son or Son of God appears in a text, I expound what it means after I’ve obtained the meaning from my Greek exegesis (grammar) and use of using Arndt & Gingrich Greek lexicon (1957) and the word studies of Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (10 vols, Kittel & Friedrich 1964-1976), Colin Brown’s New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (3 vols, 1975-1978).

Bible translators don’t have the luxury of using more detailed exposition when translating. How do they communicate that message in a translation? Many of them translate meaning-for-meaning as is done in the NIV and NLT (New Living Translation). This type of linguistic translation makes sense to me in a new culture. In fact, I’m finding that new and older Christians love the NLT because it explains the meaning so simply.

I was experiencing this kind of translational problem in writing my PhD dissertation the day prior to writing this article, when I came across the German word, Sachkritik, that was used in an English volume (Thiselton 1980:266). I knew that it meant content-criticism but I was unsure what that meant exactly, so I went searching for its fuller meaning in order to better understand the dimensions of this word’s meaning. I found this, thanks to Tom (N T) Wright’s excellent work on the historical Jesus. Here is what I discovered:

Sachkritik is the criticism of a writer by an interpreter, using the inner logic of the interpreter’s own ideas. Wright (1992:56 n 21) explained that an example would be when Bultmann relativised Romans 9-11 based on the assessment that if Paul had thought through his ideas properly he would not have stated it that way. Others accused Bultmann of not following his own Sachkritik to its logical conclusions by still holding onto belief in the historicity of the cross when Bultmann maintained that most of the Gospels had to be demythologised and could not be trusted. In Sachkritik, the critic understands the thoughts of an author better than the author himself or herself (Wright 1992:101 n 35).

It is obligatory that interpreters of ancient texts allow the texts to speak for themselves, even if the interpreter is in disagreement with the texts’ statements. Sound methodology does not presume that a contemporary writer has a better understanding than the ancient author or another contemporary author, on what that author wanted to state.

Now, try putting that information into a small sentence to communicate with the people in the pew in Australia! It would be difficult enough for Aussies. Imagine how to do that for people in Syria or Rwanda. Because I read and have taught NT Greek, I know the difficulties of translating from one language to another.

I think that this is the kind of issue that SIL translators run into when trying to translate the Greek NT into a native language, wherever that might be in the world. How would I explain to an English speaker the meaning of Sachkritik with the simple translation of “content-criticism”. That’s not good enough in explaining what it really means. A simple explanation could be something like, “imposing the interpreter’s ideas on the text”. Since I’m examining J. D. Crossan’s historical Jesus in my dissertation, this is exactly what he does in rejecting physical miracles in the Gospels. He claimed that ‘miracles are not changes in the physical world so much as changes in the social world, and it is society that dictates, in any case, how we see, use, and explain that physical world’ (1994:82).

He’s saying that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John could not get it correct, but he can in his late twentieth-century publications by imposing his postmodern interpretation on the text.

(3) In considering the issue of dynamic equivalence translations of Father, Son, and Son of God, especially when sharing Christ with groups such as Muslims, I’m of the view that this issue of accuracy of meaning relates to what exactly is the meaning of ‘all Scripture’ in the verse, ‘all Scripture is breathed out by God’ (2 Tim. 3:16-17 ESV). In context, ‘all Scripture’ here refers to the OT, as the NT had not yet been compiled.

Is it a translation that is “breathed out by God” or is it the original biblical writing? Too many preachers and Christians make it refer to translations when in reality, only the original documents (known as the autographa), whether in Hebrew or Greek, are God-breathed. (See Greg Bahnsen’s article, ‘The inerrancy of the autographa’.)

It is not in any translation, but it is in the original Greek of the NT and the Hebrew of the OT, from which there are translational issues in whatever language one uses. We should not have to argue that a translation is the inerrant Scripture that is ‘breathed out by God’. It is not.

A brother in Christ who is in an Arabic-speaking nation witnessing to Muslims shared with me what is happening to him when he is witnessing for Christ on the streets with Muslims. He is concerned when Muslims compare translation with translation of the Bible in Arabic and say to him that the ‘the Bible is corrupted’. They use the SIL change of Father, Son, and Son of God to demonstrate to him that the Bible has changed and they have proof. My brother in Christ said that these Muslims are correct when they compare a literal Arabic translation with a dynamic equivalence translation. They see two different meanings for a word or concept.

He wrote of a situation where he was in a situation among a group of Muslims and was trying to defend the Scriptures when the Muslims claimed a ‘corrupted’ Bible comparing literal versus dynamic equivalence Arabic translations. The Muslims were showing him verses from another translation that contradicted what he was preaching. He concluded that the Muslims were correct because Western translators had changed the scriptures in a well-meaning attempt to contextualise. His conclusion was that these translators had sinned against Muslims by damaging the reputation of the Word of God and that they should be ashamed for doing it.

But wait a minute! Is this brother being accurate with what he is saying to the Muslims about different Arabic translations? I don’t think he is, as the objections by the Muslims should lead to a discussion about translational models, especially dynamic equivalence and formal (literal) equivalence. Also, as I’ve indicated above, it is not the translation that is ‘breathed out by God’. That only applies to the original documents.

As an example, I face a similar problem with the New International Version’s translation of the Greek, hilasmos, in places like 1 John 2:2; 4:10, as ‘atoning sacrifice’ for our sins, when I understand that it means ‘propitiation’ (see ESV). The New Living Translation uses “the sacrifice that atones“, but this is inadequate if it means ‘appeasing the wrath of God’.[10] In commenting on 1 John 2:2 and noting the different translations of hilasmos as ‘propitiation’ (KJV, NKJV, RV, ASV, NASB, Moffatt), ‘expiation’ (RSV[11]), ‘atoning sacrifice’ (MLB, NIV), and ‘remedy for the defilement of our sins’ (NEB), Simon Kistemaker (1986:252-255) notes that

God initiated his love to a sinful world by giving his Son to cover sin and remove guilt…. With his atoning sacrifice, Christ removes sin and guilt…. Hilasmos … describes an action performed by Jesus Christ that appeases God the Father. A noun with a –mos ending denotes action; a noun with a –ma ending indicates the result of that action.

However, another evangelical, exegetical commentators, such as R. C. H. Lenski (1966:399-401), prefer the translation of ‘expiation’ to ‘propitiation’, particularly when compared with the only other NT appearance is in 1 John 4:10.[12] The Link & Brown (1978:162-163) word study states that

words of the hilaskomai word-ground fit in naturally with the terminology of blood, cleansing, and sin (1 Jn. 1:7ff) and come naturally to anyone familiar with this area of the thought-world of the LXX…. Atonement is not regarded as something that man does to God, but rather as the expression of God’s love to men (1 Jn. 4:10).

So, it is not clear whether an expiation or propitiation meaning should be used in 1 John 2:2; 4:10. If I were preaching on this, I would give the issues for either translation and if I were uncertain (as I now am) I would tell the people this conclusion.

I am of the view that the fuller explanation of what the word means should not be left to translators, as they require the use of minimal words. It should be done by biblical expositors (preachers) of whom there are not many in my part of the world. I find few pastors locally who have a fair understanding of NT Greek or OT Hebrew. My local pastor does know his Greek reasonably well.

From this brother in a Arabic-speaking country who is witnessing for Christ to Muslims who are saying that “the Bible is corrupted”, I am persuaded that any pastor, evangelist or translator must get back to saying something like, ‘It is the Bible in the original documents that is inspired Scripture and not any Arabic/English translation. Let’s see what that word means in the Hebrew or Greek’. However, when on the streets it is not possible to engage in the kind of discussion needed to understand the nuances of a Greek or Hebrew word.

Equivalence translations

I’ve given this extensive explanation as it is what I’ve been working on in my dissertation and it is relevant to the Wycliffe and SIL controversy. I have deep sympathies for what the SIL translators want to do to convey accurate meaning in the Muslim world. A word-for-word translation of, for example, “Son of God”, doesn’t communicate the meaning of the Greek text to Muslims. By using a different kind of translation to convey this meaning, is not engaging in compromise, but is engaging in necessary dynamic equivalence translation principles. A more literal, word-for-word, translation is known as formal equivalence.

The Simply Bible website explains dynamic equivalence:

Translation is not accomplished by merely substituting words in a word-for-word equivalence. More often than not, this will not produce the force (or dynamic) of meaning. The translator will therefore modify the form of words so as to achieve the same force of meaning. The jargon for “the same force of meaning” is “dynamic equivalence”.

Strict formal equivalence means

translates word-by-word, matching each Hebrew or Greek word with one or more English words. Strict formal equivalence would produce very difficult English.

For an explanation of the differences between formal and dynamic equivalence, see the article by Vanessa Leonardi.

This is how a literal, Greek-to-English translation of John 3:16 reads in English, “Thus for he loved the God the world so that the son the only begotten he gave that all the believing into him not he/she may not perish but he may have life eternal”. That is word-for-word and in English that would not be acceptable as a translation. It does not make grammatical sense in my native language of English.

This is how the dynamic equivalence of the New International Version translates it: “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”

This is how the dynamic equivalence of the New Living Translation translates it: “For God loved the world so much that he gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.”

Even though these two translations do not give literal word-for-word as I gave with my unintelligible literal translation from Greek to English of John 3:16, the NIV and NLT do not violate translational, linguistic requirements for a meaning-for-meaning translation. Surely you want your Egyptian people to understand the meaning of the OT and NT. Dynamic equivalence is a linguistic valid means of accomplishing that. I do it when I preach an expository sermon. Why should not an Arabic translation allow dynamic equivalence. Do you object to dynamic equivalence? If so, I’d be pleased if you would tell me why dynamic equivalence, as opposed to formal equivalence, is not a valid means of translating from one language to another.

Some further aspects to consider

A person who is opposed to the Wycliffe, SIL, Frontiers translation, wrote to me, ‘Are you really of the opinion that “khalifatullah” (caliph of God) is an acceptable translation of “Son of God” in Arabic? Isn’t that worthy of protest?’

My response was “Yes” and “No”. I also shared the following, which are some further things I keep in mind:

1. SIL has suspended printing the very few translations with controversial renderings while the dialogue progresses with competent and responsible translation consultants and biblical scholars. That seems to show integrity and wisdom on behalf of Wycliffe, SIL and Frontiers.

2. I read, translate and have taught NT Greek. I know from practical translation experience that strict agreement in the receptor language (RL) of every occurrence of the same term in the source language (SL) has been repeatedly shown to be problematic and could introduce zero meaning, or wrong meaning (error). Even the KJV didn’t do it, often translating the Hebrew “sons of Israel” as “children of Israel” (about 140 times) because the translators knew the term in certain passages referred to the collective group, and not just the males.

3. Think of translations that always translate the highly diverse meanings of the Greek, sarx as “flesh”, even in passages where it means “humanity” in some contexts, or “human nature” in others. An example would be, “All flesh shall see the salvation of God” (Luke 3:6 ESV). The New Living Translation has correctly translated the meaning as, “All people will see the salvation sent from God”. This kind of translational difficulty has proven to be confusing to today’s generation that was not raised in the church to learn this highly artificial sense of English “flesh”—which, if we are honest, does not have the same extended or figurative senses that the Greek has.

4. “Kingdom of God” is another term that highlights different aspects of the kingdom in different contexts. Sometimes the focus is on God’s ultimate sovereignty, or on God’s people on earth, or on God’s authority on earth, or on God’s influence, or on God’s salvation for His people, etc. I once read some research that there were over 30 senses of understanding the phrase “kingdom of God”. All you need to do is read the Greek word studies of basileia (kingdom) in Colin Brown’s (ed) New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology[13] to understand the diversity of meaning of “king” and “kingdom”. What do we do in languages where the people have no kings or kingdoms? Always using a single rendering for the “kingdom of God” in all contexts can skew the focus and obscure the point of the passage.

5. It is somewhat misleading to ask something like, “What has SIL done in this particular translation?” SIL has not done anything. Individual SIL translators discussing things with local translators trying to follow recognised and accepted translation principles, have explored what might be the best rendering in that passage in that language. The checks and balances of accountability through the external checking processes that SIL uses, have said “let’s not publish this yet; we still need to think about this; and we need to think about the implications”.

6. In all of this controversy I have not seen any indication that any translation wants a single alternate rendering to always be used for all occurrences of “Son of God”. Therefore, it is highly misleading to assume or imply that khalifatullah is an across-the-board replacement for “Son of God”, as the person who contacted me seemed to be suggesting.

7. I have spoken with a friend who knows a little Arabic and he told me that khalifatullah is actually more likely a candidate for “Christ” or “Messiah”, than for “Son of God”. If this is so, it seems like a reasonable possibility to consider for “the anointed one”, “the chosen one”, “the special one”, “the one designated from long ago”. Does this person know his facts are correct about the translation of khalifatullah that Wycliffe/SIL is using?

8. I won’t second guess a translation team without having all the facts. That would be both irresponsible and unfair.

9. I have asked for my name to be removed from the petition instigated by Horizons International. They would not do that for me, even though this organisation was the one that instigated the petition. I was directed to http://www.change.org/ and asked them to do this, because the issues are bigger than this attempt to denigrate Wycliffe/SIL/Frontiers.

10. When translating from a SL to a RL, it can be so difficult when trying to gain the best meaning in the RL. I’m willing to give some space for this thing to play itself out, and trust that the translation consultants involved with Wycliffe & SIL will give wise guidance and counsel to the very few teams even considering contextualised options on this issue. And I am willing to pray for that wisdom on their behalf.

11. I continue to find that it is irresponsible to paint all translators and those that support them with the same broad brush. It is detrimental to the kingdom (in several senses of the word).

Should Allah be used for Jehovah God?

I have addressed this topic in my article, ‘Is the God of Islam the same God as Elohim of the Christian Scriptures?‘

There are a few other issues that need examination.

I made the following statement to the Arabic pastor who contacted me: ‘I do not agree with the Hebrew and Greek words from OT and NT for God being translated as Allah, because the Muslim concept of Allah, a Unitarian god, is not the Trinitarian Lord God Almighty whom I worship’. Is this short-sighted of me to conclude that Allah does not coincide with Jehovah/Yahweh?

On 10^th February 2012, I received an email from this pastor who wrote: ‘In all Arab Bibles, Allah is the word for God. This is not disputed by Arab Christians. It was actually the Arabic-Christian word for God even before Islam came into existence’.

Origin of Allah

So, is it appropriate for the Christian to speak of Allah as equivalent to the Almighty God of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures? This is what a research investigation found. I am particularly indebted, but not exclusively so, to Robert Morey’s, Islam Unveiled (1991:45f) for alerting me to the following information that exposes the origin of Allah as coming from the ‘cult of the moon-god’ (although this is questioned by others sources). These are but a few references to demonstrate this point:

1. The word, Allah, is from the Arabic, al-ilah, where ‘al’ is the definite article, ‘the’, and ‘ilah’ is the Arabic word for ‘god’. There is no Allah in OT Hebrew or NT Greek, so Allah refers to an Arabian deity (Morey (1991:45-46).

2. A well-known Scottish Middle Eastern scholar, H A R Gibb[14], stated:

From the Koran itself it is clear that monotheistic ideas were familiar in Western Arabia. The existence of a supreme God, Allah, is assumed as an axiom common to Mohammed and his opponents. The Koran never argues the point; what it does argue is that He is the one and only God. La ildha illcfllah “there is no god but Allah”. But it is more doubtful whether this is to be regarded as the direct deposit of Christian or Jewish teaching (Gibb 1962:38).

3. The ‘Answering Islam‘ website states: ‘Some people argue that Allah is the moon-god [15] of the pagan Arabs before the advent of Islam. Whatever the merits of this theory, there is a clear consensus: the name “Allah” is not unfamiliar to the Arabs. Muhammad was not bringing a message about a new and so far unknown God’.

4. Dr Arthur Jeffery, a leading Western professor of Semitic languages at Columbia University (USA) wrote, ‘The name Allah, as the Quran itself is witness, was well known in pre-Islamic Arabia. Indeed, both it and its feminine form, Allat, are found not infrequently among the theophorous names in inscriptions from North Africa’ (Jeffery 1958:85).

5. According to Hastings’ Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, Allah is a pre-Islamic name that corresponds to the Babylonian Bel (Hastings, 1908:326)

6. The Encyclopedia of Islam stated that ‘the Arabs, before the time of Mohammed, accepted and worshipped, after a fashion, a supreme god called allah’ (Houtsma 1913:302).

Are you getting the picture? The name of allah was not new to Islam through Muhammad’s prophecies from AD 622, the year in which Muhammad went from Mecca to Medina. See ‘a brief history of Islam‘.

What are the differences between Allah and Jehovah?

Ergun M Caner & Emir F Caner are former Muslims who have come to know Christ as Lord and Saviour and were disowned & disowned by their father because they became Christian (Caner & Caner 2002:15). They are ‘former insiders who are now Christians’ and have written, Unveiling Islam (2002) and state that

orthodox, biblical Christianity assumes the existence of truth. Truth implies the existence of error, and mutually exclusive claims of truth cannot both be correct. Such is the case with Islam and Christianity. Either Islam is correct in the assumption that “there is only One God, Allah, and Muhammad is His prophet,”[16] or Christianity is correct when Jesus says, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6).[17] They cannot both be correct (2002:16).

They tell of the memorial service held in a baseball stadium a few days after the bombing of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on 11 September 2001. Oprah Winfrey, the American talk show host was there, as was a Christian minister who began, ‘We pray in the name of our God-the God of Christianity, Judaism and Islam’ (Caner & Caner 2002:102). Is Allah the God of Christianity, Judaism and Islam? Is Jehovah/Yahweh the God of Islam, Christianity and Judaism?

Here is a list of contrasts that Caner & Caner (2002:102-119)[18] present of the differences between Allah and the Judeo-Christian God (Elohim/Jehovah/Yahweh)

The nature of Allah	The nature of Jehovah
1. ‘Abraham was not a Jew, nor yet a Christian; but he was an upright man who had surrendered (to Allah), and he was not of the idolaters’ (Surah 3:67)	1. Abraham was the founding father of the Jewish nation, Israel (see Ex. 2:24-25; 32:28; Acts 7:2-8).
2. Is Allah the Triune God? If he isn’t, we are not referring to the same God. Surah 112states,’1 Say: He is Allah, the One!2 Allah, the eternally Besought of all!3 He begetteth not nor was begotten.4 And there is none comparable unto Him.	2. The Trinity[19]. God is one (Deut. 6:4, Isa. 44:6, Rom. 3:30, 1 Cor. 8:6, Eph. 4:6, 1 Tim. 1:17). God Trinity (Matt. 28:19, 1 Cor. 12:3-6): the Father is God (Rom. 8:15, Gal. 4:6, 2 Cor. 6:18, Eph. 4:6; 5:19-20, 1 John 3:1); Jesus is God (John 1:1-4; 5:18; 20:28-31, Col. 2:9, Hebrews 1:8; the Holy Spirit is God(John 15:26, Acts 5:3-4, 1 Cor. 2:10-11, 1 Cor. 12:4-6).
3. Allah has no son (see Surah 19:88-92).	3. There are a number of New Testament verses that affirm that God has a Son, Jesus Christ. See: Matt. 1:18-20, Luke 1:34-35, John 3:16, Gal. 4:4-5,
4. Allah is not the vicarious Redeemer[20], the atoning Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.[21] ‘Al-Ghaffar, the Pardoner (71:10). As “Pardoner,” Allah conceals and overlooks sins. He turns in forgiveness to whomever repents, even to someone who has committed deep sin (shirk). But Allah only conceals sin. Islam does not have the concept of cleansing from guilt’ (Caner & Caner 2002:112). See Surah 4:99-100 for Allah, the Pardoner.	4. God the Redeemer (See Isa. 44:6; 49:7, Col. 1:14, Titus 2:14, Heb. 9:11-12). By redemption, we mean that sinners are in bondage to sin and to Satan and someone needs to redeem them from bondage & the idea of ‘ransom’ is in view, the ransom being the price paid to redeem someone from captivity. Jesus said, ‘For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many’ (Mark 10:45). Paying the ransom for redemption is not assigned to the work of Allah.

Therefore, it is promoting falsehood to state that the nature of the Muslim God, Allah, is same as the nature of the Judeo-Christian God, Yahweh. We are speaking of two different views of God.

However, it is quite common for English-speaking people to enter a gathering where there are two people of the same first name in the group but nobody with confuse them by saying they have the same identity. John Smith is a different person from John Jackson (both names are my invention), but they both have the same first name in a group of friends, ‘John’. I appreciate that there are greater fundamental differences between the deities of Allah and Jehovah and my view would be to find a translational equivalent for Jehovah God in a Bible translation that is different from the translation of Allah in that language. Why? To avoid issues like that involved in the Wycliffe-SIL controversy.

There is a further essential doctrine that Wycliffe-SIL must not confuse in its translations and that is the nature of the Trinity – God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit (see comparison above).

See, ‘The true origin of Allah: The archaeological records speak‘.

What are SIL translators and administrators saying about this?

I wrote to an SIL translator whom I know, who is translating in a native language, and he said that there were only 1-2 translators that he knew of who were trying to communicate the meaning of ‘Son of God’ to an almost 100% Muslim community in language that some English speakers find objectionable. My friend wrote:

I am not aware of any issues with ‘Father’, and the actual controversy is relating to translation of the term ‘Son of God’.

To put things in perspective, this controversy is only relevant to a very small group of translators working in nearly 100% Muslim groups trying to find innovative ways to break through some of the stumbling blocks that prevent many Muslims from even considering the message of the Injil (gospel). Even in those situations, most Bible translators err on the conservative and safe side of a faithful and literal rendering of the original text. Only a few are even considering other possibilities. Even fewer are actually arguing for other renderings, and these are the squeaky wheels that are the source of the public controversy (but the Jihad Watch stuff is badly and inaccurately misrepresenting the issues, and it shouldn’t be propagated). I have only actually heard of one or two individuals who think some alternate renderings might be a good idea.

A core part of AuSIL’s[22] identity is deliberate partnering with churches. Where we work in AuSIL,… this controversy is NOT a relevant issue; we follow the original text relating to translating the term ‘the Son of God’; and we preserve the familial father-son relationship as a high-level recurring metaphor theme throughout the whole of Scripture, and in accord with established principles of translating any recurring metaphor theme—regardless of how unfamiliar it might be (e.g. grapevines, Lamb of God, shepherd, high priest, king, etc.). We accept that some aspects of the gospel will, by their very nature be ‘stumbling blocks’ to different social groups (Paul wrote a bit about that). Many (I think most, nearly all) mainstream translators and consultants do not support the suggested innovations for technical reasons, and the debate is vigorous and on-going, but not directly impacting us in AuSIL. It would be grossly irresponsible and an unwarranted generalisation to paint all Bible translators and those who support them with the same brush.

I emailed Barry Borneman, CEO of Wycliffe Australia, and he has given me permission to share my translator friend’s response and Barry’s own response to the controversy. Barry wrote:

Thank you for taking the time to write and send your concerns surrounding translation in a Muslim context. Since the petition has been circulating we have been getting many enquiries from long-time supporters of Wycliffe and the Bible translation movement. We definitely appreciate the enquiries rather than simple acceptance of the claim in the petition.

The accusation would also concern me and I can assure you that you do not need to be disappointed. Wycliffe is not translating ‘a Muslim friendly’ Bible by omitting key family relational terms to describe the relationship between the father and Jesus.

For a Wycliffe Global Alliance response to this accusation I suggest you read an article by Susan Van Wynen entitled The Wycliffe Global Alliance Speaks to Issues of Contextualization at www.wycliffe.net

Susan is writing on behalf of the Wycliffe worldwide Bible translation movement though the article is written into primarily into a USA audience. In the article Wycliffe affirms the following:

The Wycliffe Global Alliance organisations and their personnel are not omitting or removing the familial terms, translated in English as “Son of God” or “Father,” from any Scripture translation. Erroneous information and rumours on the internet have recently raised questions concerning this issue.

Wycliffe never has and never will be involved in a translation which does not translate these terms. To say that we are removing any familial terms from the Bible is simply not true. Wycliffe continues to be faithful to accurate and clear translation of Scripture. The eternal deity of Jesus Christ and the understanding of Jesus’ relationship with God the Father must be preserved in every translation.

Wycliffe personnel from nations around the world are committed to working alongside language communities and other partners to translate God’s Word with great care from the original languages of Scripture into the languages of the world’s people so that all may know the redeeming love and glory of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Like you, I love the work of Wycliffe Bible translation and have committed my last 32 years to serving in the Bible translation movement. You can be assured Wycliffe Australia takes its commitment to the Word of God and the authority of the Scriptures very seriously.

If you are wanting an in depth assessment of the issue you may want to go to www.ijfm.org/translation.htm. Translation into a local language and culture is a specialized and difficult task and in all cases we aim for accuracy to the original meaning and clarity of language. This has not changed since Wycliffe first started translating and remains our objective today.

However, my SIL translator friend emailed me on 7 February 2012, with the news that, since this controversy has erupted, Wycliffe-SIL ‘has just put a moratorium on publishing scriptures with the alternate phrasings to “the Son of God” under debate in the very few cases where it is relevant, while the translation experts take the time to sort things out and try to get on the same page on this. Pray for them’.

This report from the Christian Post stated:

Wycliffe Bible Translators denied allegations that it removed the terms “father” and “son” from Bible translations meant for Muslim countries and said any problematic texts are no longer being distributed.

Russ Hersman, senior vice president of Wycliffe Bible Translators USA, told The Christian Post that many of the works that critics like the organization Bible Missiology have pointed to as changing familial terms for God and Jesus have either done no such thing or have already been pulled from circulation.

“[Lives of the Prophets] was an audio drama that originally substituted inadequate familial terms in the mid-1990s. Since that time, the translation has been removed from circulation and will not be re-released until it has been corrected and revised,” said Hersman (Gryboski 2012).

It’s sad that this has to happen because the concept of translating meaning-for-meaning of, say, ‘Son of God’, is necessary to convey accuracy to people who have a very different understanding of the literal ‘son of God’ language.

I’m supportive of Wycliffe and SIL on this one. They are trying to communicate the meaning of a word or phrase from the biblical languages and people seem to be confusing WBTs beliefs with a method of translation. Here’s an article that helps to explain some of the issues in “The Son of God in the Bible and Qur’an“.

Some issues with older translations

Consider some of the challenges we face with accepting the translation of the KJV. The Greek, katargew, is found 27 times in the Textus Receptus NT from which the KJV is translated (The KJV is actually a revision and not an original translation), but it has translated katargew in 18 different ways, including abolish, cease, cumber, deliver, destroy, do away, become (make) of no (none, without) effect, fail, loose, bring (come) to naught, put away (down), vanish away, make void.

Also in the KJV, one English word is used to translate several Greek or Hebrew words. So variations of different meaning that are important for a correct understanding of the meaning of a passage, are not made clear. Take the word, ‘trouble’. The KJV has used this one word to translate about a dozen different Greek words. The word, ‘bring’, is used to translate 39 Hebrew words. The KJV uses the one word, ‘destroy’, to translate 49 Hebrew words (I obtained this information from Metzger 2001:74-75).

I recommend Metzger (1992) for a scholarly understanding concerning the textual issues in Scripture. This evangelical scholar with an international reputation takes a different view to those who oppose dynamic equivalence. I am closer to Metzger’s understanding. Metzger is now in the presence of the Lord whom he served so faithfully in this difficult area.[23]

An SIL translator provided me with this comparison of English with Indonesian languages and the translations that SIL have made:

To get down to actual evidence in English-Indonesian, *anak = “offspring, child” unmarked for gender [a very stable etymon across 1,200 languages]; gender is known from the name (e.g. John, Susan) or from gendered activities (e.g. weaving, building). In a few verses we also specify the gender, but that is a highly marked construction, and only on first mention in a discourse (for example in John 1:1-18, the male gender is only mentioned once—but it is there; more than that would be heavy, unnatural, and unnecessary, John wouldn’t have written it more often if he had been writing in these languages).

Just as English sibling terms mark gender but not relative age (sister/brother), English-Indonesian sibling terms mark relative age, but not gender (elder sibling/younger sibling). So there is an inherent mismatch with the Greek semantics, but when we do community testing, all the necessary information is there.

(Note that these examples below are all recent/current Wycliffe translations in a Muslim dominated country. ISO codes are provided for language identity.)

Amarasi     [aaz]:   Uisneno In Anah = God’s Child/Son

Buru           [mhs]: Oplahtala nake Anat = God’s Child/Son

Dhao          [nfa]: Ana Ama Lamatua = Child/Son of Father Lord/Father God

Helong       [heg]: Ama Lamtua Allah Ana = Father Lord God’s Child/Son

Kupang      [mkn]: Tuhan Allah pung Ana = God’s Child/Son

Tetun        [tet]: Na’i Maromak Oan = [honorific: Lord/Master] God’s Child/Son

All of these languages are as close to the literal Gk ho huios tou theou as the semantics of the languages allow without over-translating, skewing the focus, and forcing things to be badly unnatural.

I also find it a bit hard to accept the accusation that “Wycliffe consistently refuses to address…”[24], particularly since they are addressing it publicly, have been addressing it for over a year, and are spending good money to get some of the best translation consultants in the business together to talk about it – which is an on-going dialogue.

How could Wycliffe and SIL fix this controversy?

I am not a translation authority with the experience of WBT and SIL translators, but I’m simply a committed Christian who exegetes and translates the Greek NT into ordinary English for my study and preaching. I would make 4 simple recommendations:

Continue the dynamic equivalence translational philosophy of translating meaning-for-meaning. It’s the best way of translation for any culture if we want to understand the meaning of the original biblical languages. BUT …

With each of these controversial items of translation, use a footnote that states something such as, ‘The original was “Son of God”, but this means […]’. Make sure to give the bibliographical references that cause SIL to make this translation.

When WBT or SIL translators or representatives speak at local churches, convey the understanding from points #1 and #2. However, there will always be those in local churches who will not accept dynamic equivalence as a valid method of translation. This is especially so among congregations that have been taught the supremacy of the Textus Receptus, and by extension, the KJV as the best translation. When I receive this opposition, I give them a word-for-word literal translation in English of John 3:16, directly from Greek to English (see above). Then I ask, ‘Do you know of any English translation that gives this kind of literal translation?’ The answer is obviously, ‘No’. Then I exhort, ‘Then please give the Bible translators the liberty to convey the meaning of the Greek text in an English text that is meaningful, just like you expect from English translations of John 3:16. Meaning-for-meaning translation from one language (source language) to another language (receptor language) represents the sanest way to do Bible translation. Give that same liberty to WBT and SIL that we give to the translators of the known English translations of the KJV, Douay-Rheims, NKJV, NIV, ESV, NASB, NAB, NJB, REB, NRSV and NLT’.

However, I believe that Wycliffe-SIL must continue to promote this theology: The orthodox doctrine of the Trinity must NOT be compromised by any translator. Here is a sample of articles that promote the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity that Wycliffe-SIL must continue to promote in their dynamic equivalence translations:

Matt Perman of Desiring God Ministry, ‘What is the doctrine of the Trinity?‘
Systematic theologian, Wayne Grudem, ‘God in three persons: The Trinity‘.
J Hampton Keathley III, ”The Trinity (Triunity) of God‘.
Fred Sanders interviews D A Carson, ‘Who says we’ve got Trinity problems?‘

I consider this to be a reasonably simple response that could begin to solve some of the current controversy.

Appendix A

The NIV translates ‘this book’ (Rev. 22:18 ESV) as ‘this scroll, which more accurately conveys the meaning of the Greek, tou bibliou. There was no understanding of twenty-first century books in the first century when the Book of Revelation was written. The verses of Revelation 22:18-19 are not referring to the entire Bible, as the whole New Testament had not been collected into the canon of Scripture at the time the Apocalypse was written, which is estimated to be about the years AD 81-96 (Ladd 1972:8)[25].

These two verses apply to the Book of Revelation. It’s sad when a pastor doesn’t know that these two verses were written to apply directly and only to the Apocalypse. Alan F. Johnson’s (1981:602-603) commentary makes it clear that these two verses only apply to the Book of Revelation:

These verses should not be taken as a warning against adding anything to the Bible. Early interpreters understood them as a warning to false prophets not to alter the sense of John’s prophecy—i.e., Revelation (so Irenaeus Contra Haereses[26] 5.30.1 [27])…. Verses 18-19 are a strong warning against any one who would tamper with the contents of ‘this book’ (Rev), either textually or in its moral and theological teaching (cf. 1 Cor. 16:22).

Kaiser et al’s (1996:783-784) comments are responsible:

1. There is no certainty that the Book of Revelation was the last book of the whole Bible to be written. Some date Revelation as early as AD 68 and books such as 2 Peter, Jude, Gospel of John and the Epistles of John were later still.[28]

2. When John wrote, the Jews had not concluded discussion of ‘their own canonical issues’. While there was discussion by them, AD 70-90, and some discussions at the rabbinic centre of Jamnia, there is no evidence that the shape of the Jewish canon changed as a result of these deliberations.

3. The Book of Revelation was written before there was any sense of a NT canon. No evidence is available that suggests that John had seen another written Gospel (besides his own) and it was two centuries before a fixed selection of books was considered for inclusion in the canon.

4. While the Apocalypse is the last book in English translations of Scripture, in the first three centuries of the church, there was a shifting of the placing of Revelation, some rejecting it entirely, while some put 1-2 Clement after Revelation. Others put it earlier in the list that was to become the NT canon. ‘There is no reason to think that this verse would have come almost at the end of the Bible for most Christians until the fourth century’ (Kaiser et al. 1996:783).

Kaiser et al (1996:783) concluded that John’s curse at the end of the Book of Revelation

stands as a warning. Its true literal sense applies only to his own book, Revelation, but given that similar concerns were shared by Paul[29] and others it is reasonable to argue that none of the writers of Scripture would have agreed to tampering with their works.

George Ladd (1972:295) stated that the form of the warning of these verses comes from Deut. 4:2 and is not meant to apply to the whole Bible, but was John’s way of authenticating the prophecy of Revelation. John is not concerned about mechanical errors in transmission or mistakes in interpretation, but is referring to ‘deliberate distortions and perversions of it’.

One of the most prominent NT Greek language grammarians and exegetes of the twentieth century was A. T. Robertson. He wrote of Rev. 22:18,

This warning is directed against perversions of this book, not about the New Testament or the Bible as a whole, though it may be true there also. Surely no warning was more needed when we consider the treatment accorded the Apocalypse, so that Dr. Robert South said that the Apocalypse either found one crazy or left him so (Robertson1933:487)

Robert Mounce’s (1977:395-396) commentary on Revelation contends that the severe warning against adding to or taking away from ‘the book’ applies to John’s prophetic message. It was address to future scribes who could tamper with the text and to members of the 7 churches to which the Book of Revelation was addressed, where the book would have been read aloud. ‘The warning is against wilful distortion of the message. I tis not unlike Paul’s stern words in Galatians 1:6, 7 to those who would pervert the gospel’ (1977:395).

Conservative, dispensationalist commentator, Robert Thomas, observed that it ‘is true that this warning [Rev. 22:18-19] applies specifically to the book of Revelation only, but by extension it entails the termination of the gift of prophecy and the NT canon also’ (1995:518). Thomas is a cessationist with regard to the gifts of the Spirit and the view that this applies to ‘the termination of the gift of prophecy’ is controversial, to say the least. I take an opposing view. See my articles:

For the above reasons, it is appropriate to conclude that Rev. 22:18-19 was written to apply to the prophecy of the Book of Revelation and not to the entire Bible or full NT.

References

Arndt, W F & Gingrich, F W 1957. A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (rev edn). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press (Limited edn licensed to Zondervan Publishing House).

Brown, C (ed) 1975. The new international dictionary of New Testament theology, vol 1. Exeter, Devon, UK: The Paternoster Press.

Bruce, F F 1970. The Epistles of John: A Verse by Verse Exposition. London/Glasgow: Pickering & Inglis.

Caner, E M & Caner E F 2002. Unveiling Islam. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications.

Crossan, J D 1994a. Jesus: A revolutionary biography. New York, NY: HarperSanFrancisco.

Crossan, J D 1991. The historical Jesus: The life of a Mediterranean Jewish peasant. New York, NY: HarperSanFrancisco.

Gentry Jr, K L 1989. Before Jerusalem fell: Dating the Book of Revelation (e-book). Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics. Available at: http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/1989_gentry_before-jerusalem-fell.html (Accessed 11 February 2012).

Gibb, H A R 1962. Mohammedanism: An historical study (2nd edn). New York: Oxford University Press (A Galaxy Book). Available at: http://ia600301.us.archive.org/8/items/mohammedanismanh027895mbp/mohammedanismanh027895mbp.pdf (Accessed 11 February 2012).

Gregg, S (ed) 1997. Revelation: Four views (a parallel commentary). Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers.

Grudem, W 1999. Bible doctrine: Essential teachings of the Christian faith (ed by J Purswell). Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press.

Gryboski M 2012. Wycliffe reaffirms it did not delete ‘Father,’ ‘Son,’ from

Bible translations. Christian Post, 7 February. Available at: http://global.christianpost.com/news/wycliffe-reaffirms-it-did-not-delete-father-son-from-bible-translations-68836/ (Accessed 13 February 2012).

Hastings, J (ed) 1908. Encyclopedia of religion & ethics, vol 1. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, available at: http://ia700304.us.archive.org/16/items/EncyclopaediaOfReligionAndEthics.Hastings-selbie-gray.13Vols/01.EncyReligEthics.v1.A-Art.Hastings.Selbie.1908..pdf (Accessed 11 February 2012).

Houtsma, M T (ed) 1913. The encyclopedia of Islam, vol 1. Leiden: E J Brill.

Jeffery, A (ed) 1958. Islam: Muhammad and his religion. New York: The Liberal Arts Press. Available at: http://www.bible.ca/islam/library/islam-quotes-jeffery.htm (Accessed 11 February 2012).

Johnson, A F 1982. Revelation, in Gaebelein, F E (gen ed), The expositor’s Bible commentary, vol 12, 397-603. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House.

Kaiser Jr, W C, Davids, P H, Bruce, F F & Brauch, M T 1996. Hard sayings of the Bible. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press.

Kistemaker, S J 1986. New Testament commentary: Exposition of James, epistles of John, Peter, and Jude. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic.

Kittel, G (ed) 1964. Theological dictionary of the New Testament, vol 1. Tr and ed by G W Bromiley. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Ladd, G E 1972. A commentary on the Revelation of John. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Lenski, R C H 1966. Commentary on the New Testament: The Interpretation of the Epistles of St. Peter, St. John, and St. Jude. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers (2^nd print). Originally assigned to Augsburg Publishing House.

Link, H-G & Brown, C 1978. hilaskomai. In Brown, C (ed), The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, vol. 3, 148-166. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House.

Marshall, I H 1978. The Epistles of John (The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Metzger, B M 1992. The text of the New Testament: Its transmission, corruption, and restoration (3^rd edn). New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Metzger, B M 2001. The Bible in translation: Ancient and English versions. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic.

Morey, R A 1991. Islam unveiled: The true desert storm. Shermans Dale, PA: The Scholars Press.

Robertson, A T 1933. Word studies in the New Testament: The general epistles and the Revelation of John, vol 6. Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman Press.

Robinson, J A T 1976. Redating the New Testament. London: SCM Press Ltd.

Thiselton, A C 1980. The two horizons: New Testament hermeneutics and philosophical description with special reference to Heidegger, Bultmann,

Gadamer and Wittgenstein. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans.

Thomas, R L 1995. Revelation 8-22: An exegetical commentary. Chicago: Moody Press.

Wright, N T 1992. The New Testament and the people of God. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. (Series in Christian origins and the question of God, vol 1).

Notes

[1] See ‘Sign This Petition’ on the Horizons International website, ‘Lost In Translation: Keep “Father” & “Son” in the Bible’, available at: http://www.change.org/petitions/lost-in-translation-keep-father-son-in-the-bible (Accessed 6 March 2012). Horizons International uses www.change.org to organize its petition, as was indicated to me in an email from Horizons International. Therefore, any changes to this Petition that I wanted to make, had to be arranged through www.change.org.

[2] I explained to this person that I am not convinced the whole plan of salvation is at stake because of dynamic equivalence translations of Father, Son, and Son of God, these are attempts to communicate meaning-for-meaning from one language to another.

[3] However, this person provided me with a link to his explanation of the Trinity. I ask: If the matter is spiritual and needs to be revealed, what is the practical purpose of teaching on the Trinity? Is it essential or unnecessary?

[4] I encouraged them to use the same principles with the KJV (see examples in this article).

[5] There is no need for this dichotomy. The Holy Spirit can and does apply lexical and exegetical work. The Holy Spirit’s critical ministry is not a replacement for exegesis.

[6] This is the underlying presupposition of this person’s view of the doctrine of salvation. The person obviously prefers a Calvinistic view over that of Arminianism, or irresistible grace vs free grace.

[7] I agree with this view that presuppositions are foundational and must be uncovered, but this person is promoting his Calvinistic views as the correct ones. ‘Choose today whom you will serve’ (Joshua 24:15 NLT) is not among his presuppositions.

[8] He is referring to informational presuppositions.

[9] See the brief discussion of this theology below.

[10] However, leading evangelical scholar, F. F. Bruce (1970:50), stated that the translation of the Greek, hilasmos, as ‘”propitiation” or “atonement” will do well enough, if we use either word in its biblical sense – not as something which men must do to placate God, but something which God has provided in His grace to bring men into His presence with the assurance that they are accepted by Him, since He has removed the barrier that kept them at a distance’. Another evangelical scholar, I. Howard Marshall (1978:118), shows that the word group that includes hilasmos in the OT (presumably referring to the Septuagint Greek translation), communicated ‘the idea of placating the wrath of God or some other injured party’ and that the meaning in 1 John 2:2 was ‘that Jesus propitiates God with respect to our sins. There can be no real doubt that this is the meaning’.

[11] The NRSV uses ‘atoning sacrifice’ instead of ‘expiation’ in 1 John 2:2.

[12] Lenski (1966:400) stated that ‘in his love God commissioned his Son as expiation regarding our sins. The thought is not that this expiation propitiated, placated God, for he was full of infinite love when he sent his Son; we needed expiation, needed it “regarding our sins,” need it regarding them every day when we still sin. The fact that this expiation was brought about by “the blood of Jesus, God’s Son,” we know from 1:7’. What does expiation mean? It refers to a removal or covering for sin, hence the ‘atoning sacrifice’ translation of the NIV & NLT.

[13] vol. 2, p. 372ff (1976. Exeter: The Paternoster Press)

[14] This article stated that he was an historian on Orientalism. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamilton_Alexander_Rosskeen_Gibb (Accessed 11 February 2012).

[15] That’s the title of one of the chapters in Morey (1991:45f).

[16] This is a constructed sentence obtained by combining these verses which are from the Qur’an, Muhammad 47:19 and al-Fath 48:29.

[17] This translation is from the New King James Version of the Bible.

[18] This chapter is titled, ‘Allah: Names of Terror, Names of Glory’.

[19] Briefly, the Trinity of God is ‘the doctrine that God eternally exists as three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and each person is fully God, and there is one God’ (Grudem 1999:494). Some information also was obtained from ‘Theology 101 Notes: Doctrine of God‘ (Accessed 12 February 2012).This is a brief explanation of the Trinity, a word not found in the Bible, but its teaching is there.

[20] A Redeemer is one who provides redemption, which means ‘the act of buying back sinners out of their bondage to sin and to Satan through the payment of a ransom’ (Grudem 1999:492).

[21] This is from Caner & Caner (2002:108).

[22] He is referring to SIL Australia.

[23] Christianity Today reported on 15 February 2007 that Bruce Metzger died of natural causes at the age of 93. See: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/februaryweb-only/107-42.0.html (Accessed 10 February 2012).

[24] This was the statement in an email I received from pastor of a church in the Arabic world.

[25] Robinson (1996:252) dates to the years AD 68-70, while Crossan (1991:431) is in agreement with Ladd, dating Revelation ‘toward the end of the first century C.E.’.

[26] Meaning “Against Heresies”.

[27] Johnson wrongly cited Against Heresies 30.2 when it is Book 5.30.1, which states, ‘There shall be no light punishment [inflicted] upon him who either adds or subtracts anything from the Scripture [at this point the footnote reference is to Rev. 22:19] under that such a person must necessarily fall’. Interestingly, Irenaeus applies these verses to ‘the Scripture’ and not just to the Book of Revelation.

[28] Robinson (1976:252) dates the Book of Revelation to ‘late 68 or early 70’. Gregg (1997:15) stated that most modern scholars place the Book’s dating in the time of the Emperor Domitian, about AD 96, but there are many preterist evangelicals who date it during the time of the reign of Nero, thus predating the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. ‘Among the well-known scholars who have held to the early date of Revelation have been Jay Adams, Adam Clarke, Alfred Edersheim, J. B. Lightfoot, John A. T. Robinson, Philip Schaff, and many others. The early date was the prevalent theory among Bible scholars of the nineteenth century. Dr. Kenneth Gentry lists over 130 notable scholars and commentators who favored the early dating of Revelation (Gregg 1997:15). Gentry (1989), which was Gentry’s doctoral dissertation, ‘gives ‘one sustained defense for the early date of Revelation’ (Gregg 1997:46 n7). On Gentry’s website he labels his view as postmillennial, reconstructionist, partial preterist. Available at: http://www.preteristarchive.com/StudyArchive/g/gentry-kenneth.html (Accessed 11 February 2012).

[29] See 1 Cor. 16:22 for an example of Paul’s ‘curse’.