Chunks of History

This is a suggestion for how the historical books of the Old Testament might be divided up for reading in chunks. It does not not include Ruth, Ezra, or Esther, which might each be read in less than thirty minutes.

Joshua 1-8: From the entry into the land to the conquest of Ai.
Joshua 9-16: From the deceit of Gibeon through the description of Judah's portion. Admittedly, there is a shift from chapter 12, the end of narrative, to chapter 13, the description of the division of the land. But the only other option is to read the book in two large chunks: 1-12 and 13-24, each of which would take more than 30 minutes.
Joshua 17-24: From the description of Joseph's portion to the last words of Joshua. Again, there is a shift from geographical description to narrative between chapters 21 and 22.

Judges 1-8: From the death of Joshua through the labors of Gideon
Judges 9-16: From Abimelech through Samson
Judges 17-21: The sad demise of the culture of Israel

1 Samuel 1-8: The ministry of Samuel
1 Samuel 9-15: From the selection of Saul to his rejection
1 Samuel 16-24: From the selection of David to David's first sparing of Saul
1 Samuel 25-31: From the episode with Nadab to the death of Saul.

2 Samuel 1-10: The success of David
2 Samuel 11-18: From Bathsheba to the defeat of Absalom
2 Samuel 19-24 The last days of David.

1 Kings 1-8: From the selection of Solomon to the dedication of the temple
1 Kings 9-14: From the completion of the temple to the death of Rehoboam
1 Kings 15-22: From Abijam through the death of Ahab
(Note that these three readings are probably going to push the 30-minute window.)

2 Kings 1-8: The ministry of Elisha
2 Kings 9-17: From Jehu through the fall of the Northern Kingdom
2 Kings 18-25: From Hezekiah to the fall of Jerusalem
(Note, these three readings will push the 30-minute window.)

1 Chronicles 1-10: From Adam through the death of Saul. Note that this is mostly names.
1 Chronicles 11-20: The rise and conquests of David
1 Chronicles 21-29: David prepares for the building of the temple

2 Chronicles 1-9: The reign of Solomon
2 Chronicles 10-18: From Solomon to the death of Ahab
2 Chronicles 19-27: From Jehoshaphat through Jotham
2 Chronicles 28-36: From Ahaz to the fall of Jerusalem

Nehemiah 1-7 From the news of Jerusalem to the list of returnees
Nehemiah 8-13 From the reading of the law through Nehemiah's final reforms.

Grant Horner's Bible Reading System

For those of you not familiar with the system, you may find it online here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/12349985/Professor-Grant-Horners-Bible-Reading-System

If you use Horner's Bible Reading system, and find it helpful, please keep using it. Don't stop on account of anything I might say in this post if you indeed find it helpful.

I was reminded today that in the past I have recommended Horner's system (see the GPTS January newsletter here: http://gptsnews.gpts.edu/2013_01_01_archive.html

I used it myself for about a year, long enough to become familiar with it, and also long enough to discover what, to me, are its weaknesses. It is these weaknesses that I want to deal with in this post. First, I really don't see the point of reading Acts through every month. Horner's comment that if you don't know why you should read Acts (or Proverbs) every month shows that you need to read them that often strikes me as unhelpful, and verging on snarky.

Second, I think the reading system gives short shrift to the Old Testament. It is, to my mind, essentially a dispensational way of reading the Bible. The Old Testament is really about Israel, and hence isn't all that important for the church. You read Acts almost nine times in the time it takes you to get through the larger Old Testament sections (historical books take 249 days, prophets take 250 days).

Third, I think that reading through Proverbs every month may contribute to the sort of legalistic piety that we see so often in dispensational, fundamentalist churches here in the South. The book is not read (really) in the larger context of the Old Testament, but is dealt with as a separate entity.

Fourth, most Christians are too unfamiliar with the Old Testament. Reading it once per eight months is better than nothing, but not if you're reading the New Testament two or three times in that same period.

If today I were to recommend something like Horner's system, it would be thoroughly modified toward a more thorough familiarity with the Old Testament. Working with Horner's ten chapters per day, my proposal would look something like this:

1. Pentateuch (187 chapters, approximately twice per year)
2. Historical Books, part 1. Joshua through 2 Kings (151 chapters, about two and a half times per year)
3.Historical Books, part 2. 1 Chronicles through Esther (98 chapters, almost four times per year)
4. Poetic Books (minus Psalms). Job through Song of Solomon (93 chapters, almost four times per year)
5. Psalms. (150 chapters, about two and a half times per year)
6. Major Prophets. Isaiah through Daniel (183 chapters, twice per year)
7. Minor Prophets. Hosea through Malachi (67 chapters, almost six times per year)
8. Gospels and Acts. (117 chapters, about three times per year)
9. Epistles and Revelation (143 chapters, about two and a half times per year)

This approach accomplishes the mixed reading that Horner is promoting, while doing a more thorough job of acquainting the reader with the Old Testament. Notice that it accomplishes this in one less chapter per day than Horner's system.

Chunking Up the Pentateuch

The Pentateuch (Genesis through Deuteronomy) takes about 10 and 1/2 hours to read, or about 21 half-hour chunks. Part of the challenge of reading the larger books in chunks is to do so in a manner that doesn't leave the reader in the middle of a section at the end of 30 minutes. The following division is intended to divide the Pentateuch into roughly half-hour chunks that have the additional advantage of being roughly a self-contained unit in the story. The following chunks include a brief description of each chunk. I won't guarantee that each of these will be 30 minutes or less, but they should be close.

Genesis 1-11 The prehistory, from creation to Abraham.
Genesis 12-22 From the call of Abraham to the binding of Isaac.
Genesis 23-32 From the death of Sarah to Jacob's wrestling with the angel.
Genesis 33-41 From the rape of Dinah to Joseph's rise to power.
Genesis 42-50 From Joseph's brothers' first visit to Egypt to the death of Joseph.

Exodus 1-10 From the Arrival of Israel in Egypt to the conclusion of the ninth plague.
Exodus 11-20 From the threat of the last plague to the Ten Commandments.
Exodus 21-31 From the beginning of statutory law to the end of instructions for building the tabernacle.
Exodus 32-40 From the Golden Calf episode to the completion of the tabernacle.

Leviticus 1-9 The Levitical system and the installation of Aaron and his sons.
Leviticus 10-16 From the death of Nadab and Abihu to the Day of Atonement.
Leviticus 17-23 The holiness of the people and the priests.
Leviticus 24-27 The holiness of the land.

Numbers 1-10 Preparing to leave Sinai.
Numbers 11-17 The people rebel in the wilderness.
Numbers 18-26 The last years in the wilderness and the second census.
Numbers 27-31 Preparing to enter the land, part 1.
Numbers 32-36 Preparing to enter the land, part 2.

Deuteronomy 1-4 Recounting the past.
Deuteronomy 5-11 The law in general.
Deuteronomy 12-21 The law in particular, part 1.
Deuteronomy 22-28 The law in particular, part 2.
Deuteronomy 29-34 Preservation of the covenant and the transition in power.

Reading the Bible in Chunks, 2

Now to make use of the listed I posted yesterday. My suggestion is first that you set aside up to 30 minutes per day for reading your Bible. You may say you don't have 30 minutes per day. My answer is, yes, you do. Give up that episode of Duck Dynasty or Honey Boo Boo. Or quit watching the news. Or take some time from your leisure reading.

Second, read as if you were doing your leisure reading. In other words, don't stop to try to understand difficult portions, or to wonder about apparent contradictions. The point of this approach to reading the Bible is to get an overview; to get a grasp of the book as a whole, not a grasp of the details.

Third, after you've done the reading, maybe make a couple of notes about things that struck you, so you can remember them. Then you can spend the day ruminating on them.

Fourth, don't feel like you have to spend all 30 minutes. If, for example, you've read 1 John, that should be enough for the day. This is not a race to see how quickly you can get through the Bible.

Perusing the list in the last post, you should notice that 37 of the 66 books of the Bible may be read in 30 minutes or less. I suggest you tackle these first, in whatever order you wish. Check them off when you've read them so that you don't repeat before you have finished the whole thing. With regard to the larger books, divide them into 30-minute (or less) chunks. Nehemiah, for example, should take around 42 minutes. Divide it into half. One day read the first six or seven chapters, and read the rest the next day. The longest books (Psalms, Jeremiah, Genesis, etc.) may be divided into, at most, six large chunks. Again, read these in any order you wish, but finish one book before you go on to the next.

Here's to happy Bible reading in the new year.

Reading the Bible in Chunks

So the new year is here again. You're going to read through the Bible again this year. But maybe this time you're looking for something a little different. There are a number of good Bible reading guides available online. See, for example, those discussed here: http://www.ligonier.org/blog/bible-reading-plans/.

However,  I'm going to suggest something different. This year, try reading the Bible in chunks. By this, I mean that you should try reading whole books at one sitting, rather than the 3-4 chapters per day that most Bible-in-a-Year plans suggest. There are a couple of reasons for this. First, many of the books of the Bible are stories. They are meant to be read as stories, and you understand them better if you read them that way. Others, such as Paul's letters, are not stories, but if you read one of them in one sitting, you get a good sense of the overall flow of Paul's argument, and the main points of his argument.

Admittedly, some books of the Bible are not meant to be read at one sitting. Books such as Psalms and Proverbs are meditative literature, meant to be read slowly, and pondered while being read. Others, such as Jeremiah and Genesis, Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles, are too long to be read in one sitting, unless you have a big chunk of time. Still, even those may be read in larger portions, rather than piecemeal as they are often read.

The following chart gives you an idea of how long it will take to read the books of the Bible. It is based on the number of words in the KJV (the Bible version for which the most statistics are easily available), and on the number of words the average person reads per minute (250). Thus, the time-to-read number is approximate, affected by the Bible version you use, and the speed at which you read. Just for information, reading the whole Bible at an average rate would take about 52.5 hours.

Genesis (38,262 words): 2 hrs, 33 min                Exodus (32,685): 2 hrs, 11 min
Leviticus (25,541): 1 hr, 42 min                           Numbers (32,896): 2 hrs, 12 min
Deuteronomy (28,352): 1 hr, 44 min                   Joshua (18,854): 1 hr, 15 min
Judges (18,966): 1 hr, 16 min                              Ruth (2,574): 10 min
1 Samuel (25,048): 1 hr, 40 min                          2 Samuel (20,600): 1 hr, 22 min
1 Kings (24,513): 1 hr, 38 min                            2 Kings (23,517): 1 hr, 34 min
1 Chronicles (20,365): 1 hr, 22 min                     2 Chronicles (26,069): 1 hr, 44 min
Ezra (7,440): 30 min                                           Nehemiah (10,480): 42 min
Esther (5,633): 23 min                                         Job (18,098): 1 hr, 12 min
Psalms (42,704): 2 hrs, 51 min                            Proverbs (15,038): 1 hour
Ecclesiastes (5,579): 22 min                                Song of Songs (2,658): 11 min
Isaiah (37,036): 2 hrs, 28 min                              Jeremiah (42,654): 2 hrs, 51 min
Lamentations (3,411): 14 min                              Ezekiel (39,401): 2 hrs, 38 min
Daniel (11,602): 46 min                                       Hosea (5,174): 21 min
Joel (2,033): 8 min                                               Amos (4,216): 17 min
Obadiah (669): 3 min                                          Jonah (1,320): 5 min
Micah (3,152): 13 min                                         Nahum (1,284): 5 min
Habakkuk (1,475): 6 min                                     Zephaniah (1,616): 6 min
Haggai (1,130): 5 min                                          Zechariah (6,443): 26 min
Malachi (1,781): 7 min                                         Matthew (23,343): 1 hr, 34 min
Mark (14,949): 1 hr                                             Luke (25,640): 1 hr, 43 min
John (18,658): 1 hr, 15 min                                  Acts (24,229): 1 hr, 37 min
Romans (9,422): 38 min                                       1 Corinthians (9,462): 38 min
2 Corinthians (6,046): 24 min                                Galatians (3,084): 12 min
Ephesians (3,022): 12 min                                     Philippians (2,183): 9 min
Colossians (1,979): 8 min                                      1 Thessalonians (1,837): 7 min
2 Thessalonians (1,022): 4 min                               1 Timothy (2,244): 9 min
2 Timothy (1,666): 7 min                                       Titus (896): 4 min
Philemon (430): 2 min                                            Hebrews (6,897): 28 min
James (2,304): 9 min                                             1 Peter (2,476): 10 min
2 Peter (1,553): 6 min                                            1 John (2,517): 10 min
2 John (298): 1 min                                                3 John (294): 1 min
Jude (608): 2 min                                                   Revelation (11,952): 48 min

2012 PCA GA Insider Movement and Bible Translation

One of the most important things that this GA did was to approve the partial report of the Ad Interim Committee on Insider Movements, and to continue the work of the committee for another year. The partial report can be read here: http://www.pcaac.org/Ad%20Interim%20on%20Insider%20Movements%20Report%205-17-12.pdf and I strongly urge all PCA elders, at least, to read it. If you are unfamiliar with "insider movements" World magazine has a helpful article here: http://www.worldmag.com/articles/17944 with a follow-up article here: http://www.worldmag.com/articles/18687

The matter at issue is not only Bible translation, but evangelism to Muslims. I'm sure that PCA churches want to see the gospel preached to Muslims, not only here in the US, but around the world. However, they want to see it done properly. It is questionable whether insider movements preach the gospel properly, hence the committee, hence the report.

Many Christians fail to recognize that Muslims believe a great deal about Jesus, and it is very easy to end up with a Muslim who is still a Muslim, with a thin veneer of Christianity.

2012 PCA GA (5) Intinction and Paedocommunion

Two other issues addressed at this year's GA are intinction and paedocommunion. The first is a liturgical oddity in which  the Lord's Supper is taken by dipping the bread in the wine (or grape juice), thus taking both elements together. It is apparently practiced in a number of churches in the denomination.Overture 30 from Savannah River Presbytery proposed amending BCO 58-5 with the addition of the words, "Intinction, because it conflates Jesus' two sacramental actions, is not an appropriate method for observing the Lord's Supper." The Overtures Committee proposed that this amendment be rejected. A minority report from the Overtures Committee proposed an amended form of Savannah River Presbytery's overture, replacing the addition given above with the statement, "As Christ has instituted the Lord's Supper in two sacramental actions, the communicants are to eat the bread and drink the cup in separate actions." This proposal passed by a vote of 348-334. The next step for this change to be introduced into the BCO is for it to be approved by two-thirds of the presbyteries. Given the apparently widespread character of the practice, achieving passage in two-thirds of the presbyteries seems unlikely. I will be posting more on intinction in later posts.

Paedocommunion is the idea that very young children, perhaps even infants (the age varies with regard to the advocates of the position), ought to be given the Lord's Supper. This issue came to the GA from the RPR Committee, which brought reports (including minority reports concerning three presbyteries). Since the responses of the RPR did not appear to be consistent with one another, the whole thing was sent back to the RPR, to bring a new, self-consistent report next year. The issue is that some presbyteries allow men to hold this as an exception, but not allowing them to teach it. Other presbyteries have allowed it as an acception that men are allowed to teach, but they may not practice it, because it is contrary to the theology of the sacrament as that is expressed in the Westminster Standards. The question arising is whether a man ought to be allowed to teach that which is contrary to the standards he professes to be guided by.

These issues are not going away, and while they may not be as deleterious to the health of the church as the teaching of theistic evolution, they are nonetheless deleterious to the unity of the church. It would be good for all PCA members to make these things a matter of serious prayer in the year ahead.

2012 PCA GA (4) In Thesi Statements, Theistic Evolution, and Historical Adam

This year's GA received two overtures requesting the GA to make an in thesi statement opposing theistic evolution and affirming the distinct creation of Adam directly by God. One was Overture 10 from Rocky Mountain Presbytery, the other was Overture 29 From Savannah River Presbytery. Opposing these was Overture 26 from Potomac Presbytery that stated that our confessional documents are already clear on these issue, hence a statement affirming them from the GA was unnecessary. Overture 26 was passed, and the other two overtures were answered with reference to the approval of Overture 26.

That sounds simple, but some of the language may be unclear to most readers. First, regarding in thesi statements. What are they, and what do they accomplish? In Presbyterian government, a ruling body, such as the GA (but this would also include sessions and presbyteries) makes formal statements in two ways: first, by  the judgment of the court in a judicial case; second, by issuing a statement that deals with some issue in the abstract, but does not deal with a particular case. These latter statements are known as in thesi statements. For a full discussion of them, I would refer the reader to the article by C. N. Willborn in the first (2005) issue of The Confessional Presbyterian.

Judgments made in judicial cases are considered binding on lower courts, and serve as precedent for future cases. In thesi statements are generally considered non-binding, but serve to provide "pious advice" from the higher court to lower courts (again, a fuller understanding of the issues may be found in Willborn's article). All three of the overtures acknowledged that the PCA (and its predecessor denominations) had made in thesi statements on these and related topics in the past. Hence, it would certainly not have been out of accord with PCA practice to issue another in thesi statement.


I went into this debate fully resolved to vote against Overture 26, and hence in favor of Overtures 10 and 29. However, as the debate progressed, it became clear to me that while in thesi statements had been made in the past, particularly in the PCUS (the immediate parent denomination of the PCA), they had had little effect on the progress of the teaching in that denomination of theistic evolution and of the denial of Adam as a historic person directly created by God. In other words, it appeared to me that those who held opinions contrary to the confessional standards of the church simply ignored those standards and taught as they would. Meanwhile, those who held to the confessional standards seem to have been comforted by the fact that the denomination had repeatedly made in thesi statements on these issues, and assumed, at some level, that the problem was taken care of. Thus, men teaching contrary to the standards were not charged and the loosening of doctrinal commitments continued in that denomination. The fact that in 2012 overtures came up asking for an in thesi statement against theistic evolution, and affirming the direct creation by God of the historic person Adam indicated to me that previous statement have in fact had little effect in slowing the spread of this kind of teaching in the PCA. Hence, the only recourse is judicial, in which the judgment of the church courts then become binding on the lower courts, and serve as precedent in similar cases. As a result, I voted with the majority, to affirm Overture 26 and to deny Overtures 10 and 29.


For a different view on this issue, I would highly recommend the podcast conversation with Richard D. Phillips at http://www.gpts.edu/podcast/Broadcast17_(Phillips).mp3

Thoughts on the 2012 PCA GA (3)

Now we move to the hard stuff. But first a little background as to how GA functions. Monday and Tuesday are given over to the work of the Committees of Commissioners. These review the reports of the Permanent Committees of the General Assembly (such things as Mission to North America and Mission to the World) and make recommendations that the Assembly will vote on. These Committees of Commissioners also includes the Committee on Overtures, about which more later. 


Tuesday evening the Assembly officially begins, with the opening worship and the election of the new moderator. Wednesday morning begins the information reports of the permanent committees (with all due respect to these committees, most of the commissioners [attendees] consider these to be nothing more than glorified infomercials) telling about what the committee has done during the past year. Thursday is the day on which the bulk of Assembly business is transacted. This, year, though the report of the Committee on Review of Presbytery Records was docketed for Wednesday afternoon at 1:30, it was postponed until Thursday morning at 9:30, so that commissioners would have time to review the report.


Review of Presbytery Records (RPR)


The primary issue this year coming out of RPR had to do with paedocommunion. For those who don't know, paedocommunion is the view that any baptized member of the church ought also to be given the Lord's Supper. There are variations among those who hold to this view, with some eschewing infant communion, but arguing that children as young as two or three could make a credible profession of faith, and hence should be allowed to the Lord's Table. This view is an exception to the doctrinal standards of the PCA. Three presbyteries had approved candidates for ordination who held to paedocommunion. One had been cited last year for the action, and had responded to the RPR. The majority of the members of RPR determined that the response from this presbytery was satisfactory, in that while the ordinand would be allowed to teach his view, he would not practice it. A minority considered that response unsatisfactory, and brought a minority report to the GA. After some debate, the GA decided to kick the issue back to RPR, to bring back a new report next year.


Frankly, I'm not sure what the commissioners to GA thought they were accomplishing by the action. RPR next year will be made up largely of the same members (it takes a special breed of elder to serve on RPR, and the same men tend to get reelected after the end of their three-year term), who will still be holding the same views. There will be a majority report and a minority report, and it will come back to GA next year. All in all, an unsatisfactory action on the part of GA. Perhaps some were thinking that the issue will somehow go away in the next year. If so, they were dreaming.

Thoughts on the 2012 PCA GA (2)

The Standing Judicial Commission

In addition to the Committee on Overtures, and the Committee on the Review of Presbytery Records, the other body that does a great deal of work for GA is the Standing Judicial Commission (SJC). The difference between a committee and a commission is that the former "is appointed to examine, consider, and report" while a commission "is authorized to deliberate upon and concluded the business referred to it" (Book of Church Order [BCO] 15-1). As one might assume, the SJC deals with any judicial case that makes its way to the denominational level. The work of the SJC is summarized in BCO Chapter 15 and the Rules of Assembly Operations (RAO) Article 17. Except in certain specified circumstances, the SJC decisions are the decisions of the GA, end hence are not reviewed of voted upon by the GA. Thus, while the members of the SJC do a great deal of work, they generally receive no attention for it. For example, this year there were 28 cases before the SJC. Two of those were dismissed. Five were ruled out of order for various reasons. Seven were still in the process of adjudication by the time GA met, and four cases were waiting to be assigned to a panel for adjudication. The remaining  ten, with their decisions, were reported to the GA this year (Pp 2003-2051 of the Commissioner Handbook) and will be in the published minutes of GA. If you know anyone on SJC, thank them for their hard labor for the church.

Attendance

This is one of the regular frustrations of GA. The GA meets annually and "shall consist of all teaching elders [TEs] in good standing with their Presbyteries...and ruling elders [REs] as elected by their session" (BCO 14-2). The number of ruling elders eligible is a minimum of two per church, with additional ruling elders depending on the number of members in a church (specified in BCO 14-2). Given that there are 1,466 churches in the PCA, and 4,256 TEs, the theoretical attendance at GA this year was a minimum of 7,188. Actual attendance, however, was 797 TEs and 278 REs. That means that fewer than one in five TEs attended GA, and no more than one in five churches were represented by REs. A lot of this has to do with expense. Registration this year was $400.00 per elder (less in some special cases). When you add to that the cost of travel, the expense of hotels, and meals for most of a week, the cost becomes prohibitive for many churches, as it can easily reach $2,000.00 per commissioner. The total number of commissioners this year, 1075, is the lowest since at least 2005. In short, the GA is hardly a representative assembly. But a further difficulty is that many commissioners do not attend the GA that they attend. On many of the counted votes at GA this year, the total number of votes cast (yea + nay) was less than 800, and in some cases less than 700. In other words, 200-300 commissioners simply were either not in attendance at that particular session, or abstained. Since abstentions are ordinarily not counted, it is hard to tell which is the case. But undoubtedly many commissioners do not, for whatever reasons, attend the business sessions.

Thoughts on The 2012 PCA General Assembly

It is the case that hardly anyone leaves General Assembly (GA) entirely satisfied. There are always things that commissioners wish had gone differently. However, in this first reflection on the Assembly, I'd like to focus on the positive.

Two committees do most of the heavy lifting for GA: the Committee on Overtures, and the Committee on the Review of Presbytery Records (RPR). The RPR actually meets a month or so before GA, spending a full three days consolidating the reviews that individual members of the committee have already produced. Most members of the committee spend hours reviewing the minutes of three or so presbyteries before the meeting of RPR. Depending on the presbytery, this review process can be lengthy. The reviews produced by the individual reviewers are then further reviewed by subcommittees made up of two members of RPR. The reviews produced are then reviewed by the committee as a whole, and the entire thing consolidated into a report for the GA. In this process, the officers of the committee bear the brunt of the work, especially the recording clerks. The chairman of the committee then presents the report to the GA, and field questions or comments from the floor. For the three years I have been on the committee, Per Almquist of Northern New England Presbytery has been the chairman, and he has done a marvelous job. So if you know Per, give him the thanks of the Assembly.

The Committee on Overtures (CO) meets just prior to the Assembly and reviews all the overture to the GA that have come from the presbyteries since the preceding GA. This year, there were 44 overtures. While some of these overtures are rubber-stamp considerations (for example, overtures requesting the re-drawing of presbytery boundaries) most of them are substantive, and require a great deal of time. The Committee is often pushed hard to finish their work before the Assembly begins. As with RPR, the chairman of the Committee on Overtures then presents the report to GA, dealing with questions from the floor. This year's chairman, Frederick "Jay" Neikirk of Ascension Presbytery did a great job. Again, those of you who know Jay, extend to him the thanks of the Assembly.

The situation for both committees was complicated this year by the fact that more than one minority report accompanied the committee report. For those who don't know the arcana of GA Committees, each committee presents a recommendation to the Assembly on each of the matters with which it deals. Thus the CO presents a recommendation on each of the overtures it dealt with, while the RPR presents a recommendation regarding each of the presbyteries of the denomination (this year there were close to eighty presbytery recommendations). Generally, the recommendations are virtually unanimous. However, when there is a strong minority opposed to the recommendation of the committee, that minority will usually present a minority report. It will then be the responsibility of the GA to choose between the committee recommendation and the minority report.

Translation Notes 3: Psalm 100:3

I apologize at the beginning that this is a somewhat technical post, but many of them will be, due to the nature of the case.

So. Why is it that some translations of Psalm 100:3 have “and we are his,” while others have “and not we ourselves”? In short, because of the Ketiv-Qere (see Translation Notes 2). The consonantal Hebrew text (the Ketiv) in Psalm 100:3 has the word lw’ (note the apostrophe, as it stands for a Hebrew consonant), which means “not.” But the Masoretic scribes have it marked to indicate that it should be read (the Qere) as lw (note: no apostrophe), which means “to him” or “his.” Some translations have followed the advice of the Masoretic scribes, and translated according to the Qere (ESV, HCSB, NLT, NIV84, NIV11), while others (NKJV, NASB, NASBUpdate) have followed the Ketiv. The question is why there is not unity, with all following the Qere.

The answer is that the rest of the textual evidence is mixed. The manuscript that underlies the text of the academic Hebrew Bible (Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia) has the Ketiv and Qere as noted above. However, many other Hebrew manuscripts have the Qere written into the text. That is, those manuscripts have no Ketiv-Qere marking. The Septuagint (LXX) has “and not we ourselves” which indicates either that the translator followed the Ketiv, or in the text he translated from there was no Qere marking. In addition, the Vulgate follows the Ketiv. Perhaps it too was translated from a text not having the Qere marking, or perhaps it was influenced by the LXX. The Targum of the Psalms has “we are his,” as does Jerome in a translation of the Psalms that he did separately from his translation of the Vulgate.

As a result, the evidence is mixed, and translation committees have simply come to different conclusions as to which reading should be preferred. However, the reader should note that neither translation is problematic from a theological point of view. We certainly belong to God, and we certainly did not make ourselves.

Translational Notes 2

Additional sources for textual information

In addition to the Septuagint, the Vulgate, and the Syriac version, there are two more major sources for tracing differences in translations. These are the targums and the Dead Sea scrolls materials. The targums are Aramaic translations/paraphrases of the Old Testament text. The primary Targum of the Pentateuch is Targum Onkelos (or Onqelos), while that on the prophets is Targum Jonathan. There has never been any primary or official Targum for the third section of the Hebrew Bible, the Writings. The quality of the targums varies, sometimes being very close to the Hebrew text, sometimes adding material.

The Dead Sea scrolls (DSS) material has become increasingly significant as the various scrolls and fragments have been published, especially over the last twenty years. Almost all the books of the Old Testament are represented among the scrolls, though some of the remains are only fragmentary. In general, the DSS have served to confirm the high quality and faithfulness of the copying of the Hebrew texts over the centuries as they eventually developed into today’s printed Hebrew Bibles. However, they remain a source for study relative to particular passages.

Additional Bible versions not treated

In addition to the versions mentioned in the first post, there are two commonly-used versions that I will not deal with. First, these versions are not ordinarily used by evangelicals. Second, the translation philosophies are heavily influenced by a commitment to theological liberalism. The first is the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV). The NRSV appeared in 1989, and is the standard academic translation of the Bible in the USA. Most editions of the Bible required in college and university Bible classes use the NRSV text. Perhaps the most widely used editions are the Oxford Annotated Bible and the HarperCollins Study Bible. Until recently, the NRSV was widely used in the mainline churches, such as the Episcopal Church, the Presbyterian Church (USA), the United Methodist Church and others. In fact, it is probably still widely used in those denominations. However, in 2011, the Common English Bible (CEB) appeared under the auspices of the PC (USA), Episcopal Church Disciples of Christ, United Church of Christ, and the United Methodist Church. As with the NRSV, it is committed to a gender-neutral approach to translating, as well as having the theologically liberal slant of its supporting denominations. The primary difference between the two is that the CEB is a simple-language translation, while the NRSV is more formal in style and in word choice.

One additional note

In the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Bible, there is a system of text-critical notes made by the scribes. These are cases where the consonantal text says one thing, but the received understanding of the text says something else. Rather than change the characters in the text, the scribes would simply mark the text, and give the correct form in the margin. It would be something like is an English text said “than” but was supposed to say “then” and rather than changing the text, editors simply marked the word and gave the correct reading in the margin. This system is called Ketiv-Qere, and I will say more about it next time in explaining Psalm 100:3.

Translation Notes 1

There are probably six (or eight, depending on how you count them) Bible translations in common use in evangelical churches in the United States. They are: the New King James Version (NKJV); the New American Standard Bible (NASB); the New International Version (NIV); the Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB); the New Living Translation (NLT); and the English Standard Version (ESV). Both the NASB and the NIV are available in updated versions. The original NASB dates to 1977, while the updated version appeared in 1995. The NIV original dates to 1984, while the update appeared in 2011.

If a pastor uses the NIV, and congregants have one or more of the other versions mentioned here, there will sometimes be a difference between what the congregant hears from the pastor as he reads what the congregant sees on the page in front of him. Most of the time, the differences will be minimal, and the listener can easily see the source of the differences between the two versions. Sometimes, however, the differences are jarring, and cannot be easily reconciled by the listener. So, for example, if the pastor reads Psalm 100 from the NIV, when he gets to verse 3, he will read, “Know that the LORD is God. It is he who made us, and we are his; we are his people, the sheep of his pasture.” That will be fine with the readers of the NLT or the ESV, but not for those reading the NKJV or the NASB. The reader of one of these two latter versions will have something like this in front of him: “Know that the LORD Himself is God; It is He who has made us, and not we ourselves; We are His people and the sheep of His pasture.” (NASB) The primary difference between the two renderings is in that phrase “and we are his,” or “and not we ourselves.” The reader is left wondering which one is right, or if it is possible to get one from the other. Unless the pastor addresses the difference, the solution (even with the marginal note that the versions will have) is not easy to see.

It is my intent to address these kinds of differences in a number of succeeding posts. However, some general remarks will help at the beginning of this exercise. Some of the differences are caused by the differing philosophies of translation that were adopted by the committees that produced the translations. In broad terms, the two philosophies used today are the formal equivalence and the functional equivalence approaches. The former approach produces such translations as the NKJV, the NASB, and the ESV. The latter approach produces the NIV and the NLT, and, to a lesser extent, the HCSB. I have dealt to some extent with these approaches in earlier posts, but for good introductions to the two approaches, I recommend The Word of God in English by Leland Ryken and How to Choose a Translation for All Its Worth by Gordon Fee and Mark Strauss. The former book espouses the formal equivalent approach, while the latter book argues for the functional equivalence approach.

Some of the differences are caused by the text the translators are relying on. All of the translation committees begin with the  Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT) of the Bible (in the Old Testament) and the Greek New Testament. However, in some places the Hebrew of the MT is difficult, and translators will look to ancient versions for suggestions as to how a particular passage should be translated. The most significant of these versions are the Septuagint (LXX, the old Greek translation of the Old Testament), the Syriac (Syr, a translation done in a late dialect of Aramaic), and the Vulgate (Vg, the Latin translation first done by Jerome in the later fourth-early fifth century).

More general principles will follow in the next post.

On Reading the Bible in 2012: Continued

Two things to deal with in this follow-up post. First, while I don’t recommend this for most people, I do make one recommendation for pastors in regard to their Bible reading. That is, that a pastor ought to read through the Bible in the versions used by the folks in his church. He needs at least to be familiar with the different versions, so that he can anticipate questions that might arise. For some (increasingly rare) churches, that might mean that the pastor needs to be familiar only with the KJV. In some churches, two or three versions might suffice (KJV, NKJV, NASB). But my guess is that in most evangelical/Reformed churches today, their will be five or six versions being used by the various members of the congregation. Some few, mostly older members, will still use the KJV. Others, conservative but younger, will use the NKJV or the NASB. Increasingly some will be using the ESV. Others will be using the NIV, and some will be using the New Living Translation (NLT). This last will more likely be the case among the younger members of the congregation. The pastor also needs to keep up with the appearance of new translations. He should also be aware of such things as new or updated editions of older versions. For example, the NIV that is now in the bookstores is the NIV 2011. It is something of a hybrid between the “old” NIV (also known as the NIV 1984) and the TNIV (Today’s New International Version, 2001, with an update in 2005). The TNIV is a gender-neutral version, and that has had a significant impact on the NIV 2011.

In the last post, I mentioned a couple of commentary series that I thought readers would find helpful as they read through the Bible. Obviously, both of these series are multiple volumes, and would require a significant outlay of funds. One reader asked if there were some one-volume commentaries that I could recommend. These recommendations come with a warning. First, one-volume commentaries often suffer from the same disease as study Bibles: they don’t answer the question the reader is asking. In addition, even a one-volume commentary is pretty sizeable. Those that I am listing here run from about 1,500 to 2,500 pages. In other words, if you are reading the Bible through in a year, it is unlikely that you will be reading the full text of a one-volume commentary along with your Bible reading, unless you have a significant amount of time to commit to the project. Remember, one-volume commentaries are books with a larger-than-average page size, and smaller-than-average print. Reading through that in a year would require 5-7 pages per day. That is something most people really don’t have the time to commit to. All of that being said, I would recommend the following one-volume commentaries for general use. That doesn’t mean that I agree with everything said by the various commentators.

Matthew Henry’s One-Volume Commentary. This is the one edited by Leslie Church. Do not make the mistake of buying the whole unabridged Matthew Henry in one volume. Dr. Church did a very commendable job of reducing Henry to a size manageable for most people. Henry focuses on devotion and application, so don’t expect extensive discussions of technical matters.

New Bible Commentary: 21^st Century Edition. This will provide more up-to-date technical commentary than Henry. Not particularly devotional, but not entirely lacking practical insight.

Believer’s Bible Commentary. This one I have not personally used, but it strikes me as more reliable than some of its competition. Somewhere between Henry and NBC in devotional level.

On Reading the Bible in 2012

This is the time of year when people make resolutions to read through the Bible in the coming year. If this is your intent, I hope this post will be of some help to you. Even if this is not your intent, I hope this post will be of some help to you.

First, there is nothing magical, or even necessarily particularly sanctifying, about reading the Bible through in a year. If you recognize from the beginning that the important thing is to read regularly in the Bible, with prayer and meditation, then reading through it in a year becomes simply a helpful tool to accomplish that goal. There are any number of “read through the Bible in a year” programs. Justin Taylor discusses some here: http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2011/12/27/bible-reading-plans-for-2012/. For those who have had trouble in the past reading through the Bible in a year, the Plan for Shirkers and Slackers might be the place to begin. If you have a smart phone, the youversion Bible app has more than 200 different reading plans available. You can even set it up so that it reminds you each day to do your reading. There are also a number of reading plans available at the Zondervan website: http://www.zondervan.com/Cultures/en-US/Product/Bible/Plans.htm?QueryStringSite=Zondervan#In the Beginning...

If you look at the Zondervan list, you will notice that many of the plans are not plans that will take you all the way through the Bible in a year. Rather, they are limited plans that deal with more focused goals. If you are new to Bible reading, I suggest you might start with one of these plans, such as the 180-day guided tour. This plan gives you an overview of the Bible in six months. Or you might want to begin with the two-week guided tour and then move on to some of the 30-day plans. The main point is to get yourself into the Word daily in a useful fashion.

Recently, a friend on Facebook was asking about smart phone Bible reading plans. Another friend cautioned against one of the plans that takes you straight through from Genesis to Revelation, since you get stuck for days on end in the Minor Prophets. I understand the point that this person was trying to make: that finding helpful material for meditation in the Minor Prophets (or even in the Major Prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel) can be difficult. However, I think it reflects some level of ignorance about the Minor Prophets. It also highlights, however, the fact the many sections of the Bible are difficult to read and to effectively meditate on, because we are not sufficiently familiar with what we are reading. Thus, we feel like the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:26-40), who said, “How can I [understand], unless someone guides me.” There is nothing wrong with admitting that we don’t understand what we read, and that we need some help.

So where do we go for help? First, I recommend against study Bibles. I find that they offer minimal help, usually the least help when you want it the most. Instead, you should invest in several practical commentaries that you can read along with your Bible reading. That may slow down your Bible reading, but that’s all right. The Bible Speaks Today series from IVP has a number of useful volumes, as does the Welwyn commentary series from Evangelical Press. These are non-technical commentaries that are designed to help the reader understand and apply what he reads.

May you have happy Bible reading in 2012.

Punctuating the Bible: Ephesians 4:11-12

In speaking, we indicate emphasis and pauses simply by the way we pronounce the words. Punctuation and other ways of marking a text are used to attempt to accomplish with the written word what it cannot do, that is, imitate the spoken word. Thus someone might say the three simple words “I love him” in three different ways. He might say, “I love him,” putting the emphasis on “I,” which is indicated here by putting “I” in italics. The meaning communicated is that “I” as opposed to others, love him. Or he might say, “I love him” putting the emphasis on the verb (again, indicated here with italics). Thus the meaning is I love him as opposed to “hate” or “like” or “put up with.” Or he might say, “I love him;” communicating the idea of loving that particular person as opposed to others. The pauses and emphasis indicated by punctuation therefore help clarify the meaning of what is written, in place of the emphasis provided by voice and facial expression in conversation.

The importance of proper punctuation is well-illustrated in Lynne Truss’s recent bestseller, Eats, Shoots & Leaves. This is particularly pointed out in the publisher’s note (p. xv) to the effect that the book is written in English English as opposed to American English, and so follows the rules of English rather than American punctuation. All of this is to say that the punctuation of the text of the Bible in English serves an important interpretive function that might be easily overlooked by the causal reader.

Ephesians 4:12 provides a useful example. For context, I have also included verse 11. In the KJV, the verses read, “¹¹And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; ¹²For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:” Notice that the commas in verse 12 indicate three purposes for the work of the officers listed: perfecting the saints, the work of the ministry, and the edifying of the body of Christ.

In the NKJV, the passage reads, “¹¹And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, ¹²for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ.” In this version, there is only one comma in verse 12, indicating a two-fold purpose for the work of the officers: equipping the saints for the work of ministry and edifying the body of Christ. The whole range of modern translations, from the NASB to the NLT, does exactly the same thing that the NKJV does, indicating two purposes for the work of the officers.

The modern reader probably reads only one English version, and for the most part probably pays little attention to the punctuation. Therefore, he might not notice the different possible understandings that the verse provides. Next time we will look into the matter of determining which punctuation of the verse is probably right, why, and what it means for the reader.

Biblical Languages and Gender: Final Thoughts

First, ordinary English still uses “he” for the generic third person. The only people who don’t think so are those who are committed to “gender neutrality” or those who are forced by their work and connections to use gender-neutral language. If you think that is not the case, try listening to the conversation at a local diner sometime (and I don’t mean Starbucks). The conversation will be liberally sprinkled with the generic use of “he.” Or ask some college or seminary professor who is trying to get his students to write in gender-neutral English. It doesn’t come naturally, and students will generally not do it unless forced to. Or ask some editor for a publication that requires gender-neutral language how many times he has to direct an author to clean up his language.

Second, the use of gender-neutral languages in Bible translation gives the reader the impression (however unconscious that may be) that the ancient Israelites and the early Christians had the same phobias about language that we do. It isn’t true. The Bible is filled with generic uses of masculine forms for generic reference.

Third, the use of gender-neutral language often hides the use of singular pronouns by turning them into plurals. These changes often introduce meanings into the text that were not there originally, or remove understandings that are originally in the text.

Fourth, the use of gender-neutral languages in Bible translation seems to me to be an attempt to make a Bible that we are more comfortable with. Here’s a secret. The Bible was not intended to be a book that we are comfortable with. It is intended to confront us with our sin and to call us to repentance. It is also intended to call into question our assumptions about what the world is and how it works; about who God is and how he works. It is intended to challenge our world-views and to correct them. When Paul says in Romans 12:2, “And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect (NAS),”he means that our minds are to be changed by learning from God’s word how to think properly about all things. It is intended to overcome the corruptions of our thinking that sin has brought. How can it do that if we are constantly changing it to make it more comfortable for us?

I do recognize that there is a need for Bible translations that are “simple language” translations, both for those who are new readers, and for those for whom English is a second language. But it should be made clear that such versions are not reliable as guides for serious study of the Bible, and that the reader should seek to progress in his understanding beyond the basics that such a translation is able to provide.

A final aside: Why, in a translation, should translators change measures into modern equivalents? For example, some modern versions use feet and inches in place of cubits. But the ancient Israelites did not think in terms of feet and inches. They thought in terms of cubits. In some sense, the modern reader is required to get into the head of the ancient text in order to understand it. That is not helped by putting modern equivalents into the body of the text. If you must, put them in a footnote, or in an appendix at the back. 

Biblical Languages and Gender (3)

We left off last time with the gender-neutral treatment of Psalm 1. In addition to what I mentioned last time, there is one more element in the first verse that the gender-neutral versions cover up. That is that the beginning of the verse says “blessed is the man.” The word translated man is ish in Hebrew, and it means specifically a human male. It can sometimes be translated husband, particularly when used in connection with its feminine counterpart isshshah, which means woman or wife. Does this mean that women are specifically excluded from consideration in Ps 1? No, because ish is sometimes used inclusively (for example, 1 Chron 16:3 “and he distributed to every man [ish] of Israel, both men [ish] and women [ishshah]. In addition, the context of the psalm makes it clear that any person is in view here. The noun also has the definite article (the) attached to it. Hence, “blessed is the man.” It may well be the case that by the use of the definite article the psalmist has in view at least an allusion to the Messiah. As Andrew Bonar says in his Christ and His Church in the Book of Psalms, “Can we help thinking on Him as alone realizing the description in this Psalm? The members of his mystical body, in their measure, aim at this holy walk; but it is only in him that they see it perfectly exemplified.” The possibility of seeing this is left open to those who are reading a “gender-specific” version, but it is completely removed from the readers of the TNIV, the NLT.

The gender-neutral versions regularly replace masculine singular pronouns with plural nouns and pronouns. In this fashion, subtle details of the text are regularly lost. For example, there is a very interesting set of usages in John 2:25-3:1. In the KJV, the passage reads, “And needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man. There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:” In the NRSV it reads, “and needed no one to testify about anyone; for he himself knew what was in everyone. Now there was a Pharisee named Nicodemus, a leader of the Jews.” Every occurrence of “man” in the KJV reflects an occurrence of the Greek word anthropos (man, mankind) in a singular (as opposed to plural) form. Every use of anthropos has been removed in the NRSV. But John has created a subtle connection between the end of chapter 2 and the beginning of chapter 3, as follows, “And he did not have need that any should testify concerning man, for he knew what was in man. But there was a man from the Pharisees, named Nicodemus.” Jesus knows what is man, and so a man comes, and Jesus is able to speak to his heart, and get to the heart of the situation. He does this throughout John’s gospel, as we also see, for example, with the woman at the well. But if someone is reading the NRSV, he will never pick this up.

Biblical Languages and Gender (2)

Like Greek, Hebrew nouns and adjectives have gender. Unlike Greek, they occur only as masculine or feminine. There is no neuter gender in Hebrew. In addition, there is a small number of nouns that sometimes occur as masculine, and sometimes as feminine. As an example, when the English Bible reads “people” on the basis of the Hebrew word ‘am it is reflecting a masculine noun. So those poor Israelite women had to suffer the pains of knowing that there was no way in their language to “include” them, as the very word that referred to the people as a whole was masculine in gender. Perhaps to emphasize the point that noun gender has nothing to do with sex, most body parts that occur in pairs are feminine in gender. The exception to this rule is the word for “breast,” which is a masculine noun.

Also unlike Greek, Hebrew verbs have gender. So in the Book of Ruth, if one passage says, “Ruth said” and another passage says, “Boaz said,” the form of “said” will differ between the two occurrences, since Boaz is masculine and Ruth is feminine. The only point at which this is not the case is with first-person (I/we) forms of the verb. Further, Hebrew generally uses masculine verbs forms for a mixed-gender subject, whereas a feminine verb form always implies a feminine subject. Or, as one of the standard Hebrew grammars puts it, “A feminine verb form can indicate that the subject noun is feminine, but nothing certain can be inferred from a masculine form (Joüon-Muraoka, ¶89b). Another way to put it is that the masculine verbs forms are not necessarily gender-specific, while feminine verb forms are. In short, Hebrew uses masculine forms for generic references.

Pronouns are the only parts of speech in English that are “gender specific” in terms of how that term is usually defined. “She” is used for specifically female, “he” refers to male or generic, while “it” generally refers to things. Idiomatically, some things are referred to by masculine or feminine pronouns. So, for example, boats are usually called “she/her.” I don’t know enough about the history of the language to account for these exceptions. Until the latter part of the twentieth century, “he” and “him” were regularly used, and were understood to be used, in generic cases. That is, in a situation where the sex of the subject is unknown, “he” was used. For example, “When the reporter calls, tell him I’ll get back to him.” Though the pronoun “him” is used, there no expectation that the reporter was actually a male. In the 1970s, certain feminists began to insist that using the masculine pronoun in this fashion did in fact deliberately exclude women. Despite the fact that no one had ever thought so, this philosophical silliness quickly took over academic circles in the USA and, more slowly, in Europe. For some reason, it also quickly infected the area of Bible translation. Hence, as early as 1976 (the publication date of Today’s English Version (also known as the Good News Bible), some attempt was made to eliminate the generic use of masculine pronouns.

I will conclude today with one example, and then move on in the next posts to consideration of further examples. Psalm 1:1 (KJV) says, “Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.” Notice that the only specifically masculine term in the verse is “man.” In order to eliminate that reference to “man,” the TEV says, “Happy are those who reject the advice of evil men…” In order to eliminate “man” as in the KJV, the translators introduced a plural (the original is singular). They then proceed to introduce “men” where none stood before. It is curious that “evil men” is acceptable (are only men evil?), but “the man” is not.

Biblical Languages and Gender

From James Taranto’s column at the Wall Street Journal on October 27, 2011:

“One of the things we most loathe about feminism is its effect on the language. Self-appointed feminist language cops make a pretense of aiming for "gender neutrality," but in fact their aim is to make language ugly and unnatural so that you constantly have to think about their ideology. When the traditional terms are gender-neutral, such as "chairman," they insist on changing them ("chairwoman" or "chair"). Only when the traditional terms are gendered do they want to neutralize them, such as calling actresses "actors."”

This move toward forcing general English usage into “gender neutrality” has been going on for nearly half a century. It is rampant in colleges and universities and other centers of higher education. Academic publishing is replete with it. In many cases, academic journals or book publishers indicate that submitted manuscripts must be written in gender-neutral language. “Man” is not acceptable unless you are referring specifically to a human male. “Mankind” is not acceptable under any condition. You must use “humankind” instead. And this is simply the tip of the iceberg.

Unfortunately, this movement has profoundly affected the Bible translation business. Even the translators (or perhaps editors) of the ESV, which is not a gender-neutral translation, felt compelled to add a footnote saying “Or brothers and sisters” everywhere the Greek New Testament reads adelphoi (traditionally translated “brothers” or “brethren”), just to make sure no one felt left out.

From my perspective, there are two fundamental problems with this enforced move to “gender neutrality” of “gender inclusiveness.” First, it is a politically motivated corruption of language. I will not go into that here, but I suggest you find a copy of George Orwell’s essay “Politics and the English Language” and read it carefully. Then reread 1984. Then ask yourself if this is the kind of world you really want to live in. The second problem is that it also corrupts the biblical languages, and makes it more difficult for the reader to actually hear what the Bible is saying.

For those who don’t know anything about New Testament Greek or Old Testament Hebrew, I want to give you a little background, starting with English. First, gender is a grammatical category, not a sex category, though that distinction has been corrupted over the last half-century. English nouns, adjectives, and verbs do not have gender. In practical terms that means that you do not use a different form of “say” with “Susie said” than you do with “John said.” It also means that you don’t use a different form of “green” when you say “Susie was green with envy” than you do when you say “John was green with envy.”

In New Testament Greek, any noun belongs to one of three genders (again, remember this is a matter of grammar, not of sex): masculine, feminine, or neuter. Adjectives may appear in any of the three genders, but they have to correspond to (grammarians usually speak of “being in agreement with”) the gender of the noun they modify. So if you want to say “green tree” you have to use a neuter form of the adjective “green” because the noun dendrov (tree) is neuter. On the other hand, if you wanted to say “a little green man” you would have to use masculine forms of “little” and “green” because the two nouns in Greek usually translated “man” are both masculine in gender. Greek verbs, like English verbs, do not have gender.

Next time we will talk about Hebrew and then move on to how these things affect the way we read our English Bibles and how we are to understand them.

Matthew 18 and the Other Matthew 18

This past Thursday in chapel we had a very fine message from one of our seniors on the parable of the man who owed 10,000 talents. He referred to it as “the other Matthew 18” because Matthew 18 is so readily identified with the “church discipline” section in vss 15-20. As I reflected on the message, I began to wonder what the relationship is between the “church discipline” verses and the following material.

This material, at least as it is laid out in Matthew 18, is unique to Matthew. This is part of the fourth of Matthew’s five extended discourses of Jesus. This fourth discourse begins with the question posed by the disciples as to who is the greatest in the kingdom. Jesus begins by speaking of the little ones of the kingdom, and the warning against being stumbling blocks. He then moves to the church discipline passage, then to Peter’s question, and finally the parable. Hagner, in ISBE, characterizes the theme of this discourse as discipleship and discipline. While there is certainly that aspect to the passage, it seems to me that the greater emphasis is on the issue of sin and dealing with sin in the context of the kingdom. Jesus uses the question of greatness to draw attention to the little children. He then warns against being a stumbling block to them, i.e., sinning against them, or causing them to sin. This draws forth the summary of how sin is to be dealt with.

Peter then poses a question for Jesus which seems at first glance not really to follow from the “church discipline” material. He asks Jesus how often he is supposed to forgive his brother. How did Peter get there from church discipline? I think the transition is from the issue of dealing with someone who won’t admit his sin (the church discipline verses) to the issue of someone who does admit his sin, but then sins again and again, each time asking for forgiveness. Note that in both cases, the issue starts with someone who sins against a brother. Jesus’ answer astounded Peter. But where does Jesus’ response come from? I think it is a deliberate allusion to Lamech’s violent statement in Gen 4:23-24. In other words, Jesus is saying that his disciples need to be the opposites of Lamech. By the way, the difference between “seventy-seven times” (TNIV and some others) and “seventy time seven” (most English versions) is not a difference in the reading of the Greek text, but rather a difference in how what is there is understood. The Greek in Matt 18:22 is identical to the Septuagint of Gen 4:24. The Hebrew of Gen 4:24 is clearly “seventy and seven” rather than “seventy time seven.”

From this statement regarding our need to be forgiving when brothers sin against us, Jesus move to the illustration of the parable. The point of the parable, of course, is to emphasize that we are to forgive others as Christ has forgiven us (Eph 4:32).

Punctuating the Bible

The Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew and Aramaic (the Aramaic portions are as follows: Ezra 4:8-6:18; 7:11-26; Daniel 2:4-7:28; Jeremiah 10:11, and two words in Genesis 31:47). The New Testament was written in Greek. The original Hebrew (and Aramaic) manuscripts were written without vowels and without punctuation. The fact that vowels were not written is not as problematic as it might seem, due to the character of the Hebrew language. In fact, most Modern Hebrew is also written without vowels. Vowels are inserted only when necessary to prevent possible misunderstandings. At least in the Hebrew manuscripts, the scribes did have spaces between words. For an example of such Hebrew manuscripts, see http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/sacredtexts/images/deadseascrolls_lg.jpg.

The earliest Greek manuscripts were written in all capital letters (called uncials), and were written without spaces between the words but with some punctuation, though the punctuation seems not to have been used consistently. For an example of such a manuscript, see http://www.bible-researcher.com/papy66big.jpg. In the Middle Ages, Greek manuscripts began to be written in a cursive script called miniscules. These manuscripts at least had spaces between the words, and a more sustained use of punctuation. For an example, see http://www.greekingout.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/ntmanuscript.jpg.

Over the course of the Middle Ages, the Hebrew scribes that preserved and copied the biblical text developed a system for indicating the vowels in each word. These scribes are known as Masoretes, and the text they produced is the Masoretic text. In addition to this vocalization system, they developed a system of accents for the text. In this system, each word has its own accent. The accents serve three purposes. First, the accent indicates which syllable in the word is accented. Second, the accents serve as a sort of musical notation, indicating how the text is to be chanted. Third, the accents serve somewhat like punctuation. This system is still found in modern printed editions of the Hebrew Bible.

The punctuation in modern editions of the Greek New Testament comes in part from the punctuation found in manuscripts. In addition, punctuation is added by the editors of the Greek text.

The punctuation of English versions of the Bible is dependent in part on the punctuation indicated by the Hebrew accent system and on the punctuation of the Greek text. However punctuation in English is different and more extensive than punctuation in either Hebrew or Greek. Thus, the punctuation of English versions is determined by the translators and editors of the particular version. Thus, for example, Ephesians 1:3-14 (one extended sentence in Greek) is divided into three sentences by the KJV, and up to fourteen or so sentences by some of the modern simple language translations. But this punctuation is a matter of editorial choice. So for example, in Eph 1:4, the KJV reads, “that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:” The ESV reads, “that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love” (with the sentence then continuing into verse 5). The difference between the two renderings is that in the KJV, the phrase “in love” is understood to go with what precedes, as is indicated by the punctuation. In the ESV, the phrase “in love” is understood to go with what follows, again as indicated by the punctuation. In this case, the KJV is supported by the punctuation as it is found in the 27^th edition of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament. Most modern English versions, however, do the same as the ESV. In this case, the interpretational difference may be minimal. But where you put the comma, or whether you even use a comma, is not always so simple.

Translational Annoyances

Since I teach one of the Biblical languages, I am frequently asked which English Bible translation I recommend. I sort of cheat, answering that as far as I am concerned, the NKJV, the NASB, the ESV, and (if you pay careful attention to the words that have changed in meaning in the last 400 years) the KJV all have their strengths and weaknesses, but they are all about equally good. The main point here is that there is no perfect translation of the Bible. Those that I have listed do most things well, but no biblical languages scholar would be entirely happy with any one of them. I doubt that even members of the translation team for one of those versions would be entirely happy with everything the version does. Part of that is due to the fact that most translations are committee work, and a translation has to please everyone involved: the editorial staff as well as the members of the translation team. So if one member of the team likes a particular rendering of a given passage, but the other team members do not, he loses out. Likewise, the editorial team may tell a translation committee that a particular passage just doesn’t work and they need to go back and change it. So the editors are happy, but the translators are not. I’ve been told, for example, that the translation team for one particular version was trying to figure out what to do with 1 Sam 25:22 (and the other passages where the KJV uses the now offensive term “piss”). They wanted to do something that would indicate that the word here was not just one of the normal Hebrew words for male. However, they were told in no uncertain terms, “There will be no pissing in my Bible.”

All that being said, probably most biblical scholars have particular passages in particular versions that simply drive them nuts. I call these translational annoyances. One of these popped up for me in recent months as I was reading through the CEB. For a variety of reasons I think the version is a particularly odious translation. As a character in Connie Willis’s novel Doomsday Book said, “The King James may be archaic, but at least it’s not criminal.” So you would expect that I would find a lot of translational annoyances in it. But one in particular stuck out to me. Col 4:15 says, “Say hello to the brothers and sisters in Laodicea.” I realized, of course, that this was the CEB way of saying “greet,” and I figured that the translators thought “greet” was too sophisticated a word for this particular translation. So I looked back to Phil 4:21, expecting to see “say hello to.” Instead, I found, “Greet all God’s people in Christ Jesus.” So I thought, “Well, maybe Paul used a different word in Philippians than in Colossians.” So I looked. No. Same word in Greek in both passages. So I looked at all the passages where that same form is used. I found no consistency in translation. About half of the passages have, “Say hello to.” The other half have, “Greet,” except for Matt 10:12, which says, “Say, Peace.” To my mind this is simply fundamentally bad translation. At the very least, all of the occurrences in the Pauline epistles should have read the same. But the careful reader of the CEB is going to think that the Greek uses different words, apparently because the translators and the editorial team of the CEB couldn’t get together on a reasonable consistency in the translation of a simple Greek word.

Of course, the CEB is not the only offender in this. The NLT sometimes uses “greet” and sometimes “give my greetings to.” It is particularly grating in Romans 16, where apparently the NLT translators couldn’t stand the fact that Paul used the same term sixteen times in the same passage, so they decided to change it up for the reader. 

Bible Translation and Editorial Consistency

One of the fundamental difficulties in any translation work is for the translator to enable the reader to hear the “voice” of the original writer. A recent translator of The Three Musketeers commented to the effect that he found earlier translations of the work, particularly nineteenth-century translations, made the work much less accessible than it was in the original. He therefore strove in his translation to convey in English the style of the original French. In a book of such length as The Three Musketeers it is fairly easy over the course of the novel to convey something of Dumas’s style. In the Bible, it is a much more difficult task. For one thing, the translators are faced not with one book, but with sixty-six, and from as many as perhaps forty writers. Further, even the longest books of the Bible (Jeremiah, Genesis, and Psalms are longest by Hebrew word-count) are far shorter than even an average novel, let alone a novel such as The Three Musketeers. Even the three together would make only a very short novel (about 60,000 words total, about 120,000 in the KJV, which would make a decent-length novel). However, the three books have very different styles (in Hebrew). A proficient Hebrew reader would be able to tell within a few verses which of the three he was reading from if he was given an unidentified portion to read. But it can be difficult to make those stylistic differences apparent in English.

Formal equivalence translations have an advantage over functional equivalence translations at this point, because of the attempt to follow the Hebrew (or Greek) fairly closely, and to maintain consonance as much as possible, (Consonance is the practice of translating a given Hebrew/Greek word by the same English word when reasonably possible to do so.) Functional equivalence translations, on the other hand, tend to be simple-language translations, which limits, for example, the use of technical terminology, and tends to paraphrase or replace idioms in the original with “equivalent” English idioms.

A further problem for functional equivalence translations is that they tend to prefer short, choppy English sentences. In some places, that works. Hebrew narrative, for example, tends to consist of short clauses, sometimes no more than a word or two. The reader should understand, however, that it is possible to put a whole English sentence, albeit a simple one, in one word. The English sentence, “He offered it up as a burnt offering” is two words in Hebrew. However, when it comes to Paul’s letters, the functional equivalence translations lose the ability to represent Paul’s style. As is often observed Eph 1:3-14 is one sentence in Greek. The KJV turns that into three sentences. The NLT turns it into fourteen sentences in three paragraphs. The CEB also turned it into fourteen sentences, though they have retained the one paragraph. Certainly not a real representation of the sentence Paul wrote.

Lord of Hosts

Last time, I was arguing that “hosts” in this title probably does not refer to angels, but rather to the hosts of Israel. It is pertinent to this contention that the word “hosts” when used apart from this phrase and in the plural always refers to human armies, most commonly to the armies of Israel. So, for example, Ex 12:41 says, “all the hosts of the Lord went out from the land of Egypt.” Deut 20:9, when speaking of the armies of Israel preparing for battle says, “then commanders shall be appointed at the head of the people” (literally: they shall appoint princes of the hosts at the head of the people). 1 Kgs 2:5 speaks of the “two commanders [princes] of the hosts of Israel.” Psa 68:12 says, “kings of armies [hosts] did flee apace.”

The title “Lord of hosts” occurs one hundred forty-five times in the books of Isaiah and Jeremiah. It occurs over fifty times in the much shorter Book of Zechariah. It occurs fourteen times in the two chapters of Haggai and twenty-four times in the four chapters of Malachi. The usage in the prophets accounts for the vast majority of the uses of the term in the Old Testament, and it is used consistently with the nation of Israel in view. This would seem to lend weight to the idea that the focus is not on angelic armies, but rather on human armies, in particular the armies of Israel.

Interestingly, when the word “host” is used in such a way as to indicate the possibility of the “host” being angels, it occurs in the singular. Thus with the cryptic text in Josh 5:14ff, it is the prince of the host (singular) of the Lord who appears to Joshua. Likewise, in 1 Kgs 22:19 “all the host of Heaven,” host is singular. It is the same case in Psa 103:21 and Psa 148:2.

What can we conclude from this? I think first, that the reason hosts is singular in regard to angels is due to the fact that they are considered a single army. Israel, on the other hand, was made up of twelve tribes, each providing its own army [host]. Hence the God of Israel is the Lord of the hosts of Israel, a perfect image of the Old Testament church militant.

Lord of Hosts: Lord of Heavens Armies?

The KJV rendered the Hebrew phrase yhwh ts^eba’ot by the English phrase “Lord of Hosts.” Since then, most English versions have simply followed the KJV. More recently, however, especially with the rise of “simple-language” versions, the phrase has begun to disappear from English Bibles. Admittedly, there is nothing especially sacred about the translation Lord of Hosts. Many people today may not even know that “host” in the seventeenth century meant “army,” or “great multitude.”

Thus, several of the newer versions have sought a translation that communicates more effectively and more accurately the meaning of the Hebrew phrase. Thus the New Living Translation (NLT) renders it as “the Lord of Heaven’s Armies.” The new Common English Bible (CEB) renders it “Lord of Heavenly Forces.” God’s Word translation uses “Lord of Armies.” The Good News Bible, the NIV, and the TNIV all render it as “Lord Almighty.” The New Century Version and the Contemporary English Version render it “Lord All-Powerful.” But how helpful, and how accurate, are these translations?

The NLT and CEB translations are clearly equivalent. Further, they add to the idea of army or force the idea that these are heavenly forces. The first word in the Hebrew phrase is Yahweh, the divine name. The second word in the phrase is a plural form of a noun that means “army” or “warfare.” Hence God’s Word translation Lord of Armies, omitting the idea of heavenly forces. The NLT and CEB are probably influenced by the fact that angels are sometimes referred to as a “host.” This appears, for example, in 1 Kings 22:19, where the prophet Micaiah says that he saw the Lord sitting on his throne with all the “host of heaven” standing by him. The reader should notice, however, that in this and similar verses, the word “host” is in the singular, and it is specifically identified as “the host of heaven.” Further, the Lord is not referred to as Lord of Hosts, but simply as Lord. When “hosts” is used in the plural (apart from the phrase Lord of hosts), it refers to the armies or military arrangement of Israel or other human armies. By usage, then the NLT and the CEB seem to be wrong in implying that the term is in reference to heavenly armies. In fact, one of the standard Hebrew lexicons says, “the thought of angels and stars as army of God is later.” Based on the views of the scholars who produced that lexicon (Frances Brown, S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs), it would appear they thought it unlikely that such a use (heavenly armies) appeared before the period of the exile. Even a more recent work (New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis) seems to find the evidence for such a view lacking.

The evidence for Lord Almighty or Lord All-powerful is even scantier. The NIDOTTE says, “Another approach would take ‘hosts’ as a plural of intensification or majesty, particularly in view of the LXX translation of hosts as ‘Almighty.” But such an abstraction lacks convincing evidence.”

When the reader further considers that Lord of Hosts does not appear in the Bible until 1 Samuel, it would seem to indicate that the epithet is particularly connected with the rise of the Israelite monarchy, particularly under David. Hence it refers to the armies of Israel as the covenantal hosts, or armies, of the Lord.

Is the CEB the New NRSV? (2)

Technically, the answer to that question is, “No.” The CEB is not being done by the Division of Christian Education of the NCC, which holds the copyright on the NRSV. Instead, according to the CEB website, “The Common English Bible is a distinct new imprint and brand for Bibles and reference products about the Bible. Publishing and marketing offices are located in Nashville, Tennessee. The CEB translation was funded by the Church Resources Development Corp, which allows for cooperation among denominational publishers in the development and distribution of Bibles, curriculum, and worship materials.  The Common English Bible Committee meets periodically and consists of denominational publishers from the following denominations: Disciples of Christ (Chalice Press); Presbyterian Church U.S.A. (Westminster John Knox Press); Episcopal Church (Church Publishing Inc); United Church of Christ (Pilgrim Press); and United Methodist Church (Abingdon Press).”

In other words, it is being funded by five denominations, all of which are currently member denominations of the NCC. It simply seems odd to me that they would not be using the NRSV. Perhaps the motivation is simply to have a simple-language translation that meets all the current sensitivity requirements, such as gender-neutrality. There are already several simple-language translations available that are gender-neutral. The Today’s English Version is probably the oldest (1976). There is also the New Living Translation (1996, the latest edition is 2007),  The Contemporary English Version (1995), and the NIV2011. All three, however, still use “Son of Man” in reference to Christ. The CEB uses “the Human One.” I suppose these three versions are insufficiently sensitive to gender issues.

Are we moving into a new era of English Bible translation? Are we headed toward a “niche” mentality, where each denomination or cluster of denominations has its distinctive translation? The HCSB and the CEB seem to point in that direction. Roman Catholicism has always had its own versions, currently the New American Bible, which appeared in a new edition earlier this year. That would be expected, however, because the Catholic Bibles will include the apocryphal books, and not in a separate section the way the KJV had it. But outside the mainline churches and the SBC, churches are small enough that supporting a translation distinctive to the denomination (or even to a group of related denominations) would be difficult. For now, the NLT, the NIV (and perhaps its 2011 version), and the ESV will probably continue to dominate the evangelical market. The NASB and NKJV will continue to have their niches for a time, but who knows for how ling.

Whether the CEB can take over the NRSV market may depend on marketing as much as on the fact that the five supporting denominations give it something of a captive audience. The NRSV is aging (already basically a generation old). Though it is gender-neutral, it is more in line with the TEV, CEV, and NLT than the CEB. If the CEB can produce a study edition aimed at the college-level Bible class, the simple-language approach may make it appealing to university professors who find their students less and less able to read at the college level.  

We live in interesting times in English Bible translation. The old days of the KJV hegemony are gone, and I’m not sure that’s a good thing.