The Upper Register

The Benefits of Studying Biblical Languages

What are the benefits of learning Greek and Hebrew so as to study the Bible in the original languages?

Exegetical Benefits

• Being able to weigh exegetical options, based on text-critical, lexical, and syntactical possibilities and probabilities.
• Being able to grasp the flow of thought of a passage by discourse analysis, by examining the Greek particles, and by tracing lexical connections that are often obscured in translation (e.g., δίκαιος, δικαιοσύνη, δικαιόω).
• Being able to analyze the complexities of the NT use of the OT (MT vs. LXX vs. other).

 Practical Benefits

• Being able to use language tools such as lexica, grammars, commentaries, Bible software, and discourse analyses.
• Being able to read the Septuagint - useful for OT textual criticism; LXX has direct bearing on NT Greek, both lexically and syntactically.
• Being able to utilize extra-biblical corpera such as Thesaurus Linguae Graecae, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Apocrypha, the Pseudepigrapha (OT and NT), and so on.

 Aesthetic Benefits

• Being able to appreciate subtle nuances of meaning that are only apparent in the original, e.g., paronomasia, anacoluthon, chiasm, brachylogy, ellipsis, prolepsis, solecism, alliteration, hyperbaton, and so on.
• Being able to appreciate the distinctive styles of the human authors of Scripture.
• Being able to appreciate the highly crafted periods such as those found in the prologues of Luke-Acts and Hebrews.

 Elenctic Benefits

• Being able to expose mistaken interpretations, exegetical fallacies, the claims of anti-Trinitarians, overstated homiletical claims, bad proof-texting by systematic theologians, etc.
• Being able to evaluate the English versions. If one is unable to read the Bible in the original, then one is at the mercy of competing translations with no way to evaluate them.

 Spiritual Benefits

• Reading the Bible in the original can breathe fresh life into one's devotional reading of the Scriptures.
• It brings one closer to the very words that Holy Spirit chose to communicate divine revelation.
• Reading slowly in the original is like sucking out the marrow of a bone. It enables one to relish the words in greater spiritual depth and power.

 Homiletical Benefits

• Being able to better grasp the scope or thrust of a passage.
• Being able to see how the details contribute to the whole.
• Being able to discern the structure and coherence of a text.

PCA Study Committee on Insider Movements

I just finished reading the 2012 report of the PCA Ad Interim Study Committee on Insider Movements titled, A Call to Faithful Witness - Part One - Like Father, Like Son: Divine Familial Language in Bible Translation. Here is The Aquila Report's summary of the 2012 GA's action of approving the report.

For those who aren't familiar with the controversy, perhaps a little background would be helpful. In recent years, well-known missionary agencies have been sponsoring or have otherwise been involved in translations for Muslims in which biblical language that speaks of Jesus as God's "Son" or of God as "Father" (whether in reference to Christ or believers) has been systematically replaced with other terms so as to avoid giving offence to Muslims. These translations are referred to as Muslim Idiom Translations.

For example, a Turkish translation of the Gospel of Matthew called "The Noble Gospel" renders the Trinitarian baptismal formula, "in the name of the Protector, his Representative (deputy, agent) and the Holy Spirit" (back translation provided by Turkish Reformed pastor Fikret Bocek; cited on p. 44 of the Report). Other translations use "Messiah" or "Uniquely Beloved One" instead of "Son."

The concern of the translators involved in these projects is to avoid giving the mistaken impression that Jesus was the offspring of a sexual union between God and Mary. Muslims rightly view this as blasphemy but wrongly attribute it to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. Experts in Muslim missions claim that many Muslims take such offense at the notion of God having offspring that they will not even touch a Bible that speaks of Jesus as "the Son of God" (p. 25).

Of course, the work of translating the Bible into indigenous languages is extremely important. We must also recognize the importance of avoiding needless misunderstaning on the part of users of Bibles written in various target languages. This requires tremendous skill in navigating the many hidden landmines in cross-cultural communication of the gospel. We cannot rule out the idea in principle that there may be cases where a free or dynamic equivalence rendering better expresses the meaning of the text than a literal or formal equivalence rendering of the Greek or the Hebrew.

However, the Ad Interim Report convincingly argues that Jesus' title as "the Son of God" is not such a case. The Report argues that Muslim revulsion to calling Jesus God's "Son" stems not primarily from a linguistic confusion or the limitations of the languages many Muslims use, but from the false views of God taught by Islam itself. 

Furthermore, those seeking to replace "Son of God" with "Messiah" or "God's beloved representative" reveal that they have a less than orthodox conception of what it means to affirm that Jesus is God's Son. Many of these Muslim Idiom Translations have footnotes and essays attempting to clarify and explain certain biblical teachings for Muslims. One explains that Jesus' Sonship means that he is "God's vice-regent" who has a "deep spiritual bond" with God (p. 41). Another, commenting on the baptism of Jesus where God speaks from heaven, "You are my beloved Son," glosses this as "my one and only Representative who is my Beloved," and appeals to the supposed fact that in the OT/Jewish background to call someone "God's son" was merely a way of referring to him as "God's beloved ruler" and was equivalent to "Messiah" (p. 44).

It seems to me that some of the authors of these Muslim Idiom Translations are not merely attempting to avoid needless offense. They appear to be misleading (presumably unintentionally) the Muslim community by articulating a low Christology that is neither biblical nor in accord with the church's historic doctrine of the Trinity. For the affirmation that Jesus is God's Son means that, as to his nature, he is all that the Father is. Just as a human father begets a human son in his own image and likeness, so the Father eternally begets the Son in a manner that involves the communication of the divine essence. (See my paper on The Eternal Generation of the Son.) Jesus is not merely God's representative on earth.

Nor is the title "Messiah" interchangeable with "God's Son." The eternal Son of God became man and, as the incarnate Son, was then appointed to be God's Messiah in order to accomplish atonement and salvation for his people. The logos asarkos was not the Messiah in eternity past. But he was the Son in eternity past. 

Muslim offense is not linguistic but theological. It is the same offense that the Jews took in response to Jesus' claim to be God's Son and later to the church's confession of the same, leading ultimately to "the parting of ways" between the Synagogue and the Church. And the Jewish rejection of the notion that God has a Son is based on reasoning nearly identical to that which drives the Muslim rejection. How blasphemous to think that the transcendent Creator God has a divine child! How utterly incompatible with the very conception of deity that it should replicate and divide itself! The unity and transcendence of God is taken by both Jews and Muslims to militate against the Christian conception of Jesus as the eternal, ontological Son of God.

But if Jesus and the Apostles did not seek to avoid Jewish offense by retooling their language, neither should we seek to avoid Muslim offense. Christ's eternal divine Sonship is part of what makes the gospel an offense and a stumbling block to unitarian monotheists of all stripes. 

It is quite disconcerting to contemplate that, through the instrumentality of such distorted translations claiming to be Bibles, there will undoubtedly arise individuals and whole communities who confess some allegiance to the Prophet Issa (the Quran's designation for Jesus) while maintaining woefully deficient views as to his true identity as the eternally divine Son of God who took a true human nature into personal union with himself in order to accomplish the redemption of sinners. 

I would encourage everyone interested in the intersection of missiology and theology to read the Report. It is an excellent summary of the issues, and I look forward to Part Two hopefully later this year. It is going to provide a critical analysis of Insider Movements where we hear of folks calling themselves "Muslim followers of Jesus."

The ESV's Mistranslation of "Righteousness" as "Deliverance"

I personally like and use the English Standard Version (ESV) as my chosen text for devotional Bible reading and preaching. It is a fine translation very similar to the NASB in terms of its commitment to word-for-word correspondence, yet with a much better visual presentation. So I hope no one will take this post as a criticism of the ESV as a whole. I trust we can agree that no translation is perfect and that even in our favorite translation we will always find verses that we wish were translated differently. 

So in the spirit of constructive criticism and the desire to make a good translation even better, it must be said that the ESV reproduces some of the errors of the RSV, even though the ESV translation committee made every effort to comb through the RSV base and introduce thousands of fixes. One area that the ESV committee appears to have overlooked is in the RSV's acceptance of the relational theory of "righteousness" in some verses. In the vast majority of the 276 instances of the words for "righteousness" (tsedeq - 119x; tsedaqah - 157x) the ESV does a fine job and translates them correctly as "righteousness," "righteously," "righteous," "what is right," "what is just," etc. There are, however, five instances that I have found where the ESV retains the RSV reading in its departure from the traditional understanding of "righteousness" in favor of the iustitia salutifera interpretation in the tradition of Hermann Cremer, Gerhard von Rad, and many other scholars:

Psalm 40:9-10 (2x)

"I have told the glad news of deliverance [lit. righteousness]
in the great congregation; 
behold, I have not restrained my lips, 
as you know, O LORD. 
I have not hidden your deliverance [RSV saving help; lit. righteousness] within my heart; 
I have spoken of your faithfulness and your salvation;
I have not concealed your steadfast love and your faithfulness
     from the great congregation."

Isaiah 41:2

"Who stirred up one from the east 
whom victory meets at every step?"
[lit. whom righteousness calls to its foot]

Isaiah 56:1

"Thus says the LORD:
'Keep justice, and do righteousness, 
for soon my salvation will come, 
and my deliverance [lit. righteousness] be revealed.'"

Micah 6:5

"O my people, remember what Balak king of Moab devised, 
and what Balaam the son of Beor answered him, 
and what happened from Shittim to Gilgal, 
that you may know the saving acts [lit. righteous acts] of the LORD."

In each case, the ESV seems to have reproduced the RSV reading. Whether the ESV committee retained the RSV reading at these points intentionally or unintentionally, I cannot say. However, it should be noted that the committee did make one minor change at Ps 40:10: where the RSV has "thy saving help," the ESV reads "your deliverance." Presumably this minor change was made for the sake of consistency with v. 9 which speaks of "the glad news of deliverance" (NASB: "glad tidings of righteousness"). This would seem to suggest intentionality.

On the other hand, the ESV changed the RSV at 1 Sam 12:7. Where the RSV reads, "the saving deeds of the LORD," the ESV has "the righteous deeds of the LORD." Also, in Judges 5:11, where the RSV reads, "the triumphs of the LORD," the ESV clarifies by adding "the righteous triumphs of the LORD." Along with Micah 6:5, these are instances of the phrase tsidqot YHWH. (Cp. Dan 9:16, but there the RSV already had "thy righteous acts.") So the ESV's correcting of the RSV in these other passages would seem to suggest that the RSV's erroneous reading in the above five instances slipped past the committee without their full awareness.

In any event, Crossway quietly released a new text edition in 2007 with hundreds of changes. Perhaps they will consider these in a future revision.

Preface to the King James Version, quote 2

Here is the second quote from the Preface to the King James Version.

Translation Necessary

But how shall men meditate in that, which they cannot understand? How shall they understand that which is kept close in an unknown tongue? as it is written, Except I know the power of the voice, I shall be to him that speaketh, a Barbarian, and he that speaketh, shall be a Barbarian to me. [1 Cor 14] The Apostle excepteth no tongue; not Hebrew the ancientest, not Greek the most copious, not Latin the finest. Nature taught a natural man to confess, that all of us in those tongues which we do not understand, are plainly deaf; we may turn the deaf ear unto them. The Scythian counted the Athenian, whom he did not understand, barbarous; so the Roman did the Syrian, and the Jew (even S. Jerome himself calleth the Hebrew tongue barbarous, belike because it was strange to so many) so the Emperor of Constantinople calleth the Latin tongue, barbarous, though Pope Nicolas do storm at it: so the Jews long before Christ called all other nations, Lognazim, which is little better than barbarous. Therefore as one complaineth, that always in the Senate of Rome, there was one or other that called for an interpreter: so lest the Church be driven to the like exigent, it is necessary to have translations in a readiness. Translation it is that openeth the window, to let in the light; that breaketh the shell, that we may eat the kernel; that putteth aside the curtain, that we may look into the most Holy place; that removeth the cover of the well, that we may come by the water, even as Jacob rolled away the stone from the mouth of the well, by which means the flocks of Laban were watered [Gen 29:10]. Indeed without translation into the vulgar tongue, the unlearned are but like children at Jacob's well (which was deep) [John 4:11] without a bucket or something to draw with; or as that person mentioned by Isaiah, to whom when a sealed book was delivered, with this motion, Read this, I pray thee, he was fain to make this answer, I cannot, for it is sealed. [Isa 29:11]

Let us be thankful for the great tradition of the English Bible from Tyndale to the KJV to any number of modern English versions, and let us "eat the kernel" they provide.

Preface to the King James Version, quote 1

The translators of the King James Version (1611) penned a lengthy preface to their work titled "The Translators to the Reader." Their principal concern was to respond to certain objections that they anticipated would be raised against their work. But what interests me are two delightful passages, one an encomium praising the Scriptures, and the other an explanation of why it is necessary to have the Scriptures translated out of the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek into the vulgar tongues of the nations. The two quotes are actually connected and form one continuous portion of the Preface. I'll give the first quote today and the second quote tomorrow.

The Praise of the Holy Scriptures

It is not only an armor, but also a whole armory of weapons, both offensive and defensive; whereby we may save ourselves and put the enemy to flight. It is not an herb, but a tree, or rather a whole paradise of trees of life, which bring forth fruit every month, and the fruit thereof is for meat, and the leaves for medicine. It is not a pot of Manna, or a cruse of oil, which were for memory only, or for a meal's meat or two, but as it were a shower of heavenly bread sufficient for a whole host, be it never so great; and as it were a whole cellar full of oil vessels; whereby all our necessities may be provided for, and our debts discharged. In a word, it is a Panary of wholesome food, against fenowed traditions; a Physician's shop (Saint Basil calleth it) of preservatives against poisoned heresies; a Pandect of profitable laws, against rebellious spirits; a treasury of most costly jewels, against beggarly rudiments; finally a fountain of most pure water springing up unto everlasting life. And what marvel? The original thereof being from heaven, not from earth; the author being God, not man; the inditer, the holy spirit, not the wit of the Apostles or Prophets; the Penmen such as were sanctified from the womb, and endued with a principal portion of God's spirit; the matter* -- verity, piety, purity, uprightness; the form -- God's word, God's testimony, God's oracles, the word of truth, the word of salvation, etc.; the effects -- light of understanding, stableness of persuasion, repentance from dead works, newness of life, holiness, peace, joy in the holy Ghost; lastly, the end and reward of the study thereof -- fellowship with the Saints, participation of the heavenly nature, fruition of an inheritance immortal, undefiled, and that never shall fade away: Happy is the man that delighteth in the Scripture, and thrice happy that meditateth in it day and night.

[*I have taken the liberty of changing commas to dashes after "the matter," "the form," "the effects," and "the end and reward of the study thereof." I believe this makes the sense clearer.]