And he lifted up his eyes to his disciples and said,

Blessed are the poor,
because yours is the kingdom of God.
Blessed are those who are hungry now,
because you will be satisfied.
Blessed are those who weep now,
because you will laugh.
Blessed are you when people hate you, and when they exclude you and revile you and spurn your name as evil on account of the Son of Man.
Rejoice in that day, and leap for joy, for behold, your reward is great in heaven.
For their fathers used to do the same things to the prophets.

But woe to you who are rich,
because you have received your comfort.
Woe to you who are satisfied now,
because you will be hungry.
Woe, you who laugh now,
because you will mourn and weep.
Woe whenever all people speak well of you,
for their fathers used to do the same things to the false prophets.

But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. To the one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from the one who takes away your cloak, do not withhold your tunic also. Give to everyone who asks you, and from the one who takes away your things, do not ask for them back. And just as you want people to do to you do the same to them.

And if you love those who love you, what kind of credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them! And if you do good to those who do good to you, what kind of credit is that to you? Even the sinners do the same! And if you lend to those from whom you expect to receive back, what kind of credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, so that they may get back an equal amount! But love your enemies, and do good, and lend expecting back nothing, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful!

- Jesus (recorded in Luke vi.17-36)

Thank you, Jesus,
our great God come in the flesh,
taking on the humanity you gave me,
and making clear through your words and deeds,
through your commands and example,
what I am to do and say as your disciple.

May I love my enemies as you commanded.

May I take your words seriously as you desired.

May I bear the Good News today as you expected.

May I sacrifice my life for even the worst of terrorists as you did.

Amen.

What’s significant about his article is just how insignificant it is. Or, they are. Or, whatever. Don’t take that the wrong way. By insignificant I do not mean he fails to make an argument that needs to be looked at. I do not mean what he says doesn’t deserve a response.

By insignificant I mean there is absolutely nothing new here. And that’s significant.

. . . he spent a semi-thorough 5 paragraphs on the Old Testament, but only three pithy sentences on the New Testament. How is that a Christian argument?

Where is the reflection that David has taken the time to review the extensive amount of counter arguments and interpretations of the passages and concepts he brought up. Where is the evidence that he’s had discussions about these points with Christians from pacifist or non-violent legacies? Are we really to believe the passages he focused on have never been discussed by non-violent folks?

I will grant this (though, let it be known, I am not saying David French is necessarily doing the same thing here): there are some, from the justified violence side of town, who teach that there a passages that pacifists avoid and don’t talk about. Apparently we are incapable of dealing with these texts that ultimately condemn our beliefs. Now, they do this either unknowingly (they have simply never encountered our writings or discussions of these passages), or knowingly, which means they are lying and misleading their congregation.

I know all too well one particular case, but cannot say if the pastor was misleading his audience knowingly or unknowingly. We know pastors can sometimes get talking and end up saying a little bit much, even if they don’t believe it. During a midweek Bible Study session he gave a teaching called, How Can Peace Loving Christians Carry Guns and Go To War?  (Sermon Audio link) During the teaching he denigrated and insulted pacifism and pacifists. And toward the end he said,

Let’s look at some New Testament passages that look favorably on the bearing of arms, and soldiering as such. Not a major push . . . It’s certainly not condemning in the sense that the pacifists say that it is. I don’t hear them ever talk about the verses that we’re going to look at, because they’re pretty convincing as far as I can tell.

He said it: “I don’t hear them ever talk about the verses that we’re going to look at.”

What were those passages? First, he talked about John the Baptists in Luke iii.14, when the Roman soldiers talk to him while he was baptizing at the Jordan. Second, Jesus telling his apostles to buy swords. And third, Paul talking about Christians using a soldier as a metaphor or illustration. (I guess a fourth, which he included as an aside, is “the argument from silence,” pointing out that no passage in all of Scripture explicitly tells us not to take up arms or go to war.)

Straight to the point: of course we talk about these passages. They’ve been written about and discussed from the pacifist perspective for centuries. Last year I even reviewed a book about Early Church discussions of war, military, self-defense, etc. (The Early Church on Killing) where these particular points were covered. I’m not the only pacifist in this town; did he not talk to anyone? Did he not do a Google search? Was Amazon.com no help at all?

Hopefully I didn’t digress too long there. But the point I’m making circles right back to what David French failed to do: if he tried to find pacifist discussions of those passages he mentioned, then at the very least he did not show it. But it’s sadly all too typical.

But there is a second major point that Mr. French lays out so clearly. In his original article, what he referenced in the second article as “the Christian argument for self defense,” he spent a semi-thorough 5 paragraphs on the Old Testament, but only three pithy sentences on the New Testament. How is that a Christian argument? Where is the reflection of the extensive teachings and example of Jesus? Where is exegesis of John’s Apocalypse? What happened to the words of Peter, James, Paul, Luke? He spent more time with John Locke than he did Jesus of Nazareth. How is that a Christian argument?

But that again is sadly typical. One of the most important aspects of Anabaptism that I quickly latched onto was that Jesus was the center of it all. Jesus is at the core of the faith, and his life, teachings, death, resurrection, ascension, and mission for the Church are the focus for Christians. We start with Jesus. We’re Christians; why would we start anywhere else?

Folks on the side of a justified (or even mandated) Christian use of violence need to engage the writings and teachings and sermons of pacifists. Otherwise they’ll be on the outskirts of relevance. Our relationship to violence is an incredibly important issue. And instead of a positive, reflective, exegetical reading and presentation of the teachings of Jesus and Scripture to understand that relationship to violence and how we as Christians must deal act in the world, folks like Mr. French simply present the same old monologue. We’re simply supposed to read it, understand that we were wrong, and make sure we’re ready to hurt somebody we consider a threat to our well being.

Don’t be ready to love, to speak truth, to speak and act like Jesus told us to. No. No. No. We need to put on our WWJLD? bracelets–What Would John Locke Do?–and feel justified when we “destroy” people.

I still have no idea what the guy from Lost has to do with any of this. I know he was a man of faith, but he really wasn’t a Christian on and off the island.

Ἰωάννης ταῖς ἑπτὰ ἐκκλησίαις ταῖς ἐν τῇ Ἀσίᾳ· χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος, καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν ἑπτὰ πνευμάτων ἃ ἐνώπιον τοῦ θρόνου αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἀπὸ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὁ μάρτυς ὁ πιστός, ὁ πρωτότοκος τῶν νεκρῶν καὶ ὁ ἄρχων τῶν βασιλέων τῆς γῆς.

Τῷ ἀγαπῶντι ἡμᾶς καὶ λύσαντι ἡμᾶς ἐκ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν ἐν τῷ αἵματι αὐτοῦ—καὶ ἐποίησεν ἡμᾶς βασιλείαν, ἱερεῖς τῷ θεῷ καὶ πατρὶ αὐτοῦ— αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν.

From John, to the seven churches that are in the province of Asia: Grace and peace to you from he who is, and who was, and who is still to come, and from the seven spirits who are before his throne, and from Jesus Christ – the faithful witness, the firstborn from among the dead, the ruler over the kings of the earth.

To the one who loves us and has set us free from our sins at the cost of his own blood and has appointed us as a kingdom, as priests serving his God and Father – to him be the glory and the power for ever and ever! Amen. (NET)

In these few sentences alone are some powerful declarations that I think we might miss if we reading the text with a futuristic prophecy perspective. Remember the context during which John was writing these words: the Roman Empire is strong, powerful, authoritative. The Emperor has complete reign over the people within the conquered world. Christianity is still fairly young and being ravaged by persecution in various regions of the empire. If you read the text for what it is you find the anti-empire proclamations.

First, the one being called “he who is, and who was, and who is still to come” is God. Not the emperor, but God. Not Claudius. Not Nero. Not Galba, or Otho, or Vitellius, or Vespasian. Not Titus, the mighty destroyer of the Jerusalem temple, and especially not Domitian. God alone is, was, and is to come. And God sits on a throne, unmatched by man.

Second, Jesus is called “the ruler over the kings of the earth.” This is a radical statement that too often is under-emphasized (not just in this text, but throughout the Scriptures; not just in our reading, but in our daily lives, in our national context). Yet, this is what truly sets the tone for the rest of The Apocalypse. Jesus is the true ruler. He is King of kings and Lord of lords. Those of us who are his subjects (his disciples, his friends, his followers) must place our allegiance with him and no others. We cannot split our allegiance. Not that we must not, but that we are unable to. We either serve the King of kings, or we serve one of the kings of the earth.

Jesus is called ὁ πρωτότοκος τῶν νεκρῶν, ”the firstborn from among the dead.” If you think back to the letter to the Colossians, and the contrast made between Jesus and the Emperor (Col. i.15-20), Paul there also called Jesus πρωτότοκος ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν, “the firstborn from among the dead.” He is the one to worship, who brings life to the dead, who rules even over death. The Emperor doesn’t even come close.

Third is the most obvious, radical, rebellious statement: Jesus “has appointed us as a kingdom, serving his God and Father.” We are a kingdom. In the middle of this vast, powerful, authoritative, Roman Empire, Jesus has appointed his disciples “as a kingdom.” We are a kingdom here on this earth amid the many earthly kingdoms, and we have Jesus as our King. We are what Jesus wants to do on the earth. We must be obedient in our service.

All of the imperial language is intentional. Worshipping Jesus–placing your allegiance in Jesus–puts your life in contrast with the kingdoms of the earth, with the Empire. And this is a great encouragement. Why? Because you have the King of kings, Lord of lords, ruler over the kings of the earth, master over death, and the one seated on the throne over all creation, on your side.

Do not get sidetracked by phrases like “kingdoms of the earth.” The US is an empire as much as Rome was. It looks a bit different, but the ideology and activities aren’t that different at all. Just because we do not technically have a king or royalty doesn’t mean we do not have a kingdom of the earth. So when you’re considering how to apply this text today, keep in mind the context and that the world truly hasn’t changed all that much. Empire is Empire.

What stuck out to me this time was ton Dauid ton basilea, “King David,” in the genealogy. Matthew was really trying to add credibility to the regal status of Jesus, who was God with us.

The New Living Translation brings you Give the Word Bible Contest & Giveaway.

Enter the Sweepstakes. Simply select which ministry you want to vote for (Wycliffe, Oasis, Dream Center), and enter your information for a chance to win a trip to Orlando, Fl., resources, and more.

Check it out!

Also, check out the various opportunities via the Give the Word tab.

Plus, if you have a look around their Facebook page, you’ll likely find more wonderful treats.

The Sermon on the Mount is a primary, crucial, fundamental, vital (or choose any other similar adjective you like) portion of not only the Gospels, but of the New Testament and Bible as a whole. In Matthew’s “Sermon,” the CEB translators probably had David Crowder Band on the brain.

Happy are people who are downcast . . .

Happy are people who grieve . . .

Happy are people who are humble . . .

Happy are people who are hungry and thirsty for righteousness . . .

Happy are people who show mercy . . .

Happy are people who have pure hearts . . .

Happy are people who make peace . . .

Happy are people whose lives are harassed because they are righteous . . .

I can’t say I’m all that happy with happy. While happy is one of the words that fits the meaning of makarios, I don’t see it working in this passage. We tend to understand happiness as an emotion, something that changes with our mood, reactions, circumstances. Happy conveys a smile, a cheeriness. And though in a sense there’s truth to the happiness in connection with what Jesus said (grieving, the harassed; is “downcast” really a good translation?), it’s not what he meant.

I think it will cause more confusion than anything.

Later in Matthew’s text, when Peter proclaims (his misunderstanding of?) who Jesus was, the CEB reads:

Then Jesus replied, “Happy are you (makarios ei), Simon son of Jonah, because no human has shown this to you.” Mt. xvi.17

Happy doesn’t make sense to me here. Take the phrase, “Happy are you.” I’ve never said that. I’ve never read that. I’ve never heard anyone else say that. It doesn’t come off as normal, common English. And Jesus was definitely not telling Peter that the disciple was really happy and giddy.

I want to look at another example. Even later in Matthew’s text we run into this passage:

“Who then are the faithful and wise servants whom their master puts in charge of giving food at the right time to those who live in his house? Happy (makarios) are those servants whom the master finds fulfilling their responsibilities when he comes. I assure you that he will put them in charge of all his possessions.” Mt. xxiv.45-47

Happy here brings the focus of the sentence on the servants. And that’s not the point; the focus is on the master and what he is doing. While most translations render makarios here blessed, not straying from how they translated the word in Mt. v, I think it’s easy to see the idea of favor in this passage. And favor is one of the translation options for makarios.

In fact, while most translations of Revelation i.3 use “Blessed,” “God blesses,” or some other variation of blessed, the CEB has

Favored (makarios) is the one who reads the words of this prophecy out loud, and favored are those who listen to it being read, and keep what is written in it.

While I can see favored here in Revelation as a good rendering, I don’t believe “Favored is the one” makes a compelling case for “common English.” There has to be an easier, less awkward way to put the phrases together. And, although favored I think fits better in Mt. xxiv than happy does, neither works out well in the so called Beatitudes.

Someone might consider it a trivial issue. But, I find the Sermon on the Mount so critical to Christianity that we need a clear reading of the text available. There is no need to be watering down or confusing a reader.

But, I must say I appreciate the translation of Mt. v.48:

Therefore, just as your heavenly Father is complete in showing love to everyone, so also you must be complete.

I like the added explanation, “in showing love to everyone.” That should definitely clear up the confusion.

easier to read and understand. For many, reading the Bible and then truly grasping what it means can be a challenge. Yet the Bible is meant for everyone. The Common English Bible is a brand new translation of the Bible in a language that readers naturally speak and communicate—a common language.

Here’s a little test for you. There isn’t necessarily a right answer. Just be honest. Go with your gut.

I’ll list several translations of a passage. The CEB will be one of them. As you read these translations, answer these questions: (1) Which is the CEB translation?; and (2) Which is the most comfortable, readable English version?

First passage, Mark i.21-22:

• (A) Jesus and his companions went to the town of Capernaum, and every Sabbath day he went into the synagogue and taught the people. They were amazed at his teaching, for he taught as one who had real authority––quite unlike the teachers of religious law.
• (B) Jesus and his followers went into Capernaum. Immediately on the Sabbath Jesus entered the synagogue and started teaching. The people were amazed by his teaching, for he was teaching them with authority, not like the legal experts.
• (C) They went to Capernaum; and when the sabbath came, he entered the synagogue and taught. They were astounded at his teaching, for he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.
• (D) Then they went to Capernaum. When the Sabbath came, Jesus went into the synagogue and began to teach. The people there were amazed by his teaching, because he taught them like one who had authority, not like the experts in the law.

So, think about it for a minute. Read them over again. Then, answer. Which of these four is the CEB? And, then, which of these three do you think is most comfortable, most readable, in English? I only picked four, and there are many more English translations out there. So I’m not asking for the most readable of all translations out there . . . just these four.

Is there any of these four that you think read poorly for an English translation?

Here’s another passage to look at: John vi.32.

• (A) Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, Moses did not give you the bread from heaven, but My Father gives you the true bread from heaven.
• (B) Jesus said, “I assure you, Moses didn’t give them bread from heaven. My Father did. And now he offers you the true bread from heaven.
• (C) Jesus told them, “I assure you, it wasn’t Moses who gave the bread from heaven to you, but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven.”
• (D) Jesus responded, “The real significance of that Scripture is not that Moses gave you bread from heaven but that my Father is right now offering you bread from heaven, the real bread.

Again, run through the same questions. Take a minute.

Do you have your answers?

Whether you do or not, you’re probably ready to move on and find out which was which. Well, here you go.
Mark i.21-22:

• (A) Jesus and his companions went to the town of Capernaum, and every Sabbath day he went into the synagogue and taught the people. They were amazed at his teaching, for he taught as one who had real authority––quite unlike the teachers of religious law. New Living Translation (NLT)
• (B) Jesus and his followers went into Capernaum. Immediately on the Sabbath Jesus entered the synagogue and started teaching. The people were amazed by his teaching, for he was teaching them with authority, not like the legal experts. Common English Bible (CEB)
• (C) They went to Capernaum; and when the sabbath came, he entered the synagogue and taught. They were astounded at his teaching, for he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes. New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
• (D) Then they went to Capernaum. When the Sabbath came, Jesus went into the synagogue and began to teach. The people there were amazed by his teaching, because he taught them like one who had authority, not like the experts in the law. New English Translation (NET)

John vi.32.

• (A) Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, Moses did not give you the bread from heaven, but My Father gives you the true bread from heaven. New King James Version (NKJV)
• (B) Jesus said, “I assure you, Moses didn’t give them bread from heaven. My Father did. And now he offers you the true bread from heaven. New Living Translation (NLT)
• (C) Jesus told them, “I assure you, it wasn’t Moses who gave the bread from heaven to you, but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven.” Common English Bible (CEB)
• (D) Jesus responded, “The real significance of that Scripture is not that Moses gave you bread from heaven but that my Father is right now offering you bread from heaven, the real bread. The Message (MSG)

So. How’d you do? Or, I guess, more relevant to this post, did your guess of which one was the CEB match up with your idea of which one presented the more readable, comfortable English?
I must say, though this is early in my readings of this translation, I have not been all that impressed. In fact, I’ve struggled to see the translation as very easy to read for us English folk. It staggers, stutters, and feels choppy at times. It fortunately seems to avoid the theo-technical terms like justification, but then unfortunately turns repent into “Change your hearts and lives” (see Mk. i.4, Ac. ii.38).

There’s still more reading to do. Honestly, I’d much rather the great minds and hearts behind these English translations turn to help the more than 2,000 languages out there that don’t have a word of the Scriptures in their heart language yet. For us English reading folk, the NLT, NET, NASB, and NRSV are plenty good enough. The New Living Translation and New English Translation are my top choices.

Have you read the Common English Bible yet? What are your thoughts? What translations do you prefer? Why?

Bock wrote,

For example, in treating the authorship of the gospels (all of them), he does not address any of the external evidence for authorship that comes from sources like Eusebius or Irenaeus or any of the canonical church lists. This is historical evidence and ignoring it prejudices his volume’s work, cutting out one of the two key factors one has to address in treating authorship, namely external evidence for a work’s authorship. Vincent Taylor and C. E. B. Cranfield regarded such evidence as decisive in treating this question in terms of Mark’s gospel.

Bart Ehrman hasn’t kept his prejudices out of his work; the popular Misquoting Jesus is a prime example, where they are subtle enough to entrap the unsuspecting and more gullible. But, they are masked within a lot of good information, accurate history, and so forth. Too bad it’s nowhere near comprehensive history, and stays away from balance and a fair presentation of various arguments.

Ehrman has a very strong anti-Christian, anti-God bias that he premises all of his works with. That becomes very clear, as Darrell Bock pointed out, with what Ehrman does not talk about. Especially when discussing the history of New Testament documents. Keep watch. Don’t necessarily not read Bart Ehrman. But, if and when you do, remember to keep watch.

Public Service Announcement for the day.

This is the revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His true worshippers what must happen soon. And He revealed it by sending a special messenger to His servant John, who gave a witness to what he saw concerning the Word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ.

The one who reads out the words of this prophecy, and those who listen and pay attention to what is written in it, are blessed because the time for their fulfillment is incredibly near.

The portion here that got me thinking and meditating more than any other element was the end: “ο γαρ καιρος εγγυς,” which I translated here “because the time for their fulfillment is incredibly near.” I guess a wooden literal translation looks more like

the (ο) for (γαρ) time (καιρος) near (εγγυς)

But simply saying “the time is near” is too ambiguous and non-committal for me. The time of what? When exactly is near? The καιρος, or time, refers to the fulfillment of the words of the prophecy, the message or revealing of “what must happen soon.”

I see the time, the nearness (εγγυς), as clearly imminent. If you look into the meaning and use of the term εγγυς (pronounced engous if you’re interested in sounding it out) throughout the New Testament, εγγυς itself testifies to either some thing or place extremely close in proximity, or, when talking about time, about some event occurring imminently; or, relatively speaking, closer to a matter of days than to millennia. While εγγυς is indefinite, as in not giving you a specific number of days or weeks, there is no question we are supposed to expect the fulfillment of the nearness, of the εγγυς, happening very, very soon. And “soon” did not mean 2,000 or so years later.

The first literal translation of the Received Text of the Bible in four centuries

Real Word Of God
Real Bible, Real English, no paraphrase, no religious jargon

The translation process has been through several filters: submission to textual correction by 60 Bible translators,; [sic] exposure to 320 Bible scholars and theologians from mainstream universities; offered for review to 11,800 Christian congregational leaders

On the About Us page, they said,

We have come up with an approach that offers a direct literal translation of the original Hebrew Masoretic text of the Old Testament and the Greek Textus Receptus of the New Testament, into simple but accurate non-religious English as spoken by people who do not live in the Christian religious ghetto

The texts they have translated so far are not freely available. From what I could see, they will at some point have a physical Bible available, leather bound. For now, though, you can download electronic versions through Smashwords. To obtain a copy of a translated text you would need to pay; and that’s one thing I absolutely cannot stand, regardless of the quality of the translation. Why does the Word of God have to be bought and sold?

You can, however, view a sampling. I clicked on Mark, then View Sample under Online Reading (HTML). On page 3 the translation begins, and you can check the words against the claim of being a "direct literal translation . . . simple but accurate non-religious English as spoken by people who do not live in the Christian religious ghetto." Here is a very pivotal section in Mark i. The translators for Real apparently don’t like to use periods:

Now while he was walking by the Galilee Sea, he saw Simon 10 and his brother Andrew 11 throwing a net into the sea – they were fishermen, 1.17 and Jesus told them, “Come after me, and I will make you fishers of men,” 1.18 and they immediately abandoned their nets, and they followed him, 1.19 and when he went a little farther, he saw Zebedee’s 12 Jacob 13 and his brother John in the ship too, mending their nets, 1.20 and immediately he called them and they left their father Zebedee in the ship with the hired staff and went after him, 1.21 and they went into Capernaum and he immediately entered inside the sinagog on the Exodus 16.26 Sha-bat, and he taught, 1.22 and they were astonished at his teaching because he taught them like one who had authority, and not like the Writers 14, 1.23 and a man with a filthy spirit was in their sinagog and he shouted out, 1.24 “Leave us alone. What do we have to do with you, you Jesus 1 of Nazaret 7?

If you didn’t catch it, that was one complete sentence. It’s virtually incomprehensible. But the problems are not limited to punctuation; there are issues with English word choice and grammar. I’m honestly highly suspicious of the statement that there were 60 translators involved, it was exposed to 320 Bible scholars and theologians, and so on; of course that does not mean those scholars sent back any criticism or correction the Real translators utilized. But, those are not details I know about. I can only go off of what I read and see. And I am not seeing anything here that I would ever pass on to an English speaker/reader that needed a Bible.

Now, this is the path of life:
First, you will love God, your creator;
Second, you will love your neighbor just as you love yourself;
And, do not do to others whatever it is that you do not wish happening to you.

This short passage was a little tricky at first; I can tell I’m getting a little rusty in certain areas. That’s why it’s so important to keep your Greek up; a little bit everyday helps a lot.

τον πλησιον σου ως σεαυτον (trans. “your neighbor as yourself”) is a straight copy of either Mat. xxii.39, Mk. xii.31, or Lk. x.27. I would like to think Mark, but it’s more likely something recited so often by the time the Didache was written that the author(s) simply went from memory.

If you’re unfamiliar with that text, that would be the first three verses of The Apocalypse, or as most know it today, Revelation.

For many people, the New Testament canon has only 26 texts. The Apocalypse tends to be left out for various reasons. I hope that changes. The sooner the better.

I’ve learned not to make any real promises about what I’ll be writing about on here, as I’ve got plenty unfinished blog-projects out there. So I’m not going to say what I’m going to be doing…in case I don’t do anything at all. But I think it would be fun and beneficial to work through this text, to discover just how relevant it is for the Church today.

Now, I don’t come at it from a dispensational, premillenial, rapture-ous, perspective. I’ve mentioned before, I’m far more a preterist than anything else. More and more, I am convinced this text offers more so a presentation of the powerful love of Jesus than it does about wrath and carnage.

But, I’d also like to go through the Greek text of the letters of Ignatius. Oh…what to do?

Paul’s salutation is formidable. Some would call it long. While reading that passage this morning, immediately my mind went to the prologue of Brother Andrew and Al Janssen’s Secret Believers: What Happens When Muslims Believe in Christ. There, Brother Andrew recalled a correspondense he had with a Muslim political leader. He began the letter to the Muslim “Dear Sir.” In his response, the Muslim wrote, “Dear Brother Andrew. In the name of Allah, the compassionate and the merciful.”

Brother Andrew struggled with the response. Not in the idea of who Allah was, but with the unashamed proclamation of what, to the Muslim, surpassed the importance of anything else he could have said. For Brother Andrew, he felt the need to do likewise in his own response. When the time came, he wrote this:

“Dear _[name left blank]_. In the Name of the Lord, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin.”

We need to be conscious about opportunities we have to present the triune God to those around us. Sometimes we’ll miss them, but we should take those as chances to grow and adjust our perspective. Most of the time our witness of the triune God is nonverbal. But when we do speak, when we write, do we consider that our words—all words—have meaning and significance? And what we don’t say or fail to say may be just as important as what we do say.

Some thoughts this Thursday evening.

I have been participating in the women’s Bible studies that our church has been offering over the past couple of years. I have really enjoyed those studies and God has always used them to richly bless me and lead me into a deeper understanding of Himself. During this last study that we just completed we studied the Exodus story and I found myself drawn to some simple observances throughout the narrative. I guess in a way it has kind of compelled me to theorize a bit and I feel called to really study the Old Testament in detail.

I have decided that this quest of mine may be helpful to others as well, so I am starting this series here on the good old blog and calling it “His Story of Shalom.” My theory is that as I study the Old Testament I will find, as in the Exodus passages, time and again where God has intervened to direct the course of man back to His original plan for man before the fall, which is Shalom. I truly believe that God’s main purpose for humanity is Shalom and I think proof of that can be found, not just in the New Testament, but in the Old Testament as well.

I do not know how long this series will be, but I do pray that God will grant me wisdom and help me to be as thorough, comprehensive, and balanced as possible. I look forward to the journey and I hope you decide to come along as well!

When I read Dr. White’s post, I noticed the focus of the post was not on Bible translation, but on a debate he’s engaged in and within the context of that debate his opponent used the Message and the New Living Translation as supports for his denial that this text encompasses the entirety of God’s sovereign decree.

The focus of the post is not Bible translation, or to debate the nature and translation work behind the mentioned translations. But what I found intriguing was what Dr. White said about the New Living Translation:

Their “rendering” (I use the term loosely) of the text are as follows:

It’s in Christ that we find out who we are and what we are living for. Long before we first heard of Christ and got our hopes up, he had his eye on us, had designs on us for glorious living, part of the overall purpose he is working out in everything and everyone. (The Message)

Furthermore, because we are united with Christ, we have received an inheritance from God, for he chose us in advance, and he makes everything work out according to his plan. (The New Living Translation)

The Message, of course, is not a translation at all, and the NLT is really stretching it to use the term “translation” in its name. Despite this, the NLT is still accurate in having “he makes everything work out according to his plan.” (emphasis added)

While I can understand his statement about The Message, I do not agree with his depiction of the NLT. Or, at least, I’m not sure what he means. The NLT is a high quality English translation (opinion, I guess; mine versus his). The scholarly work that went into the translation is evident throughout. Just because the English isn’t high brow, stale as a college textbook, and doesn’t need a thesaurus as a companion, does not mean its status as a true translation and role as a text all Christians can use in study are in question. Yet, Dr. White went on to consider the NLT as not on par with “scholarly translations”:

But scholarly translations are consistent in their rendering of the text

He went on to list the NASB, NET, ASV, ESV, NKJV, HCSB, and NRSV within the “scholarly translation” category. I’ve listened to Dr. White talk about translations in the past, discussions about the translation process, studies and work he’s done in the past, and have been impressed with his knowledge about the original languages and textual criticism, and what it takes to produce a translation and the importance of doing so. But I wonder why he would not consider the NLT a scholarly translation. Was it because the translations he considered “scholarly” used predestination (one had having been destined and another having been foreordained)? Or is there something in particular with the NLT going on? Does it have to do with word choice or the process behind it?

I guess that is a question for everyone.

For those interested in more info about the New Living Translation, check out their site and that of Tyndale.

Tags: new living translation, nlt, translation, bible, new testament

We all play a role in the body. We have different strengths, gifts, talents. But relying on the work of others? That’s typically more difficult to deal with. Those called to be the pastors (I call them elders, but I’m referring here to those more popularly understood as the teachers/preachers on Sunday mornings) should pastor. They should not be expected to or asked to handle Greek and Hebrew translation. Nor should they be overly concerned with exegesis. Rich mentioned a situation with a passage where to

figure that out I had to do a lot of fairly sophisticated exegesis, of a kind that linguists and Greek professors do, but is well out of the range of your average pastor.

Much of the time, I do not want my elders to talk about “the Greek.” I mean no disrespect when I say it’s hard to remember a time when the pastor was right. “The Greek says…” and I end up shaking my head and giving a little sigh.

But I should not be expecting them to make that journey. I do not want them to go back and study Greek. I want the Greek and Hebrew to be handled by those gifted and called by the Lord to do so. They are the ones that should be handling the translation work, and they are the ones that should take that work very, very seriously. They need to hand off translations to the pastors so the pastors can communicate to and guide the people.

As Rich wrote

Yet the kind of translations that are out there hang pastors like Paul out to dry. They often know that there’s a problem, but they don’t have the tools to deal with it. That’s why they consult different translations, hoping that somehow the “real” meaning will emerge as some kind of compromise among them.

No, it’s a problem of wrong priorities in Bible translation. If our translations require our pastors to do the exegesis that the translator should have done, who is God going to hold responsible for the lack of understanding of His Word and the lack of growth among His people?

Hint: It won’t be the pastors.

But that’s just my quick look at it. This is an issue I’ve pondered for a while and have more thoughts. However, I would love to see yours.

I’ve listened to Ehrman in debates and interviews, but have not read any of his works yet: academic, popular (e.g. these two books would fall under that classification) or otherwise. I am familiar with what his conclusions are, but wanted to wrestle through his evidence and argumentation. From what I have listened to, I agree with many of his points, and think he makes a lot of valid, challenging observations.

So far in Misquoting Jesus (I’m just shy of starting chapter 2) Ehrman has given a sensible summary of the early development of the canon and of the Church using written works as authoritative. Much of it I said myself in the Church History class I led last year. But there are some areas I’ve found that sort of bring out the idea that he might be keeping some (possibly) important information from the readers—at least in my mind.

For example, on page 23, first full paragraph, Ehrman talked a little about people writing epistles using the name of an Apostle. In the example, Colossians is “allegedly pseudonymous.” And in Colossians, the author wrote about “the letter written to Laodicea” (Col. iv.16). Ehrman concluded

Evidently Paul—either himself, or someone writing in his name—wrote a letter to the nearby town of Laodicea. This letter too has been lost.

He included a footnote at the end of that passage. The footnote (#6, found on page 220) talked about a couple of forged letters that showed up later on that tried to hold the stature of this lost epistle. What I did was note this case down in the back of my mind. And, yes, here on this blog. What has been bugging me about it is where is the discussion about the letter known as Ephesians possibly (likely?) being that letter to Laodicea? Why is that omitted entirely from the footnote? Why was he limiting the information given to his audience of mostly non-students of textual criticism? Why were we left with the idea of only two options: the letter from the mighty apostle Paul, Scripture as much as his other epistles, either should have been preserved or was totally lost?

He was trying to build his particular case. To Ehrman, there is a big problem with the reliability of the Bible. The matter goes beyond infallibility and inerrancy; we’re talking whether or not anyone can trust anything written in the Scriptures. So it seems to me he has a plan to limit the evidence and argumentation to the information that will swiftly promote (even in subtle ways) his case. I think this particular example was subtle. He could have very easily added another line to the footnote that mentioned the other various possibilities for the epistle to Laodicea.

Then I came to this little passage:

In any event, Jesus’s teachings were soon seen to be as authoritative as the pronouncements of Moses—that is, those of the Torah itself. This becomes even more clear later in the New Testament period, in the book of 1 Timothy, allegedly by Paul but frequently taken by scholars to have been written in his name by a later follower. In 1 Tim. 5:18 the author is urging his readers to pay those who minister among them, and supports his exhortation by quoting “the scripture.” . . .

. . . Evidence comes in the final book that most critical scholars believe was not actually written by Peter but by one of his followers, pseudonymously. (pg. 31, emphasis mine)

Key into what I have italicized: scholars and most critical scholars. That is all well and good. It’s good to bring in the support of scholars not yourself. The problem is he never mentioned even one of the scholars or one source where we might look into that. Ehrman left no footnote anywhere near these passages. Why not mention a couple, especially when you are talking about “most” of them? Would not a reader take a little extra interest in checking out that information on 2 Peter or 1 Timothy? The term “scholar” is as subjective these days as are “good” or “essential.” Alone this is a minor issue. But add it to the last one, and some other parts of the story not being told, and you start to see a trend.

Now, I know full well there is a major underlying problem, and Ehrman is playing off of that problem perfectly. I’m talking about the enormous amount of ignorance and apathy from a great many in the Church when it comes to the Bible. I don’t mean people not reading their Bibles and/or not understanding it. I don’t mean they don’t pay attention to their pastors and Sunday School teachers. I mean there is no education ongoing about the history of the Bible, the story behind the Scriptures. I posed a course on the history of the Bible as a possible Sunday School class at our church come the winter and that idea was shunned. When I covered the topic of how the Bible developed in the Church History course, I did not have the time to handle the subject. The Sunday morning services have not (and will not) cover these issues. I’ve encountered the same sort of experience in the various churches I’ve been a part of during my (relatively short) time. And I am well aware of others—friends or folks I’ve read from or listened to who’ve happened to touch on this lack of instruction (e.g. a recent interview with Daniel Wallace)—who have experienced the same thing.

Getting back to Bart Ehrman’s book, I have found a lot of good points in there. The discussion of the canon, Marcion, Irenaeus, and Athanasius, for instance (pp. 33-36), was a simple and astute summary. Surely he left out more of the story, but he’s not wrong.

The book is an easy read, and I’m able to move along fairly quickly. And that’s in spite of my notoriously slow reading. Takes me way too long to read a stinkin’ book. Anyway, I look forward to getting into his discussion of the scribes and the specific problem areas he comes up with. Of course, all of this leading perfectly into his latest, Jesus Interrupted.

Logos Bible Software is celebrating the launch of their new online Bible by giving away 72 ultra-premium print Bibles at a rate of 12 per month for six months. The Bible giveaway is being held at Bible.Logos.com and you can get up to five different entries each month! After you enter, be sure to check out Logos and see how it can revolutionize your Bible study.

Of course, let’s not forget that we need to also consider those who have no Bible yet available in their language. How would you feel if there was no Bible available in English? Support the translation efforts on going via folks like Wycliffe Bible Translators or Pioneer Bible Translators.

He then said to the woman, “Go, and sin no more.”

Astounding. Subversive. Wise. Unbiblical.

Wait. What? Unbiblical?

Well, yeah.

That story as we find it in John’s Good News account probably didn’t happen at all. Maybe a piece of it did. Possibly. There’s always a chance.

We really should just cast it away. I certainly would not mind. It’s really just in the way.

(Keep in mind, none of this is new information. No esoteric revelations here. This has been known for quite a long time. I’m simply packaging the information here in order to lay the foundation for some questions on the Scriptures, in particular to those who maybe haven’t explored these avenues of New Testament studies. And if you are a believer in the inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible, I hope you’ll pay keen attention and take a little challenge.)

The story of the woman caught in adultery, known as the Pericope Adulterae, was not a part of John’s gospel initially. We know at least that much. Here are some points to consider:

1. The earliest manuscripts, which include two very important papyri in P66 and P75, do not include the story. The first manuscript to have the passage shows up in the Fifth or Sixth Century.
2. When the story is included in later manuscripts, the placement is inconsistent. Some have the story where we generally find it, after vii.52. Others have it at the end of John’s gospel entirely. Still others have it in Luke’s gospel, after xxi.38.
3. References in the Early Fathers to a story (sometimes referencing the Gospel) about a woman who had sinned and Jesus saying something along the lines of “Go, for neither do I condemn you.” vary widely. Some say she confessed herself, others have her not being condemned by the leaders, others leave out the whole “Let him without sin…” statement, and so forth.
4. The passage (Jo. vii.53-viii.11) disrupts the flow of the narrative. If you start reading back at, say, vii.1, and read through viii.30, but skip over the adultery passage starting at vii.53, you understand a little better what Jesus says. Not only that, but you get a more accurate portrayal of what Jesus said. (At least, that’s my conclusion, though I’m essentially agreeing with others far more accredited than me.)

[At best the passage is a compilation of several apocryphal stories circulating in the early centuries. That's not unheard of.]¹ At some point a scribe inserted a version of the story into a later manuscript (maybe in the margin, maybe into a gap he saw). But the story does not belong there. The story never did.

I believe the footnote for this passage in the New English Translation makes the point far better than I ever could:

This entire section, 7:53-8:11, traditionally known as the pericope adulterae, is not contained in the earliest and best mss and was almost certainly not an original part of the Gospel of John. Among modern commentators and textual critics, it is a foregone conclusion that the section is not original but represents a later addition to the text of the Gospel. B. M. Metzger summarizes: “the evidence for the non-Johannine origin of the pericope of the adulteress is overwhelming” (TCGNT 187).²

The passage is not Scripture. But that conclusion is not the point of this post. The fact is most readers of the Bible knew that already; or at least they’ve had that information at their fingertips. I have not come across a New Testament translation that does not have this passage bracketed or at least contain a notation of some kind. The footnotes usually include the point that the earliest (or some) manuscripts do not contain the passage.

But before I get to the heart of it, I think we need to talk briefly about why the passage shows up in our Bibles. Daniel Wallace, professor of NT studies at Dallas Theological Seminary and all around New Testament Greek and manuscript history freak, said that

modern translations’ inclusion of the famous narrative . . . [was] the result of “a tradition of timidity.”³

I recently heard Peter Williams, in a debate with Bart Ehrman wherein they discussed this passage briefly, rightly point out the spurious story was not going to be excluded from modern translations because publishers would sell less Bibles.⁴ Both Wallace and Williams (as well as Ehrman, I should add) are spot on.

While the strongest and earliest manuscripts do not contain the passage, the Textus Receptus (TR) does. The TR, put together in the early Sixteenth Century, is the basis for the King James Version. Because of the relationship the TR has with the KJV, the TR tends to be the exemplar for what’s known as the Majority Text. As the name indicates, the Majority Text refers to how the Greek text looks in the majority of the manuscripts we have discovered so far. The story exists in this manuscript group.

Anyone holding strictly to the Majority Text (whether that’s specifically the Textus Receptus or not) or even to one of the Majority Text translations (which you find in the King James Only community) have serious textual critical problems to deal with. As I do not have the space and time on this post to discuss the issues, I would welcome you to read a quality article. Wallace wrote a piece that’s on bible.org: The Majority Text and the Original Text: Are They Identical? In essence, Majority Text’ers do not have much of a leg to stand on when declaring the Majority Text is better than looking critically into all the manuscript evidence and seeing the significance of the earlier manuscripts. Back to the NET footnote on this passage:

. . . Therefore the [external] evidence could be summarized by saying that almost all early mss of the Alexandrian texttype omit the pericope, while most mss of the Western and Byzantine texttype include it. But it must be remembered that “Western mss” here refers only to D, a single witness (as far as Greek mss are concerned). Thus it can be seen that practically all of the earliest and best mss extant omit the pericope; it is found only in mss of secondary importance.⁵

For the sake of clarity, I am not saying we should only be looking at the earliest manuscripts as opposed to using only the majority text, or what the majority of the manuscripts display. I would be in danger if I were to stand firmly on either side. We must use all available resources and be critical of the text, no matter what section we might be focused on at that time. My second year Greek professor years back, Dr. Coombs, used the majority text predominantly, and almost exclusively in our class; I still used the UBS almost exclusively in the class so I could catch the differences (Greek is an oral language, very nice). Dr. Coombs, wrote his Ph.D. dissertation on a comparison between the critical and majority texts (ended up being two volumes). He was very influential in my grasping so early the importance of looking at the full body of evidence.

KJV onlyists tend to be intolerant about this sort of thing, and raise a lot of objections with the differences. I have a KJV on my bookshelf; who doesn’t. The footnote there says

Although Jn. 7:53-8:11 is not found in some ancient manuscripts, the immediate context, beginning with Christ’s declaration, “I am the light of the world,” (8:12) seems clearly to have its occassion in the conviction wrought in the hearts of the Pharisees as recorded in 8:9, and also helps to explain the Pharisees’ words in 8:41. It is therefore to be considered a genuine part of the Gospel. (emphasis mine)

The footnote did not indicate what those “some ancient manuscripts” are and their immense historical significance. The note seemingly ignores the historical record, emphasizing the bias of the interpretation over and against the evidence. The note did not mention how the story as found in the Textus Receptus did not show up in the manuscript records until relatively late in history, as well as how much the story varies in different manuscripts.

Here’s a quick sidebar on footnotes. I truly wonder how many Bible readers check the footnotes. Not comparing my text here to Scripture, but did you happen to check out footnote 1 above? I placed a sentence in brackets and gave it a notation. If you had read the notation (which, I guess, you can still do when you’re done with the article) you would have learned a little tid-bitty about me. While I can’t track it, I’m wondering how many folks saw the brackets and the footnote and scrolled down to see what that was about.

And here’s where we get to the heart of this post. After going through the probably very disjointed discussion above, here’s why I believe it matters so much whether or not we continue to include this passage in our Bibles, and especially have this passage taught from the pulpits or Sunday School classes. From a Christianity Today article in 2008:

Wallace said pastors have a responsibility to communicate the truth of this text to their congregations. “We need to be as thoroughly biblical as we can be … [There] is a huge amount of ignorance that we’re catering to in the Christian public.

“A person hearing these words should recognize that they have no authority as authentic words of Jesus,” he said. Christians who are reading the story, he said, should give it the same authority as any other unsubstantiated early Christian teaching about Jesus.⁶

The words of the Pericope “have no authority as authentic words of Jesus.” The average church attender, the average Christian listening to their preacher, has (at minimum) the subconscious expectation that the words presented in our Bibles are the inspired words of our Lord, and the messages brought forth from the pulpits using our Bibles are conveying the inspired words of God.

My hope is that future publications of the Bible exclude the text and leave a footnote, instead of the other way around. A perfect example is what the NET, NIV, NLT, and others have done with Jo. v.3-4: omit the text entirely. The KJV and NKJV still display the text. Problem is, like the Pericope Adulterae, this is a later addition. Looking at and comparing the textual apparatus for Jo. v.34 and Jo. vii.53-viii.11, it looks quite likely that there is more support for omitting the Pericope than the disturbed water verse. Another great example is the famous (or, rather, infamous) trinity clause in 1 Jo. v.7. That is another later addition that is omitted from virtually all translations except the KJV. We can and should do the same for this very famous story of a woman caught in adultery and loved on by Jesus, admittedly a favorite of so many devout followers of Christ. Omit the verses, leave a footnote, and educate the readers. Educate the congregation on the Scriptures.

Let’s say I was in Tanzania, a member of a team translating John’s Gospel into Bende. The translation team is supposed to be creating a text of the Gospel to give to the Bende people so they can have at least part of the Word of God. But even if they only have part, that part is supposed to be the Word of God. From what the translation team has told the people, from what other missionaries who have interacted with the people have stressed: the Bible is the Word of God. How can we then give them the Word of God when a part of it is most certainly not? How can we expect them to accept all the words contained in this Gospel as inspired by God when we don’t believe that ourselves? Nix the can: How dare we? (The we there would be translators and publishers, not necessarily everyone.)

I can think of a few reasons why someone might say the passage should stay in the text.

1. They believe the passage is authentic, original to John, and inspired. If that is the case, then I’d love to see a presentation of the evidence and the argument.
2. They believe the passage is authentic, the story is real, but not necessarily a part of the original text. This would fall more in the realm of oral tradition that told a true story but was simply not written down. Later on someone decided to write it down and include the passage within a Gospel. I would be fine with this point except (a) there would need to be a successful argument for the genuine story that is supposed to be included, and (b) I’m not so sure folks who embrace the doctrines of inerrancy and infallibility would be so open to that idea.
3. They believe the passage is not authentic but contains valuable teachings and wisdom. I can understand that, but if it’s not Scripture then it’s not Scripture, right? There are wonderful jewels found in the letters of Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Alexandria, the Martyrdom of Polycarp, and many other much larger texts. Why not include those in the Bible?
4. They believe the passage is not authentic, and not Scripture, but should remain in the text for the historical, educational value gained by discussing the textual criticism involved. This would be great but is far too idealistic. The expectation would be that preachers and teachers would give a thorough explanation of what is going on with the text here, of the history involved. I’m not seeing it happen on a large scale.

While I’d rather the passage disappear from the main body of the text, #4 above may be the most viable option in the meantime. I believe #2 would be great if someone could surmise and construct the genuine story and supply the support for why the Pericope most likely happened during the ministry of Jesus. I believe both can be done.

Philip Comfort, however, can’t seem to comfort me with his downtrodden, pessimistic conclusion.

Having said all this, it is very disappointing to realize that most English readers of the NT will see none of the connections [between the text before Jo. vii.53 and after viii.11] because the pericope of the adulteress is still printed in the text between John 7:52 and 8:12. True, the passage has been bracketed, or marked off with single lines . . . or set in italics. But there it stands—an obstacle to reading the true narrative of John’s Gospel. Even worse, its presence in the text misrepresents the testimony of the earliest MSS, especially the papyri.⁷

In summary, I believe the story of the woman caught in adultery is most definitely not original to John’s Gospel. Whether the story actually happened or not is up for discussion and examination, and hopefully soon someone or some team can come up with a viable solution. Given that, I believe our modern translations from this point should omit the passage and insert a notation, just like other spurious passages, for example Jo. v.3-4 and (dare I say it) the ending of Mark. (Psst. I believe the shorter text, ending when the women run afraid from the tomb, is the real ending.) The inclusion of the passage in the main body of the text does more harm than good at the moment.

Regardless¹, I trucked through the series and was impressed by more than a few points and exhortations. What I’d like to do is a review of each sermon in the series, focusing on the key aspects and also pointing out some items that I think Shane Hipps came short on or that I wish he would have expanded on.

Overall, I think this was a strong review of Revelation from a non-traditional, and more Scripturally based, perspective than we find in the standard, traditional, dispensational view of this text.

Before I start, let me lay out my own underlying biases. If anything, I am a partial preterist. I take a historical angle when it comes to Revelation; not only Revelation, but also the various statements by Christ about his return. He said he would return before that generation died away, and…by golly…I believe him. But that particular issue will be for a different post. I see the text of Revelation as apocalyptic, giving the readers a glimpse of what was going on in the A.D. 60′s, and what was going to happen soon. Today I am not expecting the gorry details expounded on in the middle section of Revelation to happen in my lifetime nor in the future. They already happened, and none of it was literal even then.

That was my perspective going into my listening of the series. I’ve long been exhausted by what has become the traditional understanding of Revelation. I have heard of some having put together explanations of Revelation that show the text is truly nonviolent. I have heard of some having put together commentaries on Revelation that in fact present the text as relevant to today while staying Scriptural, not fanciful and downright heretical (that happens a lot in the traditional reading). Shane Hipps was supposed to be presenting a non-traditional exposition of the text, putting forth a nonviolent reading of the text, and showing how relevant the text is to us.

Had to experience it for myself. I’ll be figuring out the best way to give my review. Keep your eye out for something soon. I hope and pray we can all benefit from taking a good look at the text and history here.

¹ Many people still like to use the pseudo-word irregardless. Please, folks: stop. It’s not a word. And it sounds terrible. That is all.

I’ve chosen to read through these texts from the Scriptures themselves (using the New Living Translation), and not from the children’s Bible story books. A few months ago I read to the boys one of our children’s versions of the Tower of Babel story. Then I read about Moses, then Joseph and his brothers. I then picked up the NLT and said, “Alright, now let’s see what these stories are like in the bible, guys.” They were okay with that idea. The first one I read was about the Tower of Babel. Immediately our oldest, without my asking any questions—all I did was read the short passage—said, “So there weren’t any angels?” He recalled in the children’s book the story mentioned angels leading the different groups into different regions after the languages were confused. No angels showed up in the Bible’s version.

I wanted to cultivate that keen listening and curiosity that at least our older two boys have (the two year old likes to chatter on about whatnot and whatever while I read, silly lad). So I took them through the other stories (e.g. Moses and Joseph) from the NLT. Whenever there were tough words or concepts, they were quick to ask for a bit of clarity. And at least the oldest has been quite able at distinguishing the differences between the kiddy versions and the originals. The kids then wanted to read about Jesus, so I jumped into my favorite of the Good News accounts, Mark. After finishing that up, we started Luke.

And by golly the kids get it. Without dumbing down or repackaging the life and teachings found in the Good News accounts, with some simple questions and discussions, our kids get it. For example, we read through the sixth chapter of Luke’s account the other night. This was the key portion (this is from the NET):

But I say to you who are listening: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. To the person who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other as well, and from the person who takes away your coat, do not withhold your tunic either. Give to everyone who asks you, and do not ask for your possessions back from the person who takes them away. Treat others in the same way that you would want them to treat you.

If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do the same. And if you lend to those from whom you hope to be repaid, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, so that they may be repaid in full. But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to ungrateful and evil people. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful. (Lk vi.27-36 NET)

I told the boys if someone was being evil to mommy and daddy, we have to show them love in return. If they were hitting us, we were not supposed to hit back because that’s not love. If they were treating us poorly, we’ve got to treat them beautifully.

And our oldest said to me, “Maybe that’s what I should do. Because sometimes my brothers hit me, and I hit them back. I should not hit them.”

I responded, “Show them how to act, right? Show them love and that hitting is wrong?”

“Yeah,” he said quite contently.

Here are the points:

1. Just because something has always been translated a certain way does not mean that it is correct.
2. We should always value the light ancient documents shed on our understanding of the Scriptures, even for an issue as mundane as the meaning of a single, obscure word.
3. We should always use the most up to date, accurate tools available. (In this instance, HALOT has the more accurate information as opposed to the other well-known Hebrew lexicon BDB.)

Take a gander at Michael Burer’s post. Good stuff.

There is one of those memes going around in which people volunteer a list of books that influenced their readings of the Bible.  The rules say that works are not limited to Biblical studies literature, but can include religious works or works of literature. I guess there should be at least five, but I’m no master theologian.

This is tough to nail down, but here’s what I’ve come up with.

Salvation at Stake

Brad Gregory, Salvation at Stake: Christian Martyrdom in Early Modern Europe (1999). This is an absolutely stunning and enthralling text. Not only in the top 3 necessary reads for any student of Christian martyrdom, but this is easily a must read for anyone learning about the Reformation. The reason this book is on this list is because this text gave me an introduction to the Anabaptists that literally changed my life. I was driven to take a look at the Scriptures from their perspective and within their context (persecution and martyrdom from all sides).

Choosing Against War

John Roth, Choosing Against War: A Christian View (2002). After already beginning down the road to more fully embracing the Anabaptist legacy, I borrowed this book from Borders. (No, I did not steal it. I worked there for about a year and a half, and employees could check out books for a couple of weeks.) Seeing the peace perspective in such a developed way caused me to experience the Scriptures in a very different way. I began to look at the New Testament, indeed the Good News within the New Testament, in a radical way.

Apostolic Fathers

Michael Holmes, Ed., The Apostolic Fathers (1998). While I now have the 2007 hardcover edition (thanks to an amazing brother in Christ across the pond), when I went through these texts and got to know more of their history, when I saw how these early century authors were using the letters of the Apostles and other New Testament writers, when I saw the practical importance of the New Testament texts, I saw the New Testament as real historic documents. I began to take the individual letters and gospels of the New Testament on their own terms, the same way I was reading and examining the letters and works of the Apostolic Fathers. I was reading through Mark and looking for what Mark had to say, and not look at Mark’s text through the eyes of Matthew or Luke or Paul. My Greek was developing really well at this time, so I was really getting into the individual styles and emphases of the authors. And taking this historic perspective on the New Testament has made me appreciate and embrace the text so much more.

Mark as Story

Rhoades, Dewey, and Michie, Mark as Story: An Introduction to the Narrative of a Gospel (1999). Fairly self explanatory, don’t you think. This sort of pushed me onward in my historic view of the New Testament. Mark came to life, as did the other Gospel texts. Instead of seeing Mark and the other Gospels as a set, each text was a special work by their respective author, created with the intent to tell a story about Jesus from their special, privelaged, inspired perspective.

I would love to see your list of books, and especially the story behind it.

The issue is whether or not someone has to further explain the meaning of a Bible translation to others. Now, obviously, as we have often said on this blog, there are plenty of matters in the Bible which are difficult to understand. Those concepts, such as the nature of the atonement, cessation or continuation of charismatic gifts, the role of Torah in the life of Christ-followers, God’s sovereignty vs. people’s free will, will be difficult to understand no matter what Bible translation we use to study them.

And then came the irrefutable sentence: “But the language structures of Bible translations should not require further translation in order for people to understand what those structures communicate.”

The reason I don’t like hearing the New King James from the pulpit, not to mention the King James, is because I know folks are getting confused. A few months back one of the pastors of our congregation was discussing Jesus’ betrayal and arrest; I think that was the Easter sermon. Reading from the NKJV (apparently our church’s Bible of choice…not sure when that happened, because I would have voted not “No” but “Heck No!”) the pastor read,

When those around Him saw what was going to happen, they said to Him, “Lord, shall we strike with the sword?” And one of them struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his right ear. But Jesus answered and said, “Permit even this.” And He touched his ear and healed him. (Lk. xxii.49-51 NKJV)

He did not even explain the very out of place, incomprehensible, non-modern day English phrase, “Permit even this.” He moved on; went to another point. My wife and I were stunned (being pacifists, we are very familiar with this passage and the various arguments attempting to deny the clear command of Christ during this situation). I remember us looking at each other and going through our Bibles to find where “Permit even this” could have remotely fit in as the pastor continued with his sermon. I remember sitting there and wondering, “Wait. How is the average listener here right now going to understand what Jesus just said there? I know there are a lot of unchurched, unfamiliar folks here because it’s Easter time, and I know they totally missed it.” Especially if they had any of the other typical translations (NIV, ESV, NASB, NLT, etc) where the wording is more like, “Stop! No more of this.”

At least he didn’t read from the King James: “Suffer ye thus far.”

What?

Anyway…sorry about the rant about the New King James. (Whew! Glad I got that off my chest.)

Here’s an excellent passage from the final paragraph of Wayne’s post (but be sure to read the whole thing):

If we view the job of rabbis, pastors, and Bible teachers to be explaining obscure words and non-standard syntax in Bible versions, then we are asking these teachers to waste their valuable time. They should use translations of the Bible which are written in the language of the people they are teaching.

This is also why organizations like Wycliffe Bible Translators so strongly strive to get the Bible into the hands of everyone in their own language. Everyone should be able to crack open the Scriptures and read the text and not have to struggle with the language and individual words. Within the community, with the leaders, questions and answers and guidance should focus not on “What does ‘Permit even this’ mean?” but “Why did Jesus not want the disciples to intercede or interfere and fight?”

You ripped out it’s heart and shoved it down it’s throat. Then you put the whole thing into a meat grinder. Then you cooked it up, ate it with a spoon and barfed it back onto a cassette tape.

Classic line. Unforgettable.

In this series, Thom

will argue that the doctrine of biblical inerrancy cannot be sustained in light of textual, historical and archaeological evidence surrounding the biblical canon (especially the Hebrew Bible canon).

But more to the goal,

I’m convinced that a commitment to the doctrine of biblical inerrancy tends to produce unfaithful readings of our scriptures, thereby producing political visions that are unfaithful to the God in whose reign we hope. ^**

He goes on to clarify that further:

When I say that these doctrines lead to unfaithful readings of Scripture, I mean predominantly two things: (1) Having the prior commitment to biblical unity forces interpreters to misread the text to make it fit with “itself,” which is unfaithfulness in a hermeneutical sense to the texts themselves. (2) Having the prior commitment to biblical unity forces interpreters to reconcile ethical contradictions (e.g. Joshua’s violence versus Yeshua’s nonviolence) resulting in the watering down or “death by qualification” of Jesus’s radical ethic, which produces unfaithful Christian practice. (This is just one example.) ^**

Thom makes a very good case for why we should engage this issue and discuss the points and arguments. I believe, as many, that this particular doctrine is a distraction and stumbling block in the lives of many disciples of Christ. And a Bible that is not inerrant and infallible is not necessarily unreliable, untrustworthy, faulty, in error, or even useless. I would say The Bible comes to life.

I urge you to go through the series. Engage with the points and examples. Have a discussion. Let us learn and grow together. Some of you who hold dearly to the idea of an inerrant, infallible Bible might simply scoff at the notion of such a series. I would offer that such dogma has no place at the feet of Christ. Give the discussion a chance. Maybe you won’t change your mind; but at least you’ll be more informed and we’ll all be that much more knowledgeable.

The series so far:

1. Revelation, Mythology & Ideology: Intro
2. RMI2: Inerrancy and Infallibility
3. RMI3: Polytheism, Pt. 1
4. RMI4: Polytheism, Pt. 2
5. RMI5: Polytheism, Pt. 3
6. RMI6: Polytheism, Pt. 4
7. RMI7: Polytheism, Pt. 5
8. RMI8: Human Sacrifice, Pt. 1