You and the Greek New Testament: Devotional Values and Precautions

You and the Greek New Testament: Devotional      Values and Precautions

I would like to provide to you two forms of exhortation (especially to pastors of local churches). One, in the form of a sermon.  The second, in book form. Personally I try to use my Greek NT on a fairly regular basis just to the languages flowing. It has also by way of personal testimony produces immense blessings reading God's word in its original language. The blessing of mining out vocabulary, word usage, grammar and syntax to say the lease simply can't be replaced with an English translation.

As to the first, I would encourage you to listen to Dr. Randy Leedy's presentation "A Deeper Devotion through a Greek New Testament."  That link can be found here located on the Mount Calvary Baptist Church Website.  This presentation was delivered during their 2018 Whetsone Conference. Exceptional presentation and heart warming challenge for pastors and laymen to use their Greek New Testaments.  It even includes some pointers (examples) of using Bible software for this task.  

The second exhortations is found in Dr. David Black's textbook Using New Testament Greek in Ministry: A Practical Guide for Students and Pastors. It is now over twenty five years since coming into print.  Three practical exhortations  concerning the decline in seminaries teaching or emphasizing study of the original languages are as follows: 

First, "the teaching of language tends to be dominated by content to the neglect of understanding" (p. 17).

Second, the decline in instruction results from "the enormous amount of material covered in the typical exegesis course" (p. 18). 

Third, the focus of teaching original languages should be "to prepare expository preachers of God's Word (p. 19). 

Finally, and I would suggest the most dangerous for the local church and Christianity as a whole, "the increasing tendency in education toward subjectivism" (p. 20). 

I hope these to sources are a challenge to you heart and daily devotional Bible reading. I also have provided a separate languages page for original language sources for both Greek and Hebrew. 

Read.  Comment.  Enjoy.

Does Matthew 4 and 5 Teach that God will Providentially Preserve the Hebrew Text or KJV 1611?

Does Matthew Chapters Four and Five Teach that God will Providentially Preserve the Hebrew Text or KJV 1611?  In short, No.

My heart goes out to the pastors and professors who are trying to teach God's word.  However, academic honesty requires me to exposes the faulty exegetical handling of the biblical text.  Matthew 4 and 5 serve as another test case for how the text of scripture is misused to try and teach God chose to preserve his word only through the means of the Hebrew text and one particular Greek manuscript.  Of course this must then extent to the language of English alone.  This texts in question are used to teach Jesus believed God providentially preserved the Hebrew text (and only the Hebrew text) of scripture.

So what's our texts under discussion,

"But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." (Mt 4)

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." (Mt 5)

The phrase "it is written" (which occurs throughout the NT) appears in conjunction with the Septuagint (LXX), not just with the underlying Hebrew OT text (NT, eight times): Acts 7:42-43, Rom 2:24, 3:4, 11:26, 14:11, 15:21, 1 Cor 1:19, and Galatians 3:10.  To be fair, Jesus here is quoting from the Hebrew text.  However, Jesus also quotes the LXX Matthew 13:14-15; 15:8-9; Mark 4:12; 7:6-7; Luke 4:18-19.  So to deny that Jesus used the LXX puts you in a historical inaccurate situation.  Also to deny that the phrase "it is written" also applies to the LXX puts you in violation of the actual text of scripture.  Both of these texts are used by many KJV only advocates to teach God chose only to preserve the Hebrew text (which underlies this particular English translation).

Further, to try and use this "jot" and "tittle" terminology to claim God would only preserve his OT text in the Hebrew language is incorrect on multiple accounts, As previously stated above, the phrase "it is written" is also applied to LXX texts (not just quotations from the Hebrew text).  Second, since Jesus quoted from the LXX, God in-flesh himself did not have a problem quoting form a Greek OT text (that apparently he also stated here in Mt 5) was only to be in the Hebrew text.  Third, and this is more my concern, there is such an attempt to look for proof-texts to defend this modern KJV only defense position, that nearly anything and everything looks like a proof text for their position.  Yes, we must admit this last point could be applied across a large spectrum of both doctrinal issues as well as daily practical issues.

So what then was Jesus actually teaching here?  What point was he trying to get across?  I would suggest that Jesus is teaching the abiding or present authority of the Old Testament which will continue till all points of prophecy and typology are fulfilled.  Again, to be fair, some identify the concept of inspiration taught in these verses.  Let's back this up with the view with other current writers,

"He was specifically affirming the utter inerrancy and absolute authority of the OT as the Word of God—down to the least jot and tittle" (The MacArthur Study Bible, p. 1400).

"Jesus confirms the full authority of the OT as Scripture for all time " (The ESV Study Bible, p. 1828).

"The Lord’s point is that every letter of every word of the OT is vital and will be fulfilled" (Ryrie Study Bible, p. 1520).

"Divine inspiration extends to the smallest parts of the prophetic writings, and therefore God will bring to completion all He has said in His Word without fail" (The Reformation Heritage KJV Study Bible, p. 1363).

So as we can see these text do not necessarily imply that God chose only to preserve his word in the Hebrew text (nor is authority found only in the Hebrew text).  God has preserved his word and it is still authoritative today.

As always comments encouraged.

Historical Quotations on the Translation issue,

(1881) "No one claims for the Textus Receptus, or common Greek text of the New Testament, any sacred right, as though it represented the ipissima verba, * written by the inspired men in every case. . . . It is therefore not asserted to be above emendation (Robert L. Dabney, Works, vol. I, p. 398; borrowed by Trusted Voices on Translations, Mount Calvary Baptist Church, Greenville, SC).
* Latin for "the very words"

(1881) "Concerning the fact of difference between the Revised and the Authorized Versions, I would say that no Baptist should ever fear any honest attempt to produce the correct text, and an accurate interpretation of the Old and New Testaments.  For many years Baptists have insisted upon it that we ought to have the Word of God translated in the best possible manner, whether it would confirm certain religious opinions and practices, or work against them.  All we want is the exact mind of the Spirit, as far as we can get it. . . . By the best and most honest scholarship that can be found we desire that the common version may be purged of every blunder of transcribers, or addition of human ignorance, or human knowledge that so the word of God may come to us as it came from his own hand." (C. H. Spurgeon, Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, vol. XXVII, pp. 342-343; from Trusted Voices on Translations, Mount Calvary Baptist Church, Greenville, SC).

The One English Only Position: Does Psalm 12 Really Say and Teach God would Preserve the Hebrew Text? History says "No."

The One English Only Position: Does Psalm 12 Really Say and Teach God would Preserve the Hebrew text?

A quick read over historical documents shows us that Christian past did teach that God would preserve his word through the generations (See LBC and WCF).  Question: why all of a sudden has God decided (according to some in very recent history) to only preserve his word in one English translation?  Or to be fair and a little more broad (to encompass the more academics): why all of a sudden has God decided to only preserve his word in the Greek and Hebrew texts which coincidentally (or providentially) are the primary texts used for translating the KJV?

One such Biblical text used by modern KJV advocates (apart from several others) is Psalm 12.  The important text for our discussion is verse seven, "Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."  This sound really compelling that God is promising to preserve the scriptures (his word) throughout history. Before diving into the context note two things that you will never find.  First, no reference to the means of preservation (neither in Hebrew nor English).  Second, there is no reference to an English translation as the only means of God preserving scripture (for at least my predominate English speaking country).  See the problem already for Spanish, French, or Italian (not to mentions hundreds of tribal dialects)?  Again, problem not helped just going back a step to a Hebrew text.

Anyway based on the actual context of Psalm 12, who or what is preserved?  Did David claim God would preserve people or a text of scripture?  Does quoting Hebrew grammar change the interpretation at all?  Let's start with the context of the Psalm.  The Psalm divided nicely into two sections: vv. 1-4, 5-8.  The first section tells us the verbal assaults that God's people receive from the world.  God's people are defined as "the godly man" and "the faithful" (v. 1).  But who are the verbally attacked?  Verse one tells us "the children of men" (v. 1) and "the wicked" (v. 8).  We know its verbal attacks because verse two addresses it with terms "they speak vanity" "with flattering lips" and "they speak."  So three times the idea or image of a verbal attack is identified. The believer's petition is that these verbal attackers would be removed "cut off" (v. 3).

What is God's response?  In verse five, he promised to "set him in safety."  Obviously the "him" is the godly people from verse one.  They are distinguished from the attackers, "him that puffeth at him."  Now we come to verse six?  What is God promising?  Is he identifying the character of scripture in general?  Is this what the context requires or implies?  Why insert this topic here?  Is it not possible that God is referring to his promises made to the godly in verse five "to set him in safety," to protect and preserve him?  

Now we come to the debated text (v. 7).  Is God promising to "keep" and "preserve" the actual words of verses 5-6?  Perhaps even the Hebrew text?  How is this helpful?  When believers are in the middle of trials from the world and unbelievers "the children of men," how is it helpful for God to say, "Don't worry I am promising to providentially preserve my Hebrew scriptures"?  Is that really encouraging counsel?  I don't have any worries when attacked by the world because God promised to providentially preserve the Hebrew manuscripts.  Please take note: this is not the same as God making promises in scripture to comfort his people in times of trial. 

So what actually would be helpful counsel from God?  I will "keep" and "preserve" you!  I will protect my people.  In fact he does promise to protect them (the people) from the world around them "from this generation" (v. 7).  In the very next verse he reminds them who is attacking them, who it is that is "this generation," it is "the wicked" and "the vilest men" (v. 8).  That is helpful counsel and a response to prayer "Help. LORD!" (v. 1).

So how do English translations after the KJV 1611 handle this verse from the same Hebrew text.  So whatever they do you can't use a TR argument against them (Greek NT).  Let's see:

"You shall keep them, O LORD, You shall preserve them from this generation forever." (NKJV)
"You, O LORD, will keep them; you will guard us from this generation forever." (ESV)
"You, O LORD, will keep them; You will preserve him from this generation forever." (NASB)

So what caused several later translations to use personal pronouns making it clear that God was promising to protect and preserve his people not a Hebrew text of scripture (or a later English translation)?  From here I'll provide lines of evidence.  First, technical and second a listing of Study Bibles and commentaries who agree with this interpretation of preserving God's people not a text.

First, and this will sound technical, 

"The third person plural pronominal suffix on the verb is masculine, referring back to the “oppressed” and “needy” in v. 5 (both of those nouns are plural in form), suggesting that the verb means “protect” here. The suffix does not refer to אִמֲרוֹת (’imarot, “words”) in v. 6, because that term is feminine gender." (NET Bible, Translation notes, 12:7).

" The suffix ēm in v. 8a refers to the miserable and poor; the suffix ennu in v. 8b (him, not: us, which would be pointed תצרֵנוּ, and more especially since it is not preceded by תִשְׁמְרֵנוּ) refers back to the man who yearns for deliverance mentioned in the divine utterance, v. 6" (Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, Vol. 5, p. 122).

"The two verbs of this verse in MT have 3 pers. pl. and 3 pers sing. suffixes respectively. The translation above assumes 1 pers pl. suffixes on both verbs, for which there is good support in the Heb. MSS (De-Rossi, IV, 6) and the versions (cf. G and Vg)." (Peter Craigie, Word Biblical Commentary, Vo. 19., p. 137).

So to construct any argument to say the Hebrew text references God's word just doesn't stand up to exegetical scrutiny.   

Second, commentary from Study Bibles and commentaries,

"The people that God assuredly will preserve." (The Reformation Heritage KJV Study Bible, p. 770).

"It seems best to take them as the poor and needy (v. 5) and the godly (v. 1).  Their disappearance was not absolute." (The ESV Study Bible, p. 953).

"The ungodly represent the spirit of the age "from" which the Lord would "preserve" His own chosen few." (Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown, Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, p. 128).

"Regardless of the circumstances of life, God's children are assured of the special protection of their heavenly Father. . . He keeps them safe from the wicked" (VanGemeren, The Expositor's Bible Commentary, p. 808).

"He will preserve 'them' (lit. "him"), the individual sufferer, from the attacks of the wicked in David's own time." (Peter, Steveson.  Psalms. BJU Press, Greenville, 2007).

How about an older one from the 1700s,
"thou wilt keep thy poor and lowly servants" "thou wilt be with thy church to the end of the world" (George Horne, Commentary on the Psalms, p. 70).

So we see here that Psalm 12 does not aid the KJV 1611 position.  God did not promise here to preserve a particular Hebrew text.  Apart from reading this idea into the text, this is just not taught here.  He also did not promise to preserve a particular English translation (which is also completely contradictory to the translator's of the KJV).  He promised to protect his people from an evil world around them.  This is comfort and encouragement.  

Quotes from history,

"In a letter to a fried she wrote, As to 1 Corinthians ix.27, why did you not see that the Greek [adokimos] is literally and clearly "not approved," being simply the negative of [dokimos].  You cannot read the Greek word otherwise; and how it came to be translated "castaway" I can't imagine." (Francis Ridley Havergal, Memorials of Francis Ridley Havergal, p. 232; borrowed from Trusted Voices on Translations, Mount Calvary Baptist Church, Greenville, SC).

". . . Beza's fifth and last text of 1598 was more likely than any other to be in the hands of King James's revisers, and to be accepted by them as the best standard within their reach.  It is moreover found on comparison to agree more closely with the Authorized Version than any other Greek text. . . . There are, however many places in which the Authorized Version is at variance with Beza's text; chiefly because it retains language inherited from Tyndale or his successors, which had been founded on the text of other Greek editions. . . . in some places the Authorized Version corresponds but loosely with any form of the Greek original, while it exactly follows the Latin Vulgate (F. H. A. Scrivener, The Parallel New Testament: Greek and English, pp. xxiv-xxv; borrowed from Trusted Voices on Translations, Mount Calvary Baptist Church, Greenville, SC).

Educated yourself on this issue.  As always comments encouraged.

The Value of Septuagint Quotations in the NT in discussing the KJV 1611 Hebrew Old Testament Position

Septuagint Quotations in New Testament and the KJV 1611 Hebrew Old Testament Position

Series Part One           Series Part Two       Series Part Three  

One of the tenants of the KJV English Translation only position is the non-existence of the Greek translation of the OT (the Septuagint "LXX").  This line of defense is focused toward KJV only advocates who at least attempt an academic position based on the underlying Greek and Hebrew text.  At face value this might not make sense to the normal reader.  Here's the issue many (if not most) of the KJV only adherents believe that God providentially preserved the Hebrew manuscripts underlying the Old Testament.  It is this OT text that the NT writers and speakers quote.  This includes writers such as the Matthew, Luke, Paul, etc....  This would also extend to include Christ's own quotation of the OT.  

Of course, it goes without saying the KJV English only position has no value for the underlying Hebrew and Greek text and won't be bothered by this position anyway.  Their position is an English text only position.  This position is even farther from the historic position of Christianity for both inspiration and preservation.  This position seems to foster a following in churches where academics are discouraged and local church pastors just don't address this issue (exegetically or historically). 

Just by way of reminder many of the KJV only advocates who actually use the Greek and Hebrew texts deny the existence of the Septuagint.  It must be said (to be academically honest) not all adherents who believe God preserved the underlying Traditional Greek Texts deny the existence of the Septuagint.  For example, the very study Bible I use every day for reading, study and memorizing was published by a company that is strongly KJV in their position (both underlying Greek and Hebrew texts also).  At the same time they acknowledge the existence of the LXX and their notes on occasion point out the fact that the NT verses are quoting from the Septuagint and not the underlying Hebrew text.  So this is obviously something they are not ashamed of or threatened by in being academically honest.

So let's begin with some examples.  Just for sake of time (don't forget there are roughly 350 OT quotations) in the NT, we'll limit our discussion to the epistle of Romans.  But to be fair this same process could be repeated in any of the NT gospels or epistles quoting from the LXX.  If I counted correctly (you're welcome to count on your own), Romans contains 63 OT quotations (22 from the LXX, and 41 from the Masoretic text).  In all the NT, the LXX only makes up for about 20% of the quotations.  So its certainly not the normal mode of operation when scripture was penned.

So what evidence do we look for to determine this quotation source?  Well, the verse quoted may contain words only found in the LXX (not in the Hebrew text).  This position could also be reversed, the Hebrew text might have a wording which the LXX does not contain.  Second, the NT quotation might be verbatim word order for the LXX (this as well could be said for verbatim quotes from the Hebrew text).  

Let's take some examples.

Romans 1:17 quotes from the Hebrew, "the just shall live by his faith."  As far as I can tell, the Hebrew text in Habakkuk 2:4 uses a preposition translated with the English gloss "by" that more correctly reflects the text quoted in Romans 1:17.  Here for example the Hebrew text best represents the preposition, whereas the LXX does not.

Romans 2:24 quotes from the LXX, "for the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles."  This comes from Isaiah 52:5.  If you will note (even in your English KJV text) the NT prepositional phrase, "among the Gentiles" does not appear.  The LXX contains this wording and the Hebrew text does not.  So how could Paul quote from the Hebrew text that did not exist?  Obvious, he quoted from the LXX.

How about some simple examples.  Many times the NT quotes the LXX verbatim.  This should make it simple to recognize.

Consider Romans 3:13b, "the poison of asps is under their lips."  This is quoted from Psalm 140:3.  The LXX reflects this exact Greek sentence verbatim.  

NT Gk (ἰὸς ἀσπίδων ὑπὸ τὰ χείλη αὐτῶν·)

OT Gk (ἰὸς ἀσπίδων ὑπὸ τὰ χείλη αὐτῶν)

Or another from Romans 3:14, "whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness."  This is quoted from Psalm 10:7 and is another verbatim example.

What about a more complicated example in quotation?  Romans 9:29, "Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha."  Take note of the three terms: Sabaoth, Sodom, and Gomorrha.  This is an example where the Hebrew is transliterated into Greek "Sabaoth" and is quoted by the NT as such.  Similar idea with Gomorrha and Sodoma, the terms are transposed.  Easy to see how the exact Greek wording is maintained.

Lastly, (but certainly not the last of the NT evidence), one of my favorite LXX quotations.  See Romans 10:16, "Lord, who hath believed our report?"  Compare this with your English KJV, "Who hath believed our report?"  OT is Isa 53:1 translated from the Hebrew text.  Notice any difference?  So what one word is different?  Lord.  Yes, the LXX contains the reference to God and the Hebrew text does not.  Can you image if this were reversed as often used by English KJV advocates.  Usually sounds something like, "They took Jesus out of the Bible!"  This is a simple textual issue.  The NT writer quoted the LXX and not the Hebrew text.

We could quote more  but this should be sufficient.  The rest you can compare on your own. 
So this may not cancel out every claim of KJV only advocates but it should help show some of the faulty reasoning involved.  First, the KJV writers were not KJV only see previous article).  Second, one major premise of many KJV advocates belief in textual preservation is faulty.  Again a simple effort put forth to educate yourself goes along way in refuting error in many local churches. 

More to come.  As always, comments encouraged.

Quotes from Church History on the Translation issue:

"We have no right to expect infallibility in transcribers and copyists, before the invention of printing.  But there is not a single doctrine of Scripture which would be affected or altered if all the various readings were allowed, and all the disputed or doubtful words were omitted." (J. C. Ryle, Old Paths, p. 29; borrowed from Trusted Voices on Translations, Mount Calvary Baptist Church, Greenville, SC).

"It was at her study table that she read her Bible by seven o'clock in the summer and eight o'clock in winter; her Hebrew Bible, Greek Testament, and lexicons being at hand." (Francis Ridley Havergal, Memorials of Francis Ridley Havergal, by Marie Havergal, p. 259; again today borrowed from Trusted Voices on Translations, Mount Calvary Baptist Church, Greenville, SC).

The Value of the Septuagint : Series on English Translation Only position continued

The Septuagint

Series Part One           Series Part Two 
        
First, this ones a little more academic.  When the New Testament writers penned out the scriptures through inspiration of the Holy Spirit, what did they quote for authority in their sermons and argumentation?  Good answer: the Old Testament.  But not quite accurate enough.  The Old Testament Masoretic Text or the Septuagint?  A good Greek text lays these out.  If the Masoretic text, how good of a translation is it?  On the other hand, if they quoted repeatedly from the Septuagint, how good of a translation is it?  Think and research this before you answer.  

Application: if the first century apostles and Jesus himself quoted from a translation that was not word for word or rather dynamic in translation, what does that say for translations in English?  Often even when people agree with the position of the translators preface of the KJV, they still arbitrarily restrict themselves to certain English translations.  I would guess it is a result of a strong Fundamental position on both inerrancy and plenary (verbal) inspiration.  Simple logic to help people understand this:  If every word matters then an English translation that "best" or "most accurately" represents the original wording is most desirable.  This also takes into account changing vocabulary, spelling, etc.... This is a choice made, either by doctrine, associations or simple preference.

I would suggest this conversation is only heightened if someone denies the existence of the Septuagint.  Yes there are actually people who teach that the Septuagint does not exist (despite the fact there are actually physical manuscripts in existence).  History itself shows these claims our completely outside historic fundamental Christianity (this is yet another reason to quote history in every article to show how outside of historic Christianity a one English only position is).  I intend to produce a future article addressing NT quotations that make no sense, have no OT counterpart, and have no reasoning without an underlying Greek OT text.  

I think one reason many (or if not most) one English translation advocates deny a Septuagint is because of its rather loose translation in places and its inclusion of the Apocrypha.  Of course by this logic (line of reasoning) they must also reject their own KJV because it also included the Apocrypha.  I am currently looking at a facsimile copy of the KJV 1611 and it includes the Apocrypha.  I would suggest this is guilt by association inconsistently applied.

To begin there are roughly 350 direct quotations of the Old Testament by New Testament authors.  Nearly 20% of these come from the Septuagint (LXX).  One thing for certain provided through a Greek translation of the OT was that the common Greek speaking person could read it (that is, if they couldn't read Hebrew).

From here I will survey the NT texts in which the Septuagint is quoted. The task is simple: compare the NT Greek text to the OT Greek text of the Septuagint.  By comparison, if the Hebrew OT text was quoted then how would the NT quotation read (that is if quoted word for word and not paraphrased).

Historical voices on the translation issue

"Now though some translations may exceed others in Propriety, and significant rendering of the Originals; yet they generally, (even the most imperfect that we know of), express and hold forth so much the Mind, Will, and Counsel of God, as is sufficient...to acquaint a Man with the Mysteries of Salvation, to work in him a true Faith, and bring him to live godly, righteously, and soberly in this World, and to Salvation in the next"
(Benjamin Keach, Tropologia: A Key to Open Scripture Metaphors to which are prefixed Arguments to prove the Divine Authority of the Holy Bible, p. xxi; Quotation format borrowed from Trusted Voices on Translations, Mount Calvary Baptist Church, Greenville, SC ).

"I design first to set down the text itself, for the most part, in the common English translation, which is, in general (so far as I can judge) abundantly the best that I have seen.  Yet I do not say it is incapable of being brought, in several places, nearer to the original.  Neither will I affirm that the Greek copies from which this translation was made, as always the most correct.  And therefore I shall take the liberty, as occasion may require, to make here and there a small alteration" 
(John Wesley, Notes on the Whole Bible-The New Testament, pp. 3-4; Quotation format borrowed from Trusted Voices on Translations, Mount Calvary Baptist Church, Greenville, SC).