Threads from Henry's Web

Tag: Textual Criticism

  • KJV Only: Anatomy of an Argument

    Recently I’ve talked a fair amount about using numbers as a means to dress up lies and make them look more respectable. I even discussed the issue in a Sunday School class I was invited to teach last Sunday, using the various ways in which grocery (or any) prices and sales can be stated and how those various ways can be used to deceive the consumer into buying something more expensive while thinking he’s getting a bargain.

    (As an exercise, if you’re not sure you understand this idea, make a list of all the ways in which prices and specials on particular items are stated. Your list should include things like 1/2 off, 20% off, $x.xx off, 2 for the price of one, buy one/get one free, and so forth. Then think about how these numbers might be used to make the price of any particular item look better. The bottom line is that you have to bring all prices into relation to a single standard by calculating a price per unit, thus comparing the actual value you’re getting. You do have to be careful with the units used as well. I found myself comparing the price on two rolls of packing tape, one was $3.47 for 54 yards, and the other was $2.38 for 60 meters. You should be able to do that one on sight! Now consider that when people present statistical arguments to you, they have more ways even than the grocer does to make the numbers appear the way they want them to, all without actually telling a direct lie.)

    It’s interesting that just as I’m writing about numbers, I get an e-mail in response to my Bible Translations FAQ that brilliantly illustrates precisely the type of misdirection and lying with numbers that I’ve been talking about.

    The e-mail consisted of a text, badly abused, followed by a table of numbers, followed by a paragraph containing his challenge. I’m going to look at the last paragraph first. The correspondent identified himself simply only by his initials, so I’m going to call him C, for correspondent.

    C states:

    So, as you have so aptly put it in some of your responses to others, “Them’s just the facts”.

    Well, no, them’s just the lies, as I will show below. Claiming something is a fact doesn’t make it one.

    Let’s see you include this e-mail to your web site section on “KJV Bible Translations FAQ”;

    I’ll include a link to this blog entry. How’s that?

    if you truely don’t have a hatred for the KJV (as you’ve stated), then you would have no problem presenting the facts as they stand, without your commentary, and let the reader decide for themselves based on the factual evidence!

    My rejection of your arguments has nothing to do with hating the KJV; it has to do with the fact that your “facts” are wrong, and your logic incorrect. You would, of course, like me to post your table without my commentary, because falsehood hates the light. You know that any commentary on your table will show it to have no evidentiary value whatsoever. The only hope you have for such arguments to work is that people who don’t know better will read it quickly and think the numbers and your assurance in presenting them is impressive in themselves. You absolutely can’t afford to have anyone think about your little number table.

    I sure hope this e-mail contains enough “substance” worthy of your response!

    Actually, your argument is simply a repetition of the argument I answered in my Bible Translations FAQ, #12, based on the majority of the manuscripts. The only reason I’m responding to it is because you provide such an excellent example of abuse of numbers in making an argument.

    Concerned for the lost,

    Bluntly, I doubt it. If you were concerned for the lost, you would likely be more interested in the gospel message and less interested in the support of a nearly 400 year old Bible translation that now more often than not stands in the way of people who want to understand the Bible. The KJV Only position is not a position that honors the word of God. It is not “Bible believing.” It is man serving in two ways: First, because it elevates the work of human beings–a translation–into the position of God’s actual word, and second because it serves primarily to support the positions of spiritual power of its advocates over others. It is destructive spiritually and intellectually.

    Now, let’s look at the table:

    The KJV Greek Text Attested by the Evidence

    Manuscripts

    Total

    WH/TR

    %MSS
    WH/TR

    Papyrus

    81(88)

    13/75

    15%/85%

    Uncials

    267

    9/258

    3%/97%

    Cursives

    2764

    23/2741

    1%/99%

    Lectionaries

    2143

    0/2143

    0%/100%

    Totals

    5255

    45/5210

    1%/99%

    Now let’s consider this chart briefly. I’m not going to deal with the actual numbers, though there appear to be some errors there. For example, it is quite doubtful that the editors of the Textus Receptus actually consulted 2143 lectionaries. But even if all of these numbers were correct, the chart as it is would convey a lie. Numbers require a context; they do not have independent meaning. In this case, the numbers are tabulated so as to suggest that many less manuscripts were used in producing the Westcott & Hort text than in producing the Textus Receptus (TR), and the TR is inturn equated to the KJV Greek text. In some way, not stated, this is supposed to convince us that the KJV text is correct.

    No reference is given for these numbers, but one is quite easy to locate. A google search provides us with The Bible Believer’s Baptist web site has their Bible Tidbit #65: Westcott & Hort which is itself a disgusting ad hominem attack, contains such a chart, and they reference it to THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THE BIBLE AND CHRISTIANITY without providing further information. This tactic is used by KJV Only advocates to make their arguments look more respectable–after all, the source is an encyclopedia. But a little more checking leads us to the encyclopedia web site, The Way of Life Encyclopedia of the Bible and Christianity. Here we discover of this “encyclopedia” that:

    “It is the only Bible dictionary/encyclopedia that is written by a Fundamental Baptist and based strictly upon the King James Bible.”

    and

    It does not correct the Authorized Version of the Bible . . .

    So it is a KJV Only advocates encyclopedia, giving them a respectable sounding reference for misinformation–and this chart is definitely misinformation.

    Here are the issues with the context and presentation of these numbers:

    1. What does it mean to “use” a manuscript? We are told how many manuscripts were used by the editors of each text, but we are not told what is meant by this. I am not nitpicking here. As an undergraduate, I had to produce a critical text of a passage working solely from available manuscript photocopies and collations. I worked with about a dozen manuscripts, and based on my knowledge of family relationships and so forth was able to produce a reasonably accurate text, certainly better than the TR. Does “use” mean simply to have them around? Does it mean to examine each reading in each one? Do you “use” a manuscript when you reject its reading, or does only acceptance of a reading count as using? Clearly, we don’t know what these numbers represent. This in itself would render the chart useless as evidence. But there’s more.
    2. The TR is equated to the Greek text of the KJV. It would be easy to claim that the two are “close enough” because they are, indeed, very close. And yet we’re dealing here with KJV Only advocates, who believe that any deviation is too much. Thus the equation of the TR is deceptive.
    3. There is an implication that the TR is based on the majority of the manuscripts, and thus is equivalent to the majority text–a text based simply on counting manuscripts. But this too is false. The KJV includes the long text of 1 John 5:7-8, for example, which is definitely a minority reading, and is also definitely a significant variant, and yet a consistent majority text would have to exclude that passage.
    4. Why is the Westcott and Hort text being used in comparison at all? Westcott and Hort advanced knowledge of the Biblical text and were pioneers of modern textual criticism, and yet almost nobody actually uses their text any more. Go to any Christian bookstore, and you will not find any version produced within the last century that uses the Westcott and Hort text. Besides the simple fact that the text criticized is not the one used in preparing modern versions, this particular piece of misdirection prevents people from checking the numbers as easily. The United Bible Societies 4th edition, commonly used as a starting point by modern translators lists 69 lectionaries, for example. Anyone who understands the study of textual criticism will realize that 69 lectionaries is actually a substantial survey, provided these are chosen from different text groups.
    5. Finally, why is it that one should be concerned simply with the number of manuscripts? That is the implication of the chart. It suggests that modern versions are using a minority of manuscripts, and that this practice is bad. But the simple fact is that the more time that passes between the writing of the autograph and the creation of a copy, the more likely it is that manuscript generations have passed. This is not the only criterion in determining which is a better manuscript, but it is a very important one, and one which makes the entire chart completely ridiculous. Manuscripts are not equal, and because of the nature of manuscripts–they decay–the majority of manuscripts are relatively recent. We only have a few manuscripts from the first few centuries of Christian history

    All this chart does is wrap the respectability of numbers around a much repeated lie. If you stop and examine the numbers, and consider what they actually mean, you will find that these “facts” do not convey what their author has dressed them up to convey. That is what you need to do with all deceptive numbers.

  • Reading Psalm 46

    I’ve been reading Psalm 46 in my devotional time, and have gone through it numerous times now. I’ve blogged about some of the things I’ve been thinking about while working with this Psalm at Threads from Henry’s Web, in an article entitled Translating Psalm 46. Reading poetry is a bit different from reading prose, particularly theological prose. Some people derive theology from the Psalms much too easily. One should pay attention to the genre. (See my article Interpreting Poetry for some ideas.)

    But first let me call attention to some alternate ways of looking at Psalm 46. Martin Luther’s hymn, A Mighty Fortress is our God, translated into English long ago, is built on this Psalm.

    A mighty fortress is our God, a trusty shield and weapon;
    He helps us free from every need that hath us now overtaken.
    The old evil foe now means deadly woe; deep guile and great might
    Are his dread arms in fight; on Earth is not his equal.

    With might of ours can naught be done, soon were our loss effected;
    But for us fights the Valiant One, Whom God Himself elected.
    Ask ye, Who is this? Jesus Christ it is.
    Of Sabbath Lord, and there’s none other God;
    He holds the field forever.

    Though devils all the world should fill, all eager to devour us.
    We tremble not, we fear no ill, they shall not overpower us.
    This world’s prince may still scowl fierce as he will,
    He can harm us none, he’s judged; the deed is done;
    One little word can fell him.

    The Word they still shall let remain nor any thanks have for it;
    He’s by our side upon the plain with His good gifts and Spirit.
    And take they our life, goods, fame, child and wife,
    Let these all be gone, they yet have nothing won;
    The Kingdom ours remaineth.

    In dealing with translation I tried pouring the content into the form of an Italian sonnet, just for fun (Psalm 46 as an Italian Sonnet). When interpreting poetry, there are many ways to try to “feel” the result, and the feeling is often more important than the theology. In fact, those who have suffered trouble, both Jews and Christians, may wonder about God being “an easily found help in trouble.” People who trusted in God have not always found their help in the form of physical rescue. Often they find strength to endure the trial, or even to go to their deaths, but they are not always saved.

    But this Psalm is a resounding affirmation of God’s power and protection over those who trust in him, and of his presence with his people.

    Textual Issues

    Let me note one textual issue here. Some commentaries add the refrain from verses 7 and 11 between verses 3 and 4 as well. No translations have taken up this conjecture, and it is built entirely on structural considerations. I would suggest that this addition is forcing the text to fit a theory on the structure of the text. It also breaks an extremely eloquent contrast between verses 3 and 4. In verse three we have the chaotic waters roaring and behaving in a destructive way, but in verse 4, the waters are under control and are the source of life.

    Interpretation

    This psalm is usually viewed as a cultic hymn, and indeed it may have found its setting in that context, but I think one needs to get a little bit more specific. This is a community response to trouble based on the most fundamental theology about God. Yes, we can express this confidence in the cult, but the specific situation from which it grows is one of threatening danger, specifically of invasion.

    Verses 1-3 speak of God as creator. Elements here reflect the creation division of the water and the land, the flood as a sense of cosmic destruction (the feel of the P source), and God’s protection of his city. I would place this Psalm before the exile, so I don’t see Ezekiel as a source, but he is surely pulling from the same body of imagery in describing the river of Ezekiel 47.

    That same sense of moving from the God whose power is over all, and who is still in charge even in the midst of chaos is presented here by the stark contrast between verses 3 and 4. Raging waters become life-giving, controlled streams in God’s city. God is present there, it’s his sanctuary. It is the same creator God who is in charge, who sits on the flood (Psalm 29:10-11), who also dwells peacefully with his people and will protect them.

    Verse 7 introduces the refrain, and then verses 8-10 reflect God’s authority over the nations. The nations are in chaos like the sea (see the imagery of Daniel 7), but God is in control there. God is powerful and capable of destruction. God brings his own people peace. For a discussion of this dual imagery, applied to Jesus, see Jesus as King and Priest.

    The God of our parents is with us.

  • Isaiah 24-27 – Textual Issues

    I’m approaching the textual issues for these four chapters from the point of view of English translations. I want to look for those textual issues that actually have an impact on major English translations. This is a procedure you can follow any time you study a Bible passage, assuming you don’t know Greek or Hebrew and can’t use original language tools. Check the footnotes in a variety of translations, and note readings that are used as the primary text, or that are suggested as alternates. These may results from several sources:

    • LXX/Septuagint
    • Syriac
    • Other versions, Latin, Coptic, Georgian, etc.
    • Other Hebrew manuscripts-there are, indeed, some small variations even in late Hebrew manuscripts.
    • Dead Sea Scrolls
    • Conjecture, normally tagged something like cn or cj (Check the abbreviations in your Bible translation for details)

    This list applies to the Hebrew scriptures. In the Pentateuch, add the Samaritan Pentateuch as a source. In the New Testament, you need a different list.

    I’m going to limit my list this time to the New Living Translation, the New Revised Standard Version, and the Revised English Bible. I’m limiting the number to three just for space. There are a number of other good Bible translations to use in this type of study, including especially the New English Translation and the English Standard Version.

    These versions contain the following numbers of textual footnotes in the four chapters we are considering, including places where the translators indicate that the Hebrew meaning is uncertain:

    • NLT – Has a small number of translation notes; no textual notes. (The absence of textual notes is significant also.)
    • NRSV – Lists seven verses with textual notes
    • REB – Lists eight verses with textual notes

    The value of looking at multiple versions is illustrated here. As you will see in the chart, the REB and NRSV lists only match in one case. We will compare readings in the NLT, where in some cases an issue is resolved by the translators, but they did not feel a footnote was necessary. In normal study, you can survey more translations. I looked at the English Standard Version, Contemporary English Version, and the New English Translation, though I did not include them in the chart.

    Verse REB NRSV NLT
    24:15 the eastern regions, footnote indicates that the Hebrew is uncertain in the east In eastern lands
    All translations reflect one probable reading. There is no textual variant, but there is some uncertainty as to translation
    25:5 deletes “heat in the shadow of a cloud” includes this phrase, but divides the poetic lines differently Includes all, divides as REB
    This passage using some difficult phrasing. REB sees the phrase “heat in the shadow of a cloud” as out of place, NLT translates as is, but NRSV begins a conditional clause at the end of verse 14, carrying it forward into verse 15, thus including the phrase, but nonetheless making greater sense of the passage. Personally I would go with the NRSV translation here; REB is deleting a phrase because it is too uncertain to translate.
    25:11 despite the struggle of their hands with every stroke of his hands and all their evil works
    The NRSV marks the word “struggle” with a footnote indicating the meaning of the Hebrew is uncertain. Even though neither the NLT or the REB provide a footnote, it is clear from the difference in their rendering that the meaning is somewhat uncertain. The problem is with the rendering of the Hebrew word ‘arbah, “movements (or nimble movements)” associated with hands. The meaning is clearly metaphorical, and the translations differ in their rendering. This is a good issue to resolve when you get to exegesis.

    I call attention to the fact that only comparing translations and comparing footnotes would bring this type of issue to the attention of a Bible student who does not read Hebrew.
    26:4 he (using the parallel line with “LORD” to indicate the meaning) LORD GOD LORD GOD
    Another NRSV footnote not reflected in the others. The Hebrew reads “Yah YHWH,” and this is handled differently by the different translations. Since there is no significant change in meaning, the rendering is largely a matter of taste. Many commentators regard the duplication as an error as the use of the abbreviated “YAH” is unusually before the full tetragrammaton “YHWH.”
    26:8 We have had regard to we wait for you we love to obey your laws
    The REB here claims to follow the 1QIs(a) reading, which leaves off the “you” suffix on “we hope (for)” or “we look to.” Literally as far as possible, “Even/also the path of your judgments, YHWH, we look to [you]” which would allow a number of renderings. Is it in the path of judgments that they look to the Lord, or is it the path provided by God’s judgments that they look to? Again, though the scroll and the versions that generally follow it suggest a reading here, exegesis is more likely to provide an answer to how this should be rendered. Note again that only one version provides you with the footnote indicating there is something to study here.
    26:11 zeal for your people zeal for your people eagerness to defend your people
    Hebrew literally reads “zeal of the people” here. Only the REB provides a footnote indicating we are dealing with a variant, though all three versions make the same translation choice. Again, the footnote alerts you to an issue.
    26:16 chastened by the whisper
    (REB also notes that Hebrew reads “they” rather than “we” as other versions translate)    		 poured out a prayer bowed beneath
    Both REB and NRSV call attention to the issue here. This is one to settle in exegesis, though you should be very careful in coming up with a decision if you can’t check the Hebrew.
    26:18 REB note word “like” in the Hebrew delete “like” delete “like”
    All translations render in a similar way, but REB calls your attention to an underlying variant. It is not at all certain how one would translate if the word “like” is included.
    26:19a their bodies (second line), footnote indicates Hebrew “your body” Your dead (collective) their bodies
    The meaning here is identical, but REB again alerts us to the textual issue.
    26:19b those long dead those long dead in the place of the dead
    This is not a textual issue but one of translation. The Hebrew word is “shades.” NLT takes it as the dew falling in the place where the shades live, thus “place of the dead” while the other translations take “shades” as those who have been dead a long time.
    27:6 time to come days to come the time is coming
    Hebrew is literally “those to come” or “the coming ones” which could certainly refer to days. All three versions take this as a reference to time.
    27:8 His quarrel with Jerusalem ends . . . By expulsion He has punished Israel only a little
    Hebrew literally “by expulsion, by exile you contended against them.” I would suggest the variety of renderings makes a footnote a good idea, but only the NRSV provides one in this case.

    *F: – footnote reading; T: – reading incorporated into the text

    This is obviously an incredibly quick tour of the textual issues in the chapters. Many will find these all too minor to take very seriously, but I think they do illustrate the type of information a serious Bible student can find by working with multiple translations and making serious use of the footnotes. Unless you can work with the source material in the original languages, you will have to settle your choice between the renderings of various versions during your exegesis.

    My next entry on Isaiah will deal with various elements of the passage as they can be examined with form criticism. Remember that this will be a kind of dissection approach to the text. Later we’ll look again at the whole to ask what genre the whole composition is.

  • Isaiah 24-27 – Overview

    Many of the issues of Biblical criticism are illustrated in these four chapters from the book of Isaiah. The book of Isaiah as a whole is fertile ground for such study, but one has to take a reasonable sized bite for an illustration. What I want to do with these chapters is discuss how various critical tools apply, or do not apply, to the text, and what can be learned from applying those tools. I will focus my attention on tools that are available to those who do not read Hebrew, looking for ways in which they can evaluate various critical claims for themselves using easily available materials.

    To accomplish this I’m going to post on the following. (I may break some of these items into multiple entries or combine them where one element is very short.)

    1. The text, applying textual criticism to get an idea of the state of the text.
    2. Literary criticism, probably combined with elements of genre criticism. Are these four chapters a unit that can be studied independently as a whole? What type of literature are they?
    3. Form criticism, a look at the individual units, if any, in the text.
    4. Source and Redaction criticism, how we got to the state of the text.
    5. Tradition criticism, summarizing 3 & 4.
    6. Genre and canonical criticism, taking us back to #2 and tying this back together.

    If you want to follow the procedures, you can start by reviewing the book of Isaiah as a whole, and then by reading these four chapters several times–at least enough times so that you have a mental picture of the passage as a whole. As you do this, you can look for your own answer to the question of whether this is itself a literary unit as part of the book of Isaiah, whether I have drawn the boundaries of the unit I’m going to study correctly. At the same time, you can prepare for the state of canonical criticism, which will ask how this fits into the overall message of Isaiah as that message fits into the message of canonical scripture.

    The book of Isaiah contains 66 chapters. Conservative Christians generally believe that it was written by one prophet, Isaiah, who lived in Judah starting late in the reign of Uzziah and possibly continuing his ministry into the reign of Manasseh, Hezekiah’s son and successor. Critical scholarship, however, has generally divided the book into at least two parts, chapter 1-39 as First Isaiah and 40-66 as Second Isaiah. Chapters 36-39, no matter what the scheme, are a historical interlude telling the story of Sennacherib’s invasion of Judah and his eventual defeat. The vast majority divide that further into 40-55 as Second Isaiah and 56-66 as Third Isaiah.

    General readers often get the idea that the critical view of Isaiah is that simple (or quite possibly complain of its complexity) without realizing that the critical view of the book is many times more complicated than that. Form critics will look for a life setting and date of composition for individual prophetic oracles or other literary elements in the text. Source critics may provide a variety of dates for individual sources, and so you can have material from any date in the general period of the Isaiah tradition. To get an idea of the dates and their spread, see Isaiah Timeline. This gives the broad outlines of this scheme of dating.

    Individual portions of the text, may have been spoken, written, or added to the collection at any time, however. Let’s look at an example from outside our narrow range of chapters. In Isaiah 14, we find three separate sections that are clearly defined: 14:1-13, 24-27, and 28-32. The first is against Babylon, and appears to assume a situation with Judah in exile. Some would suggest, however, that the dirge (3-21) could have been written at any time, and then the prose introduction (1-2) and conclusion (22-23), which are the only parts that mention Babylon by name, are added by a redactor in the exile. That redactor could be second Isaiah (the author of chapters 40-55), or even someone after that time. Trying to answer such questions wouldl involve form and redaction criticism. Verses 24-27, however are addressed to Assyria. By the time of the Babylonian exile, Assyria was long gone as the primary foe of Judah, but in the time of First Isaiah, Assyria was the primary enemy. The third oracle is against the Philistines, and it would be much harder to date. My point here is that this chapter is one of the simpler ones in which to discuss dating. If one accepts the composite authorship of Isaiah at all, one will find plenty of complexity and a considerable number of cases in which one admits one doesn’t know.

    Let’s turn our thoughts back to chapters 24-27. If they are a unit, then when was that unit written? First, we will have to ask whether there are elements of this unit that were written separately and then combined, or whether the passage was written as a unified whole. As I noted above, Isaiah 14 is relatively simple to deal with, with specific enemies addressed, and clear beginnings and ends for the three sections of the chapters. But the absence of that sort of clarity in 24-27 has not prevented commentators from presenting a number of divisions. As a Bible student, don’t simply take a scholar’s word for the divisions. Each and every one of these items is controversial; test it all, accept what convinces you. We’ll look at the possible divisions when we discuss form criticism.

    But is there anything that can be said about date? One of the easily available tools I will follow through this study is the Oxford Study Bible (REB). This Bible provides some pretty good notes and introductory articles on many topics. In its note on chapter 24 it says, “The literary style with the tendency thoward apocalyptic (24:21-23) and the theological perspective of final judgment (v. 21) indicate that this collection originated long after Isaiah of Jerusalem (see Introduction)” (page 727). Here’s where you need to put on your own critical glasses and think seriously about the claim made.

    There are some assumptions here:

    1. Apocalyptic developed in a generally linear fashion so that one can place a particular example of it on a continuum.
    2. Apocalyptic started late
    3. This passage is an example of apocalyptic literature
    4. Final judgment is a late element in Hebrew literature

    One critical piece of this puzzle would be the dating of Daniel. I’ve called attention to a number of commentaries in recent blog entries, and one should note that such scholars as Gleason Archer and Joyce Baldwin maintain that Daniel was written in the 6th century BCE, while Ernest Lucas allows such dating. Hartman & Di Lella along with Porteous solidly supported a late dating (2nd century BCE) for Daniel. If one assumes some sort of linear development for apocalyptic, then Daniel is probably somewhere toward the early middle part of that process. It’s not quite up to the book of Revelation, but it’s more apocalyptic than some chapters in Ezekiel and perhaps more similar to Zechariah. Those four centuries of difference in the dating of Daniel could make a substantial difference in how one dates these chapters. In addition, there are those who regard Daniel as a composite itself, with some elements being quite early (5th-4th century BCE) and some later. Some strongly apocalyptic elements (Daniel 7, for example) are considered by these scholars as quite early.

    Whether apocalyptic was a linear development or not is hard to say, partially because we are not so sure just what apocalyptic was, and as is the case here, we aren’t too sure when to date it. If you are interested in testing this element of dating, try reading Ezekiel 37-39 and the book of Zechariah and comparing them to these four chapters. Some elements of apocalyptic generally include symbolic visions, emphasis on eschatology, judgment, and angelic guides or interpreters. If there was a progression, where do you think these chapters would fall? You can hold that thought as we study them and see if you change your mind.

    My next entry will be a survey of the text of these four chapters as we see them in English translations. I will discuss textual issues uses some original language resources, but I will focus on what you can learn from the text and footnotes of a few English Bible versions.

  • Resistance to Evolutionary Theory

    Why is it that some people resist evolutionary theory so stubbornly? Many times I have used the argument that evolutionary theory is more complex than creationism, and that we are asking people to go against their intuition in favor of the evidence. But the more I think about it, the less I think that is true. I do think that most creationist thoroughly and systematically misunderstand the basics of evolutionary theory. But I’m going to suggest that the misunderstandings result from the need to reject it, and not the other way around. Most of these folks could understand, but at the most fundamental level they don’t want to.

    Many of you will find this article pretty redundant. The reason I took up the topic is because of the example, which is in my area of expertise, and thus it tickled me to use it as an example. In addition, it was when I did a paper on the comparison of the Septuagint and Masoretic text versions of the genealogies that I first began to question young earth creationism. I read my first creationist literature before I was ten, and was pretty much steeped in it by the time I was in college. Then I began to examine it critically.

    Let me illustrate from Kent Hovind’s Creation Science Evangelism, and their article titled Who Was Cainan? This is actually a rather simple question, and I’m only going to discuss it briefly as an illustration. Basically, if you take your choice of available modern Bible versions, and read the genealogy of Jesus provided by Luke, you can find the order of the post-flood patriarchs. (Luke reads these leading back to Adam, and I’m going to put them in chronological order here.) Luke has Shem, Arphaxad, Cainan, Shelah (also known as Sala) and so forth (verses 35-36). You can compare this to the genealogy of Genesis 11:10-13, and the order is Shem, Arpachshad, Shelah. Cainan is missing from the list.

    Now there is a simple explanation for this. This additional name occurs in the Septuagint (LXX), and this indicates that there is a textual variant in the text of Genesis, and the LXX, or another manuscript containing the same variant, was likely Luke’s source for this passage. Alternatively, the name could have been added by a copyist based on the same source, but the evidence for this is vanishingly light. If you consider the evolution of a text of this nature, you will start most likely with oral transmission for a period of time, followed by creation of written copies (there’s little agreement on the date of writing, though I suspect they may be quite early in the process of development of the Pentateuch, and form a framework for portions of it). These written copies are then included by redactors in broader documents, and then those documents are copied multiple times. Luke simply uses the documents available to him.

    Now old earth creationists use this very case to suggest that there may be gaps in the genealogies of Genesis, thus giving us Biblical room for a greater age for humanity on earth, and certainly a much earlier date for the flood. I would suggest in addition that the very formation of the lists into 10 names before and 10 names after suggests selected lists. So the old earth creationists find this name very convenient in support of their position.

    CSE cites Jonathan Sarfati of Answers in Genesis, who indicates that he believes this is one of the few copyists errors in our largely excellent manuscripts. For him, it is the autographs that are inerrant, and not any copy or translation. Thus, we solve the problem more or less by assuming a copyist’s error, and also assuming that the form of the text we have is correct. There is considerable variation in the genealogies in the LXX of Genesis 5 & 11, but this is beyond the scope of this entry. Also, I’m not trying to criticize Sarfati, and am not basing this on his work. (You can see his discussion at Cainan on the Answers in Genesis site.) So one set of young earth creationists would solve the problem with the assumption it was an error.

    But CSE does not approve of this answer. They want a result that allows them to claim that the Bible as they have it is inerrant, and not some autographs they can’t get a look at anyhow. So they must somehow preserve both the chronology of Genesis 11, and the presence of the name in Luke 3:36. Thus they explain how even if there was an intervening generation, the chronology would be unchanged. I’ll leave you to read the creative explanation directly from their site if you care to. In producing this ad hoc explanation, they use another interesting tactic, citing another group with very low credibility, Gail Riplinger’s AV Publications. Gail Riplinger is the author of one of the worst pieces of trash I have ever encountered in print, titled New Age Bible Versions.

    (At one point I started to critique that book, but after just a few pages I found there was insufficient space in the margins to keep track of even the major falsehoods, much less the more minor, but significant errors. (James White, who is much more conservative than I, nonetheless took the time to go through the book in detail. He has a lengthy response to New Age Bible Versions on his site, New Age Bible Versions Refuted. Riplinger in turn calls White’s material “libellous” and “actionable,” though I can’t see where she has tried to sue. For anyone who thinks Riplinger’s material has any value, look at her answer to the supposed question, “What is the most subtle change that new versions are making?”. In this she argues that changing the capitalization of pronouns that refer to God is changing the orthography of God’s word. I kid you not.)

    Now why do I go to this example? To illustrate a method. Neither CSE nor AiG can simply follow the evidence where it leads. The old earth creationists get into this situation in some cases, though in this case they have an explanation that accords with the evidence, though not, in my opinion, all of it. CSE has a previous theological position that the KJV as they have it must be inerrant, and thus there must be an explanation for that set of English words. AiG has a position that the autographs must be inerrant, and thus they must assume that the autograph did not contain the fateful added name. Old earth creationists accept the name because it is actually helpful to their claim that there are gaps in the genealogies of Genesis 5 & 11.

    You might say that I reject all these explanations simply because I want the passage to be inaccurate. But that is simply not the case. I would be fine with whatever variant was correct in the book of Luke, but the evidence points to the presence of Cainan in that text. It is possible, of course, that I’m wrong on this. Sarfati’s point about documents of the LXX might have some validity, though I think it’s weak. But you see, it would be no problem for me if he turned out to be right, and Cainan was not in the sacred, though unattainable, autograph.

    But the key here is that in the cases I cited we have something that must be true, so an ad hoc explanation for how it is true. With any ancient near eastern document, literary, or historical, the approach of historians is to examine critically its claims, and to determine its credibility based on that kind of historical study. Nobody thinks that the Sumerian antediluvian king lists are historical documents. Why? Because they give preposterous lengths for the reigns of the kings. But in the case of the Bible we are told to ignore all evidence in any direction except to confirm some interpretation. We should let the Bible speak for itself, and if we did we would realize that these lists belong to a different category of literature than “historical records” and could then treat them as such.

    So is it that evolution is counterintuitive? It seems rather intuitive to me, especially common descent. There is simply so much about the animal world that suggests a genetic relationship. I think it is not common sense, or our intuition that is the problem, but rather a prior commitment to treat a certain document as historical no matter what the evidence suggests. This results in a backwards methodology. A source is accurate not because one has checked it and found it so to the best of one’s abilities, but rather because it supports the position that already must be true.

    So one stray patriarch tells the story.

  • Hebrews 1:1-4: Translation Issues

    In some passages, I may divide discussing translation issues into one section on how a passage is rendered into English, and another on the textual issues, but this passage has only one textual issue of any consequence.

    Textual Issues

    In verse three we have the following general options:

    • “when He had by Himself purged our sins” (NKJV), also the reading of the KJV, Darby, and YLT.
    • “After he had provided purification for sins” (NIV), also the reading of the remaining translations available to me.

    The issue is the presence of either Greek “di’ heautou” or “di’ autou” preceding the word “katharismon (cleansing).” The bulk of modern translators have chosen to follow those manuscripts that leave out those words. And there are some very good ones there–Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, and Vaticanus, for starters, a very good trio of witnesses. But for the alternative text we do have P46, which is the oldest known manuscript to contain this passage, along with the bulk of the Byzantine tradition.

    In this case, however, internal evidence, combined with good external evidence, overwhelms even the testimony of P46. One of the principles of textual criticism is that you accept as oldest that reading that can best explain the others. In Greek we have three variants: “autou” alone, “autou, di’ heautou”, and “autou, di’ autou.” These do seem to involve explanatory additions, explaining how the cleansing was accomplished. In addition, I would note that this seems to break the very compact style of expression in the prologue.

    Translation Issues

    There are basically two categories of translation issues to consider: The structure of the passage and the translation of the two keywords describing Jesus and his relation to the Father in 1:3.

    Structure

    In Greek, this entire passage is one sentence. Various translations have dealt with this in different ways. English readers may miss the point of verse 4, which is pointing forward to the first element of the author’s argument that Jesus is greater than the angels, if that point is included in the same sentence or even in the same paragraph as verses 1-3. Many versions do divide this long sentence into multiple English sentences, but only a few, such as the NLT, which places verse 4 in the next section, and the CEV, which places part of verse 3 and verse 4 in a separate paragraph.

    The difficulty with including it in the first introductory paragraph is that this leaves the reader without a thesis sentence for the material in verse 5ff. Verse 4 tells us what our author is about to argue. First, he will argue that Jesus is greater than the angels (1:5ff), and then he will say he is greater than Moses and the Torah (3:1ff). This is a good example of a case in which a reader can be led astray by the divisions presented in a Bible edition. There were no such separations in the Greek manuscripts. These are features of modern Greek editions, and modern translations. Always be prepared to “think across the boundary.”

    I personally prefer the option of putting verse 4 into a separate paragraph which will allow us to see it as a transition point, but you’ll notice that in my outline of Hebrews, I don’t follow my own rule. In that case, however, I carry over the thought by labeling point II.A. “Jesus is Greater than the Angels.”

    Key Words

    There are a number of key words in this passage, and I will discuss them when dealing with interpretation of the passage. Two terms in the first part of verse 3, however, have evoked a broad range of translations. My own translation of this line follows:

    3This Son is the brightness of his glory and the exact representation of his real essence.

    The Greek word I translated “brightness” is “apaugasma” and the phrase I translated “exact representation of his real essence” is “charactEr tEs hupostaseos autou.” The first of these may mean either something shining on its own, or reflecting the light of another. This is why some translations will use the term “reflection” in their translation (“The Son reflects God’s own glory” NLT). A good parallel to this is Wisdom of Solomon 7:26:

    26For she is the radiance of the eternal light,
    and the spotless reflector of the activity of God,
    and the image of his goodness. (my translation)

    By putting “radiance” and “reflector” in parallel, the author suggests a more passive understanding. Nonetheless, Wisdom of Solomon is referring to wisdom, while Hebrews 1:3 is referring to Jesus. Those with a high Christology may well prefer “brightness” or “radiance.”

    My use of “exact representation” comes directly from the Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains. This is the word from which we get the English “character,” but the meaning we normally find in the literature contemporary more or less to the book of Hebrews is something like “stamp” or “impression.” In combination, these terms state that Jesus presents God to us exactly, and I think this view will be supported by our later study of the book.

    There is some remarkable theology in these few verses, and I look forward to blogging about some of the things we can learn from it.