or go to
Sunday, September 30, 2018
Friday, September 28, 2018
A History of the Comma at Luke 23:43
Translator," Vol. 46, 1995, pp. 408-417.
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/026009439504600402?journalCode=tbtd
Early Greek manuscripts normally had no punctuation marks, but sometimes it is found in some manuscripts, as is the case with B (the Vatican 1209 uncial) which has a lower point (hypostigme) after semeron. Regarding the punctuation used by this MS, it was noted that in general "B has the higher point as a period, the lower point for a shorter pause." (A. T. Robertson, "A Grammar of the Greek New Testament," p. 242)
The Vatican 1209 mss also uses punctuation marks in other places such as at Romans 8:5, ABCL and 26 cursives have a point after sarka.
The Curetonian Syriac (fifth century C.E.) renders Luke 23:43: "Amen, I say to thee to-day that with me thou shalt be in the Garden of Eden.'"--F. C. Burkitt, "The Curetonian Version of the Four Gospels," Vol. I, Cambridge, 1904.
Below are quotes from several Greek sources, transliterated with an accompanying English translation.
Tines men houtos anaginoskousin* _Amen lego soi semeron_ kai hypostizousin eita epipherousin, hotiet' emou ese e to paradeiso._("Some indeed read this way: 'Truly I tell you today,' and put a comma; then they add: 'You will be with me in Paradise.'"--Hesychius of Jerusalem, an ecclessiastical writer who died about 434 C.E. Greek text found in Patrologia Graeca, Vol. 93, columns 432, 1433.
Alloi de ekbiazontai to rhema, stizontes eis to <<Semeron,>> hin' e to legomenon toiouton* <<Amen ego soi semeron*>> eita to, <<met' emou ese en to paradeiso,>> epipherontes. ("But others press upon the saying, putting a punctuation mark after 'today,' so that it would be said this way: 'Truly I tell you today'; and then they add the expression: 'You will be with me in Paradise.'")--Theophylact, an ecclessistical writer who died about 1112 C.E. Edition: Patrologia Graeca, Vol. 123, column 1104.
alloi -- to rheton ekbiazontai* legousin gar dein hypostizontas (254: hypostizantas) anaginoskein* amen lego soi semeron*>> eith' houtos epipherein to* met' emou ese etc. ("Others press upon what is spoken; for they say it must read by putting a comma thus: 'Truly I tell you today,' and then adding the expression this way: 'You will be with me' etc.")--Scholia 237, 239, 254. Text found in Novum Testamentum Graece, editio octava critica maior, by C. Tischendorf, Vol. I, Leipzig, 1869, under Luke 23:43.
kai eutys eipen moi hoti amen amen semeron lego soi, met' emou ese en to parad[eiso]. ("And immediately he said to me: 'Most truly today I tell you, You will be with me in Paradise.'")--Descent into Hades, an apocryphal writing of the fourth century C.E. Text found in Novum Testamentum Graece, editio octava critica maior, by C. Tischendorf, Vol. I, Leipzig,869, under Luke 23:43.
ho de eipen auto* semeron lego soi aletheian hina se ekho eis ton parad[eison] met' emou. ("And he said to him: 'Today I tell you the truth, that I should have you in Paradise with me.'")--Gospel of Nicodemus (=Acts of Pilate)b287, an apocryphal writing of the fourth or fifth century C.E. Text found in Novum Testamentum Graece, editio octava critica maior, by C. Tischendorf, Vol. I, Leipzig, 1869, under Luke 23:43.
In conclusion, at least from the 4th century. until well into the 12th century. there were readers who understood the text at Luke 23:43 as "Truly I tell you today, You will be with me in Paradise."
Thursday, September 27, 2018
How a Misplaced Comma Can Change a Sentence
Strange as it may seem, it is certainly a fact, that the unfortunate King Edward the Second lost his life by means of a misplaced comma; for his savage queen, with whom he was at variance, sent to the keeper of the prison in which he was confined, the following lines:
To shed King Edward's blood
Refuse to fear, I count it good.
Had the comma been placed after the word refuse, thus—
To shed King Edward's blood
Refuse,
the sense would have implied that the keeper was commanded not to harm the king, and the remainder of the line
To fear I count it good,
would have signified that it was deemed improper to spill his blood: but the comma being wickedly placed after the word fear, thus—
To shed King Edward's blood
Refuse to fear,
the murder seems commanded, together with a kind of indemnification to the keeper: nay, after this mode of not pointing, the remainder of the line seems to deem the action meritorious—
I count it good.
According to the punctuation, the keeper took the lines in their worst sense, and the king's life was the sacrifice.
metatron3@gmail.com
See also
Where to Place the Comma at Luke 23:43 by Chas Ives 1873
The Comma at Luke 23:43 by D.T. Taylor 1877
Robert Carden on the Comma at Luke 23:43
Wednesday, September 26, 2018
How the Hellfire Doctrine Created a Cruel and Vengeful Christianity
How the Doctrine of Hell Created a Cruel and Vengeful Christianity By Thomas B. Thayer 1855
And this is not said without ample means for proving the correctness of the statement. The history of Christianity, so called, in all ages and among every people, and in every form which it has taken, will abundantly establish the truth of the position, that the temper and practice of a people is determined by the spirit of their religion and their gods.
It is not necessary to enter into a labored description of the doctrines of the Christian church in the days of its darkness and corruption, nor of the awful and revolting views entertained of God, of his disposition towards man, of his government, laws and punishments. It is enough that Paganism in its worst forms has never surpassed, if it has equalled, the savage and terrible descriptions which have been given by Christians of their God. The character ascribed to him; the dreadful wrath and vengeance with which he is moved; the cold and malignant purpose of creation in regard to millions of souls; the stern severity and gloom of his government; the horrible and never-ceasing tortures which he will inflict on his helpless children — all this, and much more of like character, defies the power of language to set it forth in its true light, or to present it in a manner adequate to its shocking and revolting reality. I give a single example:
Dr. Benson, an eminent English minister, in a sermon on "The Future Misery of the Wicked," says, "God is present in hell, in his infinite justice and almighty wrath, as an unfathomable sea of liquid fire, where the wicked must drink in everlasting torture. The presence of God in his vengeance scatters darkness and woe through the dreary regions of misery. As heaven would be no heaven if God did not there manifest his love, so hell would be no hell if God did not there display his wrath. It is the presence and agency of God which gives everything virtue and efficacy, without which there can be no life, no sensibility, no power." He then adds, "God is, therefore, himself present in hell, to see the punishment of these rebels against his government, that it may be adequate to the infinity of their guilt: his fiery indignation kindles, and his incensed fury feeds the flame of their torment, while his powerful presence and operation maintain their being, and render all their powers most acutely sensible; thus setting the keenest edge upon their pain, and making it cut most intolerably deep. He will exert all his divine attributes to make them as wretched as the capacity of their nature will admit."
After this he goes on to describe the duration of this work of God, and calls to his aid all the stars, sand, and drops of water, and makes each one tell a million of ages; and when all those ages have rolled away, he goes over the same number again, and again, and so on forever.
Yet, Christians have believed all this; have believed that God is the enemy of the sinner and unbeliever; that he regards with a fierce displeasure those of a wrong faith or a wrong life: that heretics and the impenitent are an abomination in his sight; and that upon these wretched victims the vials of his wrath will finally be broken, and overwhelm them in endless and irretrievable ruin. As remarked, it will not need that we should give a lengthened or labored review of this point. A more important question is that which regards the influence of this savage creed upon the believer. To this let us give some attention, and we shall find, what we may expect, that its tendency in all ages, when believed in right earnest, has been to harden the heart, to brutalize the affections, and render those receiving it, under any of its forms, cruel, and ferocious in disposition, and, so far as circumstances would allow, in practice.
Take as a worthy example the celebrated passage of Tertullian, already quoted: "How shall I admire, how laugh, how rejoice, how exult, when I behold so many kings and false gods, together with Jove himself, groaning in the lowest abyss of darkness! so many magistrates who persecuted the name of the Lord, liquefying in fiercer flames than they ever kindled against Christians; so many sage philosophers, with their deluded scholars, blushing in raging fire!" &c.
Without doubt, Tertullian was of a fierce and bitter spirit, independently of his religious faith; but this fiery ebullition of hate and ferocity serves to show how perfectly fitted that faith was to add fuel to the flame, and what an ample field and congenial scenes it furnished for his savage nature to revel in. Under the influence of such a belief, his wild temper gathered new vigor, his revengeful feelings were cultivated and strengthened to a frightful degree, till at last he comes to rejoice and exult in the agonies of the damned with a relish that a devil might envy. One cannot but see that it only needed the power to have engaged this ferocious man in the work of torture on earth, the prospect of which in hell he contemplated with such fiendish delight.
A further illustration may be found in the crusades against the Albigenses in the thirteenth century, one of the darkest and bloodiest pages in the history of any religion, Christian or Pagan. The sacrifices of the Goth and Mexican, and the revolting cruelties of the Polynesian and the negro of Dahomy, are scarcely equal to the savage butcheries and the shocking barbarities inflicted by the Catholic crusader, in the name of his God, upon this gentle and virtuous people. No passage in the history of man is more to the purpose of our argument, or more conclusive of the direct influence of religious faith upon the temper and character, than that in which are recorded the persecutions and sufferings of these unhappy reformers. Throughout the whole of this merciless crusade, and amid all its scenes of burning and desolation, of murder and torture, the cry of the ruthless priest was heard, "It is for the glory of God!" And the brutal multitude, believing that they were doing God a service, and securing their own salvation by the slaughter of heretics, rushed forward to the bloody work with the ferocity of tigers and the joy of a Tertullian.
Sismondi says, speaking of the deliberate savageness of the monks who occupied the pulpits, and urged on the people to this diabolical work, they "showed how every vice might be expiated by crime; how remorse might be expelled by the flames of their piles; how the soul, polluted with every shameful passion, might become pure and spotless by bathing in the blood of heretics. By continuing to preach the crusade, they impelled, each year, waves of new fanatics upon those miserable provinces; and they compelled their chiefs to recommence the war, in order to profit by the fervor of those who still demanded human victims, and required blood to effect their salvation." They represented this inoffensive people as the outcasts of the human race, and the especial objects of divine hatred and vengeance; and no devotional exercise, no prayer or praise, no act of charity or mercy, was half so acceptable to God as the murder of a heretic.
"The more zealous, therefore, the multitude were for the glory of God, the more ardently they labored for the destruction of heretics, the better Christians they thought themselves. And if at any time they felt a movement of pity or terror, whilst assisting at their punishment, they thought it a revolt of the flesh, which they confessed at the tribunal of penitence; nor could they get quit of their remorse till their priests had given them absolution." "Amongst them all not a heart could be found accessible to pity. Equally inspired by fanaticism and the love of war, they believed that the sure way to salvation was through the field of carnage. Seven bishops, who followed the army, had blessed their standards and their arms, and would be engaged in prayer for them while they were attacking the heretics. Thus did they advance, indifferent whether to victory or martyrdom, certain that either would issue in the reward which God himself had destined for them." [Sismondi's History of Crusades against the Albigenses, chap. ii. 73—84, &c. The reader will doubtless be reminded of a passage from Wheaton's Northmen. "The religion of Odin stimulated the thirst of blood by promising the joys of Valhalla (heaven) as the reward of those who fell gloriously in battle." Which is the better, the religion of the Northman or the Catholic? The former has at least the redeeming feature of bravery, while the last is distinguished only for its ferocity. Mahomet might be justly indignant if compared with Simon de Montfort.]
And most frightfully did they do the work of religious butchery and cruelty. Like the Scandinavian pirates, wherever they went they desolated with fire and sword, sparing neither age, nor sex, nor condition. They even wreaked their furious vengeance on inanimate objects, destroying houses, trees, vines, and every useful thing they could reach, leaving all behind a wide and blackened waste, marked by smouldering and smoking ruins, and the dead and putrefying bodies of murdered men, women, and children.
At the taking of Beziers the wretched sufferers fled to the churches for protection, but their savage enemies slaughtered them on the very altars, and filled the sanctuaries with their mangled bodies. And when the last living creature within the walls had been slain, and the houses plundered, the crusaders set fire to the city in all directions at once. and so made of it one huge funeral pile. Not a soul was left alive, nor a house left standing! During the slaughter one of the knights inquired of a fierce priest how they should distinguish between Catholics and heretics. "Kill them all!" was his reply, "the Lord will know his own." In this one affair from twenty to thirty thousand human beings perished, because the religion of their butchers assured them that such bloody sacrifices would be acceptable to God.
But the priests and crusaders were not content with simple murder. It was often preceded by the most exquisite cruelties. De Montfort on one occasion seized a hundred prisoners, cut off their noses, tore out their eyes, and sent them with a one-eyed man as guide to the neighboring castles to announce to the inhabitants what they might expect when taken. And often, as matter of amusement, so hardened had they become, they subjected their victims to the most dreadful tortures, and rejoiced in their wild cries of agony, and manifested the highest delight at the writhings and contortions of the dying wretches. So perfectly fiendish had these fanatics grown through the influence of their religious belief f And what can more clearly show the connection between faith and practice, or more conclusively demonstrate the truth that the worshipper will be like his god, than the revolting barbarities inflicted upon these humble and innocent people, on the ground that they were hated of the Deity, and devoted by him to the flames and torments of an endless hell! Verily, the Christian is but a man, and that which makes the Pagan ferocious and blood-thirsty will produce the same effect upon him.
The massacre of St. Bartholomew is another terrible proof of the power of religious faith to convert man into a fiend. As a single exhibition of slaughter and cruelty in the name of God and religion, this is perhaps the most monstrous, and on a more fearful scale, than any before or since. Probably thirty or forty thousand victims perished in Paris and in the provinces in this one butchery! And it would be almost impossible to describe the variety of forms in murder, or to give a catalogue of the cruelties practised. Even children of ten or twelve years engaged in the work of blood, and were seen cutting the throats of heretic infants!
But what is the most impious of all is the manner in which the news of this massacre was received at Rome by the Church and its head. The courier was welcomed with lively transports, and received a large reward for his joyful news. The pope and his cardinals marched in solemn procession to the church of St. Mark to acknowledge the special providence; high mass was celebrated; and a jubilee was published, that the whole Christian world might return thanks to God (!) for this destruction of the enemies of the church in France. In the evening, the cannon of castle St. Angelo were fired, and the whole city illuminated with bonfires, in expression of the general joy for this dreadful slaughter.
And when we remember that all this was done in the name of Christianity and the church, that it was deemed a grateful offering to God, who, it is supposed, hates heretics, and will give them over to torments infinitely greater than these, and endless, we shudder to think how terrible an engine is superstition, and how nearly it has turned the Christian church into a slaughter-house! Truly, one has well said: "The ancient Roman theatre, with its mere sprinkling of blood, and its momentary pangs and shrieks, quite fades if brought into comparison with that Coliseum of Papal cruelty, in which not a hundred or two of victims, but myriads of people — yes, nations entire — have been gorged!"
To complete the picture of depravity and cruelty, and confirm the argument for the influence of religion on the heart and life, we need only refer to that thrice-accursed institution, the Inquisition! In this was concentrated all that was monstrous and revolting. It were impossible to put into words sufficiently expressive the abominable principles upon which its ministers proceeded in their persecutions, or the cold, deliberate, malignant ferocity with which they tortured their miserable victims. Every species of torment was invented that the united talents of the inquisitors could devise; and the protracting of life under the most excruciating agonies, so that the poor wretch might endure to the last degree, was reduced to a perfect system. The annals of Pagan sacrifice, with all its horrors, furnish no parallel to the atrocities of the Romish Inquisition. The blackest and bloodiest page in the history of superstition is that which bears the record of inquisitorial bigotry and ferocity. One would think that even hell itself might applaud the refinement of cruelty, were not the devils kept silent through envy of the superior skill and savageness of their earthly rivals.
But this terrible influence was not confined to the priests of this religion; the cruel and ferocious spirit of it was diffused abroad among all its believers; and its pestilential breath spread over the whole social life of the people. Informers were encouraged, heretics were hunted, private hatred took its revenge, and the most malignant passions of the corrupt heart were roused into action in the service of God and the church. Even the tenderest ties of affection, and the holiest relations of life, were crushed beneath the iron heel of religious zeal. Husbands betrayed their wives, and parents their children, and sisters their brothers, and gave them up to the cruelties of the holy office, and to the flames of the auto-da-fe; and, so doing, congratulated themselves upon their fidelity to God, measured by their triumph over the loveliest attributes of humanity. So mighty, in this case also, was the power of a savage religion to crush every kindly feeling, every emotion of love and pity, and to train its followers to cruelty and blood.
[In Spain the Inquisition has the strongest hold. Its effects are thus described by M'Crie: "Possessing naturally some of the finest qualities by which a people can be distinguished — generous, feeling, devoted, constant—the Spaniards became cruel, proud, reserved and jealous. The revolting spectacles of the auto-da-fe, continued for so long a period, could not fail to have the most hardening influence on their feelings. In Spain, as in Italy, religion is associated with crime, and protected (protects it?) by its sanctions. Thieves and prostitutes have their images of the Virgin, their prayers, their holy water, and their confessions. Murderers find a sanctuary in the churches and convents. Crimes of the blackest character are left unpunished in consequence of the immunities granted to the clergy." — History of Reformation in Spain, chap. ix. See also Llorente's History of Inquisition, abridged. Philadelphia: 1843. For a lively picture of the present condition of society in this country, see Borrow's Bible in Spain. See also Smedley's, D'Aubigne's, and Burnett's Histories. For this last may be substituted, as more brief and popular in its form, a work published by the London Religious Tract Society, republished by the Harpers, entitled "The Days of Queen Mary." For a short but interesting notice of the Inquisition in Goa, see Buchanan's Christian researches, pp. 172-193.]
But this influence is not confined to Catholics; it is found wherever the doctrines of which it is the offspring are found. The history of Calvin and Servetus shows the same savage faith, having the power, doing the same infernal work. And the history of the Puritans of our own land, of the Dissenters of England, of the Covenanters of Scotland, of the Jews everywhere, discovers also the same faith; shorn of its power, to be sure, by the progress of society and civil institutions, but, with a change of circumstances, ready at any time to seize the dagger or the torch, and spring forth to the work of death. Reluctant as we may be to admit it, we cannot blind ourselves to these facts. The cruel butcheries of the past, the dungeon, the rack, the fagot, the bloody scourge falling upon the back of the meekly suffering Quaker, the cry of agony, the unheeded prayer for mercy — all these in the past; —and the exceeding bitterness, the fierce clamor and unblushing falsehoods of controversy in the present; the refusal of the common courtesies of life, or the stern hate that often lurks beneath outward civility; the malignant sneer at the labors of those who seek to unfold the truth of God's saving love for all; the half exultation at any seeming proof of the final triumph of evil and the ceaseless torments of the wicked; the hardness of heart with which this result is sometimes contemplated, and the indifference with which one sect devotes another to this awful doom — all these show clearly that the Christian is subject to the same law which governs other men; show with a painful distinctness that, so far as the refining influences of literature and civilization would permit, the belief in a ferocious god and an endless hell have done their legitimate work upon his heart. Like the Aztec of America, and the Norseman of Europe, he has partaken of the spirit of his deity, and, supposing it a duty and a most acceptable service, he begins, so far as he can in this world, the work of torment which he believes his unforgiving god will make infinite and endless in the next.
Queen Mary of England was right when, as Bp. Burnet says, she defended her bloody persecutions by appealing to the supposed example of the Deity: "As the souls of heretics are hereafter to be eternally burning in hell, there can be nothing more proper than for me to imitate the divine vengeance by burning them on earth." This is legitimate and logical reasoning, and exhibits the natural fruits of the doctrine.
If, then, we would make mankind what they should be, we must begin with the object of their worship; we must first make their religion what it should be. We must cast out from the holy place all the dark and ferocious superstitions of the past and the present, whether Pagan or Christian, and in the place of these set up, in all its divine beauty and simplicity, the merciful and loving religion of Jesus Christ. The views which this unfolds of God the Father, of his government and its final issues, can alone be favorable to the spiritual progress of humanity, can alone form the heart of man to gentleness and goodness, and recreate it in the image of heaven. "National religions," says a celebrated German, "will not become the friends of virtue and happiness until they teach that the Deity is not only an inconceivably powerful, but also an inconceivably wise and good being; that for this reason he gives way neither to anger nor revenge, and never punishes capriciously; that we owe to his favor alone all the good that we possess and enjoy; that even our sufferings contribute to our highest good, and death is a bitter but salutary change; in fine, that the sacrifice most acceptable to God consists in a mind that seeks for truth, and a pure heart. Religions which announce these exalted truths offer to man the strongest preservatives from vice, and the strongest motives to virtue, exalt and ennoble his joys, console and guide him in all kinds of misfortunes, and inspire him with forbearance, patience, and active benevolence towards his brethren." Even so; let this be the religion of the nations, and soon the world shall be getting forward toward heaven. And it was to reveal these truths, and to bring them near to the heart of humanity, that Jesus gave his life, and labored with all the earnestness of his loving heart.
Let this, then, be the religion of the Christian, and he will be a Christian indeed. Let him believe in God as the parent of all, as the dispenser of life and good to all; let him see him as Christ saw him, clothed in robes of light and mercy, and he will love as Christ loved, and, so far as he may, will live as Christ lived. Let him believe that God always blesses, and he will not dare, he will not wish, to curse whom God hath blessed. Let him believe that God never hates, is never angry; and, that he may be like him, and approved of him, he will diligently seek to expel all hatred and passion from his own heart. Let him believe that all men are brethren, journeying homeward to the presence of the Father, where, delivered from all evil, we shall be as the angels; and that it is the earnest entreaty of this Father that we should not fall out by the way, but bear each other's burdens, and love one another as he loves us, loves the world: let these be the Christian's views of God, and he shall indeed be born again from above. Let this be the religion of the nations, and
"Earth shall be paradise again,
And man, O God, thine image here."
For a list of all of my disks and ebooks, click here
Tuesday, September 25, 2018
Corrections to the Text from the King James Bible to the Revised Version
CORRECTION OF ARCHAISMS, AMBIGUITIES, AND THE RENDERING OF PROPER NAMES AND TECHNICAL EXPRESSIONS.
It is manifest that an archaism ceases to be innocent wlien it has become altogether obsolete, or has wholly or to a considerable degree changed its meaning. And not a few such words or phrases are to be found in the Authorized Version. They are now either quite unintelligible or seriously misleading; and to substitute other expressions for them was clearly one of the plainest duties to be kept in view in preparing the Revised Version.
The following words may be given as examples of those that have, of necessity, been replaced by others. "Let" now means to permit, but is used with exactly the opposite meaning of hinder at Rom. 1:13; 2 Thess. 2:7. "Worship" is now used only with reference to the service of God, but occurs in the sense of respect shown to man at Luke 14:10; while "room," now meaning apartment, is used in the same verse to denote a seat. "Wealth" reads strangely indeed at 1 Cor. 10:24, "Let no man seek his own, but every man another's wealth," where the word means welfare. "Prevent" now means to hinder, but at Matt. 17:25 and 1 Thess. 4:15 it is used in the sense of anticipate or precede. "Quick" is used for living, as at Heb. 4:12, and is barely intelligible to the ordinary reader of that passage. "Ensue" is quite obsolete in the sense of pursue, which it has at 1 Peter 3:11. The word "conversation," as used in the Authorized Version, is a most fruitful cause of mistake. It always means conduct, except at Philipp. 3:20, where it is translated "citizenship" in the Revised Version, and might perhaps mean "city" or "home." The dreadful word "damnation," which stands at 1 Cor. 11:29, has had the very worst consequences in many cases, and means no more than judgment. "Honest," at Philipp. 4:8, is a Latinism, meaning honorable; and the same is true of Rom. 12:17, though the Greek is there different. "Affect," at Gal. 4:17, is used for court, and "allow," at Luke 11:48, means approve—senses of the words which would never occur to a modern English reader. The words "offend " and "offence" are very misleading, but it is not easy to substitute for them others that shall be in every respect preferable. The Revised Version has adopted cause to stumble and stumbling-block for "offend" and "offence" in some passages, as Matt. 5:29, 16:23, but in others has not been able to get rid of the obnoxious words. "Virtue," at Mark 5:30 and Luke 6:19, 7:46, simply means power. In the word "usury," at Matt. 25:27, there is no objectionable meaning, and it has been replaced by interest, as our language now requires. "Nephews," at 1 Tim. 5:4, really means grandchildren; and when Moses is called "a proper child," at Heb. 11:23, the meaning is what we now express by such a word as goodly. The singular expression "occupy," found at Luke 19:13, means traffic, and "by and by," which occurs at Matt. 13:21 and several other passages in the Gospels, means immediately. "Writing-table," at Luke 1:63, denotes writing tablet, while "devotions," at Acts 17:23, means "objects of worship." To mention only one other example of the many misleading archaisms which exist in the Authorized Version, the word "debate" is used at Rom. 1:29 in the sense of strife; and so liable is this to be misunderstood that we are told "a worthy member of a Scottish Church court once warned its members not to call their deliberations a 'debate," for debate was one of the rank sins condemned by the inspired apostle!"
As specimens of archaic phrases or modes of expression which are very apt at the present day to be mistaken, the following will suffice. At Matt. 6:34 the injunction, "Take no thought for the morrow," occurs, and has proved very hurtful in modern times. It was a faithful enough representation of the original two and a half centuries ago, for "thought" was then used in the sense of anxiety. But the word has now no such meaning, and the consequence is that the precept of our Lord as it stands has perplexed many a humble believer, while it has been used by unbelievers as a charge against Christ's teaching, which, they affirm, encourages improvidence. But the Greek really means, "Be not anxious for the morrow," and is so rendered in the Revised Version. Again, to take an instance of a different kind, what a ludicrous notion are these words at Acts 21:15 fitted to suggest: "And after those days we took up our-carriages, and went up to Jerusalem." Persons of education will doubtless run little risk of mistaking the meaning of the passage. But it should ever be remembered that the Bible is, above all other volumes, the people's book, and that, if possible, not a single expression should be left in any translation of it which is at all likely to stumble or perplex the plainest reader. In the case before us, a very slight change, "we took up our baggage," makes the meaning clear. Some strange stories have been told in connection with the words "we fetched a compass," which occur at Acts 28:13, and whether these be true or not, much is gained by the rendering, "we made a circuit," adopted in the Revised Version.
Some ambiguities which occur in the Authorized Version also deserve to be noticed. One of the most puzzling of these, if regard be had only to the apparently grammatical import of the words, occurs at 2 Cor. 5:21, "He hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin," where it might seem that the sinlessness of mankind was proclaimed. This possible misconception is very simply but effectually obviated in the Revised Version, by rendering, in exact accordance with the order of the Greek, "Him who knew no sin he made to be sin on our behalf." At Luke 4:20 the statement "He closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister" might suggest the idea of a president or preacher in the synagogue, instead of the attendant or officer who had charge of the sacred books. At Eph. 6:12 the rendering, "spiritual wickedness in high places," is clearly ambiguous, as it might seem to refer (and has, indeed, been so taken) to the wickedness of persons high in rank or authority, whereas the true meaning is "in the heavenly places," as in other passages of the Epistle. There is an obvious misplacement of the word "also" at Heb. 12:1, to the obscuring of the sense: 'Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses let us lay aside," etc., as if the believers named in the previous chapter were, like us, "compassed about," while they, in fact, are themselves "the cloud of witnesses;" and the verse should run, "Let us also;" etc. Finally, James 2:1, "My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ," is rendered clearer by translating "hold not," etc.; and so at chap. 3:1, "My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation," has, with advantage, been exchanged for, "Be not many teachers, my brethren, knowing that we shall receive a greater judgment," in the Revised Version.
We now proceed to consider the rendering of proper names.
The common-sense principle to be observed in regard to these is that one form should be preserved throughout Scripture for the same person, so that there may be no doubt as to identity. But, as need hardly be said, this rule is grossly violated in the Authorized Version. We find such varieties as Noah and Noe, Korah and Core, Hosea and Osee, Sinai and Sina, Midian and Madian, Miletus and Miletum, etc., made use of in referring to the same persons or places. This is most confusing to the reader, and may sometimes entail serious disadvantage. "Let us just seek," it has been well said, "to realize to ourselves the difference in the amount of awakened attention among a country congregation which Matt. 17:10 would create if it were read thus: 'And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elijah must first come?' as compared with what it now is likely to create." The procedure of our translators in regard to this matter of proper names is truly incomprehensible. Not only do they vary the forms in the Old and New Testament, but they do so in the New Testament itself, even in the same books, yea, in the same chapters. Thus we find "Mark" at Acts 12:12, 25 and 2 Tim. 4:11, but "Marcus" at Col. 4:10, Philem. ver. 24, 1 Peter 5:13; "Cretes" at Acts 2:11, but "Cretians" at Tit. 1:12 ; "Simon, son of Jona," at John 1:42, but "Simon, son of Jonas," at John 21:15, 16, 17; "Luke" at Col. 4:14, 2 Tim. 4:n, but "Lucas" at Philem. ver. 24; "Jeremy" at Matt. 2:17, but "Jeremias" at Matt. 16:14, and "Jeremy" again at Matt. 27:9; "Timotheus" at Acts 16:1, but "Timothy" at Heb. 13:21, and, most strange of all, "Timothy" at 2 Cor. 1:1, but "Timotheus," at ver. 19 of the same chapter. It is no slight gain that these and similar inconsistencies have been corrected in the Revised Version.
But there is another name which here calls for special notice—even the "name that is above every name." The Greek form of Joshua is Jesus, and for that very insufficient reason Jesus stands in two passages of the Authorized Version where Joshua, the leader of Israel, is intended. These are Acts 7:45 and Heb. 4:8, and in both passages the introduction of the name of Jesus must have proved very puzzling to plain English readers. When they find it stated that "if Jesus had given them rest, then would he (David) not afterward have spoken of another day," their minds are certain to form some confused notion of the Saviour, who is the author of rest to His people. And thus is a passage of Scripture obscured and perverted by the use of the name Jesus, instead of Joshua, to designate the illustrious captain of the children of Israel.
The extraordinary inconsistency of the Authorized Version in regard to proper names admits of still further illustration. At Acts 17:19 we find the term "Areopagus," but only three verses after the same spot is referred to as "Mars' hill;" the form "Judea" occurs at Matt. 2:1, and most other places, but for some inconceivable reason the name appears as "Jewry" at Luke 23:5 and John 7:1; so, again, "Judas" is the usual form in the New Testament for the "Judah" of the Old, but the name appears as "Juda" at Mark 6:3, etc., and as "Jude" in the first verse of the Epistle written by that Apostle. It is hardly possible to say a word in defence of such capricious variations, and, as a matter of course, they are not to be found in the Revised Version.
With regard to all such names, the really important points are that the form which has through circumstances become most familiar should be adopted, and that then this form should be adhered to with strict, unvarying consistency.
On now turning to the consideration of technical expressions, we find much to object to in the Authorized Version. Several, indeed, of the renderings it has given of them involve more or less of positive error. Thus is it with the term "deputy," which occurs at Acts 13:7, 8,12, and 19 : 38; it should always be translated " proconsul." Again, the rendering " certain of the chief of Asia," at Acts 19:31, suggests quite a false impression. It is an official title, and should have either been transferred from the Greek, like "tetrarch," so as to read "Asiarchs," or translated "presidents," as in the Revised Version. At Mark 6:27 the word rendered "executioner" really signifies "a soldier of the guard;" and at Rom. 16:23 "treasurer of the city" is a preferable rendering to "chamberlain."
It is very difficult to decide what course should be followed in translating the names of coins, weights, and measures. As need hardly be said, there are, as regards these, no words in our language exactly corresponding to the original; and it would never do to present them in a strictly equivalent version, so as to read "a measure of wheat for eightpence-halfpenny," or "six pounds five shillings would not purchase bread sufficient." On the other hand, every one feels that the "penny" and "pence" which occur so often in the Authorized Version are awkward and misleading. Still, nothing better could be found. The word in the original, "denarion," might indeed have been transferred from the Greek into English, and so with all the other terms in question. But this would have been felt almost intolerable, and such words could have conveyed no meaning to the English reader. For the most part, therefore, they have been left unaltered in the Revised Version. But in some passages greater definiteness has been given to the translation. Thus at Matt. 17:24, instead of the general word "tribute," there is read, "Doth not your master pay the half-shekel?' And at ver. 27 of the same chapter, for the un-meaning "piece of money," we read "the shekel," which, being exactly double the amount mentioned before, throws light on the immediately following words of our Lord to St. Peter, "that take, and give unto them for me and thee."
It may here simply be noted that the expression "Easter," which occurs once in the Authorized Version, is quite indefensible. Our translators struck it out from many other places in which it stood in the earlier English versions, and it was probably retained at Acts 12:4 by mere oversight. The word ought to be rendered there, as everywhere else, "passover."
There is one word not occurring at all in the Authorized Version, that has simply been transplanted from Greek into English in the Revised Translation. This is the term "Hades," denoting the invisible world. Immense gain has been secured in several passages by the adoption of this word. Thus is it very markedly at Acts 2:27, where these words are quoted from Ps. 16 in reference to Christ: "Thou wilt not leave my soul in Hades, neither wilt thou give thy Holy One to see corruption." The common rendering "hell" is here wholly unsuitable. That word has in the Revised Version been reserved for a totally different term {Gehenna) in the original.
Before concluding this chapter, I may notice the correction of an error in the Authorized Version which seems to have been due at first simply to a misprint. It occurs at Matt. 23:24: "Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel." The correct rendering is "strain out," and so, doubtless, the translators intended their text to be, but in some way or other, at instead of out found a place in the verse. We are told by scholars who have carefully examined the first edition of the Authorized Version, issued in 1611, that it is by no means correctly printed. The errors which it contained have been gradually removed in subsequent editions, so that the text is now very accurate; but strangely enough, while other mistakes have been perceived and corrected, this "strain at" for "strain out" has maintained its place down to the present day.
For a list of all of my books on disks, and other ebooks click here
Monday, September 24, 2018
The History of the English Bible, 125 PDF Books to Download
Only $5.00 - You can pay using the Cash App by sending money to $HeinzSchmitz and send me an email at theoldcdbookshop@gmail.com with your email for the download. You can also pay using Facebook Pay in Messenger
Books Scanned from the Originals into PDF format
Books are in the public domain. I will take checks or money orders as well.
Contents:
A General View of the History of the English Bible by Brooke Foss Westcott 1905
The History of the English Bible from the Earliest Saxon translations to the Anglo-American Revision 1882 by Blackford Condit
English Bible versions by Henry Barker 1907
The Bible in Shakespeare by William Burgess 1903
The History of the English Bible by John Brown 1912
The History of the English Bible by WF Moulton 1878
Bible Truths with Shakespearian parallels by JB Selkirk 1872
The History of the English Bible by Thomas H Pattison 1894
The Annals of the English Bible by Christopher Anderson, 1849
The Old English Bible, and other essays by FA Gasquet 1897
Shakespeare and the Bible, showing how much the great dramatist was indebted to Holy Writ for his profound knowledge of human nature by Thomas Ray Eaton 1860
The Puritan Bible and other contemporaneous Protestant versions by WJ Heaton 1913
Our own English Bible - its translators and their work by WJ Heaton 1913
The Bible of the Reformation by by WJ Heaton 1910
On Shakespeare's knowledge and use of the Bible by Charles Wordsworth 1864
The Popular History of the Translation of the Holy Scriptures into the English tongue by Hannah Conant 1881
William Tyndale, a Biography - being a contribution to the early history of the English Bible by R. Demaus 1886
The English Bible - a sketch of its history by George Milligan 1895
The History of the English Bible, studied by the library method by SG Ayres 1898
The Lollard Bible and other medieval Biblical versions by Margaret Deanesly 1920
Shakspeare and the Bible by Charles Ellis 1897
The ancestry of our English Bible by Ira Price 1911
English versions prior to King James 1911
Notes on the history and text of our early English Bible and of its early translation into Welsh by George Owen 1901
Our English Bible - the History of its development, 1611-1911 by JO Bevan 1911
Historical account of some of the more important versions and editions of the Bible by Charles Darling 1894
Old Bibles - an account of the early versions of the English Bible by JR Dore 1888
Palaeographia Sacra Pictoria - being a series of illustrations of the ancient versions of the Bible by JO Westwood 1843
An historical account of the British or Welsh versions and editions of the Bible by Thomas Llewelyn 1768
The Evolution of the English Bible - a historical sketch of the successive versions from 1382 to 1885 (1902) by Henry William Hamilton-Hoare
A Hand-book of the English Versions of the Bible by JI Mombert 1890
A Bibliographical Description of the Editions of the New Testament, Tyndale's version in English by Francis Fry 1878
The Versions and Revisions of the Bible by Morris H Stratton 1890
The English Church in the 16th Century by James Gairdner 1902
The Sources of Tindale's New Testament by James Loring Cheney 1883
The Sources of Tyndale's Version of the Pentateuch by John R Slater 1906
The Historic Origin of the Bible by Edwin Cone Bissell 1889
The Bible and English Prose Style by Albert S Cook 1892
Writings and translations of Myles Coverdale 1844
A Defence of the Sincere and True Translations of the Holy Scriptures into the English Tongue by William Fulke
A General Introduction to the Sacred Scriptures by Joseph Dixon 1875
A List of Editions of the Holy Scriptures by E.B. O'Callaghan 1961
Essays on the Languages of the Bible and Bible Translations by Robert Needham Cust 1890
A Century of Bibles-The KJV Bible from 1611 to 1711 by WJ Loftie 1872
The History of the Oxford Caxton Memorial Bible by Henry Stevens 1878
The Revision of the English Version of the New Testament by Philip Schaff 1873
A Laymen's Study of the English Bible Considered in its Literary and Secular Aspect by Francis Bowen 1885
A Guidebook to the Biblical Literature by George Franklin Genung 1919
The Literary Primacy of the Bible by George P Eckman 1915
Wit and Humor of the Bible by Marion D Shutter 1893
The Beauty of the Bible by James Stalker 1918
The Evolution of a Great Literature - Natural History of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures by Newton Mann 1905
The Literary Style of the Prophetic Books of the English Bible by David Henry Kyes 1919
Historic Bibles in America by John Wright 1905
Early Bibles of America by J. Wright 1892
Lincoln's Use of the Bible by S Trevena Jackson 1909
The English Bible; some account of its origin and various versions by George Henry Nettleton 1911
Shakespeare and the Bible, Parallel passages by G Colton 1888
English Versions of the Bible - a hand-book with copious examples illustrating the ancestry and relationship of the several versions, and comparative tables by JI Mombert (1906)
The English Hexapla exhibiting the 6 important English translations of the New Testament Scriptures, Wiclif, Tyndale, Cranmer, Geneva, Anglo-Rhemish, and Authorised 1841
Celtic Hexapla: Being the Song of Solomon in All the Living Dialects of the Gaelic and Cambrian languages 1858
A Brief History of the Versions of the Bible of the English and Roman Churches 1830
The references to the versions by the British revisers compared with the versions by Howard Osgood 1899
The English Bible: an external and critical history by John Eadie Volume 1, 1876
The English Bible: an external and critical history by John Eadie Volume 2, 1876
The Pronouncing Edition of the Holy Bible, containing the authorized and revised versions of the Old and New Testaments arranged in parallel columns, giving the correct pronunciation of every proper name contained in the Bible by SW Williams 1900
Translations of the Bible, a chronology of the versions of the Holy Scriptures since the invention of printing by Bernhard Pick 1913
The Bibles of England: a plain account for plain people of the principal versions of the Bible in English by Andrew Edgar 1889
The Holy Gospel, a Comparison of the Gospel text as it is given in the Protestant and Roman Catholic Bible versions by Frank J Firth 1911
The Theology of the Bible, itself the teacher and its own interpreter, 5 versions of the Old Testament and four of the New, compared with the originals 1866 by Oliver S Halsted 1866
History of the Bassandyne Bible, the first printed in Scotland by William T Dobson 1887
The English Bible. History of the translation of the Holy Scriptures into the English tongue. With specimens of the old English versions 1856 by HC Conant
Prospectus of a new translation of the Holy Bible from corrected texts of the originals, compared with ancient versions by A Geddes 1786
History of the English Bible by Henry Paterson Cameron 1885 (one page missing)
The History of the Bible by George Robert Gleig, Volume 1 1835
The History of the Bible by George Robert Gleig, Volume 2 1835
The Douay Testament - an episode in the history of the New Testament in Ireland by TC Hammond 1897
The Bible in Wales 1906
The Holy Scriptures in Ireland one thousand years ago by Thomas Olden 1888
A Manual of Bible History by Charles Hart, Volume 1, 1920
A Manual of Bible History by Charles Hart, Volume 2, 1920
The Gaelic Paraphrases, their origin and history by Donald Masson 1894
A Complete History of the several translations of the Holy Bible and New Testament into English ny John Lewis 1818
An Outline Study of the History of the Bible in English by MW Stryker 1914
A History of the British and Foreign Bible Society by William Canton, Volume 1, 1904
A History of the British and Foreign Bible Society by William Canton, Volume 2, 1904
A History of the British and Foreign Bible Society by William Canton, Volume 3, 1904
A History of the British and Foreign Bible Society by William Canton, Volume 4, 1904
A History of the British and Foreign Bible Society by William Canton, Volume 5, 1904
Bibliomania in the Middle Ages FS Merryweather 1849
Our Grand Old Bible, being the story of the Authorized version of the English Bible told for the Tercentenary celebration by William Muir 1911
The Greatest English Classic - a study of the King James version of the Bible and its influence on Life and Literature by CB McAfee 1912
An Authentic Account of our Authorized Translation of the Holy Bible and of the Translators by Henry Todd 1838
The Authorized Edition of the English Bible, its subsequent Reprints and Modern Representatives by FHA Scrivener 1884
The Romance of the English Bible by John Faris 1911
John Rogers: the compiler of the first authorised English Bible by Joseph Chester 1861
John Wycliffe and the first English Bible by Richard Storrs 1880
The First Printed English New Testament by Edward Arber 1871
plus you get:
The New Testament in Scots being Purvey's Revision of Wycliffe's Version turned into Scots by Murdoch Nisbet circa 1520 edited by Thomas Graves Law 1901 Volume 1
The New Testament in Scots being Purvey's Revision of Wycliffe's Version turned into Scots by Murdoch Nisbet circa 1520 edited by Thomas Graves Law Volume 2
The New Testament in Scots being Purvey's Revision of Wycliffe's Version turned into Scots by Murdoch Nisbet circa 1520 edited by Thomas Graves Law Volume 3
The Gothic and Anglo-Saxon Gospels in parallel columns, with the versions of Wycliffe and Tyndale by the Rev. Joseph Bosworth 1907
Liber Psalmorum - The West-Saxon Psalms, being the prose portion, or the 'first fifty,' of the so-called Paris Psalter 1907
by James Wilson Bright and Robert Lee Ramsey
Leabhraichean an t-Seann Tiomnaidh - air an tarruing o'n cheud chain chum Gaelig Albannaich - agus air an cur a mach le h-ughdarras ard-sheanaidh eaglais na h-Alba - GAELIC BIBLE
Letters and other Documents, on the subject of a new translation of the Sacred Scriptures into Gaelic - with notes - Ross, Thomas, 1768-1843
The Gospel according to Saint Matthew in Anglo-Saxon and Northumbrian Versions, Synoptically Arranged - with Collations of the Best Manuscripts 1858
The Gospel according to Saint Luke in Anglo-Saxon and Northumbrian Versions Synoptically Arrangrd 1874 by Walter Williams Skeat
The Coverdale 1535 Bible (printed in 1838) - The Coverdale Bible, compiled by Myles Coverdale and published in 1535, was the first complete Modern English translation of the Bible.
Postils on the Epistles and Gospels by Richard Taverner 1841 - Richard Taverner (c. 1505 – 14 July 1575) is best known for his Bible translation, The Most Sacred Bible whiche is the holy scripture, conteyning the old and new testament, translated into English, and newly recognized with great diligence after most faythful exemplars by Rychard Taverner, commonly known as Taverner's Bible.
The History of the English Bible - extending from the Earliest Saxon Translations to the Present Anglo-American Revision by Blackford Condit 1896
The Psalter of the Great Bible of 1539 - a Landmark in English Literature 1894 by John Earle
Scripture Extracts for the use of the schools supported by the Gaelic School Society in the Highlands and Islands in Scotland
Tiomnadh Nuadh ar Tighearna agus ar Slanuighir Iosa Criosd : eadar-theangaichte o'n ghreugais chum Gaelic albannaich
Yn Vible Casherick - ny yn Chenn Chonaant, as yn Conaant Noa : veih ny chied ghlaraghyn; dy kiaralagh chyndait ayns gailk : ta shen dy ghra, chengey ny mayrey Ellan Vannin. Pointit dy ve lhaiht ayns kialteenyn (1819) MANX
Manx (native name Gaelg or Gailck, pronounced [GILK] or [GILG), also known as Manx Gaelic, is a Goidelic language spoken on the Isle of Man. The last native speaker, Ned Maddrell, died in 1974, but in recent years it has been the subject of language revival efforts.
Histor an Testamant Coz hag an Testamant Nevez (1886) BRETON
Breton is descended from the Brythonic branch of Insular Celtic languages brought by Romano-British and other Brythons to Armorica, perhaps from the end of the 3rd century onwards. The modern-day language most closely related to Breton is Cornish which are mutually comprenhensible, followed by Welsh. (The other regional language of Brittany, Gallo, is a Langue d'oïl derived from Latin.)
Conaant Noa nyn Jiarn as Saualtagh Yeesey Creest: veih ny chied ghlaraghyn, dy kiaralagh chyndait ayns Gailck - William Walker 1815
Testament Newydd: ein harglwydd a'n hiachawdwr Iesu Grist (1879)
Welsh
The Psalms of David in Metre - Translated and Diligently compared with the Original text, and former translations - more plain, smooth, and agreeable to the text, than any heretofore 1833
Commentary on the Greek text of the epistle of Paul to the Galatians (1869)
John Eadie (Scottish)
The New Testament- a new translation (1913) James Moffatt (Scottish)
The Gospel of Matthew in Broad Scotch by William Wye Smith 1898
Llaw-lyfr y Beibl, cyfieithiedig gan J.R. Morgan (1860) by Joseph Angus
Hanesion y Beibl - yn cynnwys, tri chant o ddygwyddiadau hynod yn hanesyddiaeth y Beibl - gydag agos i 300 O ddarluniau / wedi eu gyfaddasu i'r cymry gan Thomas Levi (1860) Welsh
A study of Augustines versions of Genesis by John Strayer McIntosh 1912
The Principal Versions of Baruch by Robert R Harwell 1915
Sunday, September 23, 2018
Thomas Jefferson on Religion & the Doctrine of the Trinity
One day a grandchild of Mr. Jefferson asked him why he would not state his religious convictions, he replied:
"If I inform you of mine, they will influence yours—I will not take the responsibility of directing any one's views on the subject."
In his letters, he enters so frankly into his beliefs that nothing is left to conjecture. He believed in God—one, not three.
He believed in a future life in which we should know those whom we had known here. He believed that religion consisted in being good and doing good.
He believed in a benevolent design in creation. If he can be classed with any church at all, he was a Unitarian. He was certainly not more orthodox than that. In one of his letters he calls himself a materialist, contrasting himself with Christ, who was a spiritualist. He rejected the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, and the Holy Ghost.
He classed Jesus with Socrates and other great teachers, regretting that he wrote nothing, and that we have to take so much of his doctrine on hearsay.
He (Jesus) had no one to write for him as Socrates and Epictetus had, but, on the contrary, the learned men of his country were all against him for fear that his teachings might undermine their power and riches. His doctrines therefore fell to ignorant men, who wrote from memory long after the transactions had passed.
Notwithstanding these disadvantages, Jesus presented a system of morals which if filled up in the spirit of the rich fragments he left us would be the most perfect and sublime that has ever been taught by man. Whether Mr. Jefferson was acquainted with the system of morals taught among the Hindus long before the time of Jesus nowhere appears.
It would seem that he compared the system of Jesus with the moral teachings of the Jews, the Romans, and the Greeks—not with those of ancient Egypt or of India.
He says that Jesus, like other reformers who try to benefit mankind, fell a victim to the jealousy and combination of the altar and the throne. Hence he did not reach the full maturity and energy of his reasoning faculties, and his doctrines were defective as a whole.
What he did say has come down to us mutilated, misstated, and often unintelligible.
These fragmentary doctrines have been still more disfigured by the corruptions of schismatizing followers who have found an interest in perverting the simple doctrines he taught, frittering them into subtleties, obscuring them with jargon until they have caused good men to reject the whole in disgust, and to view Jesus himself as an impostor. He contended that it was the priest—not Jesus himself—who put forward the claims that his origin was miraculous and divine. He read the Bible just as he read Euripides, Aeschylus, or Xenophon. From the New Testament he made the volume called Jefferson's Bible, which contains the life and teachings of Christ, omitting everything about his miraculous birth and resurrection.
In writing to a friend about this little book Mr. Jefferson regretted that he did not have time to prepare a similar volume from the teachings of Epicurus—a philosopher whom he defends against Cicero and the Stoics. Writing to the son of his dearest friend, Dabney Carr, he tells this young man, his nephew, to put the Bible on a par with Livy and Tacitus, to read the one just as he would the others; and by inference as plain as inference can be, advises him to reject the story that Joshua made the sun stand still, and that Christ was the son of God, born of a Virgin, who reversed all the laws of nature and ascended bodily into heaven. He tells his young nephew that when he reads of a miracle in the Bible he ought to class it with the showers of blood and the statues and animals which in the books of Livy and Tacitus are made to speak. In other letters he charges in effect that the early founders of the Christian Church borrowed the idea of the Trinity from the Roman Cerberus, which had one body and three heads. Calvin's creed excited his especial horror; and his language was never more violent than when denouncing it.
But the doctrine of the Trinity aroused his indignation also because it compelled the individual to take leave of his senses. He thought that to compel a sane person to declare that he believed three to be one, and one to be three, was a priestly triumph over common sense which was degrading to the human race.
In 1822 he wrote, "I trust there is not a young man now living in the United States who will not die a Unitarian."
And in his letter to Pickering he speaks glowingly of what might result if we could get back to the pure and simple doctrine of Jesus—knocking down artificial scaffolding of the Trinitarians and doing away with their incomprehensible jargon that three are one and one are three. He said that the Apocalypse was the ravings of a maniac. Nobody could possibly understand what it meant.
But what theologian ever wrote a more beautiful letter than this, which the great Deist left for his little namesake, Thomas Jefferson Smith:
"This letter will, to you, be as one from the dead. The writer will be in his grave before you can weigh its counsel. Adore God. Reverence and cherish your parents. Love your neighbor as yourself and your country more than yourself. Be just. Be true. Murmur not of the ways of Providence.
"So shall the life into which you have entered be the portal to one of eternal and ineffable bliss. And if to the dead it be permitted to care for the things of this world, every action of your life will be under my regard."
This was written the year before he died.
To Peter Carr, son of Dabney Carr, he wrote:
"Give up money, give up fame, give up science, give up earth itself, and all it contains, rather than do an immoral act."
Saturday, September 22, 2018
The Biblical Subordination of the Son
This Kindle book, And the Word was a god: Conversations on the Most Disputed Text in the New Testament - John 1:1, is available on Amazon by clicking here...and it is only 99 cents
What does the Bible say about the Son's relationship to the Father:
Isa 11:1,2 "But there shall come forth from a shoot the stock of Jesse, And a sprout from his roots shall bear fruit; And the spirit of Yahweh shall rest upon him, The spirit of wisdom and understanding, The spirit of counsel and might, The spirit of knowledge and reverence of Yahweh" Rotherham's Emphasized Bible
Heb 2:7,8 "For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels; and hast crowned him with glory and honor, and hast set him ruler over the works of thy hands; Thou hast put all things under his feet." Lamsa's Translation of the Aramaic Peshitta
1 Cor 11:3 "God is the Head of the Christ" 20th Century NT
Jn 17:3 "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." KJV
Mark 10:18 "Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone." NASB
Jn 5:19 "I most solemnly say to you, the Son can do nothing by Himself, except as He sees the Father doing." Williams NT
Jn 6:38 "I came down from heaven, not to do what I want but what He wants who sent Me." Beck
Jn 7:16 "Jesus answered them and said, 'My doctrine is not Mine but His who sent Me"
Matt 20:23 "Truly, you will take of my cup: but to be seated at my right hand and at my left is not for me to give, but it is for those for whom my Father has made it ready. BBE
Luke 22:42 "He prayed saying 'Father, if Thou art willing, remove this cup from Me; nevertheless, not My will, but Thine be done'" Worrell NT
Heb 5:8 "Although a Child, Jesus learned obedience through suffering." Inclusive Version
Rev 1:1 "This is the revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to him to show his servants the things that must happen soon." ISV
Acts 5:31 "Him has God exalted by his right hand as leader and saviour, to give repentance to Israel and remission of sins." Darby
1 Cor 15:27,28 "the Son himself will also be made subordinate to God" NEB
Phil 2:8,9 "and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient [even] unto death, yea, the death of the cross. Wherefore also God highly exalted him
Jn 14:28 "I go on to the Father, because my Father is greater than I." Young
Mark 13:32 "As for that exact day or minute: no one knows, not even heaven's messengers, nor even the son, no one, except the Father." Funk, Hoover
Jesus has someone who is God to him
Micah 5:1-4 "In the majesty of the name of the LORD, his God." Smith&Goodspeed
Matt 27:46 "Jesus cried out...My God, my God, why have you abandoned me." God's Word
Jn 20:17 "I am going to ascend to My God and your God" New Berkeley Version
Rom 15:6 "So that you may together give glory to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ with one heart. NJB
2 Cor 1:3 "Let us give thanks to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." TEV
2 Cor 11:31 "To God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" Geneva
Eph 1:3 "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" BLE
Eph 1:17 "The God of our Lord Jesus Christ" Moffatt
Heb 1:7-9 " That is why God, your God, anointed you with [the] oil of exultation more than your partners." NWT
1 Pet 1:3 "Blessed is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." Lattimore
Rev 1:6 "unto his God and Father" Montgomery
Rev 3:2 "in the sight of my God" Phillips
Rev 3:12 "the temple of my God....the name of my God...out of heaven from my God" Jewish NT
Exactly how many times does scripture have to attest to the subordination of the Son to His God and Father before it is actually believed?
1Cor.8:6 identifies the "one God" as the Father who is the source of creation. Jesus is explicitly excluded when he is next identified as the "Lord" who is simply the agent of the one God. 1Tim.2:5 states there is "one God" but then specifically EXCLUDES Jesus from being that one God by saying he is the "mediator" between GOD and humans. Without equivocation or replacing the word God with father, explain how can Jesus be the same God he is mediator for?
Far from being Almighty, Jesus is said to have a God over him before, during and after he came to earth (Mic.5:4, Rom.15:6, Rev.1:6; 3:2,12). Rather than being equal in power, Jesus is said to be in subjection to God even when he is as high as he ever gets (1Cor.15:27,28, Eph. 1:17; 19-22). Mat.28:18,19 says that when Jesus returned to heaven he had to be "given" all authority (power-KJV). If Jesus were equal to God in power, then why exactly would he need to be "given" any authority? (Mt.28:18; 11:27, Jn. 5:22; 17:2; 3:35; 2Pet.1:17) cf. (Mat.11:26-27, Dan.7:13-14, Phil.2:9).
"I submit that a responsible reading of Philippians 2 finds the doctrine of the eternal subordination of the Son implied in it. AS J.J. Muller has said in commenting on this text: 'The glorification of the Father is the ultimate purpose of all things.'" John V. Dahms, The Subordination of the Son, JETS, September 1994, 351-64
Robert Wilken wrote in _The Myth of Christian Beginnings:
"From the very beginning, the Christian tradition had struggled with the question of JESUS' relation to God . . . Very early Christians tried to account for his extraordinary life and accomplishments and his Resurrection, and it was not long before he was called Son of God--then God. EVEN SO, HE WAS NOT GOD IN THE SENSE IN WHICH THE FATHER WAS GOD--OR WAS HE? Was he creator, was he eternal, should he be addressed in prayer? These and other questions troubled thoughtful Christians for almost three centuries. During these years, MOST CHRISTIANS VAGUELY THOUGHT OF JESUS AS GOD; yet they did not actually think of him IN THE SAME WAY THAT THEY THOUGHT OF GOD THE FATHER. They seldom addressed prayers to him, and thought of him somehow as SECOND TO GOD--DIVINE, YES, BUT NOT FULLY GOD .
. . When the controversy over the relation of Jesus to God the Father broke out in the early fourth century, most Christians were "SUBORDINATIONISTS," i.e. they believed that Christ was God BUT NOT IN PRECISELY THE SAME WAY THAT THE FATHER WAS GOD" (See pp. 177-183).
"With the exception of Athanasius virtually every theologian, East and West, accepted some form of subordinationism at least up the year 355; subordinationism might indeed, until the denouement of the controversy, have been described as accepted orthodoxy." (Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God, p.xix)
"What, however, is said of his life and functions as the celestial Christ neither means nor implies that in divine status he stands on a par with God Himself and is fully God. On the contrary, in the New Testament picture of his heavenly person and ministry we behold a figure both separate from and subordinate to God" (Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, 1967-68, Vol. 50, pp. 258, 259).
Paul, of course, did not have an explicit doctrine of the Trinity, and he often appears to operate with a subordinationist christology (cf. 15:28)." (Richard Hays, 1 Corinthians, page 192).
Friday, September 21, 2018
In Praise of Bible Versions Done by Individuals
I have never been a big fan of modern mass-produced Bibles as they seem to cater to a mostly conservative Evangelical audience. This audience wants their Bible to reflect their beliefs. While many feel that a committee translation is freer of theological bias, it has been my experience that committee translations are more subject to compromise. Some of the most interesting and creative translations come from individuals. Smith & Goodspeed's An American Translation. James Moffatt's translation, The Holy Bible in Modern English by Ferrar Fenton, Andy Gaus' Unvarnished New Testament, Hugh Schonfield's Original New Testament, heck, even Rodolphus Dickinson created more interesting translations of the Bible than the New International Version.
Sure, interesting anomalies can creep into the text, like "Once upon a time" at Genesis 11:1 or "I shall remain at Ephesus until Whitsuntide" (1Cor. 16:8)...oh wait, that's actually the New English Bible...a committee translation.
Besides some obvious and superior differences (like John 1:1 and John 8:58) in individual translations, there are also advantages when it comes to beauty and clarity.
Let's compare some of these:
Song of Solomon 4:8: "You are altogether beautiful, my love; there is no flaw in you." ESV - Now compare this to Ronald Knox's Bible, "Fair in every part, my true love, no fault in all thy fashioning!"
1 Peter 4:8: "Above all, keep loving one another earnestly, since love covers a multitude of sins." ESV
- Now compare this to Weymouth's New Testament: "Above all continue to love one another fervently, for love throws a veil over a multitude of faults.
Genesis 1:1: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters." ESV
- Now compare The Bible in Modern English by Ferrar Fenton "BY Periods God created that which produced the Solar Systems; then that which produced the Earth. But the Earth was unorganised and empty; and darkness covered its convulsed surface; while the breath of God rocked the surface of its waters."
1 Timothy 2: "But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of stress. For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, inhuman, implacable, slanderers, profligates, fierce, haters of good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, holding the form of religion but denying the power of it. Avoid such people." RSV
- Now compare Rodolphus Dickinson's New Testament: "Further, know this, that in the last days, difficult periods will arrive. For men will be selfish, avaricious, arrogant, ostentatious, impious, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, without natural affection, perfidious, calumniators, licentious, fierce, despisers of those who are good, treacherous, rash, frivolously aspiring, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God; having a form of holiness, but discarding its power: from such also turn away."
Wordy? Perhaps. But can you imagine Sir John Gielgud narrating an audio version of this New Testament? That would be delicious.
Colossians 2:8: "See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world rather than on Christ." NIV
- Now compare James Moffatt's Bible: "Beware of anyone getting hold of you by means of a theosophy which is specious make-believe, on the lines of human tradition, corresponding to the Elemental spirits of the world and not to Christ."
1 Timothy 6:20: "O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, avoiding worldly and empty chatter and the opposing arguments of what is falsely called “knowledge”— which some have professed and thus gone astray from the faith."
-Now compare Richmond Lattimore's New Testament: "Oh Timothy, guard this which has been entrusted to you, putting aside the profane babblings and antitheses of what is falsely called knowledge; which some have professed, and thus failed in their faith."
Hebrews 2:9: "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man. For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren, Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee. And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me." KJV
-Now compare The Epistles of Paul in Modern English, A Paraphrase by George Barker Stevens: "Now the temporary humiliation of Christ below the angels is no argument against his real supremacy over them. It was a necessary condition of his accomplishing his saving work for man that he should pass through a career of suffering. For both Saviour and saved have a common Father, — God; hence the Saviour does not scruple to address men as his brothers, expressing, in common with them, his trustful dependence on Jehovah, and naming himself as the elder brother of the children of God."
Matthew 6:24: "Ye cannot serve God and mammon." ASV
-Now compare The Unvarnished New Testament: "You can't serve God and the Almighty Dollar."
1 Corinthians 6:20: Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? NASB
- Now compare Richmond Lattimore's New Testament: "Where is the sage? where is the scholar? Where is the student of this age? Did not God turn the wisdom of the world to folly?
Romans 6:24: "In the same way the Spirit also joins to help in our weakness, because we do not know what to pray for as we should" HCSB
-Now compare Hugh Schonfield's Original New Testament: "Likewise the Spirit comes to the assistance or our limitations; for we do not know how to express ourselves adequately in prayer."
Sure, many of the above may not be great for study, but I would rather listen to an audiobook of the Goodspeed or Williams New Testament than I would the ESV. Aside from the cherry-picked extreme examples one can find in "Liberal," Catholic or translations made by individuals, they can give you a fresh perspective on the Biblical text. "Standard" Evangelical/Fundamentalist/Conservative Bibles bow to a strict theological adherence and the pressure of public expectations, especially when it comes to favorite passages like John 1:1.
There is also a financial motive.
Edwin H. Palmer, Th.D., Executive Secretary for the NIV's committee wrote about failing to include the Divine Name:
"Here is why we did not: You are right that Jehovah is a distinctive name for God and ideally we should have used it. But we put 2 1/4 million dollars into this translation and a sure way of throwing that down the drain is to translate, for example, Psalm 23 as, 'Yahweh is my shepherd.' Immediately, we would have translated for nothing. Nobody would have used it. Oh, maybe you and a handful [of] others. But a Christian has to be also wise and practical. We are the victims of 350 years of the King James tradition. It is far better to get two million to read it—that is how many have bought it to date—and to follow the King James, than to have two thousand buy it and have the correct translation of Yahweh. . . . It was a hard decision, and many of our translators agree with you."
At least that was a kind answer. The publisher of the International Standard Version was not quite that friendly when I wrote to them in the late 1990's:
"In regards to your puerile insistence on the 'Divine Name' -- I have news for you. The ISV is in English, not Hebrew. If you want to use the "Divine Name" -- whatever you may think that it is (how DO you pronouce JHWH, or is the Divine Name KYRIOS, or is it Lord, lord, LORD, L-rd, L-RD, God, G-d, G-D?) -- go right ahead and spend two million dollars to prepare your own English language base translation of the Bible like we did. You can call God anything you want to, mistranslate 'anthropoi' to fit your own uninformed prejudices, and do whatever you want to do with the text, all with your own petty baseless religious superstitions and prejudices, but with no real substantive scholarship behind it, just some silly superstitious religious nonsense which you presume to be more spiritual than our work. Your ridiculous letter has earned a place of hallowed presence in the Learn Foundation's "tartarus" page at http://isv.org/tartarus.htm (where all the baseless comments are posted). I shall request that your letter be posted there, together with our response. I'm tired of people like you (and people like the woefully ignorant "King James Only" and "Textus Receptus" crowd) taking pot shots at our work. Please do not buy the ISV or any of our publications. Just shut up and leave us alone and don't bother to waste my time with any more email messages."
Charles Welty, Publisher
ISV New Testament
Wow!
There are also advantages to having an older individual translation in contrast to a newer one. Check out Psalms 100:3 in the Message Bible: "Know this: GOD is God, and God, GOD." This is perhaps one of the stupidest things I have ever read. I would much rather have Julia Smith's Bible where it reads: "Know ye that Jehovah he is God."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)