Author: Steven

Minister at Glendale Road Church of Christ (Murray, KY)

Translation is Interpretation

Translators have to make judgment calls all the time. Sometimes they hit the nail on the head, and other times they don’t. Nevertheless, it’s worth noting that the job isn’t the easiest and they do their best. Let’s take one passage as an example: 1 Thessalonians 4:4

NIV: That each of you should learn to control your own body in a way that is holy and honorable. 

NASB: That each of you should know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor. 

I would translate it as, “To know each one of you his own vessel how to acquire/possess in holiness and honor.” The term “vessel” was often used concerning a wife in antiquity because she received the seed of her male counterpart in sexual intercourse (cf. 1 Peter 3:7). Simply put, Paul may be giving instructions on acquiring and having a wife. Since the vessel was utilized as a receptacle, we see it elsewhere in Scripture: Paul was God’s chosen vessel (Acts 9:15), and indeed he received the Holy Spirit (Acts 9:17). Believers, too, were vessels meant for honorable use while unbelievers were for dishonorable use (Rom. 9:21; cf. 2 Tim. 2:20–21). The honorable were receptors of the Holy Spirit like Paul (Rom. 8:9–11) and mercy, while the dishonorable were receptors of wrath (9:23). Since her husband ruled the wife in ancient Rome, she was considered his possession. Therefore, the proper acquisition of a wife demands the husband avoid passion. One reason this interpretation is plausible is based on verse six, which discusses exploiting a brother or sister.

Passion was the dishonorable loss of self-control, according to the ancients. As one scholar put it, “Vices of excess bring shame upon those who commit them [1 Cor. 7:35-36; cf. 6:18].” The active form of decorum referred to a dignified appearance obtained through the control of elimination of all passions, particularly those relevant to drinking alcohol, overeating, and sex. Pleasures overindulged in were seen as filled with passion and ugly practices. What was Paul advocating? Paul likely encourages that men regard women as valued. Perhaps even Christian equality, friendship, and mutual openness. 

This was counter to the Greco-Roman view:

For this is what living with a woman as one’s wife means—to have children by her and to introduce the sons to the members of the clan and of the deme, and to betroth the daughters to husbands as one’s own. Mistresses we keep for the sake of pleasure, concubines for the daily care of our persons, but wives to bear us legitimate children and to be faithful guardians of our households. (Demosthenes 59.122; ca. 382–322 BC)

Avoid impurity to the utmost of your power before marriage, and if you indulge your passion, let it be done lawfully. But do not be offensive or censorious to those who indulge it, and do not be always bringing up your own chastity. (Epic. Ench. 33.8; ca. AD 55–135)

While it was not unusual for Roman citizens to have multiple sexual partners, homosexual encounters, and engagement with temple prostitutes, Christians stood out precisely because of their refusal to engage in these practices.

“One in mind and soul, we do not hesitate to share our earthly goods with one another. All things are common among us but our wives” (Tertullian, Apol. 39). 

 “[Christians] share their meals, but not their sexual partners” (Diogn. 5.7).  

Christians “do not commit adultery nor fornication” and “their men keep themselves from every unlawful union” (Aristides, Apol. 15).

In his defense to Octavius, Marcus Felix (c. third century) contrasts the sexual ethic of the pagan world with that of Christians:

Among the Persians, a promiscuous association between sons and mothers is allowed. Marriages with sisters are legitimate among the Egyptians and in Athens. Your records and your tragedies, which you both read and hear with pleasure, glory in incests: thus also you worship incestuous gods, who have intercourse with mothers, with daughters, with sisters. With reason, therefore, is incest frequently detected among you, and is continually permitted. Miserable men, you may even, without knowing it, rush into what is unlawful: since you scatter your lusts promiscuously, since you everywhere beget children, since you frequently expose even those who are born at home to the mercy of others, it is inevitable that you must come back to your own children, and stray to your own offspring. Thus you continue the story of incest, even although you have no consciousness of your crime. But we maintain our modesty not in appearance, but in our heart we gladly abide by the bond of a single marriage; in the desire of procreating, we know either one wife, or none at all (31).

Now, for argument’s sake, let’s say that he isn’t talking about having a wife. The other interpretation would be how one uses his or her own body in holiness and honor by avoiding fornication. Either interpretation is in keeping with Christian doctrine and morality. Yet, you see why some translations would prefer body to vessel.

A History of the English Bible

When considering the Bible in English, we have to begin in England. Christianity’s arrival in England is alleged to have occurred in the first century but is attested to by AD 200 (Tert., Adv. Judaeos 7). According to tradition, Aristobulus was sent by the Church at Tyre to Britain in AD 37. In Wales, there’s a town named after him, and Eusebius and Hippolytus attribute him as the first bishop in Britain. The first British Christian martyr was St. Alban in AD 304. Later, in AD 313, three bishops from London, York, and Lincoln (maybe?) attended a conference in Arles, France. 

The Latin Vulgate was the standard Bible since AD 400, but translations into local vernacular were emerging. English derives from the West-Germanic and Indo-European language family. Among the earliest English manuscript is the Anglo-Saxon Proto-English that dates to AD 995. As a matter of consistency, John 3:16 will be used to compare the evolution of the language. 

God lufode middan-eard swa, dat he seade his an-cennedan sunu, dat nan ne forweorde de on hine gely ac habbe dat ece lif. 

The fourteenth-century Oxford scholar John Wycliffe produced the first English manuscripts of Scripture. He opposed the established church because he believed it was contrary to Scripture, so the Bible in English for the common man to read became a goal. 

For god loued so the world; that he gaf his oon bigetun sone, that eche man that bileueth in him perish not: but haue euerlastynge liif.

His manuscripts were produced from the Latin Bible, the only source available. Wycliffe so angered the Pope that he had his remains dug up, crushed, and scattered in the river forty-four years after he died. One of Wycliffe’s followers, John Hus, continued his mission and advocated that people should be able to read the Bible in their language and he opposed the tyranny of the Roman church. Hus was burned at the stake, and Wycliffe’s manuscripts were used as kindling for the fire. The year was 1415, and Hus’ last words were, “In 100 years, God will raise up a man whose calls for reform cannot be suppressed.” In 1517, Martin Luther nailed his famous ninety-five theses to the door at Wittenberg—an act often regarded as the spark that began the Reformation. 

Many others would follow in this endeavor, but William Tyndale was the first to print the New Testament in English. At the time, this was forbidden, so he took these to be printed in Cologne.

However, his intention was discovered, and the printing was halted while he fled. Around 1526, he had 3,000 copies produced in Worms. Tyndale was strangled and burned at the stake in October 1536. Only three copies of his Bible exist today. One of Tyndale’s disciples, Myles Coverdale, continued his work, translating the Old Testament and producing the first complete Bible in English in 1535—Coverdale Bible.  

The Great Bible was an English translation authorized by the Church of England in 1539, but a more significant English translation followed—the Geneva Bible (c. 1560). It was the first Bible to add numbered verses and chapters for quick reference—the works of Shakespeare quote from this translation. This was the standard version for over 100 years. It retained over 90% of Tyndale’s translation and was a significant source for the King James Bible (c. 1611). The Geneva Bible was the first English translation taken to America by the Puritans and Pilgrims. Nevertheless, when the King James Bible was published, they were so large that they were chained to the pulpits in every church in England. It was decades before King James surpassed the Geneva Bible. Here’s how it read when published in 1611: 

For God so loued the world, that he gaue his only begotten Sonne: that whosoeuer beleeuth in him, should not perish, but haue everlasting life.

A note of interest: the first Bible printed in America was in the native Algonquin language by John Eliot in 1663. 

Noah Webster, after whom Webster’s Dictionary is named, translated the Bible into the vernacular in 1833. Many remained loyal to the 1611 edition of the KJV and refused Webster’s version. Yet, in the 1880s, England produced the Revised Version to replace the KJV. More ancient manuscripts were discovered by this time, making a revision necessary. Until this time, the Bible had eighty books. In the 1880s, the Apocrypha was eliminated, giving us the sixty-six books we now have. Americans produced the American Standard Version in 1901 in response to the Revision Version. This was the standard version until 1971 when the New American Standard was printed. The NASB was considered the best word-for-word translation of the Bible from Hebrew and Greek into English that has ever been produced. In the same year, the first paraphrase of the Bible was created—The Living Bible. Another translation philosophy had arisen. 

A couple of years later, critics of the direct and literal translation wanted something they believed would flow better in English, so the NIV was produced. Until this time, the philosophy that guided translations was formal equivalence which aimed at matching the form and structure of the original as close as possible. The NIV translation philosophy would be dynamic equivalence, translating the ideas into contemporary language. Wherever there are poetic or archaic-sounding ideas, dynamic equivalence puts that into modern parlance for the reader’s sake. This new philosophy would make it so that a junior-high student could read and understand what the Bible was saying. 

The New King James Version was created in 1982 to update the wording for KJV loyalists. In 2002, an attempt was made to synthesize the NIV’s readability and the NASB’s precision, producing the English Standard Version—deriving from the NRSV. Next, we’ll explore some challenging passages to translate and how they’re resolved. 

The Earliest Bible Translations

The Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew, with some portions appearing in Aramiac—specifically in Daniel and Ezra. The oldest copies of the Old Testament were discovered around the Dead Sea and are referred to as the Dead Sea Scrolls—dating to the third–second centuries BC. Before this discovery in the twentieth century, the oldest copy of the Old Testament was a Masoretic Text dated to AD 1008–09 (Leningrad Codex). The original Hebrew Bible contained only consonants but between AD 500–700, Jewish scribes known as Masoretes produced copies in which they added vowels to preserve pronunciation. This is the standard authoritative text used in synagogues and by Catholics and Protestants as the source text for their Old Testament translations. 

In the third century BC, seventy (or seventy-two) Hebrew scholars translated the Old Testament into Greek. This is the earliest translation of the Hebrew Bible and is often called the Septuagint, or LXX—referring to the seventy who translated it. We don’t know what copies they translated from, but it includes second-century BC fragments of Leviticus and Deuteronomy. This is stated because the LXX has variants that differ from the Masoretic text. For example, Jeremiah 27:19–22: 

Septuagint (NETS) 19 … Even some of the remaining vessels 20 which the king of Babylon did not take when he exiled Jeconiah from Jerusalem, shall enter into Babylon, says the Lord.

Hebrew Bible (NRSV) 19 … and the rest of the vessels that are left in this city 20 which King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon did not take away when he took into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon King Jeconiah son of Jehoiakim of Judah, and all the nobles of Judah and Jerusalem—21 thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, concerning the vessels left in the house of the Lord, in the house of the king of Judah, and in Jerusalem: 22 They shall be carried to Babylon, and there they shall stay, until the day when I give attention to them, says the Lord. Then I will bring them up and restore them to this place.

I prefer to think of these differences like how we read the Synoptic Gospels—as variations rather than contradictions. There are many between the LXX and Hebrew Bible. The Orthodox Church uses the LXX for their Old Testament since the early church used it. This translation was the basis for the Old Latin, Coptic (Egyptian), Ethiopic, Armenian, Georgian, Slavonic, and part of the Arabic translations. 

The Samaritan Pentateuch was comprised in the second century BC (approx. 122 BC). It was written in Samaritan Hebrew in contrast to Tiberian Hebrew among the Jews. Samaritans only acknowledged the Bible’s first five books, and we have variations from the Old Testament. For example, in Acts 7:4, Stephen says that Abraham left Haran for Canaan after his father died, agreeing with the Samaritan Pentateuch; the Masoretic Text claims that Abraham’s father died sixty years after he had left (Genesis 11:32). In the Septuagint and the New Testament book of Acts (7:14), Jacob had seventy-five descendants rather than the seventy found in the Hebrew Bible. A few years later, portions of Scripture were translated into Aramaic since that was the most spoken language in Palestine. It’s known as the Targum, Aramaic for “translation.” 

The New Testament was written in Koine Greek in the first century AD. In the second century, however, the Old Testament was translated into Syriac, spoken by Jews in northern Syria. This version was called the Peshitta (“simple”). Later, Syriac Christians adopted it and added a Syriac version of the New Testament. 

Mount Ebal Produces the Oldest Hebrew Inscription

Years ago, one of my professors and I casually discussed God’s providence. Because my studies centered on the canon of the Great Books of the Western World, compiled by Mortimer Adler, I often read works based on the Enlightenment and unkind to faith. As we spoke, I made a point that around the time of these critiques was when archaeology was surging. While many “scholars” criticized the Bible for, as they claimed, not being based on history, archaeologists were discovering artifacts confirming the Bible’s history.

In Deuteronomy 27:15–26, Moses instructed the Levites to lead Israel from Mount Ebal with eleven curses against anyone who partakes in idolatry, dishonors their parents, or moves their neighbor’s boundary stone. In Joshua 8:30, Joshua built an altar on Mount Ebal after taking Ai, where he repeated the curses of Moses. In the 1980s, archaeologists sifted through Mount Ebal, cataloging discoveries. In 2019, discarded material thought to be irrelevant was examined further. Recently, an amulet was run through an x-ray tomographic measurement to reveal a hidden text—“You are cursed by God YHW.” The YHW is God’s name, often considered “Yahweh.”

One scholar believes the inscription dates to the 13th century BC, which was the time that Joshua and Israel settled in the land of Canaan. Others believe it is older, making this discovery the oldest Hebrew inscription. Before this discovery, the oldest Hebrew inscription dated to the late tenth century, which is the period during which Saul and David were kings.

What’s neat, at least to me, is how these discoveries confirm the biblical account and do so in the timeline established. Since some think this inscription is older than the 13th century—the timeline of Joshua—it is likely that it was during Moses’ lifetime—roughly the middle of the fifteenth century onward. While some continue to doubt the Scriptures, plenty of evidence confirms their historicity. Hopefully, we have faith enough that we don’t need this evidence to “prove” what we already believe. Instead, it is nice to see the confirmation of a divinely given, inspired Bible. 

Praying, They Were Singing

I’ve always been impressed with the verbiage of Acts 16:25. “About midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns to God, and the prisoners were listening to them” (NRSV). What’s fascinating is the Greek verbiage, not the English. In English, singing and praying are two things, but in Greek, it’s seen as one and the same.

A. T. Robertson’s Word Pictures reads: “Praying they were singing (simultaneously, blending together petition and praise).” Wayne Jackson’s New Testament commentary reads: “The Greek construction suggests they were ‘singing prayers.’” Alford’s Greek Testament notes: “…in their prayers, [they] were singing praises. The distinction of modern times between prayer and praise, arising from our attention being directed to the shape rather than to the essence of devotion, was unknown in these days.” Vincent’s Word Studies notes: “Lit., praying, they sang hymns. The praying and the praise are not described as distinct acts. Their singing of hymns was their prayer, probably Psalms.”

I find this so interesting because we distinguish prayer and praise, but in the early church, they were not as distinct as we made them out to be. There are many passages where prayer is isolated from praise (Matt. 26:39; Luke 22:44; Heb. 5:7; et. al.). Even in worship, prayer is sometimes distinguished from praise, but it’s often mentioned near to praise (1 Cor. 14:15; James 5:13; Rev. 5:8-9). These commentaries made me wonder if even those of the Reformation understood this concept better than we because Charles Spurgeon commented on Psalm 42 in his Treasury of David, “I would just as soon pray with machinery as to sing with machinery.” Makes you think, doesn’t it?

Orthodox philosopher and theologian David Bentley Hart’s New Testament translation accurately reflect this nuance. “And at about midnight, as they were praying, Paul and Silas sang hymns to God, and the prisoners listened to them.” I also consulted N. T. Wright’s New Testament translation, but he doesn’t reflect this. Most English translations don’t, but why are so many commentaries keen to point this out? Why not translate it as it should be?

Let’s Talk Revelation (Part 2)

In Revelation 7, we read about the 144,000. As you look at this passage, we can first note some information about the four winds. According to Jewish thought, four winds stood at each compass corner. These winds could destroy a nation (Jer. 49.36) or bring new life (Ezek. 37.9). Zechariah portrays these winds as chariots pulled by different teams of horses which leave the Lord’s presence and go out into all the earth (Zech. 6.5-7). Jesus taught that at His coming during the destruction of Jerusalem that the angels would gather the elect from the four winds (Matt. 24.31). 

We, next, observe the faithful being sealed. Ezekiel 9 sets the backdrop for the sealing of God’s faithful. This imagery of the seven executioners is present in Babylonian literature as well. There they punish those having committed religious offenses, as is the case here (Ezek. 9.4). The imagery of Ezekiel’s seven would have reminded the audience steeped in idolatry about the impending punishment that comes from Yahweh. The mark on their forehead in Hebrew was the taw. This was the last character of the paleo-Hebrew alphabet, and it looked like a modern “X,” or cross. Moreover, the Greek letter “chi” was equivalent to taw and was the first letter in Christ’s name in Greek. The church father Origen (A.D. 185-254) wrote, “A third [person] one of those who believe in Christ, said the form of the Taw in the old [Hebrew] script resembles the cross, and it predicts the mark which is to be placed on the foreheads of Christians.”

In Revelation, the seal separates God’s faithful from the faithless. A pseudepigraphical writing called the Psalms of Solomon was composed in the first century B.C. (it details Pompey’s capture of Jerusalem in 63 B.C.). It also gives a little insight into the marking of God’s people: “For the mark of God is upon the righteous for salvation. Famine, sword, and death shall be far from the righteous; for they shall pursue sinners and overtake them, and those who do lawlessness shall not escape the judgment of the Lord” (15.6-8). Sometimes branding in antiquity was also a sign of a slave (3 Macc. 2.29). In Christianity, sealing became symbolic. The Holy Spirit sealed the Asian churches (Eph. 1.13; 4.30). This wasn’t a physical mark, as some might think. It was a mark distinguishable only by God and His agents of wrath (cf. 2 Cor. 1.22), and it distinguished the faithful from the wicked (cf. 2 Tim. 2.19). This seal in Revelation is to protect God’s faithful, as in Ezekiel (Rev. 7.3).

Now, we arrive at 144,000. This list in Revelation of the 12 tribes differs from other lists (see Gen. 35.23-26; 49.3-27; Deut. 33.6-25): Reuben usually heads the list, but Judah does here likely because this is the tribe from whence Jesus, the lion of the tribe of Judah, came (Rev. 1.5; 5.5); and John included Manasseh while omitting Ephraim and Dan (see 1 Kings 12.29-30). Since this group is spared divine wrath but not earthly persecution, it may be that they will be those who complete the number of the slain souls under the altar (Rev. 6.9-11). These twelve tribes are used figuratively for Jewish Christians (James 1.1). Jewish Christians were predominant over the first decade of the early church. Staying with the Jewish identity, their being “first fruits” (Rev. 14.4) was also well founded as spoken of by the Jews (Jer. 2.3; Rom. 11.16; James 1.18). If this concerns Jewish believers, the great multitude in Revelation 7.9ff were Gentile believers. This could also reference the church — God’s new Israel (Gal. 6.16; cf. Gal. 3.7-9, 29).

Whomever they were, they sang a new song described as the roar of rushing waters, a loud peal of thunder, and harpists playing their harps. No heavenly creature could learn this song because participation is limited to those redeemed from the earth (cf. 1 Peter 1.12; Eph. 3.10) centered on redemption by the Lamb from the beast. They were “virgins” (cf. 2 Cor. 11.2) who were blameless (Rev. 14.4). This may mean that they maintained ritual purity before battle (Deut. 23.9-10; 1 Sam. 21.5; 2 Sam. 11.11). Later on, Babylon (Rome) is referred to as the mother of harlots (Rev. 17.3-5), and those who consort with her would have defiled themselves (cf. Rev. 2.22).

Let’s Talk Revelation (Part 1)

TIMELINE OF EVENTS

Most Evangelical commentators tend to assert that Revelation was written with three periods of time in mind: 1) things John saw in chapter one, 2) those that were in chapters two and three, and 3) those that would take place afterward, beginning with chapters four or six. Charles Ryrie—in his study, Bible notes—advocates the former while John MacArthur—in his Bible handbook—advocates the latter. A key passage to their supposition is 1:19, where it is written:

Write therefore the things that you have seen, those that are and those that are to take place after this.

What Evangelicals argue for is that chapters six through twenty-two are end-time (eschatological) material that hinges upon a thousand-year reign. However, internal terminology would refute this claim.

  • “The time is near” (1:3; 22:10; cf. Matt. 3:2; 4:17)
  • These things “must soon take place” (22:6)
  • Jesus said he was “coming soon” (22:12, 20; cf. 1:1)

The terms in English and Greek speak to a swift course of action and certainly not one that would be delayed over two millennia. Granted: the judgment scene in chapters twenty and onward appears to be the true end-time material that may be exempt from the interpretation. However, at what point does the contextual divide speak to the original audience and all thereafter come somewhere in chapter twenty and onward unless one holds to a more symbolic interpretation of the final three chapters? A case for understanding the time frame in which John’s original audience may have understood this prophecy is found when comparing his work to other prophetic literature.

Daniel was told to seal up his vision because it referred to many days from his time (Dan. 8:26). He was also told that the book was to remain sealed “until the time of the end” (12:4). As time went on knowledge would increase as to the culmination of these prophecies. He was urged to go his way because the words of his prophecy were “sealed till the time of the end” (12:9). Studying history along with Daniel’s prophecy reveals that it was not for another four hundred years that those kingdoms came which he had been told of (cf. Dan. 2). Therefore, Daniel would not live to see the fulfillment of the prophecies; hence his being instructed to seal the book. So the sealing of a prophecy book looked ahead to a distant period.

When John wrote Revelation, the angel told him not to seal the words of his book (Rev. 22:10). Why? Because “the time [was] at hand.” If Daniel’s prophecy saw fulfillment some four hundred years later, and he was told to seal the book, would not John’s prophecy have been fulfilled long before the same span of time since he was told not to seal his book?

I Dug Deeper and No Longer Believe Joshua is a Book About Genocide

For the longest time, I struggled with the Book of Joshua. I thought it was a book about genocide mainly because that’s how most people, even many Christians, described it. One of the most complex parts of the book is how violent it is and how this reflects on God’s character. After all, it was in Leviticus (19:18) that God commanded Israel to love their neighbor as themselves. Jesus reiterates this too, so how do we face the rampant violence in the book?

I am wholly unsatisfied with Reformed theology’s explanation of the matter–the sovereignty of God and how we shouldn’t question what he does. Well, even that’s not biblical. People throughout the Old Testament question God, not to challenge his authority, but to understand.

I’ve read that “God so loved the world,” and “God is love.” That doesn’t seem very loving at all. That’s the kind of thing Zeus or Mars would have done. That sounds like a schizophrenic person. The first thing I admitted was that God IS love and that I must be misunderstanding the matter. Rather than laying my emotions on God, I put them on myself and decided I was wrong. That led me to a deeper study.

First, if we consider that Abraham lived around 2100 BC, we can place the mercy and longsuffering of God within a 700-year period. God promised the land to Abraham, but when he did, the sins of the Amorites weren’t complete (Gen. 15:16). God’s judgment/conquest of the land wasn’t something that he just planned at the last minute. He, in his omniscience, knew it would come to this. Yet, 700 years should be enough time for people to get their act together (cf. Deut. 9:5). Sadly, they did not, so God ordered their utter destruction (Deut. 7:1–2; 20:16–18). 

Second, we observe that God would preempt removing people from the land. He didn’t intend those folks’ complete extermination or annihilation, and Scripture states as much. God promised to send pestilence to the land before the conquest to drive them out little by little (Exod. 23:28–30; Deut. 7:22–24). He wanted to drive them out (Deut. 9:4), but if any remained, they would be destroyed. 

Third, archaeology has demonstrated something: cities like Jericho and Ai weren’t civilian centers but military outposts. Archaeology also discloses that the towns and cities in Canaan were nearly uninhabited in the period we believe the conquest occurred—the thirteenth century. Plus, after the “conquest,” we observe Canaanites living among the Israelites. The book of Judges points out how this cohabitation was problematic for Israel.     

Fourth, Israel was commanded to offer peace terms before battle (Deut. 20:10–13). Only the Hivites of Gibeon accepted the peace terms, but everyone else did not (Josh. 11:19). 

Fifth, not everything we read should be taken literally. This is often an error when reading the Bible, but ancient battle narratives were not written like modern books of history. Ancient war narratives contained battle idioms. When someone says, “It’s raining cats and dogs,” we know not to take that literally. The understanding is that the rain is heavy. Another part of ancient battle narratives is an exaggeration. While we expect a level of accuracy that conforms to journalistic standards, ancient writers wrote for literary effect. We might think of it, sometimes, as talking trash. Another example is how Joshua uses language to state that they took all the land, defeated all the kings, and utterly destroyed the Canaanites. The point was that God had exerted complete control over the land. As you read through Joshua, he often says that Canaanites still lived in the land.

Why Do Some Translations Have Extra Verses That Others Don’t?

Depending on your Bible translation, you will either have or lack Matthew 17:21; 18:11; 23:14; Mark 7:16; 9:44, 46; 11:26; 15:28; Luke 17:36; 23:17; John 5:3b-4; Acts 8:37; 15:34; 24:6b-8a; Rom. 16:24; 1 John 5:7b-8a. Older translations contain them, such as the King James and New King James. Newer versions, however, do not. Since the KJV and NKJV are among the oldest English translations, they are often pointed to as the standard of English translations. Yet, just because they are “older” English translations doesn’t mean they are the best.

The very first Greek New Testament to be comprised was by Erasmus in 1516. He used 12th-century manuscripts of the New Testament. Remember that we’re focusing on the New Testament, translated from Greek. There was a Greek Old Testament, the Septuagint, in Jesus’ day. Nevertheless, at Erasmus’ time, the oldest manuscript was from the 10th century, but he opted for those from the twelfth century. As time passed, scholars made revisions that echoed Erasmus’ text. Most English translations through 1880 used the same Greek New Testament, called Textus Receptus (“received text”). 

By the 1700s, many more manuscripts had been discovered. Some were six to nine centuries older than what Erasmus had available. These older manuscripts lacked the passages mentioned earlier. A common belief was that a scribe may have mistaken an explanatory marginal comment for a correction and copied it into the text, which accounts for why older English translations have a few more verses. A new Greek New Testament was made and appeared in 1831. Since the manuscripts were older than Erasmus used, they omitted the sixteen passages to construct a more ancient version, reflected in many English translations today.  

Since 1611, the King James Bible has reigned as the preeminent English translation. However, because of the newer Greek New Testament, a Revised Version was commissioned in England in 1881. The Revised Version would later birth the New Revised Standard Version, which would later birth the English Standard Version. When the Revised Version appeared, there was a considerable uproar since the long-dominant KJV had set the standard. The omission of the verses was seen as blasphemous, and people cited Revelation 22:19 to those who upheld the Revised Version. Revelation 22:18 is more relevant if you want to argue the point. 

Translations that omit these added verses usually contain a footnote or marginal note explaining that they appear in later manuscripts. Modern translations do not leave these verses out per se any more than the older ones added them. They are simply the product of the information available at the time. Now that we have older information, the translations that omit them should be more commonly used.

More recent translations utilize a vast amount of sources. The standard for most English translations is the Masoretic text of the Hebrew called Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia; the Greek New Testament used is Novum Testamentum Graece. Translators often consult, alongside these sources, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament), the Samaritan Pentateuch (Law of Moses), the Syriac Peshitta (Syriac Bible), the Latin Vulgate, and other sources that may help shed light on texts that may be difficult to translate. 

The Sordid History of Daniel 4-5

*In my haste to publish this, I neglected to mention that one of my sources is my friend, Michael Whitworth’s book, The Derision of Heaven: A Guide to Daniel (Bend, Oregon: Start2Finish, 2013).

My Wednesday Bible class has been studying the book of Daniel. We’ve concluded the first six chapters and will begin chapter seven this evening. Our focus has, thus far, been on how Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah lived faithfully to God while living in a society unfriendly to their religion. Furthermore, we have noted and discussed how we as Christians can live faithfully to God while living in our own Babylon–be that our nation, workplace, home, or where ever. Yet, when we arrived at chapters four and five, the history of Daniel did not align with other document histories.

Something that always catches my attention is when Scripture and secondary sources disagree. This usually leads me down a rabbit hole of historical investigation. I’ve always believed that when Scripture and any other authority are at odds, I’ve misinterpreted one or both. Chapters four and five have information that historians point out as non-historical, at best, or manipulated to fit into the various prophetic schema of Israel, at worst. 

Nabonidus was the king when Babylon fell to Cyrus the Great, so why are Belshazzar and Darius the critical figures in chapter five? For so long, historians had dismissed the book of Daniel as folklore that spun together various prophetic passages to Israelite favor. Yet, in 1854, British explorers uncovered the temple of Ur, finding cylinders from Nabonidus’ reign. Moreover, listed among a prayer for the king was the inclusion of his son, Belshazzar. Since then, extensive documentation has corroborated this information to the extent that it’s common knowledge and doesn’t require citation. 

Folks have also remarked that the madness of Nebuchadnezzar in chapter four was misplaced because Nabonidus was known to have had a mental breakdown for about a decade. However, Eusebius of Cesarea (4th century CE) quotes Greek historian Abydenus (c. 250–200 BCE), whose history of the Assyrians is preserved in quotations from various later historians—the writings, aside from these quotations, are lost in history. Abydenus quotes from a historian whose work was closer to the period than his, Megasthenes (c. 350–290 BCE). Eusebius quotes, 

[Megasthenes] subsequently relates from the Chaldeans’ [accounts] that when [Nebuchadnezzar] had returned to the royal court, some deity took control of his mind and spoke in this manner: ‘Oh brave Babylonians, I, Nebuchadnezzar, I predict that grief will befall you.’ He continues on in this vein for a while and then the historian [tells us] that after this eloquent speech he suddenly disappeared from sight. Then [his] son, Amilmardochus [Evil-morodach in the Hebrew Scriptures; Amul-Marduk in history], ruled. (Chronicle 1.11)

Nabonidus was the last Babylonian king, but he lived in exile because of his favoritism towards the moon god, Sin, while Marduk was the city’s chief god. During this exile, Belshazzar was co-regent. When the Persians, under Cyrus the Great, conquered Babylon, Belshazzar was killed, and his father exiled once more. Another detail is that Nebuchadnezzar is referred to as Belshazzar’s father (Dan. 5:2, 11). Nabonidus was Belshazzar’s father, who led a coup to take the throne, being no son of Nebuchadnezzar. 

Belshazzar is regarded as king in this chapter because of his father’s absence, and he acts as a regent in his father’s absence. Nebuchadnezzar may be described as Belshazzar’s father because the latter succeeded the former. This designation is seen in other literature when no direct relation existed. One possible explanation for Darius the Mede may be that he was Gobryas (Greek), the general who captured Babylon on Cyrus’ behalf. He was governor of Gutium in Media. Another possible explanation is that in Daniel 6:28, the text could read, “The reign of Darius, that is, the reign of Cyrus.” Kings often had multiple regnal names (cf. 1 Chron. 5:26). Cyrus took over the Median Empire, having a Median mother. Therefore, it wouldn’t be implausible that he would be called the king of the Medes. Yet, this is my best attempt at setting the record straight.  

Settling the New Testament?

The twenty-seven books that make up the New Testament appear in the 39th Festal Letter of Athanasius (c. 367)—a prominent bishop—and this is the typical starting point for many regarding their history of the canon. Because of such a detailed letter regarding the New Testament, some have concluded that the canon was a late invention considering the letter’s dating. Still, the canon emerged in the first century and is evident in the writings of the early church fathers as functional before the fourth century. Athanasius wrote this letter to end the disputes about other orthodox letters believed to be equal to apostolic writings—Shepherd of Hermas and Epistle of Barnabas. It also detailed Peter’s epistles and Revelation’s authenticity, which was questionable to some.

Earlier than his festal letter, a catalog from North Africa listed twenty-four books named the Mommsen Catalog (c. 359). Cyril of Jerusalem had earlier listed all the books except Revelation (c. 350), but the Council of Nicea is often the canon’s accepted settling point (c. 325). However, the council’s entirety wasn’t about the canon, but the divinity of Jesus, hence the Nicene creed. Because they affirmed the canon doesn’t mean they “created” it. Similarly, regional church councils acknowledged the canon but didn’t determine it. As Michael Kruger puts it, “These councils were declaring the way things had been, not the way they wanted them to be.” 

Around 250 CE, the early church theologian, Origen produced a list of the New Testament in his commentary on Joshua.

Matthew … Mark also; Luke and John each …  Even Peter … in two of his epistles; also James and Jude. In addition, John … through his epistles, and Luke, as he describes the Acts of the Apostles … in fourteen of [Paul’s] epistles. (Hom. Josh. 7:1; cf. Hom. Gen. 13.2)

This list would have included Revelation and John’s epistles; Hebrews would have counted as a letter of Paul because some in the early church believed that Paul wrote Hebrews. 

What, however, precipitated the list and the official declaration of the canon? It all began around 144 CE because of an early church heretic, Marcion. He only listed the gospel of Luke and ten of Paul’s epistles, omitting the pastorals and Hebrews. A harmony of the four gospels appeared in 170 CE by Tatian and was entitled Diatessaron. At about the same time, Melito of Sardis identified the Old Testament canon used by the Jews. The earliest response to Marcion’s list with list is the Muratorian Canon (c. 180), named after its discoverer. It contains twenty-two of our twenty-seven books, omitting James, 1 & 2 Peter, 3 John, and Hebrews. Interestingly, around the same time as the Muratorian Canon, Irenaeus was the first to refer to a New Testament (Adv. Haer. 4.15.2).  

This leads to the truth that some books we now acknowledge as inspired weren’t always regarded as such by everyone in the early church. Athanasius explained the reasoning for excluding two well-regarded writings, but a few were disputed earlier, such as 2 Peter, 2–3 John, Jude, and James. Other writings were outright rejected: Acts of Paul, Apocalypse of Peter, Gospels of Peter, Thomas, and Matthias (Eus. Eccl. Hist. 3.25). 

Early Hints of a New Testament

One can easily make the case that a New Testament, or a canon of the new covenant Scriptures, was expected. When we examine the Mosaic covenant, we notice in Hebrews 9:18–21 the facets making up the first covenant that appears in Exodus 24:3–8, and among them is the book (Heb. 9:19). Unlike the first covenant, no tabernacle or vessels in the New Covenant are cleansed because the church and individual Christians are God’s temple (1 Cor. 3:16; 6:19). Nevertheless, we who comprise the church and are of the Way are sprinkled with the lamb’s blood in our baptisms, and in due course, a book would necessarily emerge. Now, this perspective isn’t accepted by everyone. Some scholars contend that the New Testament could not have been foreseen and wasn’t expected. Others contend that the canon wasn’t created until the end of the second century CE, but I tend to disagree with both of those propositions. 

The earliest hint of an emerging canon appears in 2 Peter 3:16. Peter recognizes Paul’s writings as on par with Scripture. What he has in mind when referring to Paul’s letters isn’t altogether clear because Paul wrote some widely accepted letters while others were questionable. Peter assumes that his audience knows what he’s talking about, and he likely expects that they receive his letter similarly, given that he addressed himself as an apostle (2 Peter 1:1; cf. 2 Peter 3:2). Another hint at recognizing authoritative writings in the first century is 1 Timothy 5:18, which is a quotation from Luke 10:7 and Deut. 25:4. The opening phrase, “For the Scripture says,” recognizes both passages as Scripture. This initial phrase comes from Deut, while the rest is identical to Luke’s wording. Thus far, Paul’s writings and Luke’s gospel account are considered Scripture based on internal evidence from the letters. 

Another aspect worth considering is the nature of public readings in the assembly. In several New Testament letters, we observe the command to have them read publicly, which indicates that they carried authority (Col. 4:16; 1 Thess. 5:27; 2 Cor. 10:9; Rev. 1:3). We’re able to base this conclusion, in part, on how portions of the Old Testament were read in synagogue meetings (Luke 4:17–20; Acts 13:15; 15:21). Other scholars have additionally pointed out that the Greek structure of Matthew and Mark lent itself to a liturgical structure—which means that they would have been used for year-round public readings. The fact that such letters were urged to be read publicly along with Paul’s command to “devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture” (1 Tim. 4:13) may, in fact, suggest that he already believed his writings to have been such (cf. 2 Peter 3:2). 

The earliest historical source about a Christian assembly details the authority of the apostolic writings. 

And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. (Justin Martyr, 1 Apol. 67.3)

What’s clear from history is that Scripture was not exclusively read in early church assemblies. Some popular writings that were often read in the church but were not placed among the acknowledged books were The Shepherd of Hermas (Eus., Eccl. Hist. 3.3.6; cf. Rom. 16:14) and 1 Clement (Eus., Eccl. Hist. 4.23.11). Serapion, the Antiochian bishop (190–211 CE), wrote to dispel the Gospel of Peter that had been read in Rhossus because it had led some astray (Eus., Eccl. Hist. 6.12.2). Certain epistles were well esteemed because of the author, while others were forgeries.  

Some might find the notion of reading non-canonical letters in the assembly challenging. However, these writings weren’t ultimately included in the canon because they were not universally accepted. There were three criteria for canonicity: 1) universality, 2) apostolicity, and 3) orthodoxy. If a writing fit into all three, it was accepted into the canon. However, there’s debate over another point: did the church create the canon? If so, authority primarily rests with the church—which is what Catholics and Orthodox believe, their definition of “church” here meaning the priesthood. However, while it’s true that prelates assembled to formalize the canon, they didn’t “determine” so much as “acknowledge” what had, up to that time, been regarded as Scripture. From the latter point of view, Scripture is more authoritative. This is the great divide between Protestants and Catholics/Orthodox.

See Harry Y. Gamble, The New Testament Canon: Its Making and Meaning (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), 12; James Barr, Holy Scripture: Canon, Authority and Criticism (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1983), 12. 

 Lee Martin McDonald, “New Testament Canon”, n.p. [cited 25 Mar 2021]. Online: http://www.bibleodyssey.org/tools/ask-a-scholar/new-testament-canon 

Michael D. Goulder, Midrash and Lection in Matthew (London: SPCK, 1974), 182–83; Phillip Carrington, The Primitive Christian Calendar: A Study in the Making of the Marcan Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1952).