1 KEYNOTE

THE CONFESSION, INSPIRATION, AND The Westminster Confession helps us understand and answer quite a few of the TRANSLATIONS by Tito S. Lyro questions posed in the preceding para- graph. The divines rightly gave the chap- Which one is the right Bible? Are all ter on the Word of God a place of pre- translations inspired? Can I be sure that eminence by placing it first. Chapter 1 my English Bible is the Word of God? All masterfully deals with the doctrines of of us have, at one point or another, asked inspiration and preservation of the Scrip- all or some of these questions. When the tures, and sets forth the need for transla- Lord saved me, I was given a nice, paral- tions in the common language of the lel Bible. It had all kinds of bells and people. An analysis of the entire chapter 1 whistles, but it became confusing to me is beyond the scope of this article. There- because I didn’t know which column to fore, we will focus on Paragraph 8 of that read. Should I read the column on the first chapter because it encapsulates the right, or the one on the left? Or, should I issues that are pertinent to this article. read one with one eye and the other with the other eye? Besides personal doubts THE INSPIRED TEXT about which version to read, there is also The Confession states “The Old Tes- the debate about which Greek text should tament in Hebrew (which was the native be used, which method of translation is language of the people of God of old), sound, which version is from God and and the New Testament in Greek (which, which is from the Devil. Choosing a Bible at the time of the writing of it was most can be a very stressful activity! generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God… are there- fore authentical.” This means that inspi- ration has to do with the biblical text in the original language, not with translations into various languages. No single trans- Inspiration has to do lation is inspired in the same sense that with the biblical text in the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts are. the original language, Notice that the Confession speaks of the immediacy of the inspiration of the origi- not with translations nal text. The word immediately in this case into various languages. means “without intervening medium of No single translation is agent.”2 In other words, immediately inspired in the same could be replaced by the word directly. God directly inspired the original writ- sense that the Hebrew, ings.3 Aramaic, and Greek texts are. Inspiration, however, is not a me- chanical or robotic process. God worked out the lives of the sacred writers in a such The WRS Journal 10:2, August 2003 2 a way that when they arrived at the point Although we don’t have the autographs, of writing the Scriptures, they wrote ex- we do have the correct, inspired text be- actly what God wanted without any vio- cause God preserved for us as he prom- lence being done to their own thinking, ised he would. Interestingly enough, he purpose, or volition. Dr. Warfield writes: chose a way that is contrary to what most of us would have chosen. Instead of pre- Representations are sometimes made serving one set of manuscripts that would as if, when God wished to produce be the standard for everybody, God pre- sacred books which would incorpo- served the original text in thousands of rate His will–a series of letters like different manuscripts. What at first seems those of Paul, for example–He was counterintuitive becomes obvious when reduced to the necessity of going down one thinks about it. Instead of preserving to earth and painfully scrutinizing the the autographs, which would probably men He found there, seeking anx- become the object of sinful worship, God iously for the one who, on the whole, kept the text protected by providing so promised best for His purpose; and many copies of it that no one can effec- then violently forcing the material He tively change the reading of the text and wished expressed through him, against get away with it. G. I. Williamson explains his natural bent, and with as little loss this concept in more scholarly terms: from his recalcitrant characteristics as possible. Of course, nothing of the sort At first sight it would appear that with took place. If God wished to give His the disappearance of A [autographs] people a series of letters like Paul’s (probably worn out with use) the text He prepared a Paul to write them, and would be doomed to progressive cor- the Paul He brought to the task was a ruption thereafter. But such is not the Paul who spontaneously would write case. The reason is that God has exer- such letters.4 cised control over all the elements and agencies concerned with the preser- The Scriptures speak of its writers vation of the sacred text. We see that being moved by the Holy Spirit as a ship God determined that early copies of is carried along by the wind.5 As a ship the original would be made. True, each arrives at its wanted destination by the erred in a slight degree, but they did blowing of the wind, the biblical writers not all err in the same points. Being arrived at what they wanted to write by human, the copier of manuscript B the moving of the Spirit. Thus, the origi- would make a mistake here and there. nal manuscript of each of the books of Likewise would the copiers of C and the Bible contained the exact words that D. But they would each err in a differ- the Holy Spirit uttered through the writ- ent, individual way. So that where B ers. This is true of the autographs. How- erred, C and D would not err. In ef- ever, what about the current Hebrew/Ara- fect, C and D would thus bear witness maic and Greek texts? against the error of B. And so, while the true (or perfect) original text would The Confession states that “by His not be entirely reproduced in any singular care and providence,” God single copy, yet it would not be lost or “kept” the original text “pure in all ages.” inaccessible because by the majority The WRS Journal 10:2, August 2003 3 testimony of several copies, error nation unto which they come.” The need would always be witnessed against. for translating the Scriptures into the vul- The true text would be perfectly pre- gar, or common, language of people is served within the body of witnesses.6 made clear by the testimony of the Scrip- tures themselves and by the testimony of Thus, when the science of textual criti- God’s providence in history. cism has been correctly applied, we can truly say that we have today the inspired When the Israelites returned to Judea and inerrant text of God. Now, keep in from the Babylonian captivity, Hebrew mind that this is true of the text in the origi- was no longer their everyday language. nal languages. That is why the Confes- Aramaic had become the popular lan- sion says that “in all controversies of reli- guage among the people of Israel. So, gion, the Church is finally to appeal unto when Ezra gathered the people to hear the them.” Therefore, it is imperative that the Law read, he also provided a translation leaders in the Church of the Lord Jesus of the sacred text: Christ know the language of his Word.7 Now all the people gathered together as one man in the open square that was in front of the Water Gate; and they told Ezra the scribe to bring the Book If God wished to give of the Law of Moses, which the LORD His people a series of had commanded Israel. So Ezra the letters like Paul’s He priest brought the Law before the as- prepared a Paul to sembly of men and women and all who could hear with understanding on the write them, and the first day of the seventh month. Also Paul He brought to the Jeshua, Bani, Sherebiah, Jamin, task was a Paul who Akkub, Shabbethai, Hodijah, Maaseiah, Kelita, Azariah, Jozabad, spontaneously would Hanan, Pelaiah, and the Levites, write such letters. helped the people to understand the Law; and the people stood in their place. So they read distinctly from the book, in the Law of God; and they gave the sense, and helped them to Not everybody in the Church, how- understand the reading. (Neh 8:1-2, ever, is able to study and learn the origi- 7-8) nal languages and the Confession makes provision for that. It says, “But, because The Levites helped the people understand these original tongues are not known to what was being read by providing a trans- all the people of God, who have right unto lation from Hebrew into Aramaic. The and interest in the Scriptures, and are com- result of providing a translation of the law manded, in the fear of God, to read and that the people could understand was search them, therefore they are to be trans- hearts broken by the Word of God.8 lated into the vulgar language of every The WRS Journal 10:2, August 2003 4 We find the same pattern in the New Testament biblical writers used. By the Testament. Time and time again, the gos- end of the 1800s it was commonly ac- pel writers go through great pains to trans- cepted that there were words in the New late words they think their audience will Testament that were specially coined by not understand. For example, Mark wrote the Holy Spirit. Some lexicons even pro- to a primarily Gentile audience. So, when vided a list of “Holy Ghost Greek” he recorded Jesus’ utterance of Psalm 22:1 words.13 The reason for such belief was in Aramaic, he also gave a translation of that these words were not found in any of it in Greek.9 In another place, Mark trans- the literary works of the time. With the lated into Greek what Jesus said to the early 1900s discoveries of non-literary little girl.10 John, who also wrote to a papyri (bills of sale, personal letters, busi- Gentile audience, gives translations of ness documents, etc.), it became clear that Hebrew and Roman terms in Greek.11 the words in the “Holy Ghost Greek” list Luke did the same thing in Acts.12 So, we were not specially coined by the Holy see that translations were used by the bib- Spirit. In fact, they were common, every- lical writers to increase the understand- day, down to earth words. That is why they ing of their audience, thus, making the weren’t in Plutarch, or in the other authors Scriptures more profitable to them. The of the time; the words weren’t erudite Holy Spirit himself made use of a trans- enough for them.14 So, God, in his provi- lation in moving the biblical writers to dence, chose to use a very accurate, yet write the New Testament. Almost every current, language for the text of the New Old Testament quotation in the Epistle to Covenant. Therefore, we must follow his the Hebrews is from the Septuagint, a lead in our translations. Greek translation of the Hebrew/Aramaic Old Testament. God, through providence has shown how useful and needed translations are. Another very important witness to the Very early, following the closing of the fact that the Scriptures need to be trans- canon, the Scriptures were translated into lated into the common language of the Syriac, Armenian, Old Latin, etc. God people is the very Greek that the New used these translations to further his king- dom among non-Greek speaking nations. Later on when Latin became the language of Christianity, the Church commissioned God, in his providence, Jerome to revise the Old Latin translation. chose to use a very Instead Jerome started afresh and pro- accurate, yet current, duced a magnificent Latin translation, the Vulgate. As the name indicates, the language for the text of Vulgate was designed as an accurate trans- the New Covenant. lation in the common language of the Therefore, we must people. Jerome wanted it to be accessible. Through the years, however, the Vulgate follow his lead in our became idolized by the church and be- translations. came the standard of biblical text, instead of the Hebrew and Greek. Not till two centuries before the 16th century Refor- The WRS Journal 10:2, August 2003 5 mation was another meaningful transla- (New York: Random House, Inc., tion produced. Even then, the translator 1980), 664. was persecuted as a heretic. Interestingly 3 These original writings are commonly enough, most of the pre-Reformation ef- called the autographs. The autographs, forts to put the Bible into the common then, are the actual manuscripts that language of the people were coming from Paul, John, etc., wrote. These are no Great Britain. longer available. 4 Benjamin B. Warfield, “The Biblical During the Reformation years, the Idea of Revelation,” in The Inspiration benefit of having an accurate and current and Authority of the Bible (Phillipsburg, translation became clearer than in any N. J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, other time. Luther’s German translation 1948), 92. was mightily used by God to bring Ger- 5 See 2 Pet 1:21; same word used in man-speaking people to salvation. Current Acts 27:17, 15; Acts 2:2; John 21:18; translations popped up all over Europe. Eph 4:14 (related word). “The fullness of time” had come for the 6 G. I. Williamson, The Confession of people to have the Word of God in their Faith for Study Classes. (Philadelphia: native tongues. The best, most accurate Presbyterian and Reformed, 1964), 16. translations were coming out of England 7 A particular Greek instructor I had in with the Bishop’s Bible, the Geneva Bible, seminary would always say that “Greek and in 1611 the King James Version. All will liberate you from the tyranny of these were excellent translations greatly translations.” used by God. Because of its accurate 8 “And Nehemiah, who was the translation and magnificent style the King governor, Ezra the priest and scribe, and James Version became the standard for the Levites who taught the people said English translations. Sadly, however, this to all the people, ‘This day is holy to the translation was elevated to a status of al- LORD your God; do not mourn nor most perfection and any efforts to update weep.’ For all the people wept, when the language in it were met with fierce they heard the words of the Law” opposition. Yet, in God’s good provi- (Neh 8:9). dence, in the 1900s current translations 9 Mark 15:34-35. became available to English-speaking 10 Mark 5:41; for another place where people and once again they were able to Mark translates a Hebrew term into read the Word of God as it was designed Greek, see Mark 15:22. to be read: in the common language of 11 John 1:38; 1:41-42; 9:7; 19:17. the people. 12 Acts 4:36; 9:36; 13:8. 13 Joseph Henry Thayer, The Thayer’s 1 For an excellent historical commen- Greek-English Lexicon of the New tary on Chapter 1 of the Confession, see Testament with Index. (1886; reprinted, B. B. Warfield, The Westminster Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, Assembly and Its Work. (Edmonton: 1981), 698. Still Waters Revival Books, 1991), 155- 14 J. Gresham Machen, New Testament 336. Greek for Beginners. (Toronto: The 2 Jess Stein, ed., The Random House Macmillan Company, 1923), 5. College Dictionary: Revised Edition The WRS Journal 10:2, August 2003 6 EXEGESIS

INSPIRATION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT stance of the message from generation to by Christopher Lensch generation.2

THE BOOK OF BOOKS With God’s founding of a holy na- The Bible is unique among books. It tion at Sinai to worship and serve Him, claims to come from God. Other religious God would give a written record of His books may claim to come from God, but will. There Moses transcribes from God they always prove inferior in their mes- the Book of the Covenant.3 It contains the sage and reliability. Books like the Ko- Ten Commandments and the civil and re- ran, the Book of Mormon, or the Hindu ligious code by which Israel would live Vedas cannot match the Bible for its sub- in union with God. Forty years later, limity nor for its consistent ability to pen- Moses wrote down the amplified version etrate the depths of the human heart.1 The of God’s law code for the generation com- Bible alone gives voice to man’s greatest ing up out of the wilderness.4 So sacred aspirations of worship of the living God, was this covenant law that it was depos- and the Bible alone gives God’s answer ited inside the ark of the covenant in the for man’s greatest need of reconciliation house of God’s dwelling. In effect, this with a holy God. covenant law from God was the holy nation’s constitution. More than that, it The Bible’s singleness of purpose and was God’s infallible word of revelation its consistent treatment of man’s condi- to a chosen people.5 tion and God’s nature set it apart from other religious guides. The Bible’s mes- The Biblical teaching of the divine sage is the same from the beginning of inspiration of Scriptures begins with history to its closing pages that foretell Moses’ deposit of the record that he had the culmination of history. For a book that transcribed from God. The two facts that was written over a period of 1500 years, the covenant document was given by God its unity is remarkable. through His mediator, Moses, and that it was preserved in a sacrosanct place speak FROM SACRED MESSAGE TO SACRED of the special nature of that law. Added to SCRIPTURES this beginning was the warning that none The writing of the Old Testament should add to God’s words in that docu- spanned a millennium from the days of ment nor take away from them.6 They Moses to the days of Malachi. Before accurately reflected the perfect will of Moses and even before the flood there God.7 were God-fearing souls who preserved the stories of their encounters with God, as The deposit of the sacred writings in well as His revelations and promises to the sacred place was the beginning of the them. These early accounts were pre- recognition of the sacred Scriptures. It set served in an era of exacting oral tradition a precedent in the minds of God’s people that carefully related the details and sub- that what God had spoken through His mediator, Moses, could and should be The WRS Journal 10:2, August 2003 7 preserved in writing for review by future In either case predictive prophecies generations. Following on the heels of the are given by God’s servants to verify the written constitution came the subsequent validity of their prophetic message. This sacred history written by Joshua and other test is necessary because of false proph- recognized mediators after him. God was ets who may claim God’s sanction but who continuing to do wonders, and His proph- really are leading people away from God. ets were confirming His message with Therefore God gives the necessary test of predictions that could be verified.8 Be- prophetic leaders proving their creden- cause of the organic unity of God’s work- tials: ings, it was an easy step from receiving the Torah as God’s scripture to receiving When a prophet speaks in the name of the scrolls of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, et. the Lord, if the thing does not come al., as the continuing sacred record. about or come true, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken. The PROPHETIC PREDICTIONS prophet has spoken it presumptuously; A key element that argues for the di- you shall not be afraid of him.10 vine nature of the Bible is prophetic pre- diction. A stream of predictions is given Predictions recorded through the in the Hebrew Scriptures, some short- Bible, likewise, confirm the authenticity term, and others with a longer horizon. of the Bible’s message. The approxi- Sometimes short and long-term predic- mately 200 predictive passages of the tions are uttered in the same message in OT,11 many of which were fulfilled be- order to confirm the surety of the distant fore and at the first coming of Christ, are prophecy when the near prophecy is ful- offered as rational proof of the supernatu- filled.9 ral nature of these Scriptures. The Old Testament, like the New Testament, of- fers its own falsification test to verify it- self and to discredit counterfeits. Other So sacred was this cov- religious books cannot and do not make enant law that it was de- the same kind of detailed predictions that posited inside the ark of the Holy Scriptures do. the covenant in the HOW THE OT VIEWED ITSELF house of God’s dwelling. From the days of Moses the writers In effect, this covenant of the OT had a self-conscious knowledge law from God was the of the divine origin of their message. The prophetic writers may not always have holy nation’s constitu- understood the timing or the end of their tion. More than that, it message from God,12 but they faithfully was God’s infallible transmitted it. God’s people received it as the voice of majesty, and the angels con- word of revelation to a templated the mystery of grace. chosen people. God’s prophetic messengers did not generally rush to become mediators of The WRS Journal 10:2, August 2003 8 God’s Word. Jeremiah is illustrative of the conclusively that the Old Testament was sentiment of others like Moses and Amos inspired. These matter of fact claims, just when he relates the difficulty and even the same, are strong indications of how human opposition in preaching and con- the writers understood and explained their veying God’s Word: “Then I said, ‘I will cohesive message that spanned the cen- not make mention of Him, nor speak any- turies before Christ. more in His name.’ But His word was in my heart like a burning fire shut up in my HOW THE NT WRITERS VIEWED THE OT bones; I was weary of holding it back, and The concept of the sacred canon was I could not.”13 Jeremiah recorded God’s established well before NT times. By Word even though his disobedient king Daniel’s time there is reference to the might destroy it in the fire. “Scripture of truth”14 to describe a heav- enly revelation. The word for “Scripture” The prophets and canonical writers may be translated “writing,” but the New persevered in their calling of putting Testament commonly uses this word in a God’s Word to paper. It was not their in- technical, theological sense. “Scripture” spired message, but God’s. Anyone who and “scriptures” in the NT are used in a reads the Old Testament will find more matter of fact way to reference the canoni- than 2,000 occurrences of the introduc- cal writings of the Old Testament. tory formula, “Thus saith the Lord.” With- out controversy, the biblical writers un- Jesus taught the authority and inspi- derstood that God was the author of the ration of the OT because the stream of message. the OT canon led to Him as God’s Mes- siah. After His resurrection He walked The sweet Psalmist of Israel gives incognito with two of His disciples; to one of the clearest expressions of a writer them He “expounded” the Scriptures, He consciously channeling God’s Word. “opened” the Scriptures, and finally He David claims, “The Spirit of the LORD “opened their understanding” so that they spoke by me, and His word was on my might comprehend the Scriptures.15 tongue. The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spoke to me….” This passage (2 Jesus and the NT writers often spoke Sam 23:1-3) is doubly interesting because of the [OT] Scripture being “fulfilled.” the Psalm found in the preceding chapter, The OT was not an outdated, dead mes- 2 Samuel 22, is nearly the verbatim form sage nor a dark message with lucky pre- of Psalm 18. In 2 Samuel 23 the Psalmist dictions; it was a living message that comments on the divine nature of the looked for a terminus of fulfillment in the Psalms (like Psalm 18) that were ap- Messiah. It was full of life when God pointed for God’s temple praise. Some breathed it into existence, much as God Psalms may have arisen out of the gave life to Adam by His own breath.16 Psalmist’s life experience, but the end re- sult of the Psalm came by God’s Spirit It was the law that Jesus lived by speaking through the Psalmist. while on earth; He insisted that God’s law to the smallest part would be fulfilled by OT claims of God’s superintendence Himself. The language of Matthew 5:18, of His canonical prophets does not prove where Jesus speaks of the smallest part of The WRS Journal 10:2, August 2003 9 Hebrew alphabet (“jot”) and even the early first millennium was transmitted smallest part of a Hebrew letter (“tittle”), orally for generations before it was put implies that the very words of the divine to paper. Even earlier the dramatic record that contained the law were inten- account of Job probably was preserved tional. Jesus’ words here support the doc- orally before being written. trine of verbal inspiration. His high view 3 Exo 24:4, 7. of OT Scripture, from its parts to its pur- 4 Deut 31:9-13. pose, is expressed in His statement, “…the 5 “…to [the Jews] were committed the Scripture cannot be broken.”17 oracles of God” (Rom 3:2). 6 Deut 4:2; cf. the similar warning at the CONCLUSION end of the canon of Scriptures in Rev Peter believed his Master’s teaching 22:18. about the OT canon. It was nothing less 7 “…those things which are revealed than God’s inspired Word. It is not infe- belong to us and to our children forever, rior to the New Testament; rather it was that we may do all the words of this the corpus of writing that shaped the law” (Deut 29:29b). thought and words of Jesus and His 8 A key test of a true prophet is whether apostles. In his final own canonical mes- his short-term predictions came true sage, Peter affirmed that “The prophecy (Deut 18:21, 22). [of the OT prophetic Scriptures] came not 9 Examples of near and far predictions in old time by the will of man: but holy combined together are the two advents men of God spoke as they were moved of Jesus seen in Isa 61:1,2 and Zech by the Holy Ghost.”18 Any other words 9:8-10. apart from God’s canonical Word can 10 Deut 18:22. never have the same power of God’s Spirit 11 J. Barton Payne’s Encyclopedia of to change lives and to move the world and Biblical Prophecy catalogs 600 topics to tease angels. of prediction in the whole Bible that have already been fulfilled, with another 1 Gleason Archer observes that “The 127 topics foretelling the Lord’s return. Book of Mormon is vitiated by many 12 1 Pet 1:10-12. historical inconsistencies and inaccura- 13 Jer 20:9. cies, and the Koran (which is claimed to 14 Dan 10:21. have been dictated from a heavenly 15 Luke 24:27, 32, 45. archetype coeternal with Allah) exhibits 16 2 Tim 3:16 refers to the OT Scrip- not only the most startling historical tures that were “God-breathed” (see the inaccuracies but also the changing Greek). Consider also the witness of viewpoints of a human author Heb 4:12 to the living Word. (Muhammed) in the light of the current 17 John 10:35. events of his own day.” (Survey of OT 18 2 Pet 1:21. Introduction, rev. ed., p. 23). See his Appendices #2 & #3 for a listing of anachronisms and historical inaccura- cies in the Koran and in the Book of Mormon. 2 A tome like Homer’s Odyssey in the The WRS Journal 10:2, August 2003 10 INSPIRATION AND TRANSLATION IN THE is useful for teaching, rebuking, correct- 4 NEW TESTAMENT ing and training in righteousness.” The by John A. Battle term “all Scripture” refers to the entire OT recognized by the Jews (our present 39 The New Testament provides great books). Paul asserts two things about the assistance to us as we seek to understand OT: it is “God-breathed” (i.e., inspired), the inspiration of the Bible, and how we and it is “useful” for all the necessary tasks are to translate it into our own and other of Christian instruction. This passage re- languages. This is true because the New veals Paul’s high view of the OT Scrip- Testament itself deals extensively with the ture, agreeing with the OT’s own view of Bible—with the Old Testament in particu- itself. In his teaching the OT was liter- lar. Since the two testaments were writ- ally “breathed out” by God. Just as God ten in different languages we can exam- “breathed” into Adam to make him a liv- ine how the New Testament authors trans- ing person, so he “breathed” into the OT lated the passages they were dealing with, as it was being written. Both Adam and in this case from Hebrew into Greek. We the Scriptures are the direct results of 5 can also observe what they thought about God’s creative work. the text they were translating. THE INSPIRATION OF THE NT ASSERTED IN THE NT THE INSPIRATION OF THE OT IN THE NT Uniformly the NT considers the OT While the NT text is not as long as as the Holy Scripture, the Word of God. the OT, the NT still contains many pas- For this reason the NT very frequently sages and statements showing that it re- quotes parts of the OT to prove or illus- gards itself with the same authority as the trate the point being made.1 Consistently OT. The gospel writers define their work the NT writer will consider the citation to as revealing the gospel of Jesus Christ, 6 be proof sufficient—“case closed.” leading to certain knowledge. All the epistles are written in the authoritative The formulas used to introduce these spirit of the apostles and their representa- citations also demonstrate the high regard tives, and all expect their readers to study, the NT writers felt for the OT. When quot- remember, and follow the instructions 7 ing the ancient text, they would introduce given. The book of Revelation also con- 8 the passage with words such as “the Lord tains such references. says,”2 “Scripture says,” “The Holy Spirit says,” or simply, “It is written,” or, “It In two NT passages the writer iden- says.” These introductory formulas would tifies another NT passage as equal in au- only be appropriate in their contexts if the thority to the OT. The apostle Peter in 2 NT writer and his readers assumed the Peter 3:15-16 asserts that the writings of inspiration and consequent truthfulness Paul are equal in authority with the OT and authority of the OT.3 Scriptures:

The classic passage revealing the Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience NT’s attitude toward the OT is 2 Timothy means salvation, just as our dear 3:16, “All Scripture is God-breathed and brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes The WRS Journal 10:2, August 2003 11 the same way in all his letters, speak- ing in them of these matters. His let- ters contain some things that are hard Just as God to understand, which ignorant and “breathed” into Adam unstable people distort, as they do the to make him a living other Scriptures, to their own destruc- person, so he tion. “breathed” into the And in 1 Timothy 5:18 the apostle Paul OT as it was being quotes a statement of Jesus found in Luke written. Both Adam 10:7 (“The worker deserves his wages”);9 along with a statement in Deuteronomy and the Scriptures are 25:4 (“Do not muzzle the ox while it is the direct results of treading out the grain”), and refers to them God’s creative work. both together as “the Scripture”:

For the Scripture says, “Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the the murder of Abel, Noah and the flood, grain,” and “The worker deserves his the destruction of Sodom, the death of wages.” Lot’s wife, the existence and faith of Abraham, Moses and the burning bush, THE TEACHING OF JESUS CHRIST REGARD- the manna in the wilderness, the Ten Com- ING SCRIPTURE mandments given to Moses, the serpent As our Savior and Lord, Jesus Christ in the wilderness, David’s eating the con- is the head of the church and our author- secrated bread, the glorious reign of ity in all things. What he says about Scrip- Solomon and the visit by the queen of ture it is incumbent on all Christians to Sheba, Elijah’s helping the widow and his believe. This is the final and conclusive stopping the rain, Elisha’s cleansing of argument for those who know Christ. Naaman, Jonah’s being three days in the Since Jesus lived on earth when only the great fish, his preaching to the Ninevites, OT was available, his references to Scrip- and their repentance.11 ture refer to the OT. However, he also made provision for the NT, which would We note that Jesus never questioned be given after his ascension. the factuality of these OT events. This fact is more remarkable because many of Jesus Christ loved the Scripture. He these events are miraculous in nature. He was thoroughly familiar with the OT; it cited them and gave full credit to them as saturated his thought and speech, and con- historical events, on which one could de- trolled his actions. The words of Scrip- pend for principles of life. As the Son of ture came from his mouth when he en- God, he certainly would have told his dis- dured temptation, and when he was suf- ciples if they were wrong in holding to fering on the cross. In his teaching he this high view of Scripture; but rather, he assumed the factual historicity of all the encouraged this attitude. narratives in the OT. These include the creation and marriage of Adam and Eve,10 The WRS Journal 10:2, August 2003 12 Jesus placed the Scripture as our TYPES OF OT TRANSLATION FOUND IN THE highest authority for faith and life.12 The NT Scriptures were the basis of his theologi- The way that the NT quotes the OT cal arguments.13 He used the very words, is a fascinating study, and much has been or even parts of words, to make his written about it. Some critics say that the points.14 He insisted that events in his NT quotes the OT without care or preci- own life were the fulfillment of OT proph- sion. It is true that NT writers do quote ecy,15 and that other prophecies would be the OT with varying degrees of precision, fulfilled in the future.16 from precise quotes to paraphrases. How- ever, the critics neglect the fact that there is no error involved in this type of quota- tion, as long as there is no claim to verba- We note that Jesus tim quotation. Careful study of the OT contexts shows that the NT quotes the OT never questioned the with great care and profundity, being sen- factuality of these OT sitive to the OT context. Likewise, the events. . . . As the Son translating of the OT portions into Greek is honest and appropriate for the purpose of God, he certainly of the NT context. would have told his disciples if they were When the NT was written, the OT Scriptures were available to the early wrong in holding to Christians in three main forms. this high view of Scrip- ture; but rather, he • Jewish Christians, especially those encouraged this living in or around Judea, were able to read the original Hebrew. All Jew- attitude. ish boys were expected to attend synagogue school, where the Hebrew language was taught and many scrip- tural portions were memorized.

During his final supper with his • Jewish Christians living in the terri- apostles before his crucifixion, the Lord tory of ancient Israel would have spo- assured them that the Holy Spirit would ken Aramaic as the common language guide them so that, among other things, of that region. For them the OT was they would have the knowledge to pro- available also in what is known as the duce the NT books.17 It is that same Spirit Aramaic Targums; this was a fairly who inspired the other NT writers (those periphrastic or loose translation of the not apostles—Mark, Luke, James, Jude), Hebrew text into the common Ara- who were prophets.18 The Lord then led maic.19 These Aramaic Targums the church to recognize his working in the were read in the synagogue services inspiration of all the NT books. after the Hebrew text was read. Therefore, Jewish Christians who had been brought up regularly attending The WRS Journal 10:2, August 2003

. 13 the synagogue would be very famil- SOME OBSERVATIONS ON THE NT’S iar with that Aramaic translation. TRANSLATIONS OF OT PASSAGES Careful examination of these many • The third common form of the OT quotations of the OT in the NT provides used by the early Christians was the evidence for an overall philosophy of Septuagint (abbreviated LXX). This translation held by the NT writers. Sev- was a translation of the OT into eral features are clear: Greek, made by various Jewish schol- ars in Alexandria over a period of Authority of the original.—When a many decades. It was completed controversy in interpretation occurred, about two hundred years before those writers who had access to the origi- Christ. For nearly all Gentile Chris- nal Hebrew based their final arguments tians, and for many Jewish Christians on the original language of Scripture.21 living outside the national bound- This procedure is that required by our aries, the LXX was the version of the Westminster Confession of Faith: OT used almost exclusively. The Old Testament in Hebrew, (which One difficulty NT scholars have is that was the native language of the people the NT writers did not specify which text of God of old), and the New Testa- they were using. In many cases, the Greek ment in Greek, (which, at the time of NT text quoting the OT is exactly or nearly the writing of it, was most generally exactly the same as that of the LXX. known to the nations), being immedi- When this is the case consistently with a ately inspired by God, and, by his sin- particular NT writer, we can assume that gular care and providence, kept pure he ordinarily uses the LXX. This quota- in all ages, are therefore authentical; tion of the LXX is apparent in John’s so as, in all controversies of religion, Gospel and in the book of Acts (usually the Church is finally to appeal unto quoting speeches of Peter and Paul). The them. (WCF 1:8) Gospels of Mark and Luke seem to have used a text that is close, but varies some- It is because of our belief in the inspira- what from the LXX. Matthew, on the tion of the Scriptures in the autographs, other hand, seems to have avoided use of that we require ministers to be able to the LXX, choosing rather to provide his exegete the Old and New Testaments in own translation of the OT text. The the original languages. This involves apostle Paul seems to have relied on the much time and effort in the training of LXX about half the time, and to have pro- ministers, but it is time and effort well vided his own translation or paraphrase spent. the other times. In this usage he differs from the book of Hebrews and the other Use of the common version.—The General Epistles, which almost always NT writers more than half the time are quote the LXX text when they quote the content to quote the popular OT transla- OT.20 tion of the day, the Septuagint. This is true, even when the LXX provides a “dy- namic” translation of the Hebrew.22 Most NT writers employed that version rou- The WRS Journal 10:2, August 2003 14 tinely; they did not insist on a “word-for- word” transfer from the Hebrew to the Greek. This practice confirms us in us- The NT writers quoted ing commonly available versions of the the OT much like Bible into English, as long as the idea preachers quote the being discussed is not obscured or Bible during sermons. changed by a faulty translation at that point. It is the idea of the quotation that is im- Application within translation.— portant. The quotation When Jesus quoted the OT, sometimes he paraphrased the OT text, bringing out may be word-for-word more clearly the point he wished to make. and complete, but For example, Jesus added the important often is more dynamic, and relevant word “only” when he quoted Deuteronomy 6:13 to Satan at his temp- partial, or even para- tation: “You shall worship the Lord your phrased.. . . (They) God and serve him only.”23 While the used whatever transla- word only was not in the Hebrew, Jesus tion was most conve- properly inserted it in his translation and quotation, since the idea was assumed in nient and accessible, or the OT context, and the current situation which was most appro- called for that emphasis. priate to demonstrate In a similar way Jesus also changed the point being a word in the greatest commandment so emphasized. that it applied more directly to the Phari- sees, who were trying to trap him with intellectually tricky questions. In the OT the command reads, “You shall love the he inserted the word only into his transla- Lord your God with all your heart, and tion of Romans 3:28, “der Mensch gerecht with all your soul, and with all your werde ohne des Gesetzes Werke, allein might.” But, according to Matthew, when durch den Glauben [man is justified not Jesus quoted it to the Pharisees, he sub- by works of the law, but only through stituted the word “mind” for “might”: faith].” Although criticized harshly by “Love the Lord your God with all your Roman Catholic opponents, Luther de- heart and with all your soul and with all fended his translation by stating that the your mind.”24 On an earlier occasion word only was necessary to bring out the Jesus had answered another inquirer in a meaning of the Greek within the genius similar fashion, by adding the phrase “and of the German language. In that case, a with all your understanding” to the three word-for-word translation would have in Deuteronomy.25 obscured the meaning of the text.26

It was this type of interpretive trans- Confidence in serious transla- lation that Martin Luther defended when tions.—The NT writers quoted the OT The WRS Journal 10:2, August 2003 15 much like preachers quote the Bible dur- plainest rendering of the Greek is as it is ing sermons. It is the idea of the quota- in most other translations (including the tion that is important. The quotation may KJV, RSV, NASB, LB, NRSV, NIV, and be word-for-word and complete, but of- ESV). The Greek phrase in question is ten is more dynamic, partial, or even para- pa^sa grafh\ qeo/pneustov kai\ wfe/- phrased. In only a few special cases is limov (pasa graphe theopneustos kai the actual wording insisted on, when the ophelimos). precise wording affects the point being 5 B. B. Warfield provides a detailed discussed. And in those cases, reference study of the Greek word for “God- to the original language is customary. In breathed,” theopneustos, in “God- the balance of cases the NT used what- Inspired Scripture,” PRR 11 (1905): 89- ever translation was most convenient and 130; reprinted as Chapter 6 of The accessible, or which was most appropri- Inspiration and Authority of the Bible. ate to demonstrate the point being empha- 6 Matt 1:1; Mark 1:1; Luke 1:1-4; John sized. In our days we can copy the NT 20:31; 21:24-25. methodology by using any serious version 7 Cf. the epistles of James, Jude, Peter, that is well known to the audience and John; and especially Paul, as in 1 Cor appropriate for the situation. God in his 2:13; 14:37; 1 Thess 2:13; 5:27; 2 providence has given us a plethora of Thess 3:14. translations into most of the languages of 8 E.g., Rev 1-3; 22:18-19. the world, which we should not hesitate 9 Luke was written before 1 Timothy; to use for our own edification and for de- there is a similar verse in Matt 10:10. claring his message to those about us and 10 In Matt 19:4-6 Jesus takes two to all the nations of the earth. passages from Genesis, which critics identify as coming from different 1 I counted 318 passages in the NT that sources (Gen 1:27 from “P,” and Gen quote the OT, according to the index in 2:24 from “J”), and puts them together UBS4, pp. 888-890. The index also lists with the simple formula “Have you not many times that number of verbal read?” He takes these passages together parallels and allusions to the OT. as the word of God. 2 E.g., Heb 3:7, quoting Ps 95:7-11; cf. 11 Matt 23:35; 24:38; 11:23; Luke Heb 4:7, “God spoke through David.” 17:31-32; John 8:56; Mark 12:26; John 3 For these and many other illustrations, 6:49; Mark 7:10; John 3:14; Matt 12:3; see Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield, 6:29; 12:42; Luke 4:25, 27; Matt 12:40, “‘It Says:’ ‘Scripture Says:’ ‘God Says’” 41; Luke 11:51. The Presbyterian and Reformed Review 12 Mark 7:9-13; 22:29; Luke 10:25-28; 5 (1899): 472-510; reprinted as Chapter John 10:35. 7 of B. B. Warfield, The Inspiration and 13 E.g., Matt 5:18; Luke 24:25-27, 44; Authority of the Bible (ed. Samuel G. John 10:34-35. Craig; Philadelphia: The Presbyterian 14 Cf. Matt 5:18; 22:31-32; 22:43-45. and Reformed Publishing Company, In a similar way Paul bases an important 1948). point of doctrine on a singular form of a 4 The ASV of 1901 incorrectly trans- word in the OT: Gal 3:16, “The lates this verse “Every inspired Scrip- promises were spoken to Abraham and ture of God is also profitable.” The to his seed. The Scripture does not say The WRS Journal 10:2, August 2003 16 ‘and to seeds,’ meaning many people, Hebrew text, now absent from most but ‘and to your seed,’ meaning one Hebrew MSS (as Acts 15:17 quoting person, who is Christ.” Here Paul notes Amos 9:12). the singular form of the word seed in 23 Matt 4:10. The Hebrew text of Deut Gen 12:7; 13:15; and 24:7; and he 6:13 does not contain the word “only,” draws a suitable inference from that nor is the word in the text of the LXX at form. In this case, he depends on the that point. The parallel passage in Luke number of a single noun in the biblical 4:8 contains the word “only,” confirm- text. ing that Jesus actually did use that 15 As in Matt. 5:17; 21:1-5; 26:24; Mark additional word in his quotation of 14:49; John 13:18; 17:12; 19:28. Note Deuteronomy. in Matt 21:1-5 and in John 19:28 that he 24 Matt 22:37, quoting Deut 6:5. On the even consciously adjusted his behavior other hand, the parallel in Mark shows so as to fulfill the prophecy. the phrase “and with all your under- 16 E.g., Matt 21:42; 26:31, 64-65. standing” added to the word “strength,” 17 John 14:26; 16:13-15. the more literal quotation (Mark 12:30), 18 Cf. Acts 15:32; Rom 16:25-26; 1 Cor thus making the quotation have four 12:28; Eph 3:5; 4:11. phrases instead of the original three. 19 The Aramaic language was much 25 Luke 10:27. better understood than Hebrew by the 26 Martin Luther, “An Open Letter on common Jewish people; cf. Neh. 8:8. Translating,” (available many places on Jesus used the common Aramaic, the web; e.g., http://www.bible- according to various quotations of his researcher.com/luther01.html). His found in the Gospels (Mark 5:41; 15:34; arguing with his Catholic critics is John 1:42). entertaining as well as insightful: “I also 20 Much detailed work has gone into know that in Rom. 3, the word solum is this subject. See, for example, the not present in either Greek or Latin listings and analyses of Thomas text—the papists did not have to teach Hartwell Horne, An Introduction to the me that—it is fact! The letters s-o-l-a Critical Study and Knowledge of the are not there. And these knotheads stare Holy Scriptures (8th ed.; Edinburgh, at them like cows at a new gate, while at 1839; repr., Grand Rapids: Baker Book the same time they do not recognize that House, 1970), 2/1: 281-346, and Henry it conveys the sense of the text—if the Barclay Swete, An Introduction to the translation is to be clear and accurate, it Old Testament in Greek (rev. by Richard belongs there.” Rusden Ottley; Cambridge University Press, 1902; repr., New York: Ktav Publishing House, Inc., 1968), 381-405. WRS ministerial students 21 As Paul did in Gal 3:16. spend a minimum of 464 22 For example, Heb 10:5 quotes the hours of class time, studying LXX text of Ps 40:6, which paraphrases just the Hebrew and Greek “a body you prepared for me” for the languages! And much more original “my ears you have opened.” In time out of class! other cases, it may be that the LXX has actually preserved an earlier form of the The WRS Journal 10:2, August 2003 17 APPLICATION & PERSPECTIVE

A SHORT HISTORY OF OUR ENGLISH Almost three hundred years later, Will- BIBLE iam of Shoreham and Richard Rolle By Rev. Earl L. Brown Jr., S.T.M. each translated the Psalter. Rolle’s work included a verse-by-verse commentary. EARLY CHURCH HISTORY AND THE ENGLISH Both Psalters were popular at the time of 8 BIBLE John Wycliffe (ca. 1329-1384). Before the end of the second century A.D. the gospel was brought to London, John Wycliffe (ca. 1329-1384), the England. There might have been early “Morning Star of the Reformation,” was translations of portions of the Greek New the first with his associates to translate the Testament into English. None are extant.1 entire Bible from Latin into English. He It remained for missionaries from Rome was the most recognized scholar and theo- in the fifth century to bring Jerome’s Latin logian at Oxford University of his day. Vulgate to England. 2 The need was great Wycliffe’s beliefs warranted that the only for an English translation of the Bible.3 safeguard against the Church’s abusive authority was to make the Bible available MEDIEVAL CHURCH HISTORY AND THE in the language of the people. The whole ENGLISH BIBLE New Testament was completed in 1380 An intelligible liturgy that both priest and the Old Testament in 1382.9 and laity could understand gave an impe- tus for the paraphrasing of Scripture into MODERN CHURCH HISTORY AND THE the English language. Foremost of the ENGLISH BIBLE portions of the Bible paraphrased became In 1415, the Council of Constance the Psalms, sometimes with meter.4 condemned John Huss to burn at the stake, Caedmon, (a seventh century monk) condemned the writings of Wycliffe, and made a metrical version of some portions ordered his bones to be dug out of the of Scripture. Bede translated the Gospels ground and for them to be burned. His into English. It is alleged that he finished ashes were to be cast in the river. The translating the Gospel of John on his influence of the Wycliffe Bible was deathbed in A.D. 735. Alfred the Great great.10 It was still only an English trans- (reigned 871-899) translated the Psalms lation of Jerome’s Latin Vulgate. Almost and the Ten Commandments.5 Some in- fifty years after the “Constitutions of Ox- ter-linear translations remain from the ford” (1408), which condemned the writ- tenth century.6 The Lindisfarne Gospels ings of Wycliffe, Gutenberg printed the are cited as the most famous of this pe- Latin Bible in 1456. The complete He- riod (ca. 950).7 Aelfric (ca. 955-1020) brew Old Testament was printed at made idiomatic translations of Scripture Soncino, Italy in 1488. Erasmus had the portions. Two of these exist until today.

The WRS Journal 10:2, August 2003 18 Greek New Testament printed in Basel in Bible. The low church Separatists cham- 1516.11 pioned the Geneva Bible. Conversely, the high church Anglicans promoted the FROM TYNDALE TO THE KING JAMES Bishop’s Bible.17 VERSION The first English translation of the The first English Roman Catholic Greek New Testament was completed and Bible was translated by William Allen printed by William Tyndale (1494-1536) and Gregory Martin. It was called the in 1526. He saw great value in revising Douay-Rheims Bible. The New Testa- his New Testament in 1534. Though very ment was completed at Rheims in 1582. busy in theological dispute, Tyndale had Martin died in 1584. The Bible was com- translated the Pentateuch and several other pleted by William Allen and Richard Old Testament portions in 1530.12 Myles Bristow at Douay in 1609-1610. The Coverdale (1488-1569) completed the Rheims-Douay or the Douay-Rheims was Old Testament which Tyndale had begun a very stilted translation of the Latin in 1535. For the first time the Old Testa- Vulgate into English. This translation ment Apocrypha was separated from the became the standard for Roman Catho- canonical books. Other revisions of the lics into the 20th century.18 English Bible emerged. John Rogers, who took the pen name Matthew, in actu- ality had completed Tyndale’s translation with some improvements of his own. What the Authorized Rogers was burned at the stake in 1555.13 The Great Bible was printed in 1539. It Version lacked in manu- was called great because of its size. The script availability, it Lutheran order of the books of the New compensated for with Testament was discontinued with this ver- the magnitude of schol- sion. A lesser known work was that of Richard Taverner, another revision of arship of its day. To its Matthew’s Bible in 1539.14 All of these credit, the King James translations were produced during the Version was the clearest, reign of King Henry VIII (1509-1547).15 most fluent translation, The first English version to be brought having poetic rhythm to America was the Geneva Bible. It was and dignity based on the first published in 1560. William Wittingham (ca.1524-1579) translated watershed of some the New Testament from Beza’s Latin text seven previous transla- consulting the Greek New Testament. tions of Scripture. This translation contained annotations which reflected a pronounced Calvinist slant.16 As a strong reaction by the bish- ops in the Church of England, the Bishop’s Bible was produced in 1568. This was primarily a revision of the Great The WRS Journal 10:2, August 2003 19 THE AUTHORIZED OR KING JAMES VERSION Three panels translated the Old Tes- OF 1611 tament headed by Lancelot Andrewes. James I came to the throne of England One panel, probably headed by John in 1603 after Queen Elizabeth I (1558- Bois, translated the Apocrypha. Two pan- 1603), having reigned in Scotland for els headed by Thomas Ravis translated some thirty-six years, since the age of one. the New Testament. Of the five currently In the calling of the Hampton Court Con- available primary uncial manuscripts, only ference in 1604 he sought a discussion of Codex Beza was extant at the time, but the various parties within the Church of there is no evidence it was utilized. Of England. He sought a resolution of the the 5,358 known New Testament manu- vying factions with a new Bible transla- scripts, only 25 were known in their day. tion that would be a compromise among Papyri discoveries were still three hun- the contending translations of the three dred years in the future. Of the now 800 rival traditions.19 Hebrew manuscripts of the OT now known, only two were utilized. These From the outset, the King James were the Complutensian Polyglot (1517) Version was staunchly opposed by Rich- and the Antwerp Polyglot (1572). What ard Bancroft, a bishop in London. It was the Authorized Version lacked in manu- Dr. John Rainolds (1549-1607), the script availability, it compensated for with president of Corpus Christi College in the magnitude of scholarship of its day. Oxford, who originally proposed the idea. To its credit the King James Version was The King James Version was a monumen- the clearest, most fluent translation, hav- tal scholastic effort of its day. Some 54 ing poetic rhythm and dignity based on men, many the leading classical and ori- the watershed of some seven previous ental scholars of the day, set out to revise translations of Scripture.23 the Bishop’s Bible, adopting less objec- tionable renderings of the Geneva Bible SOME REVISIONS OF THE A UTHORIZED influenced by the Latin vocabulary of the VERSION Vulgate and the Rheims-Douay.20 There were a number of unofficial revisions of the 1611 KJV. The current Quite surprisingly, the compromise printed edition of most of the common Bible of its day, the King James Version, KJV texts is that of Benjamin Blaney in has become venerated by fundamentalists 1769.24 Language does change. Reflect- of today. It was the first translation to ing such change was the noble attempt of incorporate marginal notes which re- Charles Thompson in 1808 to revise the flected alternative renderings of Hebrew AV or KJV. Even Noah Webster (1758- and Greek into English. Although some- 1843) produced his revision in 1833, find- what authorized by King James I, in the ing the usage of some 150 words in the strictest sense it wasn’t. Even James had KJV misleadingly obsolete in his day.25 a number of complaints against this ver- sion of the Bible.21 However, James I was TWO TRADITIONS EMERGE IN REVISION OF not popular among the British people. His THE KJV monumental accomplishment for his reign As new discoveries of ancient manu- was the production of the “new” Bible.22 scripts became available to scholars, it became painfully obvious that there was The WRS Journal 10:2, August 2003 20 a need to revise of the KJV.26 Only a few used was the Massoretic Text. The New revisions utilized the same Greek textual Testament text utilized was that of B. F. base as the KJV. These were the King Westcott and F. J. A. Hort. When issued, James II (1971) and the New King the ERV contained a list of words revised James Version (1982). The first was pro- by the Americans but not adopted by the duced by Jay Green and his Associated English in an edition for circulation in Publishers and Authors. This revision was America.31 essentially a one-man Bible, despite his working in concert with a number of scholars who remained anonymous when their suggestions were ignored by the edi- Although the NIV has tor.27 The second was prepared by 130 been the Bible of many evangelical scholars, who produced the evangelicals, time may New King James Version. The Old Testa- ment text used was Biblia Hebraica prove the ESV of 2001 to Stuttgartensia (1977). The New Testament become the KJV of our text used was the Revised Textus Receptus day, and, perhaps, the (1881). Though infinitely superior to King NIV or NASB the James II, the New King James Version Geneva Bible of our day. suffers from placing new wine of updated vocabulary in the old wine pouches of Elizabethan phraseology.28

Most revisions of the KJV follow a SUBSEQUENT BRITISH ENGLISH VERSIONS more eclectic approach to utilizing one In May of 1946 there was a proposal or more families of Greek texts. In this that a new translation undertaken be in short history of English Bible translation, British English. The New English Bible, we shall skip a multitude of private trans- New Testament, underwent three revi- lations of the New Testament, or even the sions from 1961-1970. The entire Bible Bible, to concentrate on the more famil- was produced in 1970. This New English iar versions of the Bible.29 Bible reflected the views of largely lib- eral scholars who followed the theory of In 1870 Dr. Samuel Wilburforce Dynamic Equivalence in translation. The proposed the AV be revised. Some 65 New English Bible was revised in 1989 scholars were involved. Two committees and called the Revised English Bible.32 were formed with some Americans serv- ing in order to produce one translation that SUBSEQUENT A MERICAN ENGLISH VERSIONS would serve both sides of the Atlantic. The The American Standard Version of New Testament of the English Revised 1901 was the result of the work of ten Version was produced in 1881, and in American scholars including Philip 1885, the whole Bible.30 The purpose of Schaff and William Henry Green im- the ERV was flawed. The translators were proving on their suggestions to the Brit- to limit vocabulary changes to that of ish ERV committees. It used the same text Tudor and Jacobean authors. The method base as its British counterpart. In contrast of the ERV was uneven. The Hebrew text to the ERV, none of the Apocrypha was The WRS Journal 10:2, August 2003 21 translated. Unfortunately, it suffered from CONSERVATIVE REVISION OF THE ASV similar archaic language and stilted style The Lockman Foundation, working of the ERV.33 Some have joked that the closely with some 58 anonymous schol- ERV and ASV brought the vocabulary up ars, produced in 1971 the New Ameri- to 1650.34 can Standard Bible. There were two revisions of this translation. The first was LIBERALIZING REVISIONS OF THE ASV in 1977. A second occurred in 1995. This In 1928 the copyright of the ASV translation tries to render the same He- was acquired by the International Coun- brew or Greek word into English with cil of Religious Education. This coun- consistency. The first edition uncritically cil was under the auspices of the Fed- adopted the RSV rendering of Psalm eral Council of Churches, which even- 16:10. It corrected the liberal interpreta- tually became the National Council of tion in its subsequent editions.39 Churches in 1950. The most promi- nent of the 32 scholars of what would RECENT TRANSLATIONS NOTED become the Revised Standard Version About 110 Evangelical scholars were Luther A. Weigle, Edgar worked on the New International Ver- Goodspeed, and James Moffatt. The sion. The New Testament was completed two latter men are known particularly in 1973 and the Old Testament in 1978. A for their own private translations of the British version called the New Interna- Scripture.35 In 1946 the New Testament tional Bible was completed in 1983 with of the RSV was released. Ensuing was gender inclusive language. An American the release of the Old Testament in revision was finished in 1984.40 The NIV 1952, and the Apocrypha in 1957. On is a translation, according to Kenneth the whole the RSV was an excellent Barker, as being somewhere between For- modern English translation. It was un- mal Equivalent and Dynamic Equiva- fortunate that the liberal bias against lent.41 Some scholars have held well that Messianic prediction rendered this the NIV has the potential of becoming the translation unfavorable, distasteful and Bible that most evangelicals will use in unworthy of trust by many conserva- the future.42 tives.36 In 1971 the whole New Testa- ment was revised using a later Greek In 2002 a gender inclusive New Tes- textual base.37 Thirty scholars from the tament was released called Today’s New National Council of Churches revised International Version. The TNIV is a both the RSV Old and New Testaments. conservative attempt at gender neutral The text basis for the New Revised translation. It offers one-third the amount Standard Version of 1989 was that of of such translation as the NRSV does.43 Old Testament, Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, and New Testament, the The twentieth century saw two ma- third edition of the Greek New Testa- jor Roman Catholic translations. The ment of the United Bible Societies New American Bible was completed in (1975). Chief editor of this undertak- 1970 and revised in 1986. The texts uti- ing was Bruce M. Metzger of lized were Biblia Hebraica for the Old Princeton Theological Seminary.38 Testament, and the 25th edition of the Nestle-Aland Greek text. This was the The WRS Journal 10:2, August 2003 22 product of 59 Roman Catholic scholars. The annotations make concessions to higher critical theories of the origin of This translation (the Scripture.44 The Jerusalem Bible (1966) Holmon Christian was the first Roman Catholic Bible to be Standard Bible) was completely translated from the original conceived in the wake languages of Scripture. It was revised and called the New Jerusalem Bible in 1989. of Southern Baptist Originally it was the product of Alex- outcry against the ander Jones of Corpus Christi College attempt to come up and 27 contributors. The extensively annotative notes reflect a warm accep- with gender neutral tance of liberal Protestant views regard- translations like the ing authorship of many of the books of NRSV, the ESV of Scripture. In the Old Testament, this trans- lation resorts to some unwarranted tex- 2001, and the TNIV. tual emendation.45

Though called a version, the Today’s English Version, or Good News Bible is Another misnomer is the one-man properly a modern speech translation and work of Kenneth Taylor, the Living not a version. The New Testament was Bible (1966, 1971). Taylor conceived the translated in 1966. The complete Bible work, paraphrasing the ASV of 1901 for appeared in 1976. Dr. Robert Bratcher his children. More than 40 million copies of the American Bible Society was its have been sold. The deficiencies of the editor in chief. The Old Testament text work led to its revision by its publishers. used was Biblia Hebraica 1937. The 1st At least 93 translators were involved with edition of the United Bible Society’s the New Living Translation (1996), Greek text was used in the 1976 revision. which is basically a scholarly rework of Although intended for use with readers Taylor’s along the lines of evangelical for whom English is a second language, dynamic equivalency. Biblia Hebraica the liberal bias shown at places negates Stuttgartensia was used for the Old Tes- the dynamic equivalence incorporated. tament; the New Testament employed the The Bible in Basic English (1949) does 4th edition of the UBS Greek text (1993).48 a much better job, as does Olaf Norlie’s The translators were dissatisfied with the Simplified New Testament (1961).46 result and are working on a thorough- Comments made in this light can equally going retranslation which should appear in manner of degree be mentioned of the in a few years. Contemporary English Version (1991, 1994), and the New Century Version In stark contrast, Eugene Petersen’s, (1991). Both are designed for children, The Message (2002) tries to do what Tay- but are examples of over-simplification lor did in the late 1960s—bridging the in economy of speech and overuse of dy- century gap. His purpose is to provide an namic equivalence.47 “impact translation.” It is at places over- translation for sake of impact. This was The WRS Journal 10:2, August 2003 23 much like the New Testament of J. B. The ESV of 2001 retains the generic “he” Phillips (1958). He revised it in 1973 and in many places where the NRSV has with revision deleted the time-bound col- dropped it. To summarize the goal of the orful language which made the original ESV of 2001, “In each case the objective so popular.49 Perhaps Peterson will repeat has been transparency to the original text, the venture as J. B. Phillips did. allowing the reader to understand the original on its own terms rather than on REACTION TO GENDER-NEUTRALITY IN the terms of our present-day culture.”54 TRANSLATION Although the NIV has been the Bible of The year A.D. 2000 saw, among many evangelicals, time may prove the many things, another translation worthy ESV of 2001 to become the KJV of our of discussion. The Holmon Christian day, and, perhaps, the NIV or NASB the Standard Bible New Testament was re- Geneva Bible of our day.55 leased. The whole Bible will not be re- leased for at least another few years. The 1Philip W. Comfort, Essential Guide to goal of this translation is to “be as accu- Bible Versions (Wheaton, Illinois: rate as the NASB and as readable as the Tyndale House Publishers, 2000), 134. NIV.”50 The translation theory adopted, Paul D. Wegner, The Journey from Texts called “optimal equivalence,” is in es- to Translations: The Origin and sence the combination of the best of For- Development of The Bible (Grand mal and Dynamic Equivalence. Some 90 Rapids: Baker Academic, corrected scholars are participating. The text of this printing, 2000), 274. Ira Maurice Price, translation is that of the UBS 4th edition The Ancestry of Our English Bible of the Greek text. This translation was (New York: Harper and Brothers, conceived in the wake of Southern Bap- Publishers, 2nd rev. ed., 1934), 225. tist outcry against the attempt to come up 2 Ibid.; David Ewert, From Ancient with gender neutral translations like the Tablets to Modern Translations: A NRSV, the ESV of 2001, and the TNIV.51 General Introduction to The Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983), 183. AN ECUMENICAL VERSION A CCEPTED BY 3 Price, 225, notes for us that the CONSERVATIVES language we now know as English was As this short history comes to a close, not then the majority language. There it appears that we shall come full circle were many languages on the British on KJV revision. The English Standard Isles. Version of 2001 bridges many gaps for 4 G. W. H. Lampe, ed., The West from many reasons. It bridges the gap between the Fathers to the Reformation (vol. 2 British and American English. A team of of The Cambridge History of The Bible. 100 conservative, evangelical translators Cambridge: Cambridge University sought to revise the text of the 1972 revi- Press, 1975, repr. 1980), 365-387. sion of the RSV. In reality, it is a conser- 5 Comfort, 134; Wegner, 274-277; vative purification of many of the read- Price, 226-228. ings of the NRSV.52 It is interesting that, 6 Wegner, 277. regarding the issue of gender neutrality, 7 Comfort, 135. it contains more gender neutral renderings 8 Ibid. Note also Price, 230-231. than the TNIV, but fewer than the NRSV.53 9 Comfort, 135-136; Wegner, 281-283; The WRS Journal 10:2, August 2003 24 Price, 232-239; Lampe, 2:387-415; W. himself by 1543, the English Parliament F. Moulton, The History of The English passing a law restricting the use of any Bible (London: Charles H. Kelly, new English translation. and revised edition, c. 1900), 17-32; 16 See Charles C. Ryrie, “Calvinistic Frederic Fiivie Bruce, The English Influences in the Geneva and Bishop’s Bible (Oxford: Oxford University press, Bibles,” BSac 122:485 (January-March, 1961), 12-23; Ewert, p. 184; and Bruce 1965): 23-30. Ryrie’s conclusion was Manning Metzger, The Bible in Transla- that only predestination and election tion: Ancient and English Versions were “toned down” in the Bishop’s (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001), Bible. 57; on doubt that Wycliffe had direct 17 Bruce, The Bible In English, 92, part in the translation. makes the statement that the Bible of 10 Wegner, 284; Ewert, 184; Metzger, Shakespeare was the Geneva Bible. The Bible in Translation, 57-58. While this is true, the Bible of the 11 Wegner, 284; Bruce, The English liturgy would be the Bishops’ Bible Bible, 24-25. which was utilized in the Common 12 Bruce, The English Bible, 28-52; Book of Prayer. For an extensive Comfort, 138-140; Ewert, 186-189; treatment of the Geneva Bible see: Jack P. Lewis, The English Bible from Bruce M. Metzger, “The Geneva Bible KJV to NIV (Grand Rapids: Baker, of 1560,” Theology Today 17 1981), 20-22; Metzger, The Bible In (1960):339-352. Translation, 58-60; Moulton, 43-94; 18 Wegner, 304-305; Metzger, The Bible Price, 240-251; Wegner, 284-292; S. L. in Translation, 67-69; Moulton, 181- Greenslade, ed., The West from the 189. See notes 44 and 45 for modern Reformation to the Present Day (vol. 3 Roman Catholic versions. of The Cambridge History of The Bible. 19 The three rival traditions were the Cambridge: Cambridge University High Church Protestants, the Low Press, 1975, repr.1980), 141-147. Church Separatist Protestants, and the 13 Bruce, The English Bible, 53-66. Roman Catholics. Lewis, 28, notes in Coverdale’s version had the distinction addition that the last printing of of being the first printed Bible in Tyndale’s New Testament was 1566, the England. Comfort, 140; Ewert, 190- Coverdale Bible, 1553, and the Great 191; Greenslade, 147-153; Metzger, Bible, 1569. Also there was not The Bible in Translation, 60-61. uniformity even about the Geneva Bible 14 Bruce, The English Bible, 67-80; concerning various texts, Lewis, 26. Comfort, 140-141; Ewert, 189-191; 20 Ewert, 198-203. For two works on Greenslade, 147-155; Metzger, The the biographies of the men who worked Bible in Translation, 60-63; Moulton, on the KJV, see Alexander McClure, 95-136; Price, 252-259; Wegner, 292- The Translators Revived: Biographical 296. Notes of the KJV Bible Translators 15 Comfort, 140-141; Wegner, 304. (Worthington, Pennsylvania: Marantha Henry VIII vacillated between permis- Publications, reprint); and Gustavus S. sion for Coverdale’s version in 1537 to Paine, The Men Behind the King James the authorization of the Great Bible for Version (Grand Rapids: Baker Book public use in 1538, and then reversing House, 1977). The WRS Journal 10:2, August 2003 25 21 Ewert, 203. Lewis, 29-34, extensively English Bible, 135-152; Comfort, 161- uses sources of criticism of the KJV 162; Ewert, 206-209; Metzger, The from its own time period. This sounds a Bible in Translation, 99-102; Price, lot like KJV criticism of modern 278-289. translations! Wegner, 313. For recent 31 Wegner, 315-318. constructive criticism, see Comfort, 32 Wegner, 365-370; 383-386. For an 147-160; Lewis, 35-68. early analysis of the NEB see Oswald 22 Wegner, 309. Thompson Allis, The New English 23 Lewis, 41-42, also cited in Wegner, Bible: The New Testament of 1961. A 311, for the textual deficiencies of the Comparative Study (Philadelphia: KJV. Praise of the KJV prose can be Presbyterian and Reformed, 1963). found in Comfort, 146. Ewert, 203-204. 33 Lewis, 69-105; Wegner, 318-320. 24 Wegner, 314. Bruce, The English 34 This was the analysis of Thomas Bible, 127-134, notes for us some Vernon Taylor at Biblical Theological private translations after the KJV to the Seminary in 1977. See Metzger, The time of the ERV. Ewert, 204-205; Bible In Translation, 103-104. Wegner, 314. 35 Primary documentation on the RSV: 25 Greenslade, 361-371; Metzger, The Luther A. Weigle, An Introduction to Bible In Translation, 81-92. the Revised Standard Version of the 26 Ewert, 204. Comfort, 149-151. New Testament (1946); Luther A. 27 Comfort, 151-154; Wegner, 327-329. Weigle, An Introduction to the Revised For a short synopsis of the KJV debate, Standard Version of the Old Testament see Wegner, 337-340. Extensive (1952). Secondary material on the RSV discussions from the eclectic Greek text is voluminous; see Comfort, 165-170; position include D. A. Carson, The King Ewert, 226-230; Lewis, 107-128; James Version Debate; A Plea for Metzger, The Bible in Translation, 117- Realism (Grand Rapids: Baker Book 122; Wegner, 320-324 (also note his House, 1979); James R. White, The evaluations of both the Moffatt and King James Only Controversy: Can You Goodspeed translations); Wegner, 345- Trust the Modern Translations? 348, 349-351. For an early criticism of (Minneapolis, Minn.: Bethany House, the RSV see Oswald Thompson Allis, 1995); Roy E. Beacham and Kevin T. Revision or New Translation? Revised Bauder, One Bible Only? Examining Version or Revised Bible? (Philadel- Exclusive Claims for the King James phia: Presbyterian and Reformed, Bible (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2001). 1948); published with Oswald Thomp- 28 Wegner, 329-331. son Allis, Revised Version or Revised 29 Ewert, 250-251, for a pretty exhaus- Bible? (1953). The first computer tive list of translations 1900-1982. For generated concordance was undertaken an extensive list of translations and for the RSV (1957). A New Testament paraphrases 1950-1996, see Wegner, Octapla and A Genesis Octapla were 394-395. For evaluations of translations issued by Thomas Nelson publishers, from 1900-1950, see Wegner, 341-355. containing eight translations from For evaluations of translations 1950- Tyndale to the RSV. Millar Burrows, 1996, see Wegner, 357-397. Diligently Compared: The R.S.V. and 30 Moulton, 212-242; Bruce, The K.J.V. (New York: Thomas Nelson & The WRS Journal 10:2, August 2003 26 Sons, 1964), attempts to be an apologist REB, NAB, and New Jerusalem Bible for Old Testament improvements of the (New York: Oxford University Press, RSV over the KJV. 1989), xxxiv-xxxvi. 36 Comfort, 168-170; Ewert, 229-231; 45 Wegner, 375-379; conclusion mine. Lewis, 111-128. See The Complete Parallel Bible, xli, 37 Wegner, 332. for the update on the Jerusalem Bible. 38 Wegner, 331-335. Note his analysis in No attempt has been made to discuss contrast with Metzger, The Bible in English translations by Jewish transla- Translation, 155-162. tors; the interested reader may find 39 Ewert, 239-240; Lewis, 165-197; helpful material in Wegner, 348-49, Wegner, 324-327. 359-361. 40 Wegner, 379-382; Metzger, The Bible 46 Wegner, 375-379. Analysis is mine in Translation, 138-141; 171-174 on the based on a comparison of this transla- New International Reader’s Version of tion and the aforementioned translation. 1996. 47 Comfort, 194-196. Analysis is mine 41 Kenneth Barker has repeatedly stated again based on a comparison of these this in explaining the difference translations. between the NASB, the NIV, and the 48 Wegner, 389-396. New Living Translation. 49 Wegner, 386-389. Analysis is mine 42 Wegner, 383, citing Dr. Robert based on a comparison of these para- Bratcher, In the Word of God, 152. phrases. The complete Message was not 43 I have read that there are 3,300 in existence when Wegner completed instances of gender-neutral translation his text. in the NRSV. See Vern S. Poythress 50 Holmon Christian Standard New and Wayne Grudem, The Gender Testament (Nashville, Tennessee: Neutral Controversy (Nashville: Holmon, 2000), page 2 of the preface. Broadman and Holmon Publishers, 51 Holmon Christian Standard Bible: 2000), 277. At present only the New Clearly the Word (advertisement Testament exists for the TNIV. I have literature; Holmon, 2000). read that there are approximately 500 52 The Holy Bible; English Standard instances of gender neutral translation in Version (advertisement literature; the TNIV. If this is correct and the rate Crossway Books, 2001). of translation is a constant, then I would 53 This analysis is based upon random guess that this fraction will be correct comparisons between the translations. when the whole Bible is produced. 54 The Holy Bible; English Standard Unfortunately I do not have access to a Version ( Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway computer program which would Bibles, 2001), p. viii. tabulate the exact figures for the TNIV 55 This is my analysis based upon the or the ESV of 2001. premise that liberals will not accept a 44 Comfort, 188-189; Ewert, 238-239; conservative translation. Liberals and Lewis, 215-228; Wegner, 352-354. The ecumenicals can accept a liberal conclusion is mine based upon a healthy translation reworked by conservative perusal of the 1970 Saint Joseph scholars. Edition. See the forward to the NAB in The Complete Parallel Bible: NRSV, The WRS Journal 10:2, August 2003 27 BIBLE TRANSLATIONS: IMPACT ON LANGUAGE: THE VEHICLE OF THOUGHT, MODERN LANGUAGES COMMUNICATION, AND A CTION by Christopher Lensch There is one subtle area of Bible in- fluence that is not common knowledge. Translations of the Bible into native INTRODUCTION The Bible is more than a book of re- tongues have helped shape, not only the ligious wisdom. It is the Book of light and thoughts and thought patterns of societ- life. Troubled souls and confident saints ies that have identified with nominal turn to the Bible for enlightenment from Christianity, but even the very languages God. The Psalmist confessed, “The en- themselves. trance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple.”1 Biblical images and phrases reflect the values and thought of a Christian-ori- The influence of the Bible and Chris- ented people; understandably, peoples of tianity has spread, in general terms, one Asian or Arabic countries will not share person at a time. That is the master plan these values or ways of thinking. Post- of Christ’s Great Commission, to spread moderns still utter biblical maxims like into all the world and to “make disciples” “do unto others as you would have them one by one. National conversions by fiat, do unto you,” or “let him who is without such as Emperor Constantine’s or that of sin cast the first stone.” Politicians want- Russia’s Prince Vladimir, did not bring ing to appeal to the religious sensibilities the heart of Christianity, but introduced of their constituency borrow Bible pic- only the shell of Christendom. The mere tures like a “shining city set on a hill,” ethics and trappings of Christianity “crucify mankind on a cross of gold,” or brought a form of godliness but could not “a house divided against itself cannot 3 bring the power to live in a godly fash- stand.” ion.2 In America’s case, the widespread This is not to deny the positive im- use of the Bible and its systematic, weekly pact of Christianity upon western culture. pulpit exposition over this country’s first Along with the outward forms of Chris- four centuries ingrained a “shared cultural 4 tianity in the West there still came bibli- memory and language.” This truth is cal principles, because even where nomi- nal Christianity spread, the Bible was re- garded as God’s book. To name a few, the In America’s case, the Bible has influenced the traditional west- widespread use of the Bible ern beliefs of cosmology (God separate and its systematic, weekly from His creation), anthropology (dignity pulpit exposition over this of humanity juxtaposed by the fallen na- country’s first four centu- ture of humanity), and justice (universal and balanced). These beliefs, of course, ries ingrained a “shared have shaped western institutions and tra- cultural memory and ditions. language.”

The WRS Journal 10:2, August 2003 28 patently clear in view of the preponder- should not only be in Latin but in the ance of idealistic religious immigrants to vulgar tongue and, as the faith of the America in the 17th and 18th centuries, fol- church is contained in the Scriptures, lowed by their spread to the American the more these are known in a truer frontier in the 19th century. The vast ma- sense, the better. The laity ought to jority of early universities in the new understand the faith and, as doctrines world and new territories were established of our faith are in the Scriptures, be- by Christians to promote biblical knowl- lievers should have the Scriptures in edge. a language which they fully under- stand.5 PIONEER BIBLE TRANSLATIONS: VEHICLES TO STANDARDIZE LANGUAGE Wycliffe translated the whole Bible To come to the crux of this article, from the Latin Vulgate into English. To the first national translations of the Bible this Oxford scholar, however, it was more after the Latin Vulgate had a major im- than an academic exercise. He armed lay pact on the shape of modern language. preachers with copied portions of the While there may be examples from other Scripture and sent them into the villages nationalities, two sample languages will and countryside to preach the Word of life. be given: English and German. Because Wycliffe was controversial, the upper classes also read his sermons and An English Bible his Bible. It was at this point that the “mid- When John Wycliffe was born in land English” of London, Oxford, and Yorkshire, England, in the 1300s, the no- Wycliffe’s Yorkshire region began to pre- bility still spoke Norman French, the vail over the two other main Saxon dia- learned spoke Latin, and the common lects. people spoke various regional Anglo- Saxon dialects. In 1362 English became Wycliffe’s English translation would the official language of the courts, but also influence later Bible translators. For Middle English did not conquer all of good reason some have called him the England until two of its unofficial ambas- “father of English prose.” William sadors made it popular in the hinterlands. Tyndale, the martyr translator of the Ref- Geoffrey Chaucer wrote enduring poetry ormation, would rely heavily on the that the common man could understand, phrasings of the “Morningstar of the Ref- and John Wycliffe produced the first full ormation.” The King James Version, 90% Bible in English. Wycliffe wanted his of which is based on the work of Tyndale, countrymen to know the Christ of the can trace influences back to the simple Scriptures. He believed that “Forasmuch language of Wycliffe. His translation of as the Bible contains Christ, that is all that John 3:16 is found in the KJV almost ver- is necessary for salvation, it is necessary batim. The KJV follows his use of the for all men, nor for priests alone,” and, word “charity” in the love chapter (1 Cor 13). While this indirect language connec- Christ and His Apostles taught the tion between the KJV and Wycliffe’s people in the language best known to ground-breaking translation stamps the them…. Therefore, the doctrine KJV as from the broadening stream of Middle English, the connection also ar- The WRS Journal 10:2, August 2003 29 gues for Wycliffe’s lasting literary influ- chased it as the first mass-produced book; ence on the generations of Bible reading there was no affordable, literary compe- public that were weaned on the KJV.6 tition. It became the sole, common pos- session of many homes and, thereby, the A German Bible possession of the German people as they Tyndale of the 1500s, who would so proudly read and re-read its pages in the strongly influence the shape of the Au- midst of the political controversy sur- thorized Version of King James, disdained rounding Luther. Germans could relate to the excessive use of technical or Latin the language of the Bible because of terms in his Bible translating. The Bible Luther’s keen sensitivities in translating. was given for God’s people, not just the Luther, a man of the people, used his bril- scholars, and Tyndale wanted the plough liance and training to frame his transla- boys to be able to understand God’s Word. tion of Scripture for the people. In the Bible’s phrasings and market language Another key influence on Tyndale they recognized their own phrasings and besides Wycliffe was Martin Luther. market language. There is speculation that Tyndale was able to visit Luther in Wittenburg in the 1520s. Anyone who has translated knows the Luther had completed his NT translation difficulty of faithfully representing the into German in late 1521 and was work- message of the mother tongue. What ing in committee to produce the OT in the Luther made look easy in his work of following years. Even if the two reform- translation really was an arduous labor. ers did not meet, Luther’s German Bible, He reveals the difficulty of the task in a the first of its kind on the continent, es- comment on his committee’s OT transla- tablished the paradigm for reformation tion: translations. We are now sweating over a German Luther’s acid test in translating was, translation of the Prophets. O God, “did it sound right?”—not, “did the words what a hard and difficult task it is to and constructions make sense on paper?” force these writers, quite against their The right words and phrasings were cho- wills, to speak German. They have no sen to appeal to the ear, for Luther in- desire to give up their native Hebrew tended to unpack and proclaim God’s in order to imitate our barbaric Ger- Word in preaching to the common man. man. It is as though one were to force a nightingale to imitate a cuckoo, to Only the middle class could afford a give up his own glorious melody for a Bible, and literate Germans hungrily pur- monotonous song he must certainly hate. The translation of Job gives us immense trouble on account of its ex- alted language, which seems to suffer Luther’s greatest legacy even more, under our attempts to was his giving God’s Word translate it, than Job did under the to the heart of Europe. consolation of his friends, and seems to prefer to lie among the ashes.7

The WRS Journal 10:2, August 2003 30 The translation committee persevered through the Christian denomination that because of the supreme importance of the bears his name. His greatest legacy, how- goal. Under Luther’s guidance both tes- ever, was his giving God’s Word to the taments were finally made available in the heart of Europe. mother tongue to the masses. More than the vibrant form of the So universal was its appeal, and so German Bible that shaped a national thoroughly did it embrace the entire tongue, the power was in the message of range of the German tongue, that it the Word that God used to bless many formed a linguistic rallying point for generations. Families and individuals who the formation of the modern German came under its power were brought into language. It helped formally restruc- obedience to Christ, and thus a nation ture German literature and the German changed and was blessed from heaven.10 performing arts.8

To appreciate this claim one must realize 1 Ps 119:130. that the German language of that day was 2 2 Tim 3:5. made up of several regional dialects, much 3 In order these were key campaign like Wycliffe’s England of 150 years ear- slogans of G. H. W. Bush, W. J. Bryan, lier. Luther borrowed colloquialisms from and Abe Lincoln. each region, but the essence of his Bible 4 This phrase is cited by D. G. Hart, language was a more refined High Ger- Princeton Theological Review, 28:30, in man of the cultured southlands.9 Espe- his review of An American Bible: A cially the popular use of his German Bible History of the Good Book in the United eventually led to universal adoption of States, 1777-1880. High German as the national standard. 5 Cited in “Why Wycliffe Translated the Bible into English,” Christian History CONCLUSION 2:2 (1983): 26. In early May of this year the German 6 Well should John Wycliffe have a public was polled to determine the top ten modern Bible translation society named Germans in their history. Hitler and the after him. The following link provides Nazis were deliberately excluded from the Wycliffe’s entire Bible online: http:// survey. Initial returns favor the poet wesley.nnu.edu/wycliffe/. Goethe and some of the great music com- 7 Cited in Henry Zecher’s “The Bible posers. Also ranking high are German ten- Translation that Rocked the World,” nis stars and contemporary politicians. But found in Christian History Magazine, in this made-for-TV poll, Luther does not Issue 34, and online at http:// show on the radar screen. www.christianitytoday.com/holidays/ nbw/features/34h035.html. A poll of world historians, however, 8 Ibid. generally ranks Luther among the top 9 “High German” takes its name from three Europeans in history. Some schol- the southern region that rose in eleva- ars call him the most influential German tion toward the Alps. who ever lived. That influence spread 10 2 Cor 10:4; Ps 33:12. through his writings, his hymnology, and The WRS Journal 10:2, August 2003 31 BOOKS virtually prohibiting the preaching of cer- God-Breathed: The Divine Inspiration tain important Christian doctrines. of the Bible, by Louis Gaussen. Originally Gaussen and his predecessor at Satigny, published in French, 1840; English trans- Cellerier, protested against this ruling, lation Theopneustia: The Plenary Inspi- chiefly by republishing a new French edi- ration of the Holy Scriptures, translated tion of the Second Helvetic Confession, by David Scott, 1841. Edited by John to which they added a preface asserting Robbins and reprinted by The Trinity that a church must have a declaration of Foundation, 2001. Pp. 348. $16.95 (pa- faith, and that the Second Helvetic Con- per). Reviewed by John Robbins. fession correctly voiced their personal convictions. Francois Samuel Robert Louis Gaussen is little known in the United Gaussen continued to pursue his min- States, even among those who profess to isterial duties in Satigny, and held reli- be Reformed. Born in Geneva, Switzer- gious meetings in his own home, as well land, on August 25, 1790, Gaussen’s prin- as in his mother’s home in Geneva, striv- cipal ministry was in Geneva, where he ing to reform the National Church, but not died on June 18, 1863. advocating separation from it. At Geneva, which gradually became the center of his Two years after completing his stud- activity, Gaussen founded a missionary ies at the University of Geneva, he was society that held meetings, first in private appointed minister at Satigny, near houses and later in the church building. Geneva, in 1816. Under the influence of In 1828, through the intervention of the his predecessor at Satigny, Cellerier, and Vénérable Compagnie des Pasteurs de that of the Scotch layman Robert Haldane, Geneve, new members were elected to the Gaussen became an ardent champion of missionary society’s governing board Reformed theology in Switzerland. About whom Gaussen considered errant in their this time there was a renewal of interest views, and he withdrew from the society. in Biblical Christianity in French Switzer- This conflict with the clergy of Geneva land, the Reveil. This awakening coin- was typical of frequent storms that af- cided with Haldane’s visit to Geneva in fected his career. (Christ’s conflict with 1817, where he began a weekly Bible the clergy of Jerusalem was, of course, study on the Epistle to the Romans for the another and more important instance of theological students at the University. the ancient opposition between ecclesi- Because of interest in his lectures from astical authority and truth.) Calvin’s cat- both students and professors, Haldane had echism had long been used as a basis for to move the study from his apartment to the instruction of the young, but in 1827 larger quarters. On May 7, 1817, the the Venerable Compagnie des Pasteurs Vénérable Compagnie des Pasteurs de substituted another catechism and ordered Geneve, concerned about the growth of Gaussen to use it. He tried to do so, but Christianity in their city, issued an order found it unsatisfactory because of its Ra- tionalism. The clergy of Geneva then The WRS Journal 10:2, August 2003 32 lodged a complaint against him for refus- first English translation, Theopneustia: ing to obey their order, and after a lengthy The Plenary Inspiration of the Holy Scrip- dispute he was finally censured by the tures, London, 1841), in which he argued Venerable Compagnie des Pasteurs and that the entire Old and New Testaments deprived of his right to take part in its were verbally inspired by God, an argu- meetings for a period of one year. ment that was attacked by members of his own theological school, Gaussen wrote, With his friends and fellow Chris- in vindication of his position, Le Canon tians, Merle d’Aubigne and Galland, des Saintes Écritures (Lausanne, 1860; Gaussen now founded the Evangelical English translation, Canon of the Holy Society to distribute Bibles and tracts, and Scriptures as Viewed Through Science to interest the public in missionary work and Faith, London, 1862). He was the among the heathen. Shortly afterward, the author of numerous other works, includ- Evangelical Society decided to found a ing Geneva and Jerusalem, 1844; Geneva school for the dissemination of Christian and Rome, 1844; Lessons for the Young, doctrine, and this resolve was disclosed 1860; Leçons sur Daniel (3 volumes, un- to the State Councilor of Geneva, as well completed, 1861; English translation, The as to the churches, in circular letters signed Prophet Daniel Explained, 1873-74), by Galland, Merle d’Aubigne, and consisting of several of his lectures on Gaussen. Because of this, Gaussen was Daniel; Les premiers chapîtres de deposed from the ministry by the l’Exode, and Le prophète Jonas (the lat- Consistory on September 30, 1831, and ter two published posthumously). His his two colleagues were suspended from works enjoyed a wide circulation both in the ministry. For two years Gaussen trav- England and in France during the nine- eled through Italy and England, awaken- teenth century. ing strong sympathy for his cause in the latter country, and warning all that the Gaussen’s defense of the full and Roman Catholic Church was a threat to detailed inspiration of Scripture by God Christianity. In 1834 he returned to is one of the principal works on this sub- Geneva and accepted the position of Pro- ject by any Christian theologian. He ad- fessor of Systematic Theology at the vocates what has come to be called the Oratoire, the newly established Evangeli- “organic” view of inspiration, a word that cal theological school. unfortunately conveys little information to the reader’s mind. His view, based Gaussen was a strict Reformed theo- firmly and completely on Scripture itself, logian, and he deviated from Reformed is that God not only controlled which doctrines only with regard to his theory words, phrases, sentences, and paragraphs of predestination, for he denied were to be set down as Scripture, but also supralapsarianism. During his career, controlled all human history so that at the Gaussen published books in three major exact time chosen, the author of those divisions of theology: the deity of Christ, words would be properly prepared and which was denied by the Rationalistic available to write the words that God dic- clergy of Switzerland; prophecies; and the tated to him. The result is an exact state- divine authority of Holy Scripture. In ad- ment of God’s thoughts in human lan- dition to Théopneustie (Geneva, 1840; The WRS Journal 10:2, August 2003 33 guage, language perfectly adequate to prepared by heredity and environment express divine thoughts. that when the time came Moses’ men- tality and literary style were instru- Like Calvin before him, Gaussen fre- ments precisely fitted to speak God’s quently used the words “dictate” and “dic- words…. Verbal inspiration therefore tation” to explain the Bible’s view of its must be understood in connection with own inspiration. For the past two centu- the complete system of Christian doc- ries, and especially during the twentieth trine. It may not be detached there- century, the “dictation view of inspiration” from, and a fortiori it may not be has been ridiculed by those who do not framed in an alien view of God. Ver- believe the Bible. But the problem with bal inspiration is integral with the doc- the liberals’ view of dictation is not that it trines of providence and predestina- is too strict, but that it is not nearly strict tion. When the liberals surreptitiously enough. Gordon Clark explained in his deny predestination in picturing God book God’s Hammer: The Bible and Its as dictating to stenographers, they so Critics: misrepresent verbal inspiration that their objections do not apply to the When God wished to make a revela- God of the Bible. The trouble is not, tion (at the time of the exodus or of as the liberals think, that the boss con- the captivity) he did not suddenly look trols the stenographer too completely; around as if caught unprepared, and on the contrary, the analogy misses the wonder what man he could use. We mark because the boss hardly controls cannot suppose that he advertised for the stenographer at all. a stenographer, and, when Moses and Jeremiah applied for the position, that One reason the republication of God dictated his message. The rela- Gaussen’s book is necessary in the twenty- tion between God and a prophet was first century is the widespread ignorance not like that at all. A boss must take of the doctrine of divine inspiration of what he can get; he depends on the Scripture even among those who profess high school or business college to have to be Christians. As Gordon Clark wrote: taught the applicant shorthand and “No discussion of inspiration can contrib- typing. But if we consider the omnipo- ute much of value without taking into ac- tence and wisdom of God, a very dif- count the elementary Scriptural data. ferent picture emerges. God is the These data must be kept in mind. Yet, Creator. He made Moses. And when unfortunately, a number of these details God wanted Moses to speak for him, may have faded from our aging memo- he said, “Who has made man’s ries. More unfortunately, the younger gen- mouth?… Have not I, the Lord?”…. eration—owing to the low standards of To this end he so controlled events that many seminaries—may never have Moses was born at a given date, placed learned the Scriptural data.” Of course, it in the water to save him from an early is not only the seminaries that are to death, found by Pharaoh’s daughter, blame; the churches are also culpable. given the best Egyptian education Indeed, if there has been any resurgence possible, driven into the wilderness to of interest in and availability of Christian learn patience, and in every detail so doctrine in the last 50 years, it is largely The WRS Journal 10:2, August 2003 34 through the instrumentality of ordinary fessions. Since its formulation in the Christians, not seminaries and denomina- 1640s, English-speaking Presbyterians tions. (and many non-English speaking Presby- terians as well) have embraced this mag- In his recommendation of Gaussen’s nificent document as an accurate expres- book, Charles Spurgeon wrote: sion of the system of doctrines that they hold dear. Because of such historic sub- The turning-point of the battle be- scription, Presbyterians who have aban- tween those who hold “the faith once doned confessional orthodoxy have felt delivered to the saints” and their op- the need to link their unorthodox positions ponents lies in the true and real inspi- to the Westminster Confession of Faith. ration of the Holy Scriptures. This is One of the ways that unorthodox Presby- the Thermopylae of Christendom…. terians twist the Confession is by saying In this work the author proves him- that it should be interpreted independently self a master of holy argument. from the historical context in which it was Gaussen charms us as he proclaims the written. In other words, they make the Divine veracity of Scripture. His tes- Confession a living document devoid of timony is clear as a bell. any historical background. By doing that they make the Confession say almost any- It is such clarity, boldness, and fidelity to thing they want. This method of interpre- the Word of God that God desires in all tation, however, is somewhat new. A more his people. traditional approach to linking unortho- dox beliefs to the Confession was first God-Breathed is composed of seven used by Charles Briggs at the end of the chapters treating such topics as the defi- 1800s. nition of inspiration, the Scriptural proof of the inspiration, a detailed examination Mr. Briggs thought that if he could of objections and evasions, and the proper show that the Westminster divines did not role of criticism. It is fully indexed and personally believe in the verbal and ple- the 19th century English text has been up- nary inspiration of Scripture and its iner- dated, with no change of meaning or omis- rancy, he would be able to show that, by sions. logical deduction, the Confession itself would not teach such a view, thus prov- The Westminster Assembly and Its Work, ing that his unorthodox position was a by Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield. Vol- confessional one. In order to show that ume 6 of The Works of Benjamin the type of doctrine Mr. Briggs was pro- Breckinridge Warfield. New York: Oxford posing was neither scriptural nor confes- University Press, 1931; reprinted sepa- sional, Dr. B. B. Warfield wrote a series rately, Cherry Hill, N.J.: Mack Publish- of articles originally published in The ing Company, 1972. Pp. 400. Reviewed Princeton Review and Presbyterian and by Tito S. Lyro. Reformed Review and later (posthu- mously) collected and published as The The Westminster Confession of Faith Westminster Assembly and Its Work1 by a is the crown jewel of all Reformed con- committee appointed by Dr. Warfield him- self in his will. The WRS Journal 10:2, August 2003 35 The book is organized around six Warfield also compares the chapter on the chapters. The first chapter provides a Holy Scripture to earlier confessions and bird’s eye view of the history behind the to the Irish Articles of 1615.4 Westminster Assembly and its works. Chapter 2, on the other hand, zooms in to Chapter 4 is arguably the most im- the day-to-day operation of the Assem- portant chapter in the entire book. It is in bly, emphasizing specially the part the this chapter that Dr. Warfield takes Mr. Scottish commissioners played in the dis- Briggs on. As described above, Mr. cussions on the floor. Dr. Warfield did a Briggs thought that if he could show that superb job describing the events and pro- Puritans contemporary with the Assem- cesses through which the Confession bly did not believe in the plenary and ver- came into existence. As far as the history bal inspiration, he then would have proved of the Assembly, Chapters 1 and 2 are sec- that the divines held the same belief. The ond only to Hetherington’s History of the five Puritans that Mr. Briggs decided to Westminster Assembly of Divines.2 A bo- use as ultimate proof of his hypothesis nus feature in Chapter 2 is Dr. Warfield’s were John Ball, William Lyford, Richard discussion of the making of the chapter Capel, Richard Baxter, and Samuel Ru- on the decrees of God. Although he used therford.5 So, Dr. Warfield masterfully Chapter 3 of the Confession as a means demonstrates that Mr. Briggs completely to explain the process through which ev- misquoted these Puritans. The chapter ery chapter of the Confession went, Dr. closes with what Dr. Warfield calls “The Warfield provided one the most learned Real Westminster Doctrine,”6 where he discussions on the formulation of the “hor- quotes Dr. Lightfoot extensively in order rible decree,”3 as it has been called, found to show what the divines meant by inspi- in that particular chapter of the Confes- ration. sion. Chapter 5 consists of an extensive Chapters 3 and 4 are the heart of the discussion of the actual printing of the book. Although all the other chapters are Westminster Standards up to the time of of great value, these two chapters are Dr. Warfield. In it you will find very in- worth every penny you might spend in teresting information such as the fact that purchasing the book. The main reason the Confession was first published in Scot- why these two chapters are so important land, not in England, as one would ex- is that in them Dr. Warfield proves that pect.7 Also, you will discover that “the Mr. Briggs’ charge that the divines did not Westminster Confession was slow in find- believe in the plenary and verbal inspira- ing its way into print in America. This was tion of the Scriptures is completely false. not because it was distasteful to the Ameri- Chapter 3 offers an excellent commentary can Churches: the Puritanism of the Colo- on the first chapter of the Westminster nists was doctrinally the same as that of confession. Dr. Warfield discusses section England, and they gave a hearty welcome by section of that Confession chapter pro- to this Puritan formulary.”8 The problem viding background information, tracing was that the colonists, at first, did not have original sources, and showing the foun- the capability to print and later on they dational work done by the Assembly. preferred the Savoy Declaration due to Besides this magnificent commentary, Dr. their Congregational beliefs.9 The first The WRS Journal 10:2, August 2003 36 commercial printing of the Confession in 5 There are three others (Vines, Poole, America did not take place until 1710 in and Wallis), but they are only men- New London.10 This is indeed a fascinat- tioned as secondary evidence. ing chapter because, in discussing the 6 Warfield, The Westminster Assembly printing of the Confession, Dr. Warfield and Its Work, 273. does a great job of describing the 7 Ibid., 337. churches’ attitude toward, and opinion of, 8 Ibid., 347. the Confession. 9 Ibid., 347-348. 10 Ibid., 352. In Chapter 6, Dr. Warfield traces the 11 Ibid., 382. origin of the first question of the Westminster Shorter Catechism to Calvin’s catechism.11 It is his contention that the divines relied heavily on Calvin’s work while also taking into consideration The Inspiration and Authority of the some of the lesser catechisms along the Bible, by Benjamin Breckinridge way. The information in this chapter is of Warfield. Philadelphia: The Presbyterian great use for anyone who is starting a se- and Reformed Publishing House, 1948; rious study of the Shorter Catechism. The often reprinted. Pp. 446. Reviewed by entire book is a “must read” for anyone William R. Kane. who wants to understand the background behind the writing of the Westminster This volume contains articles pub- Confession of Faith and what the lished separately for various audiences Westminster Assembly believed concern- pertaining to the nature and authority of ing the inspiration of the Scriptures. the Bible. The different chapters require a variety of skills and interests in the read- 1 Benjamin B. Warfield, The ing of them and even more so in authoring Westminster Assembly and Its Work them. The author must have historical re- (Alberta: Still Waters Revival Books, search skills with a wide knowledge of 1991), iii. My research has shown that Classical Greek literature, Hellenistic lit- this book is currently out of print, but it erature, and the writings of the early can still be obtained as part of The church fathers. The author needs exper- Complete works of Benjamin Warfield tise in evaluating variant readings of (Baker, 1980). manuscripts (contemporary literature). 2 William M. Hetherington, History of The author needs exegetical expertise in the Westminster Assembly of Divines both Greek and Hebrew. The author needs (Reprinted. Alberta: Still Waters skills in Latin and German for evaluating Revival Books, 1993). other literature that pertains to the sub- 3 J. Ligon Ducan, III & David W. Hall, ject matter. The author needs logical skills “1993 Westminster Assembly Com- in evaluating the arguments of antagonists. memoration: A Bibliography,” n.p. The author needs to have a profound view Online: http://capo.org/calvin/ of the majesty of God, His sovereignty wesassem.html. over all, and the humility to receive the 4 Warfield, The Westminster Assembly truth of God as it is set forth in His word. and Its Work, 170-189. Because the book is a collection of articles The WRS Journal 10:2, August 2003 37 for varying audiences, readers may be trinal in emphasis with the difference be- drawn to different sections of the book ing that the evidence lies in the writings according to their background and inter- of the church fathers and the creeds of the ests. church. It is that evidence that answers the question “what is” the church doctrine. The first and third chapters on “The A second question is “what is the origin?” Biblical Idea of Revelation” and “The or “where did it come from?” Was this a Biblical Idea of Inspiration” are reprints slowly developing doctrine in the history of Warfield’s articles in ISBE. Both of of the church? Has it arisen from disputes these articles are doctrinal in emphasis. within the church? It is seen to be the The Scripture data relating to the doctrine church doctrine from the beginning, be- are collected and harmonized into the cause it was the Scriptural doctrine of in- Scriptural doctrines. Objections to the spiration. The church doctrine presup- doctrines as well as objections to the ex- poses the Biblical doctrine, and both the egesis of the passages of Scripture used origin and persistence of the doctrine are as evidence for the doctrine are handled based on its being the Biblical doctrine. in a sympathetic way. For example, the different modes of revelation imply dif- The fourth chapter on “The Real ferent interaction between God and the Problem of Inspiration” has a polemical prophet or man who is the organ of rev- emphasis. Here we see Warfield the logi- elation. According to the mode of revela- cian. The questions are “Has criticism tion, the organ of revelation appears en- destroyed the doctrine of verbal inspira- tirely passive when the mode is “external tion?” and “Is it necessary to reconstruct manifestation,” somewhat passive and the doctrine of inspiration and develop a somewhat active when the mode is “in- whole new theology?” Warfield presents ternal suggestion,” and very active when in logical form the basis of the doctrine, the mode is “concursive operation.” The i.e., what needs to be proven in order to critic of Biblical Revelation would use this prove the doctrine. Objections to the doc- to argue that different revelations are trine which do not disprove the logical somewhat more or somewhat less the foundation of the doctrine can in no way word of God and of more or less author- disprove the doctrine itself. Warfield ity. While admitting the data, Warfield writes, “It being a settled logical principle denies their conclusion because the Scrip- that so long as the proper evidence by tures treat the revelations, which are a re- which a proposition is established remains sult of the different modes, all equally as unrefuted, all so-called objections brought revelation from God, and hence as au- against it pass out of the category of ob- thoritative. “The plausibility of such rea- jections to its truth into the category of soning renders it the more necessary that difficulties to be adjusted to it.” we observe the unvarying emphasis which the Scriptures place on the absolute su- The last three chapters consider the pernaturalness of revelation in all its nomenclature of the Greek New Testa- modes alike.” ment with respect to the doctrine of in- spiration. The student might consider The second chapter on “The Church checking the various words in a lexicon. Doctrine of Inspiration” is likewise doc- If there is a consensus, perhaps one would The WRS Journal 10:2, August 2003 38 need go no further. The question that is Modern-day theologians have not answered in these chapters is, what if the dismissed the doctrine of verbal inspira- lexicon is wrong or if there be no consen- tion; they have dismissed all of Warfield’s sus? The investigation to determine the arguments without ever combating them. usus loquendi of the words involves the They have done this by setting aside an usuage of the words with their synonyms unstated assumption of Warfield. Warfield in Classic Greek, the choice of Greek assumes the old (or Christian or Biblical) words in the Septuagint translation of the view of epistemology. The modern phi- Old Testament, as well as the use of those losophers deny the knowability of the words by the Hellenists in their literature, world as it is in reality. We can only know especially considering the Jewish mean- the world as we see it. By this assump- ing of those words as distinguished from tion, there can be no such thing as a rev- the classics. In some ways there is a nar- elation from God to be received or re- rowing or restriction of the meaning and jected by man, only an encounter with also an extension in applying words to the God. The modern theory denies absolute Scriptures of the Old Testament. In the truth which is separate from the Knower. New Testament writers and the early Truth is made relative to the Knower; church fathers, one sees the words used hence we have “my truth” rather than “the closer to the Hellenistic usage as over truth.” Van Til discusses the presupposi- against the Classic Greek. It is interesting tions of various systems. It is difficult to read the manuscripts with their variant reading unless one has a background in readings with arguments pro and con for philosophy. a particular reading. Even though Warfield is distinguished as a great theologian and One great deterrent in grasping the apologist, we are reminded of his early Introduction is that the same words are work in the New Testament and his work, used by the different systems with differ- Introduction to the Textual Criticism of ent meanings. Suppose you play a game the New Testament. It is these chapters of chess. We observe the shape of the dif- which lay the groundwork for the doctri- ferent pieces, the names of those pieces, nal studies of the earlier chapters. the moves associated with each piece, and the colors that distinguish your pieces Finally, the Introduction, written by from your opponent’s. With respect to any Cornelius Van Til, is not so much an in- piece, there is no confusion with respect troduction to the work of Warfield, as a to whose piece it is or how it moves. Let postlude. It was written thirty years after us alter the rules of the game somewhat. the death of Warfield and deals with theo- Both you and your opponent have the logical and philosophical thought of those same color pieces. Further, the piece that who followed Warfield. As such the In- looks like a knight, is called a knight, and troduction should be read after the moves like a knight in a standard game. Warfield articles rather than prior to them. But your opponent’s piece that looks like Van Til writes, “Since Warfield’s day the a knight is called a bishop and moves like matter of the philosophical presupposi- a bishop, and so forth for the other pieces. tions that underlie the factual discussion In your first game your mind is filled with of the data of knowledge has come to confusion. The semantics attached to what stand in the foreground of interest.” I see for my pieces are different from those The WRS Journal 10:2, August 2003 39 for my opponent. After considerable ex- ploying them leads to the same confusion. perience with this modified game, the As we become philosophically competent mind is accustomed to the different se- with the variant semantics we become less mantics and the confusion is gone except confused. As we read Van Til’s comments, for occasional relapses. In the Introduc- we must always determine the viewpoint tion, the same terms used with different of the person quoted or paraphrased be- semantics according to the system em- fore we attach meaning to the words. NOTES

The WRS Journal 10:2, August 2003 40 Subscribe to the WRS Journal Today!

‰ US$150  Lifetime subscription ‰ US$13  3 Years ($25 outside North America) ‰ US$5  1 Year ($10 outside North America) ‰ Back issues are $3 ($5 outside North America) Name ______Address ______City ______State ______Zip ______Country ______Phone ( ) ______E-mail ______

Detach (or photocopy) and mail with payment to: The WRS Journal 5 South “G” Street Tacoma, Washington 98405

The WRS Journal 10:2, August 2003