Question #1:
Hi Dr. Luginbill,
Hope you and yours are well and happy!
I came across the Apocrypha, Sea Scrolls and some others…. It’s a wonder a
believer can stay strong when men tamper, change and pollute it!!
When saw this : In the Son, God made heaven and earth…. It brought it home for
me… don’t know if it SHOULD be written that way, but to me it certainly makes
much more sense…
Early Christians had talked about The Dispute of Jason and Papiscus. It had
strange interpretations of the Old Testament books, which it said were
“allegorical.” Verses were quoted—but they were different.
At Genesis 1:1, we’d expect “In the beginning, God made heaven and earth,” but
Jason and Papiscus had this instead:
“In the son, God made heaven and earth.”
Just needed somebody to share that thought with…
In the name Yeshua
Response #1:
Good to hear from you! How are you getting on?
As to your question, well, even a broken clock is right twice a day. If
you read enough apocryphal and pseudepigraphal material, you might just
bump into something that makes sense (or is at least not totally wrong).
Jerome said that reading the apocrypha was like "looking for gold
nuggets in the mud". There are better places to look – like the actual
Bible.
(1) God, from antiquity communicated to our fathers in the prophets at many times and in many ways, (2) [but now] in these last days He has communicated to us in a Son, [the One] whom He has appointed heir of all things, [the One] through whom He created the universe (i.e., time-space).
Hebrews 1:1-2
Yes, Jesus Christ created the world – but that is clearly stated in the
New Testament (e.g., Jn.1:3; 1Cor.8:6; Col.1:16-17; Heb.1:2). So this
quote is just an interpretation based upon what the Bible clearly states
elsewhere.
However, as to "what it SHOULD say", that is where the bigger problem
with this quote and the mindset it betrays lies. The Bible says what it
says wherever it says it for a reason. Reason enough right there to give
all apocrypha, pseudepigrapha, theosophy and anything new age a very
wide berth.
To respond to the statement itself, in Old Testament times, people were
not yet ready for a full-throated explanation of the Trinity – even
though it is clearly there, even in Genesis (i.e., "Let US
make man in our image"). But after the gift of the Spirit following our
Lord's victory on the cross, it was possible to explain many things
which had been only adumbrated in the past. That is all part of God's
perfect plan of revelation.
Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care, trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of the Messiah and the glories that would follow. It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves but you, when they spoke of the things that have now been told you by those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven. Even angels long to look into these things.
1st Peter 1:10-12 NIV
Here are some links:
Is there any value to the Apocrypha?
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #2:
On Sunday at St. Mark’s Episcopal Church, our priest held a meeting after the service for those who are planning on continuing Bible study. She wants us to read the Gospel of St. Thomas. She had 4 versions of this gospel for us to take a look at. I was going to order The Gospel of St. Thomas: Wisdom of the Twin by Lynn Bauman. I found it on Amazon, but it was $499. That is not a typo. There were a fair number of texts of the Gospel of St. Thomas to choose from. But I am mystified as to what to pick.
Response #2:
On the so-called "Gospel of Thomas", I couldn't recommend spending any
time on it. This is part of a genre of literature known as "pseudipigrapha";
this particular work was found at Nag Hammadi and is Gnostic in its
approach. About the only thing we can say for certain about it is that
it has nothing to do with Thomas – or the actual gospel (as is true of
all such fictional creations). So I wouldn't spend 49 cents on it – let
alone $499!
Here's something I wrote about this in the past:
There is a "gospel of Thomas", but it is not a canonical work (i.e., it is fiction, and most definitely not an inspired part of the Word of God). The only reference to an English translation I can give you is A. Guillaumont et al., "The Gospel according to Thomas" (1959), which is probably out of print, but there are no doubt more popular versions floating around. I would check a good reference library (you should do so "on-line" before running over somewhere out of the way only to find they don't have it or it's checked out).
It was very common in the ancient world to "make up" works by famous people who were otherwise without "corpus" (i.e., a "body" of material written by them). As one of the disciples, Thomas was a perfect candidate for a late work of fiction such as this "gospel" is. Good articles with bibliography can be found in the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church and the Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible (both sub voce "Thomas"). Again, as interesting as this sort of material is (it's generally called "Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha", consisting mainly of apocalyptic and pseudepigraphical material), it is very important to remember that this sort of thing has nothing to do with Jesus or His Word.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #3:
Hello Dr. Luginbill,
The Orthodox Study Bible: Is the above Bible a good Bible to study with
or?
Thanks for your comments and observations of this study Bible, whether
Excellent, good, not good, or bad?
Thanks for your opinion and remarks.
Blessings to you always,
Your friend,
Response #3:
I've not used it but from what I can see of the preview I couldn't recommend it. The "Orthodox" here is referring to the Greek Orthodox church. This particular Bible you ask about has liturgy from that church and quotations from the church fathers which accord with their teachings. I have known individuals from this church who were upstanding individuals (same goes from RCs), but the religion itself, similar to the RC church, is focused on the past and tradition (icons, rituals, and writings other than scripture), so any study Bible they produced would have to suffer from their assumptions.
Also, the Greek Orthodox church uses the Septuagint as their Old
Testament, not the Hebrew Masoretic text, so there would be many places
where the translation seems wrong or odd . . . because it is. The LXX
has many places where it diverges from the Hebrew text significantly.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #4:
Question about the CES version. I have so many books in my library but I noticed
this one that I bought some time back, when I forget. But, the reason I am
writing is to get your opinion of this Contemporary English Version. I finally
opened this morning, why I don't know, but I read the first several verse in The
Gospel of John, chapter 1.
1. John 1:1-5 CES version.
1In the beginning was the one
who is called the Word.
The Word was with God
and was truly God.
2From the very beginning
the Word was with God.
3And with this Word,
God created all things.
Nothing was made
without the Word.
Everything that was created
4received its life from him,
and his life gave light
to everyone.
5The light keeps shining
in the dark,
and darkness has never
put it out.+
I sure would like your opinion of this particular translation. It seems to be an
easier translation to read, especially for a new believer??
Thanks so much for your opinion.
Please let me know if their are any things to look out for.
Blessings be with you on this special remembrance of the One who died for our
sins, and gave us eternal life. This is Easter; it should be "Resurrection", not
Easter. My opinion.
Your friend,
Response #4:
I've never used this version. From the passage you include here, it
seems to be something along the lines of the NLT. That is to say, an
interpretive translation. These are indeed easier to read, but instead
of "studied ambiguity" for the which the KJV is notable, they "tell you
what it means". That is great . . . if they are right. So in verse five,
for example, they have "the darkness has never put it out". This could
conceivably be what katalambano means here, but there is no
"never". More likely, the KJV is correct with it's "the darkness
comprehended it not".
I'm all for believers reading multiple versions. If they did, they would
have questions about passages such as this they didn't know they had
before . . . and perhaps be motivated to expose themselves to some good
Bible teaching.
Happy Easter to you and yours too, my friend! I'm not much on holidays
(since we've been liberated from all that: Gal.4:9-11; Col.2:16-17). I
remember the Lord and the cross every day.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #5:
Hello Dr. Luginbill,
I just wanted to share the happy news of me purchasing the 1984 NIV
Stewardship study Bible. Through numerous emails I read , you suggest
this version and how rare it is. I was talking to the owner of the
Lighthouse Book store about them being obsolete, and he was telling me
what a mistake they made changing it. Then he said he was cleaning up
inventory and ran across one. So I bought it. I can’t wait to gloss over
it.
I spend most of my time reading and studying the Revelations series of
yours. I love how you tie it all in with the books of the Old Testament.
Your commentary of the Bible is so accurate. I thank God for the work
and devotion you put into making sure we know the truth. Also for
answering questions we have.
Again thank you and may God continue to bless you
Response #5:
Congratulations!
Yes, it's becoming an ever more difficult Bible to find, but there are still
some out there. Kudos to you for putting in the effort and finding one. I do
enjoy that version. It's not perfect (NKJV is more accurate in many places) but
it is very readable.
And thank you so much for your kind and encouraging words!
Keeping you in my prayers, my friend.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #6:
Hey Bob, what do you think about the Christian Standard Bible? We moved to Florida and are trying out new churches. The pastor of the most recent church we are looking into uses it for his sermons. The CSB website said it uses "optimal equivalence" which it says produces linguistic and readability. Is it a reliable translation? Have you met any of its translators personally? On a side note, this is our second visit here and he started his verse by verse on James today. I’ll be interested to see how his teaching matches up with your thoughts as well as mine from our last discussion a few weeks ago.
Response #6:
I have used the CSB from time to time, but I've never read through the
whole thing. It would take many hours to do a fair evaluation. I can
only say that I didn't find it "noticeably objectionable" when I have
used it. All translations are, by their very nature, imperfect. I always
tell believers to consult multiple translations whenever they find
something "surprising" whether it encourages them or upsets them. Also,
since it is very rare for one person to be qualified to translate the
whole Bible (and since that would take decades at least), just as with
the KJV, the standard practice is to farm out chapters and even parts of
chapters to different translators. As a result, a version could be good
in Galatians, mediocre in Ephesians, and poor in Philippians. Also, it
is not uncommon for one verse/paragraph to be exceptionally well
rendered but followed by another which is problematic. I consult
directly the Greek and the Hebrew (and the Aramaic) when I do my own
translating.
Re: "Have you met any of its translators personally?" As with the
KJV, the standard practice is for the producers of the version NOT to
let anyone know who has translated what. So unless one knows someone
personally and has been told on the Q.T. that said person is part of the
team, the team is usually anonymous (one of my seminary professors was
involved with NASB but he didn't tell us which part[s]). All of the
translations at Ichthys are done by me (see
the link), but my objective in providing them is to communicate what
they actually say and mean rather than to produce a "readable" Bible
translation (as anyone accessing Ichthys finds out pretty quick, my
translations do not "sing" – but I do hope they illuminate the truth).
Best wishes finding a church that teaches the truth sufficiently to
grow. If you do, that will be an unusual blessing in this day and age.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #7:
Thanks Bob. Glad to hear you haven’t seen anything glaringly wrong with it. I did see on the CSB website they named a team of 10 people involved, although it didn’t mention which parts they worked on. That's interesting that different translators work in different chapters. I didn’t realize that. Thanks for the wishes. We’re currently trying out our 4th church now and it’s our favorite so far. Take care.
Response #7:
That's a very small number of individuals to do the entire Bible. KJV had 47
scholars, I believe, and it still took them some time. Makes me wonder how much
of CSB was originally translated from Greek and Hebrew vs. how much was just a
"check and modification" on a synopsis of other English versions. Translators
don't "start from nothing". That was true of the KJV as well which owes much to
Wycliffe's version and of course to the Latin Vulgate, e.g.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #8:
Ok. So the CSB is actually an update of the Holman Christian Standard Bible
which had 100 translators. This is what it said about what manuscripts it used.
The textual base for the New Testament is the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum
Graece, 28th edition, and the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament, 5th
corrected edition. The text for the Old Testament is the Biblia Hebraica
Stuttgartensia, 4th edition. Where there are significant differences among
Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek manuscripts, the translators follow what they believe
is the original reading and indicate the main alternative(s) in footnotes.
Response #8:
Interesting.
Re: "The textual base for the New Testament . . . etc." – they all say
this sort of thing, but the proof is in the pudding, i.e., what the translators
do with these critical editions we all use (for the most part;
see the
link).
If I were really bound to look into this question, I would try to find out the
organizational affiliation of CSB and then compare the update to the original.
Otherwise, the update has probably been done for economic reasons, i.e., having
gotten blow-back for something or other and wanting to make their product less
offensive. It would be interesting to have a list of changes and compare the two –
that would be very revealing (but my guess is that such a list is hard to come
by).
By way of comparison, the new NIV as opposed to the original 1984 NIV did just
that. Here's an example:
"And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven."
Matthew 12:31 NIV 1984
"And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven"
Matthew 12:31 NIV (new)
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #9:
Re: Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews by Dr. Robert D.
Luginbill
In your introduction here you mention "a
new translation of the book".
Is this available in book form?
Response #9:
Good to hear from you, my friend.
The "book" is the "book of Hebrews" which
I'm translating as I produce each chapter (here's
a link to the list of translations from Hebrews so far at Ichthys).
None of the materials posted to Ichthys are available for purchase, but I have
no problem with readers printing these studies off or out for themselves.
Pertinent links on that:
FAQ# 1. Books: Are these studies available in printed format?
FAQ# 18. Use Policy: How may I use the materials found at Ichthys?
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #10:
Hi Bob,
[omitted]
I wanted to ask you something, Bob. I have a pretty good NKJV study
Bible but how useful would you say Bible handbooks and dictionaries are?
Just something I was thinking about the last couple of days.
Thanks Bob and take care.
In Jesus
Response #10:
Happy to hear all this.
Bible dictionaries and Bible handbooks are similar; the former is usually
organized alphabetically, the latter often thematically. They are as good as the
person(s) who wrote them.
Generally speaking, if you want to know something like who Nebuchadnezzar was
and when he reigned they are pretty good (the good ones, anyway). If you want to
know about the doctrine of kenosis or anything doctrinal you won't get
much help (and can get many a "bum steer"). Halley's handbook isn't too
bad; Smith's Bible Dictionary and also Unger's are OK (but, for
example, in the case of the latter, many of the articles are written not by him
but by different individuals and some of them know what they are talking about
more or less but others do not). Bible encyclopedias are "more of the same" only
more extensive (i.e., longer with more entries); the ISBE is the best of
the lot there though it suffers from all of the problems above (many authors).
Which NKJV SB do you have? I have a Ryrie's (not very valuable); the Kenneth
Barker SB's of whatever version are better.
Keeping you and your family in my prayers daily – thanks for yours too, my
friend.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #11:
[omitted]
I really appreciate all the info on Bible handbooks etc. and the links you gave
me are very helpful. The NKJV study Bible I have is one I bought when I first
came back to the Lord. It's just one from Thomas Nelson - a full colour edition.
Then I found Ichthys and I always took note when you mentioned people like
Kenneth Barker. I'm sure something of his would be better than what I have.
You hear of so many resources out there but I'm not sure how useful a lot of it
would be. As you say, I guess it depends what you're looking for. I wonder
whether some Christians buy a lot of books but get bogged down with it all and
end up wasting their time and money. I don't mean to sound negative - I just
have a feeling that's a possibility. But it's great that there's free stuff
online. I have no problems when it comes to things like kenosis. I have
all the teaching I need on that at Ichthys! I'm very thankful to the Lord for
Ichthys and Bible Academy too.
Thanks again, Bob!
In Jesus
Response #11:
[omitted]
Sorry to hear that you're a bit off, but I'm glad it wasn't enough to
ruin things. Make sure you get some rest. Same plan here (food poisoning
made for a rough night but I'm better today and looking forward to being
done with the week tomorrow).
I did an exercise for my upper level Latin class (Martial's epigrams
this spring). Got on ChatGPT and told it to "Write a poem in Latin
elegaic couplets about the death of a charioteer in the style of the
Roman poet, Martial." And what do you know? In thirty seconds it
produced a five stanza, metrical poem in Latin which is not at all bad!
It even has some interesting alliteration in the last two lines. It made
a couple of mistakes trying to get too cute with the Latin, but this is
pretty scary – all of the lines scanned metrically. The mistakes it made
were the sort that an English speaker would make through thinking in
English and using a Latin dictionary to come up with the text he/she
wanted.
Re: "I wonder whether some Christians buy a lot of books but get
bogged down with it all and end up wasting their time and money." No
doubt! It took me a long time to figure out that there is nothing much
of at useful in 99% of commentaries, e.g. The only ones that tend to be
valuable at all are ones written in the last century when commentators
had a workman-like knowledge of the language and before all these
(false) pet theories of composition surfaced (link).
If I could sell back most of my books at ten cents on the dollar I would
jump at the chance! Some things ARE valuable: dictionaries, lexicons,
some history books (but where the Bible is concerned even here there is
a
lot of chaff), some Bible dictionaries and encyclopedias along with
other reference books, and there are a few commentaries which have a
small amount of value (Keil and Delitzsch for the OT, e.g.).
Today, of course, there is so much available online that most of the
"good stuff" can be found on the computer without paying a fortune and
weighing down the old shelves even more (as in the example given).
Thanks for the good words!
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #12:
Thank you, Bob! It's good to know you're feeling better now. Food
poisoning is very nasty.
The ChatGPT poem sounds very impressive (and scary). I read that ChatGPT
has ingested huge troves of written works to give its answers. Makes me
think about how rapidly technology is advancing and that it's not always
a good thing. I wonder what role it might play in the Tribulation. I'm
not sure how I just switched from the Roman poet, Martial to the
Tribulation! I guess the future events are always there in my mind. It
did get me reading some of Martial's poetry this morning though. You got
me researching! I'd never heard of him before.
I don't feel that I can trust most commentaries because I trust what you
say about them. You've saved me a lot of time figuring that out first. I
don't see the point of reading them if a lot of what they say is off. I
do have Unger's OT commentary but that's only because you said it was an
OK one. The little I have read from it has been helpful. Wouldn't it be
so much easier if they all got it right? But I'm thankful to have you to
help me along.
I think we're very privileged to have so many translations of the Bible
and tools for Bible study. I do appreciate it but at the same time
sometimes I can feel overwhelmed by it. It would be easy to go off on a
tangent, so I think it's good to be focused on your own growth/study
plan and not get too distracted by everything else that's out there. Am
I making any sense there, Bob?
Anyway, I'm feeling better than I was yesterday too. And today has been
a beautiful sunny day. And it's the weekend! Hope you have a great one!
In Jesus
Response #12:
When I showed this to my class, we saw that one of the mistakes was
particularly interesting. It confused "blow" as noun (i.e., the "blows
of whips") with the verb "blow" (which in Latin looks nothing like the
noun; different roots). I.e., this is a mistake an English speaker would
make. When I plugged this line into Google translate, it "understood it"
just in the way ChatGPT did. That means that this AI, anyway, is really
functioning in English. But, very scarily, . . . is also apparently
"talking" to other AIs. And they are confirming each others mistakes.
That sounds like end-times stuff to me too.
Unger is much better than most. I rarely find him completely wrong;
although there are plenty of times he doesn't tell me what I'd like to
know (understandable in a commentary trying to cover the entire OT).
I'm glad you're feeling better! So am I . . . especially now that it's
Friday evening.
Have a great weekend.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #13:
Hi Bob,
Just wanted to say how much I appreciate you and how much your ministry
has helped, nourished and blessed me! I couldn't imagine going through
all these steep learning curve years on the edge of Tribulation in the
wilderness without it! I have also been very blessed all these years
through your tireless support, friendship and fellowship!
I don't tell you as often as I should but I really do appreciate your
fight for the truth and unwillingness to compromise in these late
innings. I know this couldn't have been easy for you in these Laodicean
times but we all have benefitted enormously from your dedication to
serving us and the Lord in truth.
Look forward to cheering you on when you are given a great reward from
the Lord Himself!
Marana-tha!
p.s., Just thought you would want to know: I know on your site you have
a link to Scourby.com (audio files of Alexander Scourby reading the KJV
version) which then links to the Scourby YouTube channel...the problem
is that this channel promotes the Apocrypha and the Book of Enoch as
well. I noticed before they also promoted in their videos iconography of
Mary as the "Queen of heaven" and Eastern Orthodox iconography of Jesus
too. It is becoming a bit of a mess that channel now. Don't know how you
still feel about it? Don't know if you would still recommend it or with
a disclaimer/warning? There is another website that has all the Scourby
recordings from the Bible though not sure if they have the permission to
host the recordings and it is a Baptist site so it will obviously have
its own problems too (also linking to another ministry who I have not
vetted).
https://earnestlycontendingforthefaith.com/ListenToTheKingJamesBible.html
I know now which books to listen to and what to avoid though I realise
that other believers may be confused which texts are part of the canon.
Thought you would appreciate the heads up!
Response #13:
Thanks awfully for the encouraging words, my friend! I'm gratified . . .
but even more happy to see you recovering in all ways and being joyous
yourself. Keeping up the prayer!
Thanks for the heads-up on Scourby. I did a universal replace of the
.com link with the one you suggested. Much appreciated. We don't want to
be a part of anyone being led astray in any way.
Got through the week! Thanks for the prayers.
Wishing you a wonderful weekend, my friend!
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #14:
Thanks Bob,
I got my joy back and my first love which is very important! There's a lot of
juggling to do as a believer as we need to be moving forward and doing well on
multiple fronts at the same time in this battle. I regrouped and now am moving
forward again.
I needed to add that the link I sent you, although it isn't pushing the same
huge errors as the Scourby one, it still has problems of its own. I guess this
will be an increasing problem with linking to external material, there always
seems to be compromises on the truth one way or another. There is no wild
teachings on there (like promoting non-canonical/Gnostic texts) but it has all
the usual errors that comes from the Laodicean church visible that are typical
from a Baptist denomination.
Managed to have a more detailed read over the 'contending the faith' site I sent
you and can summarise their declaration of faith and list where they clash with
your own ministry...
• Believes in continuation of five fold ministry
• OSAS
• That our Lord shed His blood
• Hold to water baptism
• Hold to pre-trib rapture
• Reject the gap theory
• Believe life begins at conception
• Encourages tithing
• Emphasis on 'soul winning' to the exclusion of everything else
• Over emphasis on social debates such as abortion and LGBTQ
• King James only-ist
I will leave it to you to decide whether this is a good substitute for the
Scourby.com link or not. It's hard to gauge which false teaching is worse. You
might prefer to actually use this link now though instead. It is to the Internet
Archive and has the Scourby files how they used to be without weird iconography
or links to non-canonical books.
https://archive.org/details/19-psalms-in-audio-with-chapters-from-the-kjv-of-the-bible._202212/36+Zephaniah+in+audio+with+chapters+from+the+KJV+of+the+bible..mp4
Sorry to not research the other one fully first before recommending it. I only
listened to the audio on there myself but realise how things have to be
thoroughly vetted before passing them on in case they have snares or stumbling
blocks which may trip up those young to faith. Sometimes vetting things can take
considerable time and reading before they get the seal of approval! Such is
these perilous Laodicean times!
In Jesus,
Response #14:
I'm very happy to hear that you are doing well spiritually again, my
friend! That is a real answer to prayer. Praying also for your physical
healing in all things.
On the new link, I looked at this newest one and it's pretty problematic
as to actually finding and then using something (also a long load time).
It pretty much goes without saying that websites other than the one I'm
in control of will have things we disagree with. The first link was over
the top and I also didn't notice the problems with #2. But on the
grounds that Ichthys users will tend to have some spiritual common sense
on the one hand, and that the objective here is to be able to listen to
S's recordings on the other, I'll keep the new link #2 as is – but
thanks for all the digging! Anyone wondering about some ministry or site
or book could do a lot worse than running it by you first! That
definitely bodes very well for your own soon-to-be revealed ministry, my
friend.
Keeping you and yours in my daily prayers.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #15:
Hey Dr. Luginbill,
[omitted]
Glad to hear about the new semester! I don't know why I never asked this
before but the Greek you teach; it is basically the same as biblical
Greek correct (the type in which Scripture was written)? I understand
there is koine and then another type(?) but never took the time
to investigate as to the differences between those types (You'll have to
enlighten me). My father knows about your career (I've told him a little
about you over the years) and was interested to know what type you
teach.
Sorry if it sounds like a silly question. I just never thought about it
before.
In Christ,
Response #15:
Thanks for the info. Sounds like if you shadowed someone doing the job a few
times you'd be good to go pretty quick.
As to Greek, no need to apologize as this is a very common misconception,
deliberately perpetuated by seminaries et al. because of selfish reasons (if you
ask me).
Greek is Greek, from 800 B.C. to 500 or so A.D., and even after that the
language is essentially the same . . . Byzantine Greek . . . until the Turkish
conquest. Academic Greek then had to go underground and so the "demotic" or
people's language became divorced from reading and writing and so skidded into
what today is "Modern Greek". However, even so, Modern Greek is much closer to
ancient Greek than modern day English is to Old English – and it's a difference
of 28 centuries or so instead of seven or eight. This remarkable staying power
and consistency of the language has to do with the root-based nature of Greek
which makes it much less susceptible to change in terms of individual words, but
even so, losing reading and writing messed with the cases and verb system quite
a bit.
Long story short, if you can read Plato, you can read the New Testament without
any trouble. The reverse is not necessarily the case because the NT is much
easier to read than the classics of the 4/5 cent. B.C. Loose analogy: reading
the newspaper vs. reading Shakespeare. If you can read the latter, you can read
the former, but if your English is minimal and you've never had a formal
education, or if English is your second language, then reading Shakespeare can
be a bit of a challenge – but it is the same language. "Koine" means
"common" and this is a distinction biblical scholars fostered after WWII in
order to give credence to false theories of NT interpretation (see
the link); if it's a different language than classical Greek, then we can
look at the NT in a whole new way (wrong).
Conservative seminaries picked up on this because it absolved them and their
students from actually learning real Greek. This has contributed to the very
sloppy scholarship that characterizes things today and also to the myopic and
subjective treatment of the NT we find in evangelical circles – as if the Bible
were created in a cultural vacuum. Sort of like being interested in Dickens as a
non-English speaker and only ever reading Dickens – as if considering any other
works in English were somehow unnecessary to understanding Dickens. But to say
that Dickens is so special that all other English is essentially a different
language and that those who learn English outside of Dickens can't really
understand Dickens would be monumentally nuts. But that is what a lot of people
say about Koine (by which really they mean the NT since that is the only
thing they ever deal with – I would say "read" but most of these people can't
really "read it" like we would read a work in English).
Anyway, I'd be happy to answer any specific questions about this that you and
your dad may have. Here's one link which may prove helpful:
Koine
vs. Classical Greek
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #16:
Hey Dr. Luginbill,
Sorry to get back to you so late. I've just been really busy and
occupied with other things (family, the holidays, etc.). Life is busy
and distracting in general but I can't wait to get back to writing again
(although I"m currently doing some editing on the site). It isn't always
easy trying to balance work, family, ministry, and everything else in
life and I continually go through periods where other things have to be
addressed and prioritized more than normal so that I'm not always able
to do as much of the "usual" that I typically do.
Regarding the Greek, I did visit the link and read through some of it
but may go back at some point and read/reread more of it (I'll take a
look at the other link as well in Bibliology).
However, it might just be easier for me to ask you a few things directly
(I'm getting confused over words here). Do you teach modern Greek or
ancient (the word classical throws me off a bit)? Does koine
refer to ancient Greek or modern? That said, the New Testament was
written in ancient Greek?
"Conservative seminaries picked up on this because it absolved them
and their students from actually learning real Greek. "
Just trying to understand, but what do you mean they aren't actually
learning real Greek?
I'm only asking for myself here and probably won't relay this to my
father because he will most likely disagree with a good bit of your
answer.
In Christ,
Response #16:
Re: "It isn't always easy trying to balance work, family, ministry,
and everything else in life" – Amen to that! But the Lord does help
us (we have the Spirit), and it's those who persevere through this sort
of opposition who are up for top rewards in the end.
On the questions, it's a little bit of a "blind men and the elephant"
situation. If you spent a month or so studying Greek, this would all be
crystal clear. But here goes:
1. "Do you teach modern Greek or ancient (the word classical throws
me off a bit)?" I teach ancient Greek, AKA Classical Greek.
2. "Does koine refer to ancient Greek or modern?" Koine is a made
up subcategory of ancient/Classical Greek. The Greek of the Bible is
only marginally different from the Greek of Herodotus, Euripides, Plato,
Aristotle (etc., etc.).
3. "That said, the New Testament was written in ancient Greek?"
Yes indeed.
4. "What do you mean they aren't actually learning real Greek?"
That's not exactly the way I put it, but in effect it's true. It's not
that at seminary they aren't learning Greek – they just aren't learning
it well or the right way. They are focusing in on a minuscule piece of a
very large corpus and calling it by a new name ("koine") to
justify not learning how to read Greek generally. As a result, they
really don't teach enough Greek in seminary for the average person to
ever be able to read it fluently or to understand it in a broader
context, only to be familiar enough with it to talk about words, as in
"This word means X in Greek" etc.
5. "He will most likely disagree with a good bit of your answer."
Your dad knows Greek?
Keeping you in my prayers, my friend.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #17:
Hey Dr. Luginbill,
Got much needed sleep last night (I was off work)! Yesterday was
productive and the day I'm sending you this email has been thus far (I'm
gonna be busy the rest of the day). Once I start training at work next
month (6 months day shift and it's basically like trade school except
you're getting paid well to do it) I will be having Saturdays and
Sundays off for that time period which will be nice for the time it
lasts. But my days off will still be the only days I will be able to do
anything writing/ministry wise.
I wanted to ask you out of curiosity what your thoughts would be (even
if I think I already know it) if you heard someone say (regarding
careers and secular matters) "You have to have vision/or a vision in
life of where you are going and what you'll be doing." I googled the
word "vision" in our English language and the definition was "the
ability to think about or plan the future with imagination or wisdom."
Some people think that unless you do, you don't know where you are going
and that you're lost (Arnold Schwarzenegger is a big promoter of this).
This may be a simple issue to address, but this statement isn't entirely
true or false (there is some truth and error in it). Like, yes, it is
good to plan things out ahead of time and give them thought.
On the other hand, we have verses like James 4:13 and Proverbs 19:21
that warn about getting too proud and confident about this. Regarding
spiritual matters, I know that our "vision" should be to grow, progress,
and produce for the Lord as much as we can (whatever all the details
(invisible to us for certain periods) look like along the way). There is
going to be much we cannot see (we walk by faith and not by sight 2
Corinthians 5:7) just as Abraham didn't know where He was going when God
called Him to travel to a distant land (Hebrews 11:8). Plus, following
the Lord where He wants us to go may entail (in some cases) foregoing
some (if not many) of our prior plans, goals, dreams, and aspirations
(depending).
Here's what I'm getting at. Regarding secular matters (one example is
what job to take, etc.)- I don't like when people say that if you don't
have vision or a vision in life (generally speaking I suppose), you are
lost and that is always a bad thing. That just seems to be worldly
thinking to some extent. I didn't know what I wanted to do for years and
couldn't thoroughly plan ahead because I ended up changing my mind many
times about what I wanted to do in life later on (using myself as only
one example here). [omitted] and so that is what I am pursuing for now
whether it ends up working out in the end or not. I can't help but think
of Jeremiah 29:11 and applying that in general.
Speaking generally here, what if the Lord is testing said person by
helping them to walk by faith and not sight? Plus, plans can change (as
they did in my case and this happens all the time)! What if what you
wanted to do originally (what you formally "envisioned") doesn't work
out? What if what you end up doing is something that God brings into
your life suddenly and you begin only shortly after? I think there are
times when we can't always have vision in life regarding these matters
and that, sometimes, the Lord does that to test and grow our faith to
place us where He wants us instead of where we wanted to go originally
(something that wasn't in God's plan for us). In other words, God may
want it to be that way for a purpose! Sure, some people have dreams as
children of what they want to do (Billy wants to be a firefighter or a
police officer, while Sally wants to be a nurse when she grows up). Good
for all these people who ended up doing what they dreamed of when they
were children; I was and am not one of those people. We all have
different stories to tell.
With that said, do you think we should ever tell people (speaking of
general life matters) "you have to have vision or a vision in life?" As
in, "You've got to have a purpose" (true but also false and potentially
misleading in some ways)? Plan ahead to some extent for certain things,
sure. But I see a bit of harm wording things that way because of the
damage it can cause. I'm not saying its bad to have vision but some
people (especially regarding careers and what have you) don't have them
(even if they previously envisioned some things that didn't end up
working out). Sure, I guess once believers know what they want to do
(assuming the Lord wants them doing it), that becomes their vision and
they pursue it. So I guess we always end up having "vision" in the end.
But in light of everything I've said above (perhaps I've already
explained everything here to myself, so sorry about that), don't you
think we should be careful wording things this way?
"and it's those who persevere through this sort of opposition who are
up for top rewards in the end"
Although I already knew this, I thank you for reminding me (I needed the
encouragement). I was encouraged to hear you say that you believe the
Lord has a special purpose for me and the other young pastor teachers
and that the Lord may very well have a special role for us to play
during the Tribulation. I don't want to be proud or self-righteous, but
it would be nice if more people were interested in what we had to say.
It would be nice to see others growing in the truth and to be able to
get to meet new people and make some new friends.
[omitted]
On the Greek...
"Koine is a made up subcategory of ancient/Classical Greek. The Greek
of the Bible is only marginally different from the Greek of Herodotus,
Euripides, Plato, Aristotle (etc., etc.)."
I'm still unraveling some of this in my mind (I've really had to think
this through!). So despite biblical (or more modern) Greek being only
marginally different from that of Plato and Herodotus, we would still
categorize both as "ancient Greek" since they are virtually still the
same language (just like old and new English- the examples you gave),
correct?
And if koine Greek is a made up subcategory of Ancient and
Classical, in what exact ways is it different and where did it come
from? The word means "common" but what is that supposed to mean
specifically? I really don't get how or why people can make up a
subcategory like that. This is really arousing my interest and I'm gonna
take a good look at those links you provided. I know these questions are
simple for you but as someone who doesn't know Greek, well, obviously
not so much for me just now looking into this.
"Your dad knows Greek?"
Thinking about it now, I was only speculating as to whether he would
agree or not. I actually don't know (now that you've explained things
more in detail), so you can disregard that. It was probably just because
of some misunderstandings I had at first toward the beginning of our
discussion. I mean, its possible he may not see the problems with the
ways seminaries teach Greek as a big deal, unlike you and me, but I
don't know that. The issues you addressed with the way seminaries teach
Greek would not necessarily be issues to him, per se (but again, I don't
know).
[omitted]
Its crazy to think Moses and Elijah will be here next year. Wow,
assuming 2026 is the date, this will be the last full year we will
experience before the Tribulation begins. I really want to make the most
out of it!
In His grace and power,
Response #17:
Glad to hear that you are feeling better and also that you are going to be
getting a bit of respite, even if it's only temporary.
As to "the vision thing", this was a big deal back about forty years ago or so,
putatively having a biblical foundation based on the following verse:
Where there is no vision, the people perish: but he that keepeth the law, happy is he.
Proverbs 29:18 KJV
It was an issue in presidential campaigns ("What's your 'vision'?") and now my university, our college, and even our department have to have "vision statements". Of course the verse above actually means the following:
When there is no [respect for] divine communication (lit., "vision" [from God]), the people are unrestrained, but he who obeys the Law will be blessed.
Proverbs 29:18
The Law and the "vision" from God are referring to the same thing (as is typical
in Hebrew poetry where the two halves of a verse balance and or contrast to each
other). This is an easy one to figure out, but alas very few are really
interested in figuring out what the Bible really means.
In any case, as you rightly discern, coming up with your OWN "vision" is
self-centered instead of God-centered. Such a "vision" means "what do I want to
do?" and not "what does God want me to do?" At best it's pure secularism and
unbelief. At worst it's downright satanic.
What you are doing is exactly right. "I know what God wants me to do – so
what is the best way to go about it?" That is fundamentally different from
the attitudes you report. You are right. They are wrong – obviously, so I
wouldn't worry about it.
Once more on the Greek. Old English is not understandable by us at all today
absent special training. But Paul could easily read Homer and Plato – and he
alludes to and even quotes classical authors all the time in the same way people
today quote Shakespeare.
Attic, ancient, Classical, Koine – it's all the same Greek. Modern Greek,
however, is much different for reasons explained before. Modern Greeks today get
Classical Greek in school but they have to learn it as a separate language the
way we today learn Latin (at least everyone SHOULD take Latin).
Homer is different because it's poetry – just like Byron and Longfellow and
whomever else you prefer are different from English prose.
Let me put it this way, the difference between, e.g., Demosthenes (4th cent.
B.C.) and Luke (1st cent. A.D.) is about the same as the difference between the
language of the Declaration of Independence or the Federalist papers and today's
newspaper – and actually the latter is probably more of a difference than the
former. It's the same language in either case; it's just that ancient/classical
is harder to read because it's complicated prose in the same way that the
Federalist papers are, using slightly more elevated vocabulary. But it's NOT a
difference in language.
Happy to have another go at this. Also, it's a long email and I may have missed
addressing some of your concerns. Do feel free to write me back as always.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #18:
Hey Dr. Luginbill,
Did you get any snow out your way? We got about 7 inches (1 inch or so expected
tonight)? I can't wait till Spring so I can go out and do some hiking at ___ (my
personal "playground" because I love that place so much).
On the Greek...
Thanks for your patience. Ok, I get and follow what you're saying in general.
Just a couple details to clear up. What do you mean when you say koine is
a "made up" subcategory? I've heard of Attic Greek before and you mentioned it's
the same language as the others just like koine but what is it
specifically and where does it get its name (or what does that word mean) and
why? That should be all I got for that.
[omitted]
Your brother in Christ,
Response #18:
We got about 15 inches of snow and ice last weekend, and it's still coming down
now! I got Wednesday off . . . well, actually it was more work than going in and
teaching because I had to prepare videos and assignments for my classes to make
up for it. Today, since the storm was picking up, they cancelled at 1PM which
meant I didn't meet my first year Latin class (probably the one which will
suffer least from a missed session in the long run, so no worries there).
On Greek, when Alexander conquered Persia, he did so with a polyglot army that
was composed of Greeks from all over, not just Macedonians. So there was a need
to communicate in a standardized way. That was even more so the case when the
Diadochi, his successors, were receiving more Greeks immigrating from the west
and also establishing the Greek language and Greek customs as the "glue" for
their empires. Just as Xenophon and the 10,000 had done a generation before,
that just meant using Attic Greek as a base and simplifying it somewhat (i.e.,
using simple as opposed to complex grammar and basic rather than elevated
vocabulary) so that everyone could "get the gist".
Someone at some later time called this "Koine" which means "common" (i.e., basic
Greek we all pretty much share in common whether we are Dorians, Ionians or
Aeolians, educated or not, and so we can all understand each other 100%). As
Greek became the lingua franca of the whole eastern Mediterranean world and the
cultural language of the entire classical civilization, those who communicated
in it did so not in their native dialects but in this common part of the
language understandable to all.
So "koine" is essentially Attic Greek, the Greek of Sophocles,
Aristophanes and Aristotle, just "dumbed down" so that anyone could understand
it (any Greek speaker, that is). The Attic dialect is the base, because the
majority of the great and popular literature most everyone was familiar with was
written in that dialect. So, in essence, the only thing different between the
Greek of Luke and the Greek of Plato is that Luke is easier to understand
because he uses simpler grammar and vocabulary (in the same way that it's easier
to read the newspaper than Emerson).
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #19:
Hi Bob,
I haven't been nearly as good keeping up in the original languages as I
suppose I had initially envisioned I would be. It is what it is, I
suppose.
Over the last few days, I've spent some time puttering around making a
Hebrew keyboard layout to see if I can maybe get myself to do more by
leaning more into the MH side of things. When I had my two semesters of
Hebrew in college, everything was pointed (full niqqudot), and I never
bothered much with caring about matres lectionis except as gee-whiz
grammatical info.
So I guess my questions are sort of twofold: [omitted: technical
questions about MH keyboard and transliteration]
2) Before I sink too much time into any MH endeavors, I want to make
sure it really is close enough to be more or less transferable. I know
the syntax is a bit different sometimes (SVO vs. VSO), and apparently MH
uses the masculine for both genders in more cases (one thing I read says
no feminine plural imperfect verb forms in MH). Of course, the vocab is
different too (and I know the OT has proportionally a lot more hapax
legomena or just very uncommon words, meaning that same language or no,
vocab will always be a bit of a challenge when reading BH), but I'm more
interested from a grammatical perspective. Are any tenses/binyanim used
differently? This source seems to suggest it's mostly a matter of BH
having a narrative style/tense usage centered around Vav forms, even
though it still sounds quite similar to MH in actual quoted/recorded
speech (i.e., someone from the narrative is talking). Does that sound
accurate?
If you are wondering what brought all this on, I was somewhat inspired
by the lengths ___ has been going to to preserve her Russian fluency
since she graduated college. I always wanted that kind of fluency in a
language, but since I only ever learned Latin, Greek, and BH (dead
languages all), I never really experienced the same. I always meant to
be better about always reading everything out loud and trying to "think
in the language" more, but I'm afraid I never did it terribly well.
Your friend in Christ,
Response #19:
I had a quarter of Modern Hebrew at Illinois Chicago (we used the Ulpan text; I
started about a week and a half late since I'd just gotten back from Okinawa);
then a follow-on semester at Illinois in Champaign (proprietary text; missed
about two weeks effectively on the front end because of quarter to semester
change over).
It was all Biblical Hebrew from there on in (two years at Champaign and another
two at Talbot). Since I stopped taking classes, I concentrated on reading, not
writing. I tried to keep up skills for a while on the MH side of things but
that's several decades in the rear view mirror now. In terms of the
transcription issues you ask about, this was never something on my radar in any
case, and especially not after switching entirely over to BH. Studying the
modern version was helpful for pronunciation and general facility with the
language, but not necessarily for studying the Bible. MH and BH are, roughly,
just as dissimilar as Modern and Ancient Greek – with the major difference being
that the last pair are pronounced so much differently that this is an additional
barrier. But just like modern Athenians can't make much sense of ancient Greek,
even though they had it in school, although MH and BH are closer than ancient
and modern Greek, analogously most Israelis are confused by some of the
unique features of BH: 1) vocabulary (since even though many MH words come from
the Bible they've specialized the meanings often in MH); 2) suffixes on verbs
and substantives which don't exist in MH; 3) the syntax is completely different.
In MH, the imperfect is the future/subjunctive; the perfect is the past; and
clauses work just like in English (or Spanish, French, German).
I guess the above is a long way of apologizing for not being much help on this
issue. Learning MH would be helpful (it was for me), but it is no substitute for
immersion into all the technical aspects of the Hebrew of the Bible.
I will say that the Ulpan system is a very efficient and enjoyable way to get
into learning MH (it's what Israel used for many years as the main way of
teaching immigrant Jews Hebrew); I have the books around here somewhere and used
to have the audio tapes too. They're probably available online somewhere now
(here's the
Amazon link for the first volume I used).
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #20:
[omitted]
Also real quick, so on the opisthograph....I think you said that the
rougher side was harder to write on so they were rare. 1) Is the rougher
side the hair side? 2) Did both sides have hair? 3) And why does Metzger
say that it was easier to write on both sides in the codex form (I mean
why would that make it easier, it is the same material just cut smaller,
right?)? Not saying either of you are wrong of course.
Response #20:
No worries at all!
"'this doesn't even make sense in the English'" – that's Greek for you!
On the opisthograph, a scroll written on both the front and the back, that
comment you read had to do with papyrus generally not being written on the
back because on the good/front side the grains of the plant, the line of the
stalk, are going left and right; the back side fibers are pressed into it on a
perpendicular, so that writing on the back you bump into a new stalk every other
letter or so and it's hard to keep a straight line; so they only reused old
papyri writing on the back for notes and letters and tax documents, etc., not
for important things.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #21:
Yeah but Metzger also says that having it in the codex form was easier to write
on both sides? Maybe it is just that it is more unwieldy in the scroll form or
larger form (assuming it is larger).
[omitted]
Response #21:
When it comes to relationships, I may have mentioned before that
generalizing has limited value. We can only marry one person. If that
one person is the one meant for us in the plan of God, then all will be
well . . . if we and he/she work very hard at it all the way to the end.
Yes, codices are more manageable because of the format. Codices were
also written on parchment, not papyrus, a smooth surface equally
serviceable on the back as well as on the front.
Scrolling through the entire Bible on one piece of parchment would be
impossible (which is why Torah scrolls in synagogues are multiple). But as
mentioned, unlike papyrus, parchment or vellum is writable on both
sides, like a piece of leather in a leather vest which has been cured on
both sides. To be usable, however, the vellum has to be very thin (or
you couldn't get very many leaves in a single codex), and that means
that there can be bleed through (and show through) from the other side
(that happens a lot in, e.g., Sinaiticus).
Keeping you in my prayers.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #22:
Hello, long time no write!
I have a question about a bible verse. It is about Matthew 5:22. The KJV
inserts "without a cause" but he NASB and other more modern translations
leave that out, or footnote it. Can you explain it? I suppose it is the
difference in the manuscript copy of the Greek NT. If I remember
correctly, the KJV translators only had a few late Greek copies of the
NT to work with. Whereas, the more modern translations like the NASB and
ESV are based upon much older copies found centuries later, like in
Alexandria Egypt. Usually the closer to the originals a writing is, the
more accurate it should be.
A Mormon is using this verse as an excuse for Joseph Smith, Jr's
execrable "translation" of the KJV--called the Joseph Smith "Inspired"
version of John 1:1--"In the beginning was the gospel preached through
the Son. And the gospel was the word, and the word was with the Son, and
the Son was with God, and the Word Son was of God.”
Here is a link that shows some of his "revisions."
The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible | Institute for Religious
Research (irr.org)
Smith didn't know Biblical Greek and only a smattering of Hebrew.
Anyway what about the differences in Matt. 5:22? Was the "without a
cause" a much later edition in the later copies, that isn't found in the
much older Greek NT manuscript copies?
Thanks for your help. Have a great Labor Day! No hurry on this.
Response #22:
Re: "Was the "without a cause" a much later edition in the later
copies, that isn't found in the much older Greek NT manuscript copies?"
That's it exactly.
The adverb ekei translated by KJV "without cause" occurs in the
TR (textus receptus), the manuscript tradition (essentially
identical to Erasmus edition of the NT) and a few later mss., but it is
not present in any of the best witnesses.
So, based on the evidence, the "without a cause" seems to be an obvious
gloss meant to explain one of the "hard sayings" of our Lord. If placed
in the margin as an explanation, one can see how a later copiest might
have thought it was put there as an accidental omission and then
reinserted it back into the text (this happens often in ancient
copying).
On the other hand, it would be VERY difficult to explain how this adverb
might have dropped out of the text accidentally if it were originally
there.
Color me confused on how either way this would be support for J.S.'s
transmogrification.
In Jesus,
Bob L.