Extra! 42-year old professor gets engaged!

I am pleased to report that on Saturday, December 17th, approximately 2:30pm (US Central time), I proposed to Franziska Inka Mariella Ritschel, and she accepted!

She is a beautiful and compassionate Christian lady from Hamburg, Germany, with two master's degrees (her master's thesis at University of Hamburg was entitled "Toleranz und Intoleranz bei Augustinus von Hippo und Johannes Calvin"). Franziska has been teaching in our church's academy for quite some time now.

So there is hope even for a middle-aged professor/nerd like myself. God is good! The location was the beautiful Mitchell Domes in Milwaukee.

Wisdom of Solomon and the Anabaptists

A few years back, I presented a paper on the Anabaptist use of Wisdom of Solomon, pointing  out how the Anabaptists seem to have cited Wisdom as Scripture, not just a helpful source, and exploring the reason behind that.

The paper is entitled "Attempting to Solve a 16th-Century Canonical Anomaly: Why Did the Anabaptists Cite Wisdom of Solomon as Scripture?"

Though most of my presented papers have ended up getting published in peer-reviewed journals eventually, I do not feel that this paper is up to the level of a solid, peer-reviewed academic article. It is hardly my area of specialty, and, in fact, I have had two rejections, though the rejection from Sixteenth Century Journal contained helpful feedback (It was also the most polite rejection I have ever received! Kudos to SCJ for that).

Having said that, there is some original research here that represents hours of work, and even just the raw data of some key Anabaptist citation of Wisdom might be helpful. Consequently, I am posting it on Academia.edu as well as GoogleDrive, for those that are interested.  

This is not the first time I have written on Wisdom of Solomon, as the Festschrift for Dr. David Alan Black (the first one) contains my essay "Wisdom and the Sojourning Saints or Christ and the Wandering Sinners? The Wilderness Wandering Motif in Hebrews as a Reaction to Wisdom of Solomon."

Testing the Conspiracy Theory: "Orthodox" vs. "Non-Orthodox" Variants in Jude

I am a Byzantine-priority New Testament prof who had the privilege of being mentored by Dr. Maurice Robinson to a certain degree at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary (Dr. David Alan Black was my doctoral advisor). I have a forthcoming article in TC (I think the next issue, in a few months), so I have begun "dabbling" a bit in Textual Criticism.

 Recently I had the privilege of being interviewed by Mark Ward on textual variants in Jude.  The video can be viewed here. This video was based off of a paper I presented at the Bible Faculty Summit in 2022, entitled "Testing the Theological Conspiracy Theory: Utilizing Jude as a Test-Case for the 'Heretical Alexandrian' and 'Suppressive Orthodox' Positions on Deliberate Corruption in Textual Transmission."

The paper itself interacts with both KJV-onlyists and Bart Ehrman's Orthodox Corruption of Scripture. The paper can be viewed on Google Drive here. I have also uploaded it to Academia.edu. The paper is way too snarky (and just a bit too sarcastic) for me to attempt to publish, but it still has some important data that's worth putting out there.

The basic premise of the video interview is "sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander," in that KJV-onlyists delight in criticizing Westcott and Hort and the various critical texts and translations based on them for either altering doctrine or downplaying it. Yet in doing so, they ignore the many places where the critical actually contains "theological truth" (using KJV-only logic) that the TR lacks. Acts 4:25, for starters (just compare the KJV and the ESV; isn't the Holy Spirit kind of important?). The methodology is flawed, because as soon as one declares that good theology (including what is included or excluded) is an important, if not the most important factor in determining the correct reading, then the entire book of Jude should be accepted in the critical texts (specifically the NA28, SBL, and newer Tyndale), not the TR.

Now, to be clear, because I am Byzantine-priority, I do not accept the critical text readings as original in Jude, when they differ from the Byzantine. My point is that if we take KJV-only arguments regarding theology in the variants at face value, then we would be forced to favor the critical texts. Also, in the paper, I argue that Ehrman's methodology also runs into some issues regarding the consistency of scribal habits (though I am not the first to point this out). It's also deliciously ironic to compare Ehrman vs. the KJV-onlyists on John 1:18, since they both agree that deliberate theological change has occurred, and they both blame the Gnostics, and they both agree on the same reading!

In a nutshell, then, there are somme inconsistencies in both the "evil, heretical Alexandrian corrupters" and the "bullying Orthodox corrupters" viewpoints (to be a bit snarky), and the epistle of Jude, in my opinion, makes this point quite clearly.

My commentary on Jude for the Lexham Research Commentary series should be coming out on Logos sometime early next year. At one point in it I compare every single place where 8 different modern Greek New Testaments differ (minus simple spelling variations), though this is hardly anything comparable to what Tommy Wasserman has done in his monograph on Jude (which I draw from for my paper).

Ruth Anne Reese's new commentary on 1 Peter: initial impressions

As a petrine specialist and the author of the Lexham Research Commentary on 1 Peter, I am excited that this is turning out to be an awesome decade for 1 Peter commentaries. Craig Keener just published his magisterial background commentary; Karen Jobes' 2nd edition of her Baker Exegetical commentary (which, in my opinion, still remains the best overall) is due out soon; Travis Williams and David Horrell's epic ICC is in production; and W. Edward Glenny's ECC with Lexham is supposed to come out anytime now.

In the midst of all that, we are privileged with another commentary that Ruth Anne Reese (Asbury Theological Seminary) just published a few months ago. As a series, the "New Cambridge Bible Commentary" has as one of its strengths a robust focus on background issues, as  well as segments entitled "A Closer Look" and "Bridging  the Horizons" which allow the author to focus  a bit more on key topics of his or her choice. The series as a whole is not, by my observation, intended to be evangelical  per se, but it actually contains a significant number of broadly evangelical authors (e.g.,  Ben Witherington III and Craig Keener both author or co-author multiple commentaries). My readers can rest assured that Reese approaches the book from a strongly confessional perspective, and she affirms Peter's authorship of the epistle which bears his name (see page 19). 

The book demonstrates a solid grasp of secondary and primary literature, especially considering its relatively smaller size. Reese cites recent petrine scholarship, such as that of Travis Williams, frequently, and even manages to fit Keener's new commentary in there (though it came out just months before hers!). Key background works are often cited (e.g., Hengel, Crucifixion; Bain, Women's Socioeconomic Status), as well as ancient sources (e.g., Plutarch, Advice to the Bride and Groom). Another strength is that Reese also cites sources outside of New Testament studies to further enrich her observations.

The commentary generally proceeds verse-by-verse or with short clusters of verses. The commentary is fairly well accessible to those without training in Greek (and Reese transliterates key Greek words and phrases). This is both an advantage  and a disadvantage. It fits well with  the  series' desire to embrace "jargon-free" language, and this commentary is definitely more accessible than those by Davids, Jobes, Keener, etc. The downside is that sometimes a difficult phrase in the Greek text will not receive the attention it receives in more technical commentaries.

The "Closer Look" sections peer  into the social and historical  background of 1 Peter (e.g., pages 134-6 and what constituted "Good Works" in ancient culture). With the "Bridging the Horizons" section, Reese is able to link her observations on the text with theology for the church (e.g., the excellent discussion on spiritual identity and suffering on pages 81-82).

A strength of the  commentary, then, is its ability to meld solid exegesis with theological and practical application. Naturally I would disagree with Reese in a few places. I am very hesitant, for example to assert that "It is clear that the church is portrayed as Israel in 1 Peter" (p. 128), and I believe she too quickly downplays the role of evangelistic vocal proclamation in 1 Peter, though without denying it altogether (e.g., page 207 fn 367). In my opinion, a more balanced treatment of the latter point can be found in Torrey Seland's excellent article, "Resident Aliens in Mission," in Bulletin for Biblical Research vol.  19 (2009). Nonetheless, Reese's treatments of the various issues are solid, well-informed, and often theologically and practically relevant.

Reese, in my opinion is one of the more readable writers out there within Petrine scholarship, i.e., regarding the ability to make it easier to plow through their book (her Two Horizons Commentary on 2 Peter and Jude is also excellent reading and quite quotable). Witherington is another one of the better petrine writers, imo, when he's not getting bogged down in the technical details rhetorical analysis (though for the most accessible treatment of Peter in general, I highly recommend Larry Helyer's The Life and Witness of Peter).

For the curious, here is a very quick tour of Reese's positions on some key topics. As already noted, she does affirm Peter as the author, suggesting that he wrote sometime between AD 65-68 (p. 17).

1. Peter was writing from Rome (p. 7; "Babylon"  = Rome; this is the  standard position  for almost all  commentators these days, regardless of theological persuasion. Somewhere in heaven John Calvin may still be objecting vociferously, unless the Apostle Peter himself has set him straight).

2. Also with the majority of commentaries these days, Reese sees the audience as a mix of Jews and  Gentiles (certainly plausible, though I confess I am finding myself more and more drawn to the vocal minority view of Witherington's and others that the audience was primarily Jewish)

3. In 2:2, regarding what "milk" is referring to, Reese follows Jobes in seeing more christology than bibliology (p. 106).

4. Reese's perspective on Sarah calling Abraham "Lord" is complicated (177-180), and here I feel that perhaps a deeper discussion of alternative interpretive options would help. She does, however, provide a comparative analysis with Philo on Sarah, concluding that "Both idealized portraits are presented in a particular context," yet that "In 1 Peter, women who have courageously chosen  a dangerous path [Christianity], . . . are reminded  that Sarah  also faced danger when she obeyed her husband" (p. 179). Reese also wishes that this passage not be read as forcing  women  to endure abuse without recourse or help, and suggests that "Our  interpretation  of 1 Peter 3:6 need not be prescriptive for every marriage and every situation  that a Christian wife may encounter" (p. 179).

It is with  a sense of irony (because I am a complementarian) that I note that my Lexham Research Commentary was roasted over a bed of hot coals by a 1-star reviewer on the Logos website on precisely this issue (he basically accused me of caving in to feminism for daring to suggest that it is a bad thing to utilize this text to justify abuse against women,  and for citing feminist authors positively, notwithstanding my strong critique of J. Bird, which the reviewer ignored). Now,  in this case, while I would agree with Reese's concerns  against legitimizing abuse, I am much more hesitant  to downplay the  normative nature of 1 Peter 3:1-6. I think we can  "have our  cake  and eat  it too," so to speak, by seeing this text as broadly applicable in every marriage but yet allowing  a woman to seek for sanctuary and legal protection if she is abused. I have discussed this more in depth in  my LRC on 1 Peter. Nonetheless, Reese's discussion contains some helpful material.

5. Regarding "the spirits in prison" in 3:19, I think Reese holds to the view that the phrase refers to the  fallen  angels ("sons of God") in Genesis 6. At least she portrays that view more positively than the other views (p. 218, "The greater context of suffering argues for a message of triumph over enemies . . ."), though she is not dogmatic.  Notwithstanding the strong objections of Wayne Grudem, I personally feel that is the best way to understand the text (no offense to Dr. Grudem, whose Tyndale commentary is, in my opinion, the best commentary for an undergrad class or a church Bible study). 

6. For the OT background to 1 Peter 4:17a, Reese provides  an excellent discussion of the pros and cons of each suggested text before concluding that "It is best to see the background for the idea of judgment  beginning with the household of God as deriving from the generally well-known Old Testament idea that  God is the judge of all the nations and that God's judgment begins with God's own people" (p. 274).

Bottom line: this  is an excellent mid-sized commentary with good depth but also excellent practical and theological discussion. While it will not replace Jobes' BECNT as my commentary of choice for teaching a graduate class, and obviously it will not provide the massive amount of background material one finds in Keener's commentary (but then, who could?), Reese's commentary is still worth its weight in gold and possibly among the top five I would recommend for any evangelical pastor's library.

Note: I purchased this commentary with my own money and was under no obligation to provide a positive review. However, [bias alert!], since Reese cites me positively at one point, I am naturally more favorably inclined towards the commentary. Also, by that logic, Keener's new commentary (which cites me 5 times!) is the greatest commentary ever, and anything Keener writes is golden. 😊  I am being facetious, of course, but as a relatively minor-leaguer, it's nice to be noticed by both Keener and Reese, or at least by their graduate assistants.

Christians need the Apocalyptic! The Ethical Ramifications of a Literary Style.

The word "apocalyptic" can mean many things to many people in biblical studies. Yet John J. Collins, speaking on behalf of the "Apocalypse Group" (which, disappointedly, is merely a study group of the SBL rather than a coalition of superheroes), provided a fairly precise, academic definition in the journal Semeia back in 1979, and scholarly discussion has had to interact with that definition ever since (see the appendix at the end of this post).

When teaching my Hermeneutics class, focusing on "Apocalyptic Prophecy" as a genre, I like to emphasize three things. Apocalyptic prophecy is: (1.) Epic, in the sense of representing the great conflict between good and evil; (2.) Vividly symbolic, using images, sometimes grotesque images, to represent something; and (3.) Needs to be interpreted (see Daniel 8:15-19).

I like to illustrate the difference between "regular" prophecy (like Isaiah 7:14) and "apocalyptic" prophecy by using one of my students student (we'll call him "Bubba Joe") in the following manner:

Regular prophecy: "Bubba Joe will go to Walmart, see that a 12-pack of Pepsi is half-price off, be tempted to buy it, but then remember his last experience with a dentist, and successfully resist the temptation."

Apocalyptic Prophecy: "Behold, I saw a great white tooth rising out of a sea of chlorine, and there was on top of that tooth a man, frightened and fearful and turning every which way. And there was arrayed against him a great, murky, dark substance in the shape of a "P", and it did assail the tooth, and try to overcome the man, but then a great drill of steel did come and push it away, and the man was freed and did not dissolve into the darkness."

Notice that the second type of prophecy is "epic" (something as simple as a potential trip to the dentist is turned into a cosmic conflict), uses grand images, and needs to be interpreted (you would not understand the second prophecy if you hadn't already read the first prophecy). It is important to realize that apocalyptic prophecy is still prophecy, however. The visions in Daniel and Revelation exemplify this point. The antichrist is not literally a giant beast as in an old Japanese monster movie. Yet this does not mean that he  isn't any more real in the future. The antichrist is coming, and the Spirit intended us to understand his ferociousness  and/or hideousness in terms of a giant monster (Revelation 13).

Now, the book of Jude is often described as  "apocalyptic" to some degree, partially because it seems to quote 1 Enoch, but for other reasons as well. This does not mean the entire epistle should be categorized as apocalyptic prophecy. It does mean,  however, that the situation facing Jude's audience is set within the context of end-time expectation and the ultimate judgment of God (see Richard, 2001, 241, as well as Harrington, 2003, 179; Lyle, 1998, 70). In other words, how Jude's audience reacts to the present crisis vis-à-vis false teachers and their temptations has other-worldly and eternal ramifications.

Here is why this perspective is helpful for Christians. How we react to temptation, and the stand we take for Jesus Christ, does not merely impact the "here-and-now" but rather has epic, cosmic ramifications. When Joseph resisted the advances of Potiphar's wife, in the "here-and-now" he ended up in prison, but from the perspective of eternity he set in motion a chain of events that would culminate in the Exodus, a key point in Salvation History. When the Apostle Paul, in 2 Corinthians 6:14, warns against "being unequally yoked together with unbelievers" (a phrase which has often been treated as if it refers to merely marriage, but surely contains broader application than just marriage), he does not characterize this as an unwise mistake, that might cause unhappiness, but rather as part of the conflict between "light" and "darkness," or "Christ" vs. "Belial" (vv. 14-15).

In  other words, apocalyptic literature helps orient us towards the eternal kingdom of God by reminding us that the decisions we make, for good and bad, must not be judged strictly on the basis of the "here-and-now." The temptations we resist and the temptations we cave in to, the activities we participate in, and the attitudes we adopt--all of these must be  understood not primarily in terms of what they mean for me or others today, but rather how they fit into the (very real) cosmic struggle between light and darkness which will only be resolved at the final judgment by Jesus Christ.

Sources cited:

The paragraph on Jude was paraphrasing some material from my forthcoming Lexham Research Commentary on Jude (Lexham Press/Logos).

Collins, John J. "Introduction: Toward the Morphology of a Genre." Semeia 14 (1979): 1-19.

Harrington, Daniel J. "Jude." In 1 Peter, Jude and 2 Peter, by Donald P. Senior and Daniel J. Harrington. Sacra Pagina. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 2003.

Lyle, Kenneth R., Jr. Ethical Admonition in the Epistle of Jude. Studies in Biblical Literature 4. New York: Peter Lang, 1998.

Richard, Earl J. Reading 1 Peter, Jude, and 2 Peter: A Literary and Theological Commentary. Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2001.

Appendix: John J. Collins' definitions of "Apocalypse":

“‘Apocalypse’ is a genre of revelatory literature with a narrative framework, in which a revelation is mediated by an otherworldly being to a human recipient, disclosing a transcendent reality which is both temporal, insofar as it envisages eschatological salvation, and spatial insofar as it involves another, supernatural world.” 

James K. Hoffmeier's recent article on the Exodus route

[Update, June 27th: As a point of clarification, Dr. Hoffmeier clearly believes in a miraculous crossing. In an early article for the very conservative but less technical journal Bible and Spade (vol. 1, no. 2, Spring  1988), he notes that it is somewhat of a mystery how "reed sea" in the OT Hebrew became "Red Sea" in the Septuagint, but that ". . . it does not really matter what  it  is translated. It obviously was plenty deep enough to require a tremendous miracle for Israel to pass through while drowning Pharaoh's army." (Emphasis added)]

Though I teach both Hebrew History and Biblical Hebrew at my school, I am most definitely not an expert in the field (my terminal degree was in New Testament, not Old Testament). Nonetheless, even I can sometimes recognize a significant work when it comes out, which is why I wish to recommend James K. Hoffmeier's recent  article, "The Hebrew Exodus from and Jeremiah's Eisodus into Egypt in the Light of Recent Archaeological and Geological Developments," Tyndale Bulletin 72, no. 2 (2021): 73-95.

Kudos to TynB for switching to a fully open-access model, and Hoffmeier's article can be accessed for free here here.

A few things make this article noteworthy. First, the article is based off of Hoffmeier's own archaeological work in Egypt. Second, it emphasizes the fact of just how much geography can change over the span of centuries, a point that is frequently neglected in teaching the Old Testament. Third, Hoffmeier makes it clear that if his data is correct, and the yom sooph identified in the article "was the sea traversed by the escaping Hebrews," then consequently "it was a large lake with deep waters, surrounded by wetlands consisting of reeds and  rushes" (page 91, emphasis added), in contrast to those scholars who accuse the Bible of "embellishing" a marsh into a lake (page 81). Also,  the article contains many detailed maps, which will help the non-specialists among us. It will be interesting to see to what degree Hoffmeier's detailed work influences future evangelical commentaries on Exodus.

Slandering the New King James Bible . . . with statistics!

Note: the screenshots are from Accordance version 11.2.4 (OakTree Software 2016), and I utilized Accordance for the data as well.

I have a fantastic group of students at the college where I teach, and we all have a very conservative and relatively traditional perspective on Scripture: strong on inerrancy, a preference for the more "traditional" Greek texts, Byzantine, Majority, and TR, plus a preference for a more "literal" style of translation (yes, yes, I know the term "literal" has been abused, but I would affirm that the term still has relevance in describing translation technique [pun intended, "let the reader understand"]).

Now, because of the broadly Independent Baptist circles my students and I belong to, "King James Onlyism" and related issues are occasionally discussed in class (though as a school we strongly discourage needlessly divisive theological dispute). A student recently brought to my attention something he had heard, namely that the New King James version omits "God" or a name of God some 100 times.

This accusation by some in the KJV-only crowd is a classic example of statistics manipulation mixed with flat-out untruth, as we shall demonstrate, with Accordance software version 11 (OakTree Software). I will stick simply with "God" here, but the same sort of investigation could be done with "Lord" or similar terms. I feel the data below will adequately demonstrate the problem with such claims.

For those short on time, I give my conclusion here in a nutshell. If one wishes to take the TR as manifested in Scrivner's edition as the best or perfect Greek text, the closest we can get to the words of the apostles, then, regarding when to translate and  when not to translate "God": The New King James has the superior reading in Acts 7:20 (the KJV inexplicably omits "God") and Third John 6 (the KJV has "a godly sort" when they should have had "of God"), plus Acts 19:20, where the NKJV "Lord" for Kurios is a more literal translation than the KJV's "God," plus all those places where the older King James has "God forbid" when the inspired apostolic writer most definitely did not write Theos ("God") or anything remotely similar. 

Acts 7:20 in Accordance Bible Software, NKJV in the middle:

On the other hand, the KJV has an advantage over the NKJV in First Peter 3:20 and First John 3:16. 

Before we begin running the data and investigating it, I will acknowledge that some have already adequately refuted this base canard, most notably Tim Branton's informed discussion here. Although the work below is mine own, I am grateful to Branton's work for pointing me in a couple directions (but I deliberately did not read Branton's post in its entirety [though I am sure it is well worth reading] to force myself to do my own work).

Step 1: Initial search

I have both the King James and the New King James downloaded on Accordance, as well as the Hebrew text and Stephanus' 1550 Textus Receptus. So I load up the KJV and the NKJV side-by-side, and perform the following search side-by-side (my apologies if the picture is too small):

command line--words: "God <OR> GOD <OR> god <OR> God's"

I have omitted "gods" for obvious reasons. Notice that instead of having the NKJV as a parallel text, I have created a new tab with NKJV, then detached the tab (right click will bring up that option) and resized it side-by-side with the KJV:

There we see that the KJV has 4,714 "flex hits" of any of these words in 4,062 verses, compared to the NKJV's 4,660 "flex hits" in 4,023 verses. "Aha!" one might declare! "Proof indeed that something liberal or communist or new age is going on!" Not so fast, my friend. Let's take a few minutes to see what exactly the differences are in those verses.

Step 2: Narrow the range.

Since 4,000+ references is a bit tough to work through, let's narrow it down to Genesis at first. By right clicking in the gray space next to "range," I can change the range to just Genesis and redo the search (note: you can establish custom ranges). The result is 238 KJV hits versus 235 NKJV hits, a difference of three, a more manageable number. By setting "Display: show text as: references only," I end up with the following:

Now, by scrolling through and comparing those two windows, I see that the three places that differ are Genesis 6:5, 44:7, and 44:17.

Step 3: Compare the differences

At this point, I bring up another Accordance window, and this time I enable parallel texts, specifically the KJV, the NKJV, and the Hebrew Masoretic text, reflected in the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. This is what it looks like:

From there I can see that in the first line, the KJV has GOD (all-caps) and the NKJV has LORD (all-caps). They are both translating the divine name (second word from the right in the Hebrew). Repeating this process for Gen 44:7, we find the following:

A woodenly literal translation of the Hebrew, third line down from right to left, would be:     "[may] these things [be] far away [chalil with what looks like a directional heh] in regards to your servants." So the word "God" is not in the Hebrew. The KJV translators were not translating the word "God" but rather using a contemporary English expression. Most importantly, the NKJV is not omitting the name "God" or a name for God if in fact it was never there to begin with!! [This, of course, would not convince those who believe the King James should correct the Hebrew and Greek even of the Masoretic text and TR, but I consider such people so far gone into bibliological heresy that I have no interest in dialoging with them] The situation is exactly the same in Genesis 44:17, "God forbid" vs. "far be it from me."

In summary, we have examined an entire book of the Bible, comparing "God" [etc.] in the KJV vs. the NKJV and 3 verses where the KJV has "God" and the NKJV does not, but in fact one of those cases the NKJV justifiably has "LORD" (reflecting the divine name, which is usually what the KJV does, but not here), and in the other two places the KJV translator(s) has added "God" to form the English expression "God forbid," but that "God" (Elohim or anything else) was never there in the Hebrew.

Step 4: Check the New Testament

I have repeated the search for the entire New Testament now, to give us a bit more variety. There are 1,379 "flex hits" for that command line in the King James vs. 1,356 in the NKJV, so a difference of 23 instances in 17 verses, but this is actually net difference, because (shocking!) there are a couple places the NKJV has "God" where the King James does not (more on this later).

The first difference is fascinating. It is in Matthew 2:12, where the KJV has "being warned of God in a dream" vs. the NKJV's "being divinely warned in a dream." Here it is (with Stephanus' TR):

Now, you will see very clearly that "God," Theos, is lacking in the Greek. So, again, the NKJV is not omitting "God" or a name of God if the inspired apostolic writer did not actually write it to begin with (unless you believe an Anglican from the 1600s has the right to correct an Apostle supernaturally inspired by the Holy Spirit; if that's the case, nothing I say here will be relevant). The difference between the KJV and NKJV comes about from how they translate that interesting Greek word χρηματισθέντες (Aorist passive particle of χρηματίζω, chrēmatizō). The word has an interesting semantic range. By right-clicking on the Greek word I can perform a "lemma search" and see that it can refer to a warning given, often (if not always) supernaturally, in such passages as Matthew 2:22 and Luke 2:26, but that it can also refer to being given a label (not by God, but by humans) in such passages as Acts 11:26 and Rom 7:3. If somehow "God" were an inherently essential component of translating chrēmatizō, it is difficult to understand why the KJV did not translate Acts 11:26 as "called Christians by God first in Antioch" (which, of course, would not make sense).

Looking at almost all of the rest of the NT, I can categorize the differences thusly:

1. The KJV translator(s) wrote down "God forbid" for mē genoito ("may it not be"), where the word "God" is absent. Again, it is slander to accuse the NKJV of "omitting" God if in fact "God" (Theos) was not a word that the Spirit-inspired apostle wrote down in the first place. Luke 20:16, Romans 3:31, 6:2, 6:15, 7:7, 7:13, 11:11, First Corinthians 6:15, Galatians 2:17.

2. The Greek is opheilō, "I wish" or "I desire," and the KJV translated it "I would to God." First Corinthians 4:8, Second Corinthians 11:1.

3. In both Second John 10 and 11, the Greek has legō plus charein plus the dative pronoun ("says a greeting to him"), which the KJV renders "bid him God speed" and "biddeth him God speed" while the NKJV has "greet him" and "greets him."

4. The Greek is Kurios, so the NKJV translated it as "Lord" instead of "God." Acts 19:20. Thus the NKJV is more literal  here than the KJV. 

5. The Greek is chrēmatizō (as in the example above). Matthew 2:12, Romans 11:4, Hebrews 8:5, 11:7.

6. Cases where the King James adds "God" in italics for clarity, when it was not in the original Greek For example, in 1 Corinthians 16:2, the KJV has "as God hath prospered him," with "God" in italics, indicating it is added for clarity and not in the original Greek. The New King James has "as he may prosper." Similarly, Second Timothy 4:16, Hebrews 9:6, and First Peter 5:3

7. A unique case, 1 Peter 3:20. Here the KJV has "the longsuffering of God" while the NKJV has "Divine longsuffering" ("Divine" with a capital "D"). The Greek is hē tou Theou makrothumia, so, quite frankly, I prefer the King James translation here as more literal. However, is it accurate to say that the NKJV removes "God" or "a name of God" from the text? That depends on how we take "Divine." If the NKJV  translation had used "divine" with a lower-case "D" I would be very uncomfortable with that, since even an unbeliever can use the term in a casual sense (though, to be fair, the same could be said about "god"). By capitalizing "D" the NKJV translators make clear it clear they are referring to an attribute of the one true God, though I still prefer the KJV rendering. Having said that, if this alone were enough to torpedo the NKJV, then, as we will see below, the KJV omission of "to God" in Acts 7:20 would be, by the same logic, enough to demonstrate the inferiority of the KJV.

8. Another unique case: First John 3:16. Here the KJV has "the love of God," with "of God" in italics, indicating the translators were supplying it even though it was not in the text they were using. The NKJV has "love." The oddity, however, is that tou Theou ("of God") is in Stephanus' TR as well as the Trinitarian Bible Society's TR (Scrivner's). So did the KJV make a mistake by putting it in italics? And why did the NKJV not include it?

Fascinatingly, there are few couples places where the NKJV has "God" and the KJV does not. For example, Matthew 15:5 and its parallel Mark 7:11, as well as Acts 7:5 (since Theos is not in the Greek, the NKJV has italics here). Yet even more puzzling, in Acts 7:20 the NKJV states that Moses "was well-pleasing to God" and the KJV states that Moses "was exceeding fair" but omits "to God"! You can see it for yourself below:

Since Stephanus' TR has "to God" (to Theō, τῷ Θεῷ), it's a bit puzzling why the King James does not. Looking at the Trinitarian Bible Society TR (Scrivner's), I find that it also has tō Theō. So I am honestly puzzled why the King James omitted "to God."

Similarly, 3 John 6. The NKJV has "in a manner worthy of God" whereas the KJV has "after a godly sort." Since the Greek is ἀξίως τοῦ Θεοῦ (axiōs tou Theou), with Theos clearly as a noun, I favor the NKJV here just as I favored the  KJV in 1 Peter 3:20.

So using KJV-only logic (according to some), we could actually accuse the KJV of "omitting" God in a couple places. That would not be fair, of course, but that's precisely how the KJV-only logic of some works (exemplified by KJV-only accusations against the critical text for "omitting" God or Jesus, etc. but failing to adequately grapple with places where the critical text actually includes a member of the Trinity and the KJV does not: compare the KJV with the ESV in Acts 4:25 and Jude 25). 

Now, even using a sophisticated program like Accordance, the data is a bit incomplete, because although the verse difference between the KJV and NKJV is 17, the actual "flex hit" difference is 23, so there's six occurrences of "God" unaccounted for, I think. [Please somebody correct me if I'm misunderstanding the data!] But I'm worn out, and I think I've made my point. The NKJV actually has an edge over the KJV because in two places (Acts 7:20 and Third John 6) it has "God" where the KJV does not but should have while in multiple places the KJV carelessly and casually says "God forbid," an English expression that we should not be using casually, when Theos is not what the Apostle wrote; conversely there are only two places (not a hundred, and not dozens) where, if we stick to the TR, the NKJV should have had "God" and did not (1 Peter 3:20 and First John 3:16), and in the first one the NKJV translators at least had "Divine" with a capital "D" while in the second instance even the KJV translators put it in italics (so did the KJV translators make a mistake by putting  it in italics?). Bottom line: if we truly believe that the Spirit-inspired Apostles wrote in Greek and not English, the NKJV is slightly superior (at least in the NT) to the KJV as to when it does and does not have "God" in English.

Has Ugbaru/Gubaru [Gobryas] been dethroned as Daniel's "Darius"? Rodger C. Young's recent JETS article.

[Added a point of clarification on 4/13/2022]

I am in my 8th year of teaching at BCM now (how the time flies!), and every Fall I have taught "Hebrew History," a required Jr./Sr. course. I am not very well qualified for it, but it has grown on me! In my study and teaching of this topic, I have always been puzzled at the reference to "Darius" in Daniel, since the most significant "Darius" of that era, Darius the Great (Darius I) did not begin ruling until 522 BC. 

Now, if Daniel was deported at the first deportation, 605 BC, and let's say for the sake of argument he was ten years old at that time, he could in theory have lived long enough to have intersected with the reign of Darius I, but we see not hint in Scripture that Daniel lived to be what would have been a very remarkable 90+ years old. Also, Darius I seems to have gained the throne at a much younger age than the Darius of Daniel (see Dan 5:31 [6:1).

It is also possible that "Darius" was simply a different name for Cyrus the Great, and the syntax of Dan 6:28 could, in theory, allow for that, but in my opinion that would be unlikely.

Generally, what I have taught my Hebrew History students is that Darius was probably an honorary name given to Gubaru [a.k.a. Ugbaru or Gobryas], whose epic tale of betrayal and revenge is well-worth relating to the class, regardless! Still, that's pure conjecture, without any substantial evidence, and I have never been totally sold on that theory (though it fits nicely).

Enter Rodger C. Young. In his recent article "Xenophon's Cyaxares: Uncle of Cyrus, Friend of Daniel," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 64, no. 2 (June 2021): 265-285, Young builds off of the point that in Xenophane's more neutral (compared to Herodotus) account of Cyrus' career, his uncle Cyaxares II features prominently. Cyrus gave Cyaxares a palace in Babylon, and Cyaxares gave Cyrus his daughter as a wife. After an extensive review of primary/ancient sources, Young concludes that Cyaxares II would fit well with Daniel's Darius as a governor of Babylon, and "it is clear that [Cyaxares's] throne name was Darius" (Young, 277). To be clear, this is a different Cyaxares than the Cyaxares who defeated the Scythians and died in 585. Cyaxares II in Xenophon's account is the grandson of Cyaxares I. [For the argument as to the existence of this Cyaxares II, see Young's article]

Not relying on my own opinion as a NT specialist, I vetted this with two OT specialists that I admire, and both of them gave a positive review of the article. This means that this summer when I revise my Hebrew History lecture notes, I will incorporate Dr. Young's perspective into my notes (citing him appropriately!) and quiz/test questions. Kudos to Dr. Young, then, to what is probably one of the more significant JETS articles to come out in recent years.

John R. Rice: The Last Revivalist of the 20th Century (new book by my father, John R. Himes)

 I am pleased to announce that my father, 30+ year veteran missionary to Japan and now my fellow colleague at BCM, has just published John R. Rice: Last Revivalist of the 20th Century. My father, John Rice Himes, is the grandson of John R. Rice, a significant fundamentalist leader of the mid-20th century, who was also friends with such notable Southern Baptists as Adrian Rogers.

The book draws heavily from primary sources, including the John R. Rice letters at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (which my father credits in the "Acknowledgements" section). In fact, my father is a primary source himself, having grown up knowing John R. Rice and having worked with him at the Sword of the Lord. The book also utilizes key secondary sources, including the three dissertations at major schools written specifically on John R. Rice, as well as Dr. Nathan Finn's excellent dissertation on fundamentalism in the south (produced at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary).

Naturally the book will be very positively-oriented (that can hardly be helped), but it is not a hagiography and provides a very honest look at John R. Rice, his life, legacy, and theology. For those aware of fundamentalist history, the most controversial chapter will no doubt be the one that discusses Jack Hyles (ch. 15). Those studying broader evangelical history will be interested in ch. 13, "The Split with Billy Graham."

For now, the book may be purchased from the website of "On to Victory Press" here. We're hoping to be selling it soon through Amazon.com, as well. In addition, the book is currently being recorded so that we can sell it through audible.com.

Born Again from Incorruptible Seed: 1 Peter 1:23-25 and eternal security

In soteriology I am somewhere between an Arminian and a Calvinist, a "Calviminian," if you will (I resist the impulse to claim that I'm a "biblicist," since that's a bit snooty; anybody who prioritizes the text of Scripture over all other sources in forming their theology is a "biblicist," whether they be Arminian or Calvinist or in-between). I hold to eternal security but also resistible grace. I have benefitted greatly from the writings of Arminians, many of whom are well worth reading on a variety of topics (the great Charles Wesley, after all, believed a Christian could lose his or her salvation; see his sermon "The Great Privilege of Those that Are Born of God"). Nonetheless, I skew very strongly towards the "eternal security of all true believers" side of the debate, without quite embracing everything packed into the "perseverance of the saints" portion  of the "Tulip," at least not quite as articulated by some Calvinists.

Yet overall I consider myself an exegete more than a theologian, and I feel I can articulate better the meaning of a particular text over the meaning and implications of a particular doctrine. In other words, I'm a better "little picture" guy than a "big picture" guy.

Recently the online journal Sacrum Testamentum published my article "'Born Again from Incorruptible Seed': The Irrevocable Nature of Salvation in 1 Peter." The specific article is linked to here, and the whole issue can be read here. Sacrum Testamentum is not as well-known or prestigious (not in the same ballpark as JETS, BBR, BibSac, etc.) I believe it is by invitation-only, it focuses strictly on the doctrine of eternal security, but it does have a peer-review process (my article was peer-reviewed).

Regardless, for anybody interested in 1 Peter's use of LXX Isaiah 40, this may be a helpful article. At one point the article contains a side-by-side comparison of the Greek of 1 Peter 1:24-25a, Isa 40:6-8 LXX [Greek], and Isa 40:6-8 MT [Hebrew], as well as providing an in-depth study of the context of Peter's quotation from Isaiah 40. My overall argument is that Peter's use of Isaiah 40 logically necessitates eternal security, because the idea that God's divinely implanted "seed" could fail to accomplish its task goes completely contrary to the contrast set up in Isaiah and 1 Peter between man's work and God's work. Here is a paragraph from near the end of my article:

"Secondly, one must ask: if one is currently a child of the divine nature, can such status be lost? In other words, can one’s 'born-again' status be revoked? Only if the divine seed could be corrupted or destroyed, and the Word of God’s creation of the new birth within somebody be voided. Yet to this possibility both Isaiah and Peter respond with a definitive 'No!' The divine seed cannot fail in what it has initiated (cf. Isa 55:11). To participate in the new birth means that the divine seed has already been implanted, and if the divine seed has been implanted, it cannot possibly waste away or fail to create eternal life (as if it were mere agricultural seed that could be cut down by the wind). This is the whole point of Peter’s argument. While man either chooses to accept or reject the Word of God and the resurrected Christ (1 Pet 2:4–8), both the giving and the sustaining of that new life is the work of God, not man.75 [citing Feldmeier's essay; see below] Thus 1 Pet 1:23 stresses that the Word of God which initiates rebirth remains forever, i.e., 'can never be made ineffective'!76" [quoting from Peter H. Davids, The First Epistle of Peter].

In conclusion, the reader might also be interested in two lesser-known (but helpful) sources I found when researching for this article, sources that deal specifically with the "born-again" language in 1 Peter: Katherine Anne Girsch, "Begotten Anew: Divine Regeneration and Identity Construction in 1 Peter," (PhD diss., University of Durham, 2015); and Reinhard Feldmeier, "Wiedergeburt [New Birth] im 1. Petrusbrief," in Wiedergeburt, ed. Reinhard Feldmeier, Biblisch-theologische Schwerpunkte (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecth, 2005). Also, Martin Williams has written an entire monograph on soteriology in 1 Peter, The Doctrine of Salvation in the First Letter of Peter, SNTSMS 149 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011).