tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33904033140458764592024-03-18T12:29:14.230-07:00Paroikos Bible BlogPaul A Himeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07238272703123690959noreply@blogger.comBlogger212125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3390403314045876459.post-30914825236755621982024-03-13T20:09:00.000-07:002024-03-13T20:09:38.705-07:00A (soon-to-be) commentator's comments on the top commentaries of 2 Peter and Jude.<p><span style="font-size: medium;">I am privileged to have written the forthcoming <a href="https://lexhampress.com/product/194642/lexham-research-commentary-2-peter">2 Peter</a> and <a href="https://lexhampress.com/product/194643/lexham-research-commentary-jude">Jude</a> entries for the Lexham Research Commentary series in Logos (<a href="https://lexhampress.com/product/26371/lexham-research-commentary-1-peter">1 Peter</a> has already been published). To date, I only have one peer-reviewed journal article on 2 Peter and one contribution to a <i>Festschrift </i>that deals with 2 Peter, but nothing on Jude, so I most definitely do not qualify as an expert. Nonetheless, my work for Lexham necessitated burying myself in the secondary literature, and consequently I have gotten a feel both for the general quality of the various commentaries as well as how they are perceived by other commentators. So here, for what it's worth, is my opinion (keep in mind this post is written from an evangelical perspective, though I interacted with sources from a wide range of views).</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>Commentaries on 2 Peter </b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">(The following is adapted and re-written from my forthcoming LRC. Total commentaries on 2 Peter cited for the LRC: 47, which does not include monographs and theologies. Total sources cited for the 2 Peter LRC: approximately 380).</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">First of all, Richard Bauckham's Word Biblical Commentary (1983) is still king. This is based not only on the sheer amount of times he is cited by other works, but also the deep respect other commentators hold for him and the influence Bauckham had on them. Even when a scholar disagrees with Bauckham, they are just as likely to have a word of praise in their disagreement.The takeaway, dear reader, is this: you cannot possibly write a paper on 2 Peter and expect it to be taken seriously if you have not, in fact, checked to see what Dr. Bauckham has to say! It is worth mentioning that a 2nd edition of this commentary in the works, with Darian Lockett as the revisor/editor (last I knew).</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Now, after Bauckham, as far as traditional exegetical commentaries, both Peter Davids (PNTC, 2006) and Gene L. Green (BECNT, 2008) offer excellent value, though I believe Davids' 2 Peter commentary is better than his 1 Peter commentary. (Full disclosure: I am a bit biased towards Gene L. Green, because he was the outside reader for my dissertation on 1 Peter). In addition, among non-English scholars, Ceslas Spicq's commentary remains a classic (SB, 1966), in my opinion much better on 2 Peter than 1 Peter! Jörg Frey's contribution is one of the most important German commentaries, at least recently (THZNT, 2015).</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Next, I would suggest that Jerome H. Neyrey (AB, 2006), together with G. Green and Davids, offer the best background studies in their commentaries. Neyrey and Andrew M. Mbuvi (NCC, 2015) seem to pay the most attention to ANE social thought, e.g., "honor-and-shame," though Terrance Callan (stand-alone, 2014), <i>Acknowledging the Divine Benefactor: The Second Letter of Peter</i>, is also worth mentioning. Mbuvi's commentary is also one of the most "counter-imperial."</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span>For the layperson wishing for more accessible scholarship, I would highly recommend Michael Green (TNTC, 1987) and D. Edmond Hiebert (stand-alone, 1989). </span><span>J. </span><span>Daryl Charles (2006, EBC 2nd ed.) is also good.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span>For the sub-genre of "theologically commentary," Catherine Gunsalus González (Belief, 2010) and Ruth Anne Reese (2HC, 2007) are both excellent, with Douglas Harink (BTC, 2009) also worth mentioning. In addition, let</span> the record show that González has written what is in my opinion one of the most quotable commentaries on 2 Peter.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Finally, since a good commentary should also "preach" to the reader some, I would like to mention González, Harink, Douglas J. Moo (NIVApp, 1996), and Dieudonné Tamfu (AfBC, 2018) as being well-suited to practical application. In addition, I commend Moo and Tamfu for both giving a clear evangelistic message to their audiences.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>Commentaries on Jude</b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">(Total commentaries on Jude cited for the LRC: 56, which does not include monographs and theologies. Total sources cited for the Jude LRC: approximately 290).</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span>I don't have as much to write regarding commentaries on Jude. Many of the observations made on 2 Peter apply to Jude. For example, </span><span>Bauckham is still king (WBC, 1983). Again, whether you agree or disagree with him, his opinion is essential to grappling with the text or background of Jude. In addition, his monograph on </span><i>Jude and the Relatives of Jesus in the Early Church</i><span> is a very important work.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span>I feel both Neyrey and Mbuvi did a much better job with 2 Peter than they did with Jude. I also feel that Watson E. Mills' entry on "Jude" in the Smyth and Helwys series is somewhat better than its 2 Peter counterpart by a different author (SHBC, 2010)</span><span>. As before, Frey remains a key German source. Moo and Tamfu, as with 2 Peter, offer practical commentaries that do not jettison scholarship.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>Abbreviations:</b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">2HC: Two Horizons Commentary</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">AB: Anchor Bible Commentary</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">AfBC: Africa Bible Commentary </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">BECNT: Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">BTC: Brazos Theological Commentary</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">EBC 2nd ed.: Expositor's Bible Commentary, 2nd ed.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">LRC: Lexham Research Commentary</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">NCC: New Covenant Commentary</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">NIVApp: NIV Application Commentary</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">PNTC: Pillar New Testament Commentary</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">SB: Sources Bibliques</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">SHBC: Smyth and Helwys Bible Commentary</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">THZNT: Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">TNTC: Tyndale New Testament Commentary</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">WBC: Word Biblical Commentary</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p>Paul A Himeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07238272703123690959noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3390403314045876459.post-67873216891092967632024-02-09T19:16:00.000-08:002024-02-09T19:16:24.788-08:00LRC 1 Peter now in Chinese!<p><span style="font-size: medium;">Some time ago I had the privilege of writing the <a href="https://faithlife.com/store/product/26371/lexham-research-commentary-1-peter">1 Peter</a> volume for the Lexham Research Commentary series. The commentary was a privilege to write and pulls together most of the relevant English scholarship (and just a bit of foreign scholarship) on 1 Peter to show the reader the wide range of interpretive options, including the pros and cons of many positions on a particular text. At the same time, it introduces the reader to the most relevant Petrine literature out there. The commentary has been fairly well-received (notwithstanding a solitary one-star review that based its judgment on one small section of my commentary and rather misrepresented me), and since then I have also completed <a href="https://lexhampress.com/product/194642/lexham-research-commentary-2-peter">2 Peter</a> and <a href="https://lexhampress.com/product/194643/lexham-research-commentary-jude">Jude</a> for the same series (both due out in March).</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">My local church (Falls Baptist Church in Menomonee Falls, WI), has a very robust Chinese group of believers that has grown significantly over the last few years. Consequently, I was delighted to learn that my LRC on 1 Peter has now been translated into both <a href="https://faithlife.com/store/product/213300/bi-de-qian-shu">traditional Chinese</a> and <a href="https://faithlife.com/store/product/213884/bi-de-qian-shu">simplified Chinese</a>, and is now available as a digital resource! I believe the rest of the LRC is being translated, as well. I trust this will be a benefit to our Chinese brothers and sisters in Christ (and to the translator[s], whoever you are, thank you for your hard work!).</span></p><p><br /></p>Paul A Himeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07238272703123690959noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3390403314045876459.post-7708722959874538902023-11-22T06:16:00.000-08:002023-11-22T06:16:42.287-08:00Tweny-three things I am grateful for in 2023!<p> <span style="font-size: medium;">1. I am born again by the blood of Jesus Christ, and belong to Him forever.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">2. I married the wonderful Franziska Ritschel in June :)</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">3–15. I married the wonderful Franziska Ritschel :)</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">16. Did I mention that I got married to my wonderful wife Franziska?</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">17. We are expecting a baby girl, due in April!</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">18. My parents, my mother-in-law Petra, and my friends, especially those who were my groomsmen at my wedding.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">19. I belong to a good church with good people and good leadership.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">20. I get to teach all sorts of cool stuff at a good Bible college and seminary.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">21. The Texas Rangers won the World Series! (I have waited <b>30 years</b> for this, ever since I became a fan when my parents and I returned home on furlough from Japan in 1993).</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">22. Two peer-reviewed academic articles published this past Spring in solid journals: one in <i>TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism</i> on 2 Peter 2:15, and one in <i>Themelios</i> on David's census.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">23. Coffee (I really love coffee) </span></p>Paul A Himeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07238272703123690959noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3390403314045876459.post-16316028639432719352023-11-10T10:11:00.000-08:002023-11-22T06:12:29.458-08:00Sometimes God cares about sports<p><span style="font-size: medium;">Note: All comments are moderated before posting. It is the prerogative of this author to not post comments if he does not wish to. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">This post will be a bit out of the mainstream, in a sense, but one that is meant to be taken seriously. I am an independent Baptist, a fundamentalist (more emphasis on "fun" and less on "mental"), but somebody who does not consider himself to be on the front-lines of the "culture wars," e.g., by pushing for boycotts of Target or whatever.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Also, I should point out that what I'm suggesting in all seriousness has already been satirized by <a href="https://babylonbee.com/news/god-rewards-only-team-that-doesnt-have-a-pride-night-with-world-series-win">Babylon Bee</a>, though in all fairness I was already suggesting this back on October 2nd while the Rangers were a long-shot to win it all (and I'm not criticizing the Bee, since they tend to satirize Christian trends that need to be satirized, like <a href="https://babylonbee.com/news/weird-two-christian-high-schools-have-been-locked-in-a-tied-football-game-for-six-months-after-both-teams-prayed-philippians-413">misapplying Philippians 4:13</a>!)</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">On October 2nd, I published a post entitled "<a href="http://paroikosmissionarykid.blogspot.com/2023/10/a-new-testament-professor-cheers-for.html">A New Testament professor cheers for the Texas Rangers</a>." Now that the Rangers have won the World Series for the first time in history (an event which I have been waiting for 30 years, ever since I became a fan as a teenager in 1993), I am writing this follow-up post.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">In 2023, the Texas Rangers were the only team to not host a "Pride Night" (see this Associated Press post <a href="https://apnews.com/article/rangers-pride-mlb-lgbtq-e3caa6ad3011bfae841b4fe9b4ce6c30">here</a>). Although generally I would be the last person to suggest that God intervenes in sports, nonetheless I believe this is significant.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Now, I will reiterate what I said in the October 2nd post. God loves everybody, including those in the LGBTQ community, and Jesus died to save everybody. Yet God created two genders, and marriage is intended to be the only legitimate expression of sexuality: man and woman, in a committed relationship for as long as both of them are still alive. This is anchored first and foremost in God's creative act (Genesis 1:27) and the words of Jesus about the origins and intended permanence of marriage (Mark 10:5–9, answering a question about divorce), though Scripture abounds with many other passages on this topic (e.g., Romans 1:24–27). Anything that deviates from God's intended norm for sexuality is a sin (this includes, of course, heterosexual lust and pornography, not just homosexuality). So for Christians that take God's Word seriously, there can be no doubt about the issue.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Now for another preliminary theological note. I do not believe that God foreordains every single invent that happens, though I believe He foreknows all things (for a lexical argument about prognōsis and proginōskō as not meaning foreordination, see my revised dissertation, <a href="https://wipfandstock.com/9781625643629/foreknowledge-and-social-identity-in-1-peter/">published by Wipf & Stock</a>). Nonetheless, I do believe that God in His sovereignty reserves the right to do whatever He wishes (consistent with His character), including intervening in history. Consequently, I feel that Christians must acknowledge the possibility that God can answer prayers about even relatively insignificant matters such as sporting events, if it is in accordance with His will. I believe He has done so at least once before in history, the famous story of <a href="https://www.christianity.org.uk/article/eric-liddell">Eric Liddell</a> withdrawing from the 100-meter dash at the 1924 Paris Olympics due to a matter of conscience, and going on to win the gold and set a new world record in the 400-meter dash.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">There are two points of theological tension here. Point one is that, as much as many of us (including myself) enjoy professional sports, especially baseball, professional sports are ultimately irrelevant in the grand scheme of things and oftentimes a hindrance to a character development, whether it be the player or those cheering for him. Sports can even become an idol that can threaten to overshadow more important things in life. After all, how many die-hard sports fans have stuck with their team for 30+ years "for better or for worse," and yet divorced their wives? </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Yet the second point is that, as a general principle, God can indeed react positively to both individuals and even large-scale entities (e.g., nations) that do right (or abstain from doing wrong), even when lacking a specific covenant with Him. God, by His very nature, has a propensity to bless the good and punish the evil. Although this aspect of His character will not be universally fulfilled until all things on earth are put under permanent subjection to Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 15:24–28), nonetheless there is a principle that remains true until that point, that "righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people" (Proverbs 14:34).</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">So, did God directly determine or influence in some way the outcome of the 2023 World Series? (Keep in mind I am speaking as somebody who is not a Calvinist, for whom the answer might be a bit more straightforward!). Speaking as somebody who directly prayed for that result, on the basis of the fact that the Rangers in 2023 did not host a "Pride Night" like all other MLB teams, I have to say that yes, I believe He did, even while acknowledging my own biases towards the Rangers.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Now, I could be wrong, of course, and even if I were right this does not diminish the accomplishments of the Rangers, who throughly earned their victories. Yet there are always certain elements (like injuries, weather, crowd noise, etc.) that are out of the control of a particular team, and obviously God can providentially guide matters in such a way that human effort is included in the equation, not abrogated (though surely Ecclesiastes 9:11 is relevant here).</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Nor am I suggesting for an instance that the Rangers were somehow a more "godly" team than any of the others. Far from it, I'm sure! </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The point is simply that as a corporate entity in 2023 the Texas Rangers abstained from celebrating a lifestyle choice that displeases God, they were the only MLB team to so abstain, and thus I believe it is no coincidence that they attained their first World Series victory in the history of their existence this same year.</span></p>Paul A Himeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07238272703123690959noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3390403314045876459.post-17122549206756729242023-10-05T18:02:00.001-07:002023-10-05T18:02:32.582-07:00Guest post: Devon Swanson reviews The Local Church: God's Plan for Planet Earth (by Jim Gent)<p> <span style="font-size: medium;"><i>As I (Paul Himes) continue to cheer for my beloved Texas Rangers in the MLB post-season, I am posting here a book review by my former research assistant Devon Swanson. The book is </i>The Local Church: God's Plan for Planet Earth<i> by Jim Gent of Garden State Baptist Church (North Fort Myers, FL: Faithful Life, 2012). We had received a free copy of this book a few years ago, and I figured it would be a good exercise for my research assistant to craft a book review. The following is Devon's work, with some editorial adjustments by me</i>.</span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Devon Swanson’s review of THE LOCAL CHURCH: GOD’S PLAN FOR PLANET EARTH, by Jim Gent.</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Published in 2012 by Faithful Life Publishers|112 pages</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Introduction</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Jim Gent is currently the senior pastor at Garden State Baptist Church in Old Bridge, NJ. He has a long history of both planting and developing churches, and his writings adequately reflect his experience. Besides The Local Church: God’s Plan for Planet Earth, Gent has also written another book entitled The Pilgrim and the Lamb. Even at a glance, these books radiate the author’s conviction and sincerity in dealing with key issues he considers important. In the case of The Local Church, Gent addresses the role of the church in completing God’s program in the world. As a pastor, he is a fitting spokesman for this topic. Gent describes the goal of his book as follows: “To assist believers in getting a Biblical view of the church by stepping aside and letting the Bible speak” (pg. vii).</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Before the start of Chapter 1, Gent shares a helpful disclaimer in his opening introduction. He begins by describing himself as a “busy pastor” who makes no claims for “literary excellence.” Additionally, he assures the reader that his book is not “a complex theological treatise” nor is it “exhaustive” in its material (pg. vii). As it seems, Gent tries to distance himself as much as possible from being perceived as a scholar or any kind of leading authority on the local church. This honest introduction will prove to be invaluable as the remainder of the book is reviewed.</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;">As far as the audience for The Local Church, Gent is very clear regarding whom he intends to reach. This is especially evident as he lists his various intentions for the book: to “help new converts get headed in the right direction, stimulate believers to realize the primacy of the church, foster Biblical thinking among Christian High School and Bible College students..., and incite Bible-teaching and Bible-preaching about ‘the pillar and ground of the truth’” (pg. vii). Gent does well here in identifying the scope of his book as being primarily a guide and not an academic resource. While his experience as a pastor gives him ample qualification to exegete and exhort, his distance from academia as a whole impedes his work from becoming a standard textbook on the subject of ecclesiology. The message that Gent’s book presents becomes much more powerful as it is studied in its proper context.</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Content</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The Local Church is 112 pages long with 16 chapters divided into 3 parts. Chapters 1–11 form Part I, which is entitled “Characteristics.” This section aims to describe what a biblical, local church should look like. Chapters in this section have titles such as “New Testament Church Members Were Saved” (ch. 1), “New Testament Church Members Had Spiritual Pastors and Supportive Deacons” (ch. 8), and “New Testament Church Members Were Persecuted” (ch. 11). Chapters 12–13 make up Part II, which is entitled “Importance.” This section addresses the significance of the church in God’s program. The names of the 2 chapters are “The Primacy of the Local Church” (ch. 12) and “The Local Church: God’s Only Program for Planet Earth” (ch. 13). Part III includes Chapters 14–16 and is entitled “Obligations.” These pages deal with a few of the church’s responsibilities that belong to each of its members. The titles of these 3 chapters are “New Testament Church Members Were Identified” (ch. 14), “New Testament Church Members Were Faithful” (ch. 15), and “New Testament Church Members Were Generous” (ch. 16). Gent addresses a vast array of themes in an already broad topic. As a result, his time spent on each one is considerably brief. Though some deeper thoughts exist throughout the study, The Local Church is predominantly a basic overview of the role of the church as seen in the Bible.</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Evaluation</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;">If the entirety of this review dealt only with whether or not the author fulfilled his book’s purpose, the answer would be a simple “yes.” As intended, Gent created a work that gives believers focused insight on the biblical teachings surrounding the church. It strongly points to the primacy of the church and is inspirational to both students and preachers alike. Even unbelievers can benefit from this book by reading the Gospel message found in the first chapter and learning how salvation is a requirement for church membership. Gent effectively achieves the desired goals of his book by biblically presenting the church in an inspiring light to both new and seasoned believers.</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;">That being said, The Local Church is not without its share of mistakes. Although Gent’s disclaimer in the book’s introduction both forewarned and pardoned many of his technical oversights, a deeper inspection reveals there may be some more serious flaws. Before addressing these, however, this review will first look at the positive attributions and major successes of the book and also give examples of how the author excelled in his objectives.</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Gent’s first success is his skill at connecting with his audience through his personable introduction and engaging illustrations. Generally, any author who seeks to inspire or compel his readers will benefit most by being relatable to them. In this same way, Gent effectively presents his book as being one that has value for everyone. He demonstrates this from the beginning in his personal bio found in the book’s introduction. Here, he describes himself as “a busy pastor wearing many hats” and as an “active preacher.” He also stresses that his book is written specifically “for the everyday average Christian” (pg. vii). Gent makes a point of putting himself on the level of his audience. His assurances will undoubtedly be a relief to any seeking to avoid complex, scholarly treatises. </span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Another way in which Gent connects with his audience is by using illustrations to interest, inspire, and identify with his readers. In numerous instances throughout The Local Church, a discussion is briefly suspended in order to provide a relative example of the subject matter at hand. Gent uses a large variety of illustrations throughout his book, which all successfully support his main point. In Chapter 1, the historical story of George Wilson rejecting a pardon illustrates the necessity of accepting Christ’s forgiveness (pgs. 3–4). In Chapter 2, the biblical stories of Cornelius, the Ethiopian eunuch, and the Philippian jailor illustrate the pattern of baptism following salvation (pg. 9). In Chapter 6, a current events story detailing the ‘homosexual tendencies’ of an Episcopalian priest illustrates the depravity of man in today’s society (pg. 28). And in Chapter 9, a personal story by the author of one of his acquaintances leading several of his coworkers to the Lord illustrates the significant responsibility that every believer has to reach the lost around him (pg. 56). These are just a few of the many analogies that the author expertly employed to reach his target audience.</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Gent’s second success lies in the biblical support that reinforces each of his passionate beliefs. From beginning to end, The Local Church is infused with the conviction of its author. As we shall see, Gent displays a significant measure of dogmatism that clearly shows his confidence in his own biblical interpretations. Although this does, at times, lead him to unfounded prejudices, Gent’s zeal, when based in Scripture, predominantly aids him in presenting truth. His determination to instruct with a biblical foundation may well be his most notable accomplishment in this book.</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Examples of scriptural support are present in every chapter of The Local Church. One such example appears in Chapter 2 in a discussion on baptism. Here, Gent provides several occasions in which believers were clearly baptized after their salvation (pg. 8). These include the 3,000 Christians baptized at Pentecost (Acts 2:41), the Ethiopian eunuch baptized by the side of the road (Acts 8:36–38), and Cornelius, along with many Gentiles, baptized after hearing Peter’s presentation of the gospel (Acts 10:47). </span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Another example of strong biblical support in The Local Church is one in which Gent uses multiple references of Scripture to reinforce his own bold statements. This is found on page 46, where he says, “The Bible does not teach that witnessing for Christ is a gift that is possessed by only a few choice people. The Bible never teaches that only those who have the gift to witness are to witness. Witnessing is not a gift; it is a command.” He continues, “Anyone who indicates that only a select few are to witness is simply not acquainted with the plain teaching of God’s Word.” Though this view may be controversial to some, Gent is quick to cite the source of his conclusions by referencing Matthew 28:19, 20; Mark 16:15; and 2 Corinthians 5:20. This pattern of prioritizing Scripture is exactly what the reader may expect to find throughout this book.</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Gent’s third success is the source of his book’s true value. This is the culmination of his main points into practical applications for the readers. Considering that part of the goal of The Local Church is to “help” and “stimulate” its audience, application at some level is a necessity. Gent reveals his true intentions for writing by consistently providing ways in which each discussion can be beneficial for all believers. He does this in a number of ways—sometimes with a warning, sometimes with a challenge, sometimes with a question, and sometimes with a convicting illustration.</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;">One example of application is located on page 21. Here, Gent issues a warning concerning the impurity of the modern world. He says, “If there was ever a day in which we need to be on guard and alert in order that we will not have permissive attitudes concerning the dirty, profane, depraved, salacious, and shameless: television programs, music, magazines, movies, and dress styles, that encourage and promote unbiblical behavior, IT IS TODAY!” </span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;">A second form of application is presented as a general challenge to believers. This is found on page 61 and comes in the midst of a discussion on being a missionary-minded Christian. Gent writes, “Involvement in getting the Gospel out and establishing churches at home and abroad is God’s will for all believers and all churches.” </span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Another application is in the form of a question. Page 101 provides a good example of this. Here, Gent focuses on how the unfaithfulness of parents directly affects their kids. He asks, “When we are unfaithful, what message are we sending to our children? The message that the Lord Jesus Christ, the church, the things of God, the work of the Lord, are really not important comes through loud and clear!” </span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;">One final form of application that Gent utilizes is convicting illustrations. As this review has noted, these are a major tool that is used throughout Gent’s book to directly impact his audience. A fitting example of this is found on page 111. It reads, “IMAGINE IF GOD HAD BEEN LIKE SO MANY OF US AND HOARDED HIS WEALTH by keeping His Son in Glory! We would have all gone to hell!” (emphasis in the original) In summary, The Local Church proves itself to be much more than a conglomeration of proof texts for its author’s personal beliefs. Emphasized throughout its pages is the practicality of the Bible and the purpose it holds in each believer’s life.</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Overall, Gent successfully pairs Scripture with his own specific burdens to present a convicting progression of ecclesiological truth. His book reveals his concern for the misunderstanding and neglect of the local church seen readily among believers today. As a whole, Gent succeeds in communicating his message and faithfully interpreting and applying the Scriptures to his audience. With its many triumphs, it’s easy to see how The Local Church will be a helpful guide in navigating biblical teachings on the church. For the sake of this review, however, a few of the book’s more significant shortcomings should also be noted. Though not adverse enough to negate its usefulness, the weaknesses of The Local Church definitely warrant mentioning. </span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Three major concerns stand out in reading this book. First, Gent occasionally uses overgeneralization, assumptions, and sometimes even untrue statements within his arguments. Although his intentions are always in the best interest of the reader, his methods are not always quite as sound. Most of these errors seen throughout the book are fairly harmless and can easily be forgotten. Others, however, are much more significant and deter greatly from clear biblical teaching.</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;">On page 13, Gent makes a claim that is ideal, but simply untrue. He says, “It is difficult to Biblically and systematically observe the Lord’s Supper and remain in a backslidden condition. The Lord’s Supper will help any Christian be a better Christian.” Though this may be the result for some, it is not realistic to say every believer that has ever taken the Lord’s Supper has done so with a heart that lends itself towards growth, and if Gent were correct, then one wonders whether or not 1 Corinthians 11:28 is superfluous. Page 30 provides another unrealistic claim. Here, Gent writes, “The most likely place to find a demon is behind a pulpit!” Although this may get the attention of the readers, it is in the very least an unverifiable statement, entirely impossible to prove. While Gent’s concern to combat false doctrine is commendable, such statements are more than likely to cause some believers to look with suspicion on their own born-again pastors who may not cross every theology “t” or dot every theological “i” just as they would like.</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Another interesting example comes in the form of a misleading question. On page 94, Gent asks, “Do we ever learn about any converts in the book of Acts who did not become identified with a local church?” It’s very clear from the context that Gent meant this to be a rhetorical question with the assumed answer of “no.” However, in Acts chapter 8, the Ethiopian eunuch clearly believes the gospel without any further reference to him joining a church. Another similar example is found on page 99. Here, Gent passionately writes, “There are many people (some well known and popular) who actually call themselves Christians and seldom attend church!” It’s easy to see here how that Gent was attempting to emphasize the shame of a Christian not attending services, but his statement seems to imply that we should automatically doubt such a person’s claim to be a Christian. However, the Bible clearly teaches that the requisites for being a Christian have nothing to do with works, including one’s faithfulness to church (Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 2:8–9; Titus 3:5). Therefore, a true believer may very well call themselves a “Christian” without faithfully attending a local church (however shameful that may be). Gent adds to this idea on page 99 when he asks, “Is it a sin if I do not faithfully attend church every time the church door is open?...Yes, it is a sin!” Once again, this is another claim that supersedes the laws of Scripture, specifically his statement “every time the church door is open.” Although the Bible does challenge believers to not forsake “the assembling of ourselves together” (Hebrews 10:25), nowhere do the Scriptures specify which services or how many services are required.</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;">One final example of wayward statements in The Local Church is one which is referenced more than once in the book and is likely the most concerning of them all. The first mention is found in the opening introduction where Gent states that God “has no other plan or program to carry on His work in this world apart from His church” (pg. vii). He continues this thought on page 84, where he says, “The local church was God’s only unit on earth for propagating the faith and the disciples were content to work only within that context. Certainly, God has a wonderful plan and program for the family; He also has a definite program for civil government; however, He has no other plan or program to carry on His work in this world apart from His church.” Gent is insistent that the church is God’s only plan in reaching the world. He fails, however, to mention God’s original plan (Isaiah 49:6) and future plan (Revelation 7) for His people Israel. Whether Gent forgot, minimized, or rejected the role of Israel in God’s soteriological program, he missed a very significant piece of biblical history and prophecy. Although, it may be inferred from portions of Gent’s writings that he favors replacement theology, that assumption cannot be confirmed from this book alone.</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The second major concern worth mentioning is Gent’s occasional tendency to focus more on his personal beliefs rather than on what the Bible actually says. Much of The Local Church is filled with the author’s passion for communicating truth. This is both commendable and convicting. However, when this fervor centers more around his own personal convictions rather than his discovery of definite truths, then the book begins to err from its intentions.</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;">A significant example comes from pages 85–88. This section of the book is entitled, “Christian Organizations And Parachurch Groups of Human Origin.” In these conviction-filled paragraphs, Gent makes his position on these groups very clear. While elaborating on the dangers of operating apart from the church, the author provides several Scripture references supporting his position. However, Gent appears to deviate at times and become so preoccupied with the vulnerabilities of parachurch organizations that he enters into assumptions and accusations that are unfounded, unnecessary, or simply untrue.</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;">On page 86, Gent writes, “Not a few Christian organizations are parasitic, because they encourage people to use their God-given gifts in an unscriptural place. According to Ephesians 4, God gives gifts to His church to be used for its edification.” This strong accusation is an unfortunate limitation that goes beyond Scripture. God never limits His gifts to be used only in the local church. Even in Ephesians 4, just because believers are encouraged to use their gifts in the church does not mean that they are restricted elsewhere. Also on page 86, Gent uses sarcasm to jab at parachurch groups. He writes, “According to Matthew 28:19, 20, the first thing we are to tell a convert is to get in a sound church and be baptized. Maybe Matthew 28:19, 20 and the book of Acts are no longer in the Bible, or at least, not in the Bible of some of our parachurch friends.” Even if Gent’s point contains truth, his negative method of delivery was neither helpful nor necessary.</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;"> Gent continues his criticism of Christian organizations on page 87. Here, he writes, “In regards to finances, man-made alternatives to the local church certainly are parasitic! It takes enormous, vast, exorbitant sums of money to keep these organizations going!...Think of all the money that is not being used in a Biblical way.” This is another example of Gent stepping beyond the Bible and ultimately declaring his own truth. First, his claim of all parachurch organizations being “parasitic” in their finances is surely unfounded. The somewhat exaggerated description of their cost fails to negate the impact that these ministries have on millions of people. Christian camps and addiction ministries are a couple examples of successful outreaches. Of course, there certainly can be significant cost in operating these, but the reward in seeing people saved and lives changed should definitely outweigh any financial burden. To say that this money is being used in an unbiblical way is to limit God’s working in those organizations and cheapen the eternal difference being made. Although Gent proves himself to be a strict adherer to the Scriptures throughout his book, his proclivity towards personal bias in this section greatly weakens the message.</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;">One final concern from Gent’s book is undoubtedly the least significant of the three. This is in regard to the grammatical errors, typos, and stylistic peculiarities of the writing itself. The author’s disclaimer in the introduction of the book that “No claim is made for literary excellence” further minimizes the gravity of this point (pg. vii). Nevertheless, a quick evaluation of the work’s literary level may help potential readers determine the best setting for the book.</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;">As has been mentioned, Gent writes with incredible passion and intensity, especially when discussing the issues he considers most important. Subsequently, readers should expect to find bold text and uppercase sentences used liberally throughout the book. While these are helpful techniques in emphasizing specific points, the extent they are used in The Local Church may become a distraction to some. </span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Another possible distraction is the numerous pages of Scripture that accompany certain of Gent’s points. In a few different sections of the book, Bible verses fill several succeeding pages as they act in support of a previously stated idea. In Chapter 13, three pages of Scripture follow just two sentences at its opening (pgs. 81–83). In Chapter 11, only a single heading at the very beginning proceeds eight pages of verses (pgs. 63–70)! Half a page of text at the end of the chapter provides its only original content. Chapter 4 is similar with the author contributing only seven sentences of his own material amidst four pages of Bible references (pgs. 15–18). While Scripture is necessary in confirming truth, perhaps fewer references or abbreviated examples would better aid the flow and thought progression of Gent’s book. Readers are, after all, capable of looking up Bible verses on their own.</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;">A few other instances of stylistic or grammatical issues include redundant reasons to leave the liberal church (examples 1, 7, 8, 11 on pgs. 23–31), the obscure sentence “The Word is clear; it wasn’t abnormal” (pg. 70), and a double negative in the phrase “Not a few, never take a clear stand...” (pg. 86). Once again, in the grand scheme of this book, these mistakes and ambiguities remove very little from the work’s overall value. However, the level of writing will likely have an impact on where and how this book may be used as a guide to ecclesiology.</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Conclusion</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;">In summary, The Local Church succeeds in its mission to clearly distinguish and promote the biblical teachings on the church. Gent’s writing is both convicting and inspiring, while predominantly focused on the words of Scripture and not personal bias. Though in places points are weakened by a lack of thoroughness or understanding by the author, no errors endanger the powerful message of this book. </span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;">As the author intended, The Local Church would best serve as an individual’s exegetical guide to a scriptural understanding of the church. Since it is neither comprehensive nor scholastically designed, this book would likely not be a good fit as a college textbook. Whatever its use, however, readers are sure to benefit from the author’s sincere burden and careful biblical study. In a day where the church is constantly under attack and false teachers abound, The Local Church is a timely addition to the fight for truth.</span></div><div><br /></div></div><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p>Paul A Himeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07238272703123690959noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3390403314045876459.post-57229015387956150812023-10-02T09:49:00.000-07:002023-10-02T09:49:42.100-07:00A New Testament professor cheers for the Texas Rangers<p><span style="font-size: medium;"><i>Note: all comments are moderated before posting. It is the prerogative of the author of this blog to not post comments if he does not wish to.</i></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">I am ecstatic that my beloved Texas Rangers are in the MLB playoffs despite all odds and an extreme number of injuries. I grew up in Japan, in an environment that cherished baseball, and when I was six years old a pastor from Texas sent my parents a gift box from his church that included a team set of Texas Rangers baseball cards from 1985 (I remember Buddy Bell was shortstop then). When my parents and I returned home to America for furlough in 1993, I immediately latched on to the Texas Rangers as my team, despite never having lived in Texas (this was Nolan Ryan's last year). The two highlights of my fandom were in 1994 when, at a Rangers-Tigers game in Detroit, the great Juan Gonzalez autographed his 1990 rookie card for me, and October 2010, when the Rangers won the ALCS for the first time. The low point of my fandom was David Freese's walk-off homerun in the 2011 Word Series (with all due respect to all you Cardinals' fans out there!).</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiBs5TsWk6qTNl1na_xmGQUEWee6uwEQ7RBCuWvGzuWOMu3oXIvQXOl75JAGXYG0J7j8Da920V0h4hD0zdfD3u-f1R7pFV-_4jnF1BXDsBtLIgDQQ9yuCanjVC_dMOgdZcS8e4NKXMYY6Mw1mMIu6Y9tAMA4OP605_f_a0fFav253h0hZnEVlxwh9b0kN4/s3354/Cheering%20for%20the%20Rangers.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3354" data-original-width="3110" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiBs5TsWk6qTNl1na_xmGQUEWee6uwEQ7RBCuWvGzuWOMu3oXIvQXOl75JAGXYG0J7j8Da920V0h4hD0zdfD3u-f1R7pFV-_4jnF1BXDsBtLIgDQQ9yuCanjVC_dMOgdZcS8e4NKXMYY6Mw1mMIu6Y9tAMA4OP605_f_a0fFav253h0hZnEVlxwh9b0kN4/s320/Cheering%20for%20the%20Rangers.jpg" width="297" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><p></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Now for a point of a more serious nature. In all honesty, this is the first time in my life that I have felt justified in actually praying for a particular sports team to win. The Texas Rangers are, apparently, the last team <a href="https://apnews.com/article/rangers-pride-mlb-lgbtq-e3caa6ad3011bfae841b4fe9b4ce6c30">to not capitulate by celebrating Gay Pride month</a>. To be clear, God loves everybody, including those of the LGBTQ persuasion, and Jesus died to save everybody. Yet God created two genders, and marriage is intended to be the only legitimate expression of sexuality: man and woman, in a committed relationship for as long as both of them are still alive. This is anchored first and foremost in God's creative act (Genesis 1:27) and the words of Jesus about the origins and intended permanence of marriage (Mark 10:5–9, answering a question about divorce), though many other scriptural passages abound on this topic. Anything that deviates from God's intended norm for sexuality is a sin (such sin, of course, includes heterosexual lust and pornography, not just homosexuality). So for Christians that take God's Word seriously, there can be no doubt about the issue.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Now, does God care about sports? Well, perhaps sometimes (exhibit A: Eric Liddell). I am claiming no prophetic word about how far the Rangers will go in the postseason. All I know is that sin grieves God, and that not capitulating to an idealogical worldview steeped in a sinful anthropology is a good thing, and that God said, "Them that honour me I will honour, and they that despise me shall be lightly esteemed" (1 Samuel 2:30). Consequently, I am praying for the Texas Rangers, and I can do so with a clean conscious that I am not bringing a superfluous matter to my heavenly Father. Whatever He wants to allow or not allow for the MLB playoffs is His business, but at least I know that my request has been heard.</span></p>Paul A Himeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07238272703123690959noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3390403314045876459.post-32787547417137159432023-09-12T12:25:00.005-07:002023-09-12T12:25:59.918-07:00In praise of the more "literal" translation style<p><span style="font-size: medium;">I get it, I get it--the term "literal" has been overused, misunderstood, and often abused. No translation is perfectly "literal," not even the King James (as demonstrated by how the translators translated <i>mē genoito</i> in Paul's letters). I am not a novice here on Bible translation. I grew up speaking Japanese as a second language, I have formally studied eight languages to some degree, and I have a peer-reviewed article published in <i>The Bible Translator</i>. Plus I have been a consultant on a Bible translation project into Japanese. So before your roll your eyes and say, "Here we go again, another NIV-bashing hyper-fundamentalist wanna-be expert who thinks a <i>daghesh lene </i>is a type of Middle Eastern pastry . . ." well, please hear me out.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">When we say "literal" in regards to translation in general (not just Bible translation), there is a spectrum of correspondence in structural form and lexical choice that we are referring to. For example, take the Japanese proverb <i>Saru mo ki kara ochiru</i>. A coherently literal (or "formally equivalent") translation would be something like, "Even a monkey falls from a tree." A more incoherent literal translation would be something like, "A monkey, even that, from a tree will fall," which mimics the Japanese sentence structure but loses so much in terms of smoothness that it stops being useful. And even that last example is not as literal as one could get, since in Japanese the preposition (<i>kara, </i>"from") actually follows the noun (<i>ki</i>, "tree").</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Conversely, way on the other side of the spectrum, a functionally equivalent translation (previously known as a "dynamic equivalent" translation) could in theory be content with "Even an expert fails at something." This gets across the meaning of the Japanese proverb quite nicely, though obviously it looses the vivid imagery.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Now for a biblical example. When the Gospel of John has <i>apekrithē Iēsous kai eipen autō </i>(John 3:3), a formally equivalent (i.e., "more literal") translation would have "Jesus answered and said unto him" (KJV) or "Jesus answered and said to him" (LSB). A functional equivalent translation will have "Jesus replied" (NIV). Even a <i>generally</i> more literal translation like the ESV has "Jesus answered him." Obviously nothing gets lost theologically; i.e., we are not the poorer in regards to <i>doctrine</i> itself. But we do loose something, as I shall argue.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">To be clear, functionally equivalent translations such as the NIV are not evil. I reject wholeheartedly KJV-only attempts to deny that other translations are the Word of God, and the KJV translators are on my side; read "<a href="https://sites.pitt.edu/~hunter3/KJVbible/Preface.html">From the Translators to the Reader</a>," the section entitled "An answer to the imputations of our adversaries" (you can read it for yourself with the above link). In fact, I will dogmatically assert, on the basis of the words of the brilliant KJV translators themselves, that hyper-KJV-onlyism is incompatible with the views of the KJV translators, since they declare, "Now to the latter we answer, that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest [i.e., <a href="https://www.etymonline.com/word/mean#etymonline_v_12495" target="_blank">"inferior in rank or status"</a>] of the Bible in English set forth by men of our profession (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, <b>nay, is the word of God</b>: as the King's speech which he uttereth in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, <b>is still the King's speech, </b>though it be not interpreted by every translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, every where" (emphasis added).</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Now, having said all that, a translation that strives for formal equivalency, <i>at a reasonable level</i>, is a superior translation, in my opinion. Besides arguments for avoiding ambiguity and letting the reader determine the probable meaning of a difficult phrase for themselves (which applies to parts of a translation but not all of it), I would like to bring out two points.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>First</b>, a formally equivalent translation is somewhat more likely to be working with the assumption that <u>every single word</u> in the original Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic was supernaturally inspired by the Holy Spirit. Now, to be fair, a lot of those who prefer the NIV or other functional equivalent translations agree with this point and can still defend a functionally equivalent translation as expressing the intent of the Holy Spirit. However, those on the functionally equivalent side are also <i>less</i> likely to agree with this point, as evidenced by the recent dialogue in <i>Themelios</i> between Bill Mounce and Dane Ortlund. Mounce, who clearly believes in the supernatural inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture, nonetheless states that "The authors write, and God ensures that what they write is not only true but that it is what he wanted to communicate. But that does not require me to believe that God controlled every word choice that was made. If that were the case, then we must all abandon any sense of mystery and accept the dictation theory of inspiration for all biblical texts. . . . To say that God chose every word, in essence imitating the author's style, removes all mystery; . . ." ("<a href="https://tgc-documents.s3.amazonaws.com/themelios/Themelios-44-3.pdf">Do Formal Equivalent Translations Reflect a Higher View of Plenary, Verbal Inspiration?</a>" <i>Themelios </i>44, no. 3 [2019] pages 480–1) This is not the place to respond to Mounce, whom I respect (and Ortlaud has already provided a solid response: "<a href="https://media.thegospelcoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/20114932/Themelios-45-1.pdf?_gl=1*m0plx5*_ga*MTg0MTA4MzQ1Mi4xNjc3NTMwNDEx*_ga_R61P3F5MSN*MTY5NDUyNDc5OC4yMi4xLjE2OTQ1MjUzNDcuNjAuMC4w">On Words, Meaning, Inspiration, and Translation: A Brief Response to Bill Mounce</a>," <i>Themelios</i> 45, no. 1 [2020]; I require all my Greek students to read Olrtlund's article). I will say that I think Mounce creates something of an "either-or" fallacy with the idea that either one eliminates "every word" from our view of inspiration or one becomes a dictationist, since surely God in His providence can guide the author, according to his own style, to nonetheless produce exactly the specific word that God wanted (and surely this would maintain the very "mystery" that Mounce suggests we must not lose!). But that's another discussion for another time.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Also, we acknowledge Mounce's point that no translation can or does translate every single word that exists in the Greek, etc. (not even the King James). Again, we are talking about degrees of formal equivalency, not absolutes. When it comes to Bible translation, it is generally <u>not</u> "light vs. darkness," as if the "literal" is always pure good, while the "less literal" is pure evil. Sometimes a less literal translation can actually have some solid theological preaching points that is lacking in a more literal translation. I am thinking here of the NLT in Malachi 2:16. I'm not a fan of the NLT overall, but I admire them for their bold stand in this verse against divorce!</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>Second</b>, in light of the first point, "choice implies meaning," a well-known axiom repeated by specialists in discourse analysis. If an author has a choice between two words that usually mean the same thing, and he choices one over the other, there may be a reason for that choice that goes beyond just the meanings of the two words in isolation. There may be something being attempted by the author that is not about the <i>ideas</i> behind the statement so much as the <i>effect the statement is meant to create, </i>an effect that goes beyond what can be determined merely by looking at the meanings of the words. Discourse analysts call this "pragmatic effect," and Steven E. Runge gives the following example: "Imagine that my wife asked me how our kids behaved while she was out. If I began my answer with 'Your children . . .,' it would have a specific pragmatic effect, based on the context. . . . . Calling them <i>my kids</i> or <i>the kids</i> is the expected norm. When I depart from this norm, a specific pragmatic effect of 'distancing' is achieved, even though what I said was completely truthful" (<i>Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament</i> [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2010), 7–8).</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Applied to Scripture, I would suggest that <i>the specific choice of words can have an affect beyond simply the meanings of the words in isolation</i>. In other words, the sum is <u>not</u> equal to the total of all the parts. The potential exists, then, that a less formally equivalent translation can inadvertently miss the triggering of a pragmatic effect, <i>even if it faithfully conveys the meaning behind the words themselves</i>.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Ortland, in his dialogue with Mounce, gives an excellent example of how this could be the case. In Acts 11:22, more literal translations render <i>ēkousthē de ho logos <b>eis ta ōta </b>tēs ekklēsias tēs ousēs en Ierousalēm</i> as something like "Then tidings of these things came <b>unto the ears</b> of the church which was in Jerusalem" (KJV) or "The report of this came <b>to the ears</b> of the church in Jerusalem" (ESV) whereas a more functionally equivalent translation would translate this as something like "News of this reached the church in Jerusalem" (NIV, which is actually a bit more literal then the NLT, "When the church at Jerusalem heard what had happened . . ."). Now, the NIV (and the NLT, for that matter) gets the point across, so nothing is lost from the story. Accurate information is still transmitted. Yet as Ortlund points out, there is a potential for an intra-textual and inter-textual pragmatic effect here that may be missed. What if Luke intended us to remember the other places that the specific word "ear" is used in Acts (7:51, 57; 28:26-27, citing Isaiah 6:9–10), since "The other four are not merely bland references to physical ears but spiritually and theologically loaded uses" (Ortland, page 102). In other words, is it possible the Holy Spirit intended a pragmatic effect (the reader connecting the dots to those other passages in Acts, plus Isaiah), an effect that could only be achieved by translating <u>a specific word</u> consistently in a certain way? (The point, as Ortland states, is not whether or not this is the correct understanding of why Luke used <i>ōta</i>, "ear," in 11:22; the point is that it's a possibility that must be considered; also, as the KJV translators themselves noted, words should <u>not</u> be translated consistently the same way all throughout the Bible; that's not the point. The point is that <u>sometimes</u> they should because their may be an intended intra- or inter-textual link).</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Now, back to the more difficult example of John 3:3. Granted, "Jesus answered and said" is redundant and a bit awkward in English. Yet John, when writing this Gospel under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, <u>had a choice</u>. He could have just said "Jesus answered" and left it at that (as in John 3:5). Yet since "choice implies meaning," there is some <i>reason</i> John uses this pattern frequently. We may not know what it is, and it almost certainly does not have the potential to convey the level of significance that Luke's use of "ears" in Acts does. John may have written that way for purely aesthetic reasons (he liked the sound of the pattern, perhaps?). Nonetheless, it is still part of the inspired authorial style, it possesses <i>some</i> degree of significance (if, indeed, every single word is inspired), and so should be retained if it can be done without seriously compromising the coherence of the sentence when translated into the target language.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">A counter-argument would be that readability and/or smoothness in the target language should trump the form and structure of the originals, and to a certain degree that is true. Not even the King James perfectly imitates the word order of the original Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic. So what I (and others) argue for regarding a more literal style is not some sort of bizarre hyper-wooden translation that makes no coherent sense in English. What we are arguing, however, is that reflecting authorial style and deliberate lexical choice, when legitimate choices existed, justifies at least a little bit of awkwardness in the English (or other languages). That's a discussion that could span hundreds of pages, however.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">In conclusion, words often convey more than what is reflected in their semantic range. Specific words in specific contexts can produce effects, trigger allusions, and even create emotions that go beyond the meaning of the word itself. This means that specific words, not just the ideas they and their synonyms reflect, matter. As an aside, this does not rule out the possibility that sometimes a literal translation could potentially eliminate an intended pragmatic effect, via the messiness that involves transferring words and phrases from one language to another; nonetheless, I believe the basic point stands.</span></p>Paul A Himeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07238272703123690959noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3390403314045876459.post-74206246496697068062023-07-29T11:27:00.001-07:002023-08-28T14:00:41.578-07:00The New ICC on 1 Peter by Williams and Horrell: Positive Initial Impressions<p><span style="font-size: medium;">First Peter is no longer the "Exegetical Stepchild" that John H. Elliott once labeled it. The last decade has produced a plethora of monographs and commentaries dealing with this epistle, including but not limited to the Ruth Anne Reese's New Cambridge Bible Commentary, Craig Keener's stand-alone commentary for Baker Academic, Dennis Edwards' Story of God Bible Commentary, my own Lexham Research Commentary, and Catherine Gunsalus González's Belief theological commentary. In addition, Baker just put out Karen Jobes' 2nd edition of her Baker Exegetical Commentary, which remains (in my humble-but-opinionated-opinion) the commentary of choice for any minister's library.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">This past year also saw the publication of the new, massive, 2-volume International Critical <a href="https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/1-peter-9780567030573/">Commentary</a> Travis B. Williams and David G. Horrell (T&T Clark). This replaces the previous ICC on 1 Peter by Charles Biggs, a volume which also contained 2 Peter and Jude (in my opinion, Biggs' commentaries on 2 Peter and Jude were better than his commentary on 1 Peter).</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">I intend here to give a few positive initial impressions of Williams and Horrell's epic tome ("epic" in the sense of "It's got 800+ pages <i>per volume</i>!!"). First, a couple caveats:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">1. Notwithstanding the immense value to be had from this ICC (despite its hefty price tag), Jobes' commentary still remains the best for pastoral work, and should be the first one to be purchased by any seminarian or minister seeking to preach on or develop a Bible study on the topic (for second place, I would suggest Wayne Grudem [Tyndale], Reese, or perhaps Keener for the wealth of his background material). For my reflections here, I am dealing with the value of this ICC for <u>academic</u> study.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">2. I am a bit biased towards this commentary, because I have enjoyed a cordial correspondence with Dr. Williams regarding 1 and 2 Peter and NT scholarship in general, and also because their commentary cites my work a number of times (not always in agreement, but always fairly). It is worth noting that Williams studied under Horrell at the University of Exeter, and in fact it seems to me that Horrell has been mentoring a relatively high number of Petrine scholars in the past couple decades compared to other professors at top-tier universities. In other words, a lot of interesting work on 1 Peter has been coming out of Exeter. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">With that in mind, here are a number of positive observations regarding this commentary:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">1. First, this ICC can probably claim to be the most well-researched commentary ever written on 1 Peter (though Keener's commentary has an immense number of primary/ancient sources). Williams and Horrell have put together a bibliography with over <b>2,500</b> sources (the bibliography runs from pages 657–816, and I am "guesstimating" about 16 sources per page).</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">2. Second, you can rest assured that the authors represent some of the best in the field of Petrine scholarship. I confess that one of my pet peeves is when a scholar who has written virtually no peer-reviewed material on a particular book of the Bible ends up writing a commentary on it in a major series. Such authors are <i>usually</i> (though not always) at a disadvantage in regards to understanding the secondary literature, and thus their commentary is <i>usually</i> (though not always) subpar, in my humble-but-opinionated opinion (and yes, I have a specific example in mind, albeit on a different book than 1 Peter). No worries here, as both Williams and Horrell are already easily in the top-10 of Petrine scholarship, at least where English is a primary language. Williams, the junior member of the team, by himself has published two full monographs on 1 Peter, each in a different prestigious European series, not to mention <b>eight</b> peer-reviewed articles specifically on 1 Peter, four of which are in tier-1 journals (and Williams' article in <i>ZNTW</i> significantly influenced my own thinking on 1 Peter).</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">3. Third, even a cursory glance indicates that Williams and Horrell interact with the Greek text in a very detailed manner. (This is not a a commentary for casual perusal!) For the record, the commentary flows verse-by-verse and clause-by-clause, making it much easier to find a discussion on a particular point of the text.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">4. Fourth, the authors do an excellent job of discussing competing viewpoints. And yes, for those of you who were wondering, there is an entire excursus of 7 pages (2:215–221) devoted to the "history of interpretation" of the phrase "preached to the spirits in prison," with <b>18 pages</b> (2:221–238) that actual exegete the text and discuss the various viewpoints. Interestingly, the commentary takes the minority view that the phrase refers to "disembodied human souls" rather than fallen angels.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">So there you have it, the next big thing in Petrine scholarship. These positive comments should not be taken as an endorsement of all the views held to by the authors, of course (and my own position is that Peter himself wrote the book, while allowing for the possibility of an amanuensis), but this is a commentary that libraries and serious Petrine academics need to purchase.</span></p><p><br /></p>Paul A Himeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07238272703123690959noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3390403314045876459.post-53172925046179255952023-06-08T06:57:00.000-07:002023-06-08T06:57:03.034-07:00Another article on "saved through childbearing"!!? (R. Gregory Jenks in the latest JETS)<p><span style="font-size: medium;"><i style="font-weight: bold;">Note: all comments on all posts are moderated first</i>. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span>This will be my last blog entry before my marriage and honeymoon (so, for anybody attempting to post a comment, I won't be able to moderate it for a while), but I noted with interest the latest issue of the <i>Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society</i> 66, no. 1 (March 2023). R. Gergory Jenks' article "Eve as Savior of Humanity? From the Genesis Narrative to Paul's Comments on Childbearing in 1 Timothy 2:15" adds to a constantly growing list of articles dealing with this <i>crux interpretum</i>. </span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Jenks' basic premise is that the 3rd person pronoun derived from <i>sōthēsetai</i> should not be translated "she" as most translations have it, but rather "he," in reference to Adam (and thus all of humanity), and the "they" refers to both Adam and Eve. Thus, Jenks writes, "Humanity is saved from extinction through the woman's role of mother with the condition that the couple, that is, men and women in the church, maintain the godly attributes listed."</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span>The benefits of Jenks' article is that it avoids the knotty, and greatly understated, problem of having the Apostle Paul promote a works-salvation based on a lifestyle that is not even meant for every woman (1 Cor 7:8, 25–40), even if it is more of a "eschatological-judgment-salvation," or whatever. More on this below (see especially Knight's <i>apropos</i> quote). </span><span>Also, Jenks does well to dig deep in the OT background here (as does Andrew Spurgeon's article back in 2013).</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The million dollar question, of course, is whether or not the fact that "Adam is the subject of the previous passive verbs in verses 13–14" (p. 156) would mean that he would also be the subject of <i>sōthēsetai</i>. I remain skeptical, and I wish Jenks had spent more time developing his argument here. Nonetheless, the possibility is worth considering. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">[One more caveat: I'm surprised to read that, in Jenks' words (page 138), "The idea of postmortem existence or judgment is foreign to the Genesis narrative and to the Hebrew Scriptures as a whole. Apart from the rare and obscure mentions of Sheol; the story of Samuel, . . .; and images of collective salvation of the nation of Israel as a whole, the Hebrew Scriptures do not speak of a postmortem existence, and certainly no postmortem judgment." I beg to differ; Daniel 12:2–3 clearly speaks of postmortem existence and judgment, as well as resurrection, and there are some passages in the Jewish Scriptures that seem to point towards a resurrection, e.g., Hannah's prayer, 1 Sam 2:6 (specifically how "causes to come up" is in contrast to "causes to go down to Sheol/the grave").</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">So where does this now leave us among the various positions held to within evangelical circles? I'm glad you asked! Here's a summary (and feel free to recommend other perspectives that I might have missed; I'm only concerned with perspectives that take seriously 1 Timothy as inspired Scripture, however):</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>Position #1</b>: A woman is saved spiritually by adhering to her God-given role. This view can be found in many conservative commentaries, e.g., William D. Mounce's World Biblical Commentary (p. 146, emphasizing the role of "perseverance"). I am least favorable towards this perspective, as I believe the theological issues raised are insurmountable. In the words of George W. Knight III, in his NIGTC, "It would be contrary to Paul's teaching elsewhere and to the emphasis of this letter and the other PE (1:15, 16; 2:3–6) to understand <i>sōthēsetai</i> as referring to spiritual salvation if <i>dia tēs teknogonias</i> is taken as referring to childbearing in general. This would make salvation for women conditional on a work, and specifically a work not all are able to perform."</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>Position #2</b>: Physical deliverance through the difficulty of childbearing. This view is well-articulated by Moyar Hubbard, "Kept Safe through Childbearing: Maternal Mortality, Justification by Faith, and the Social Setting of 1 Timothy 2:15," <i>JETS</i> 55, no. 4 (2012): 743–62. This position is strengthened by the excellent and fascinating background work done by Sandra L. Glahn on Artemis in the 1st century in Ephesus (<i>BibSac</i> 172, no. 687–688; also a forthcoming monograph), though I do not remember if Glahn herself takes this position.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>Position #3</b>: <i>Teknogonias</i> ("childbearing") is actually referring to <u>the</u> Childbearing, i.e., the Incarnation. Knight, in his NIGTC, holds to this position, as well as the recent article by Jared M. August, "What Must She Do to Be Saved? A Theological Analysis of 1 Timothy 2:15," <i>Themelios</i> 45, no. 1 (2020). A very attractive position, IMO, though weakened a bit by the notorious scarcity of <i>teknogonia</i> in Greek literature before Paul wrote 1 Timothy.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>Position #4</b>: The "she" is Eve, the "they" is Adam and Eve, and they are reconciled together through the promise of Gen 3:16, which prevents the extinction of the human race. This position is defended by Andrew B. Spurgeon, "1 Timothy 2:13–15: Paul's Retelling of Genesis 2:4–4:1," <i>JETS</i> 56, no. 3 (2013). I like this position because of Spurgeon's exegesis of Genesis 3, but I am skeptical that <i>sōzō </i>can be stretched to mean "restore." Nonetheless, Spurgeon's article is a very interesting read.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>Position #5</b>: The woman will be rescued from Satan's snares, by embracing her role of as mother and steward of the household. This position is articulated by Andreas J. Köstenberger, in "Ascertaining Women's God-Ordained Roles: An Interpretation of Timothy 2:15," <i>BBR</i> 7 (1997). I am open to this possibility (and I greatly respect and admire </span><span style="font-size: large;">Köstenberger</span><span style="font-size: large;">, a former prof. of mine at Southeastern), but I think it's too much to smuggle in an implied "from satan."</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">And to that, of course, we can now add Jenks' article. "Of the making of articles about 1 Tim 2:15, there is no end" (with apologies to <i>Qoheleth). </i></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p>Paul A Himeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07238272703123690959noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3390403314045876459.post-38128649990912474922023-04-28T15:31:00.001-07:002023-04-28T15:31:09.094-07:00Write outside of your comfort zone (lessons from a NT specialist publishing an article in Themelios on David's census)<p><span style="font-size: medium;">A funny thing happened when I, as a newly minted New Testament PhD with a top Greek scholar as my mentor, interviewed to teach at Baptist College of Ministry in Menomonee Falls, WI.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">"Can you teach Hebrew?" they asked.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">"Of <i>course</i> I can teach Hebrew! No problem. Duh!" was my response [ok, I didn't quite put it that way, but you get the point that I tried to project confidence]. Inwardly, however, I was experiencing a slight panic, since to my shame I had neglected my Hebrew Bible during my years pursuing a doctorate at Southeastern.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">As it turns out, in addition to teaching two semesters of Biblical Hebrew, grammar and syntax, on a two-year rotation, they also asked me to teach Hebrew History every Fall, another class totally outside of my specialty. (It would be another year before I would get the opportunity to teach a <i>New</i> Testament class! This is proof that the Lord has a sense of humor, or at least irony).</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Yet I can confidently say that all three of those classes grew on me, and in turned helped me grow academically and spiritually. My first time teaching Hebrew was extremely rough (nothing like having your students correct your lectures from the textbook . . .), but I eventually began reading my Hebrew Bible more consistently as well as studying the secondary literature on the Jewish Scriptures with more gusto.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">In addition, this gave me an opportunity to pursue an issue that had bothered me since I wrote a paper on it during my college years: the oddity of David's census.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The result, after years of publishing material on the New Testament, is my first ever published article on the <i>Hebrew</i> Bible: "Failure to Atone: Rethinking David's Census in Light of Exodus 30," <i>Themelios</i> 48, no. 1 (April 2023): 47–62 (I had presented an earlier draft of this paper at the ETS regional meeting at Moody Bible Institute a few years back). The entire issue of <i>Themelios</i> can be downloaded <a href="https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/">here</a> (it is an interesting issue, and I would heartily recommend Jonathan Cheek's article on Genesis 3:15 and Kevin DeYoung's well-written, critical review of S. Wolfe's <i>The Case for Christian Nationalism</i>). Scroll down for the abstract of my article.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">So, dear reader (especially those of you who are academic nerds like me), here are some practical lessons from all that:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">1. Don't neglect your Hebrew Bible, even if you specialize in Greek! All Scripture, not just the New Testament, was supernaturally inspired by God in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic, and if you have the ability, then you should read all of it in the original languages.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">2. In addition, for those of us who aspire to be professors, you should not neglect your Hebrew Bible because you never know what you're going to be asked to teach, especially when working for a smaller college and/or seminary. Whether adjunct or full-time, you should be willing to be flexible. (And it goes without saying that you should anticipate occasionally preaching from the OT, as well)</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">3. Be willing to study areas of biblical studies and theology that you are not as comfortable or proficient with. God can use the lacunae in your curriculum vitae to grow you!</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">4. If you find a topic that you are passionate and/or curious about, don't be afraid to pursue it, even if it lies outside of your specialty. With humility, of course, because you are treading on ground where others, not you, are specialists. But still, many of the same principles that apply to writing a NT article apply to writing an OT article. You just have to overcome a disadvantage in regards to your familiarity with the secondary literature (and, of course, you have to ensure that you have adequately brushed up on your Hebrew syntax!).</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Thank you to <i>Themelios</i>, the anonymous reviewer(s), and editor Brian Tabb for allowing me to publish in their journal.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">By the way, for any Hebrew scholars reading this, can anybody tell me why MS Word keeps wanting to rearrange my Hebrew words to create gibberish? I've used both Tyndale and SBL unicode fonts, and I think I've downloaded all the drivers, but this is still occasionally a problem!</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Abstract of my article: "</span><span style="font-size: medium;">Various interpretations have been offered on how David sinned in taking the census of 2 Samuel 24, but too few have seriously grappled with the implications of Exodus 30:11–16 or the structure of 2 Samuel 21–24. Taking Exodus 30:11–16 as the starting point, this article argues that David was supposed to take the census, and that, as with the situation with the Gibeonites in 2 Samuel 21, David’s role was meant to be that of one who atones for the nation’s sins, turning away God’s wrath. The final section answers potential objections such as the role of Joab."</span></p><br /><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p>Paul A Himeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07238272703123690959noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3390403314045876459.post-62231471641667740232023-03-31T15:11:00.002-07:002023-04-01T11:07:57.797-07:00Is China in the Bible? R. Eichler's forthcoming article on מארץ סינים in Isaiah 49:12.<p> <span style="font-size: medium;">Once in a while you run across an article that is just too interesting to pass up, regardless of whether or not its thesis will prove true in the long run. Such is the case with Raanan Eichler, "China Is in the Bible," <i>Vetus Testamentum</i>, forthcoming in 2023. The pre-print version of the article can be accessed from Brill <a href="https://brill.com/view/journals/vt/aop/article-10.1163-15685330-bja10124/article-10.1163-15685330-bja10124.xml?rskey=T9g1xW&result=1&ebody=abstract%2Fexcerpt">here</a>, for free.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">And no, this is not some tribulation-eschatology article in the <i>theological</i> sense (though Isaiah 49 certainly deals with eschatology). The author's argument is strictly lexical and geographical. Here is the abstract:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">"Isaiah 49:12 mentions 'the land of <i>Sinim</i>.' Gesenius and most nineteenth-century scholars identified this place with China, but virtually all scholars today identify it instead with Aswan (Syene) in southern Egypt. It is argued here, based on the literary context, the wording 'the land of [plural gentilic],' and the phonetics of <i>Sinim</i>, that the term means China."</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">It is worth repeating Eichler's point here that arguments for the phrase <span style="font-family: times;">מארץ סינים</span> meaning "from the land of China" existed over 100 years ago (so this article is not advancing a brand-new thesis). The article contains a helpful survey of scholarship on the issue. Also, Eichler devotes a significant portion of the paper to discussing ancient references to China and nearby places, suggesting that "It seems likely that knowledge of China would have spread westward north of the Tibetan Plateau along what would later become the Silk Road, and perhaps by other routes." Naturally, Eichler spends a lot of time raising objections to the predominant interpretation of "Aswan."</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">All-in-all an interesting read! I am not a Hebrew specialist, sadly, so I cannot even begin to offer a critical analysis. Yet I am requiring my Hebrew Syntax students to read it (yes, as proof that the Lord has a sense of humor, or at least irony, as a NT specialist I teach two semesters of Hebrew every other year 😀).</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">It is worth pointing out that <i>Vetus Testamentum</i> is in the top-10 of journals that publish material on the Jewish Scriptures. So kudos to Dr. Eichler on proving that quality scholarship does not have to be boring! </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p>Paul A Himeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07238272703123690959noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3390403314045876459.post-74542277373434220632023-03-04T10:53:00.003-08:002023-03-04T10:54:55.612-08:00Textual Criticism and an Aramaic pun in 2 Peter 2:15 (my article in the latest issue of TC)<p> <span style="font-size: large;">I am grateful that the <a href="http://jbtc.org/v27/index.html">latest issue</a> of <i>TC: Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism </i>has just published my article "<i>Lectio Difficilior Potior</i> and An Aramaic Pun: Beor vs. Bosor in 2 Peter 2:15 as a Test Case for How a Classic Rule Might Be Refined." The article can be accessed <a href="http://jbtc.org/v27/TC-2022_Himes.pdf">here</a>.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The abstract is as follows:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span><i>Lectio difficilior potior</i> (“prefer the more difficult reading”), while still in use </span><span>in recent scholarship, has been criticized for being overly subjective and of relatively </span><span>little value as a canon of internal criteria. These criticisms have not been adequately </span><span>addressed. Yet 2 Pet 2:15 provides a fertile testing ground for the refinement of this rule </span><span>absent text-critical bias. Since every single current edition of the Greek New Testament,</span><span>and almost all commentators, agree with Βοσόρ due to overwhelming external support, </span><span>the rule is not needed to prove the superior reading of Βοσόρ. Rather, the near-universal </span><span>agreement on the reading gives us an opportunity to develop a methodology for determining whether or not Βοσόρ is the lectio difficilior compared to Βεώρ, a methodology </span><span>that would hopefully be free from bias. This methodology, which draws from Brooke </span><span>Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort’s distinction between “real and apparent </span><span>excellence,” could then assist in rehabilitating lectio difficilior potior as a helpful, if secondary, principle in textual matters.</span></span></p><p><br /></p>Paul A Himeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07238272703123690959noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3390403314045876459.post-24624352519907740552023-01-13T10:36:00.001-08:002023-01-13T10:36:44.377-08:00Douglas Kennard's new Petrine Theology<p><span style="font-size: medium;">True Petrine theologies are few and far between, whereas one cannot throw a rock without hitting a dozen Pauline theologies (or Pauline theologians, for that matter!) As somebody who has contributed a little bit to this neglected field, I am excited to have received a copy of Douglas W. Kennard's <i><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Petrine-Theology-Douglas-W-Kennard-ebook/dp/B0BHF4R9F2/ref=sr_1_1?crid=574PWLRG4O2G&keywords=douglas+kennard+petrine+theology&qid=1673624342&s=books&sprefix=douglas+kennard+petrine+theology%2Cstripbooks%2C84&sr=1-1">Petrine Theology</a></i> (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2022).</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Kennard is a professor at the Houston Graduate School of Theology, and in his previous writings he has specialized in biblical theology and hermeneutics. Along with <i>Petrine Theology </i>he has published a companion book entitled <i>Petrine Studies</i> (also with Wipf & Stock).</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Kennard's <i>Petrine Theology</i> is about as holistic a "Petrine theology" as one could ask for, and that's a good thing. He utilizes 1 and 2 Peter, along with the Petrine material in Acts and the Gospels, to cover a variety of topics. These include broader theological categories ("God," "Christology") as well as more specific Petrine emphases ("Suffering," "False Teachers"). All of this is developed from the important premise that "The early church considered Peter to be the foundation for apostolic Christian tradition" (p. 1), and thus the modern church should not neglect the Apostle Peter's own specific perspectives.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The book is well-researched and well-thought out, with an excellent level of interaction with both primary and secondary sources. [Allow me, though, to express my irritation at having my own name misspelled as "Hines" in the bibliography; actually, he cites two works of mine, one of them as "Himes" and the other as "Hines." Another top-notch Petrine scholar, Benjamin Sargent, also misspells me as "Hines"; oh well. I'm sure I've done the same to some other author somewhere in my published works--my apologies if that is you, dear reader! And I'm happy that Kennard at least mentions my work. End of rant! ☺]</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span>At times the book reads more like a systematic theology, e.g., chapter 2 on "God," which has a tendency to state a description about God and then bolster it with Petrine material, rather than tracing a Petrine theological theme <i>per se</i>). Even so, it is immensely valuable since it points us to the Apostle Peter's specific perspective while demonstrating how it is congruent with the rest of Scripture. </span><span>Also, Kennard aptly embraces the important role that Old Testament theology plays in Peter's theology.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Books on the Apostle Peter's theology are rare, and books that take seriously the Petrine material in Acts and the Gospels as part of that theology are <i>extremely</i> rare. I am pleased to announce that Kennard joins the distinguished ranks of Larry Helyer (<i>The Life and Witness of Peter</i>), Pheme Perkins (<i>Peter: Apostle for the Whole Church</i>) and Gene Green (<i>Vox Petri: A Theology of Peter</i>) as an important advocate for the Apostle Peter's theology.</span></p>Paul A Himeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07238272703123690959noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3390403314045876459.post-58348382961899886582022-12-19T15:55:00.002-08:002022-12-20T07:25:25.366-08:00Extra! 42-year old professor gets engaged!<p><span style="font-size: large;">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!</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">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.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">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.</span></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi2YxRsr0277mMORNsOmITHnYQufdtWZmGpfwTtru7FGOfuKw-W5pAd1M-C5jglLaXB4Z2RGJENslGraBk7svHghlSsGFXwQYe6juW51D8FQw7T25Hwtacb1AIuYI37omi5dxvdKbDidmdyQKWmesvi6Cvnu8nY4zsThSoEOy9ZlhOhz5LzA-6NwOsH/s4032/Together.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3024" data-original-width="4032" height="326" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi2YxRsr0277mMORNsOmITHnYQufdtWZmGpfwTtru7FGOfuKw-W5pAd1M-C5jglLaXB4Z2RGJENslGraBk7svHghlSsGFXwQYe6juW51D8FQw7T25Hwtacb1AIuYI37omi5dxvdKbDidmdyQKWmesvi6Cvnu8nY4zsThSoEOy9ZlhOhz5LzA-6NwOsH/w435-h326/Together.jpg" width="435" /></a></div><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><p></p>Paul A Himeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07238272703123690959noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3390403314045876459.post-11153058065044438252022-10-13T15:10:00.004-07:002022-10-13T15:10:59.600-07:00Wisdom of Solomon and the Anabaptists<p><span style="font-size: medium;">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.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The paper is entitled "<a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mfhAutp0tviajdpJV53SRF2miWE8dds6/view?usp=sharing" target="_blank">Attempting to Solve a 16th-Century Canonical Anomaly: Why Did the Anabaptists Cite Wisdom of Solomon as Scripture?</a>"</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Though most of my presented papers have ended up getting published in peer-reviewed journals <i>eventually</i>, 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 <i>Sixteenth Century Journal</i> contained helpful feedback (It was also the most polite rejection I have ever received! Kudos to <i>SCJ</i> for that).</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">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 <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mfhAutp0tviajdpJV53SRF2miWE8dds6/view?usp=sharing" target="_blank">GoogleDrive</a>, for those that are interested. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">This is not the first time I have written on Wisdom of Solomon, as the <i>Festschrift</i> for Dr. David Alan Black (the first one) contains my essay "<a href="https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07FXZD5R5/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i2" target="_blank">Wisdom and the Sojourning Saints or Christ and the Wandering Sinners? The Wilderness Wandering Motif in Hebrews as a Reaction to Wisdom of Solomon.</a>"</span></p>Paul A Himeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07238272703123690959noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3390403314045876459.post-51144610900357435992022-09-29T18:25:00.001-07:002022-09-29T18:28:34.810-07:00Testing the Conspiracy Theory: "Orthodox" vs. "Non-Orthodox" Variants in Jude<p><span style="font-size: medium;">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 <i>TC </i>(I think the next issue, in a few months), so I have begun "dabbling" a bit in Textual Criticism.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"> Recently I had the privilege of being interviewed by Mark Ward on textual variants in Jude. The video can be viewed <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJBp8uufkB8" target="_blank">here</a>. 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."</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The paper itself interacts with both KJV-onlyists and Bart Ehrman's <i>Orthodox Corruption of Scripture</i>. The paper can be viewed on Google Drive <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eNr7doeFbqLCQhlJbG6LDpMER-M_Z0kv/view?usp=sharing" target="_blank">here</a>. 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.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span>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 </span><i>the </i><span>most important factor in determining the correct reading, then </span><i>the entire book of Jude</i><span> should be accepted in the critical texts (specifically the NA28, SBL, and newer Tyndale), not the </span><i>TR</i><span>.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">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 <i>we would be forced to favor the critical texts</i>. 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!</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">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.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">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).</span></p>Paul A Himeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07238272703123690959noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3390403314045876459.post-15324195507339691222022-08-30T15:33:00.000-07:002022-08-30T15:33:02.907-07:00Ruth Anne Reese's new commentary on 1 Peter: initial impressions<p><span style="font-family: trebuchet; font-size: medium;"><span>As a petrine specialist and the author of the Lexham Research Commentary on 1 Peter, I am excited that this</span><span> 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.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: trebuchet; font-size: medium;">In the midst of all that, we are privileged with another <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Peter-New-Cambridge-Bible-Commentary/dp/1316502066/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3KNBE2Z4OR2OC&keywords=ruth+anne+reese+1+peter&qid=1661894272&sprefix=ruth+anne+reese+1+peter%2Caps%2C147&sr=8-1">commentary</a> 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 <i>per se</i>, 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). </span></p><p><span style="font-family: trebuchet; font-size: medium;">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, <i>Crucifixion</i>; Bain, <i>Women's Socioeconomic Status</i>), as well as ancient sources (e.g., Plutarch, <i>Advice to the Bride and Groom</i>). Another strength is that Reese also cites sources outside of New Testament studies to further enrich her observations.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: trebuchet; font-size: medium;">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.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: trebuchet; font-size: medium;">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).</span></p><p><span style="font-family: trebuchet; font-size: medium;">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, "<a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/26423696">Resident Aliens in Mission</a>," in <i>Bulletin for Biblical Research </i>vol. 19 (2009). Nonetheless, Reese's treatments of the various issues are solid, well-informed, and often theologically and practically relevant.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: trebuchet; font-size: medium;">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 <i>The Life and Witness of Peter</i>).</span></p><p><span style="font-family: trebuchet; font-size: medium;">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).</span></p><p><span style="font-family: trebuchet; font-size: medium;">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).</span></p><p><span style="font-family: trebuchet; font-size: medium;">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)</span></p><p><span style="font-family: trebuchet; font-size: medium;">3. In 2:2, regarding what "milk" is referring to, Reese follows Jobes in seeing more christology than bibliology (p. 106).</span></p><p><span style="font-family: trebuchet; font-size: medium;">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).</span></p><p><span style="font-family: trebuchet; font-size: medium;">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 <a href="https://www.logos.com/product/26371/lexham-research-commentary-1-peter">LRC</a> on 1 Peter. Nonetheless, Reese's discussion contains some helpful material.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: trebuchet; font-size: medium;">5. Regarding "the spirits in prison" in 3:19, I <i>think</i> 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). </span></p><p><span style="font-family: trebuchet; font-size: medium;">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).</span></p><p><span style="font-family: trebuchet; font-size: medium;">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.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: trebuchet;"><i>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.</i></span></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p>Paul A Himeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07238272703123690959noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3390403314045876459.post-12268478636274210642022-08-09T12:31:00.003-07:002022-08-17T11:56:43.742-07:00Christians need the Apocalyptic! The Ethical Ramifications of a Literary Style.<div><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;"><span>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 </span><i>Semeia</i><span> back in 1979, and scholarly discussion has had to interact with that definition ever since (see the appendix at the end of this post).</span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">When teaching my Hermeneutics class, focusing on "Apocalyptic Prophecy" as a genre, I like to emphasize three things. Apocalyptic prophecy is: (<b>1.</b>) Epic, in the sense of representing the great conflict between good and evil; (<b>2.</b>) Vividly symbolic, using images, sometimes grotesque images, to represent something; and (<b>3.</b>) Needs to be interpreted (see Daniel 8:15-19).</span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">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:</span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;"><b>Regular prophecy:</b> "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."</span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;"><b>Apocalyptic Prophecy:</b> "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."</span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;"><span>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 <i>prophecy</i>, however. </span><span>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).</span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;"><span>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 H</span><span>arrington, 2003, 179; Lyle, 1998, 70). In other words, how Jude's audience reacts to the present crisis <i>vis-à-vis</i> false teachers and their temptations has other-worldly and eternal ramifications.</span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">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 <i>merely</i> 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).</span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;"><span>In other words, </span><span>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 <i>today</i>, 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.</span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><b><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">Sources cited:</span></b></div><div><b><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></b></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">The paragraph on Jude was paraphrasing some material from my forthcoming Lexham Research Commentary on Jude (Lexham Press/Logos).</span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">Collins, John J. "Introduction: Toward the Morphology of a Genre." <i>Semeia</i> 14 (1979): 1-19.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">Harrington, Daniel J. "Jude." In <i>1 Peter, Jude and 2 Peter</i>, by Donald P. Senior and Daniel J. Harrington. Sacra Pagina. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 2003.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">Lyle, Kenneth R., Jr. <i>Ethical Admonition in the Epistle of Jude</i>. Studies in Biblical Literature 4. New York: Peter Lang, 1998.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">Richard, Earl J. <i>Reading 1 Peter, Jude, and 2 Peter: A Literary and Theological Commentary</i>. Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2001.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><b><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">Appendix: John J. Collins' definitions of "Apocalypse":</span></b></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">“‘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.” </span></div>Paul A Himeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07238272703123690959noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3390403314045876459.post-85282247668207827352022-06-23T15:20:00.002-07:002022-06-27T08:28:37.180-07:00James K. Hoffmeier's recent article on the Exodus route<p><span style="font-size: medium;">[<i style="font-weight: bold;">Update, June 27th: </i>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 <i>Bible and Spade</i> (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. <b>It obviously was plenty deep enough to require a tremendous miracle</b> for Israel to pass through while drowning Pharaoh's army." (Emphasis added)]</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">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," </span><i>Tyndale Bulletin</i><span style="font-size: large;"> 72, no. 2 (2021): 73-95.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Kudos to <i>TynB </i>for switching to a fully open-access model, and Hoffmeier's article can be accessed for free here <a href="https://tyndalebulletin.org/article/32999-the-hebrew-exodus-from-and-jeremiah-s-eisodus-into-egypt-in-the-light-of-recent-archaeological-and-geological-developments">here</a>.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">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 <i>yom sooph</i> identified in the article "was the sea traversed by the escaping Hebrews," then consequently "it was <u>a large lake with deep waters</u>, 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.</span></p>Paul A Himeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07238272703123690959noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3390403314045876459.post-23968596222443745752022-04-28T14:53:00.019-07:002022-04-28T16:03:33.923-07:00Slandering the New King James Bible . . . with statistics!<p><span style="font-size: medium;"><i>Note: the screenshots are from Accordance version 11.2.4 (OakTree Software 2016), and I utilized Accordance for the data as well</i>.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">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"]).</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">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 <u>New</u> King James version omits "God" or a name of God some 100 times.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">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 <i>Accordance</i> 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.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">For those short on time, I give my conclusion here in a nutshell. If one wishes to take the <i>TR</i> 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 <b>New </b>King James has the superior reading in <b>Acts 7:20</b> (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 <i>Kurios</i> 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 <i>Theos</i> ("God") or anything remotely similar. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><i>Acts 7:20 in Accordance Bible Software, NKJV in the middle:</i></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjA2--HDS_r_2DhyoGpdh3yvhyEm2a0r6_RjDVGP2DZP66kmh-Y3OLAiFozKAelguYHX5TBDBXIrojmhFSyTTXr2k1m9PjISrbKOCxzo_4uRbm8l3d6uvgfrjhyjPzjrKneH9dflm2HrUYTP2cql8YnVfwOLjmYfdinHFpJuJ5eg4BdbEG7CD0IJuw7/s1280/acts%207%2020.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1024" data-original-width="1280" height="513" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjA2--HDS_r_2DhyoGpdh3yvhyEm2a0r6_RjDVGP2DZP66kmh-Y3OLAiFozKAelguYHX5TBDBXIrojmhFSyTTXr2k1m9PjISrbKOCxzo_4uRbm8l3d6uvgfrjhyjPzjrKneH9dflm2HrUYTP2cql8YnVfwOLjmYfdinHFpJuJ5eg4BdbEG7CD0IJuw7/w641-h513/acts%207%2020.png" width="641" /></a></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">On the other hand, the KJV has an advantage over the NKJV in First Peter 3:20 and First John 3:16. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Before we begin running the data and investigating it, I will acknowledge that some have already adequately refuted this <i>base canard</i>, most notably Tim Branton's informed discussion <a href="https://www.zeolla.org/christian/versions/article/branton/accuses.htm">here</a>. 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).</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>Step 1: Initial search</b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">I have both the King James and the New King James downloaded on <i>Accordance</i>, as well as the Hebrew text and Stephanus' 1550 <i>Textus Receptus</i>. 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):</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">command line--words: "God <OR> GOD <OR> god <OR> God's"</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">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:</span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg4VsGncEQCQIwUxBNtto0XdzetBaIckRvskNrPWtwfhenxLa6BW5u67vvz-6wNvb00mnKnsAgqH7DxKMWkNe73e58porNKOzN1JT23m8xYHZiLUsydt_khCX-uoLJVKAeTkopCeSnpPxx5_tiNpyfyU0RNnRzVNIjQ-RJtrdOmtIsLh3Hh7fUsensk/s1280/initial%20overview%20KJV%20v%20NKJV.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1024" data-original-width="1280" height="457" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg4VsGncEQCQIwUxBNtto0XdzetBaIckRvskNrPWtwfhenxLa6BW5u67vvz-6wNvb00mnKnsAgqH7DxKMWkNe73e58porNKOzN1JT23m8xYHZiLUsydt_khCX-uoLJVKAeTkopCeSnpPxx5_tiNpyfyU0RNnRzVNIjQ-RJtrdOmtIsLh3Hh7fUsensk/w692-h457/initial%20overview%20KJV%20v%20NKJV.png" width="692" /></a></div><p><br /></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">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.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>Step 2: Narrow the range.</b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Since 4,000+ references is a bit tough to work through, let's narrow it down to Genesis at first. By <u>right</u> 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:</span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhMhG-jPRrlGvGWguEdSHTV-GlNe_tBkZIlg-FPT5u5Bkn20mPMZf3dRxfFor6G370MhIPbITxhVEEIV7ha1PonmMbx6KeDI_soIld-1J0htGgpJskbj-WqZSLD1r402DoSGeoo7TR-QW-d-Ht-LEJcEs2butrTsI3fXSiw4lIdRRs54z6p2_0x9Q4G/s1280/range%20narrowed%20Genesis.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1024" data-original-width="1280" height="520" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhMhG-jPRrlGvGWguEdSHTV-GlNe_tBkZIlg-FPT5u5Bkn20mPMZf3dRxfFor6G370MhIPbITxhVEEIV7ha1PonmMbx6KeDI_soIld-1J0htGgpJskbj-WqZSLD1r402DoSGeoo7TR-QW-d-Ht-LEJcEs2butrTsI3fXSiw4lIdRRs54z6p2_0x9Q4G/w642-h520/range%20narrowed%20Genesis.png" width="642" /></a></div><p><br /></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Now, by scrolling through and comparing those two windows, I see that the three places that differ are <b>Genesis 6:5, 44:7, and 44:17</b>.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>Step 3: Compare the differences</b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">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 <i>Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia</i>. This is what it looks like:</span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhoJBdFZAuecpSeYa-YNF__JEu3DZxKhn2qKPPGoht5vwc0-nN40zejSND0mUxqedVjH2JevPTcmPtShLYHDuJGNayuY2uVEWJG_tOdUd3v2DrSkmPMrd9ejMIrAhMWPHMCmbxQu4rcla0zGTeGegGRY2bTJeyzSRbCv1Xp2cM3qv3DmFkIj7M4a7Vi/s1280/Narrowed%20Gen%206%205.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1024" data-original-width="1280" height="511" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhoJBdFZAuecpSeYa-YNF__JEu3DZxKhn2qKPPGoht5vwc0-nN40zejSND0mUxqedVjH2JevPTcmPtShLYHDuJGNayuY2uVEWJG_tOdUd3v2DrSkmPMrd9ejMIrAhMWPHMCmbxQu4rcla0zGTeGegGRY2bTJeyzSRbCv1Xp2cM3qv3DmFkIj7M4a7Vi/w639-h511/Narrowed%20Gen%206%205.png" width="639" /></a></div><p><br /></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">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:</span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiyp-Iij481nMuMUv3KbTkfZqHrzPfiGjOraBdb8_VFgWH6gRvZPsRSNqMMvt5ksvfDRlvQi6mm-ECjuAh9WflNvMA7u5iRO1p-M7_ZNJij9f8Piz3vwuHrK-TQBAhX1XtDBEuBsPvshkNPXiJcvKowm-9U5XZmMeLGg9ZKXLM5E22neCqZ81wsIRCY/s1280/Gen%2044%207.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1024" data-original-width="1280" height="486" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiyp-Iij481nMuMUv3KbTkfZqHrzPfiGjOraBdb8_VFgWH6gRvZPsRSNqMMvt5ksvfDRlvQi6mm-ECjuAh9WflNvMA7u5iRO1p-M7_ZNJij9f8Piz3vwuHrK-TQBAhX1XtDBEuBsPvshkNPXiJcvKowm-9U5XZmMeLGg9ZKXLM5E22neCqZ81wsIRCY/w608-h486/Gen%2044%207.png" width="608" /></a></div><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span>A woodenly literal translation of the Hebrew, third line down from right to left, would be: "[may] these things [be] far away [</span><i>chalil</i><span> with what looks like a directional</span><span> </span><i>heh</i><span>]</span><span> </span><span>in regards to your servants." So the word "God" is</span><span> </span><b>not</b><span> in the Hebrew. The KJV translators were not translating the word "God" but rather using a contemporary English expression. Most importantl</span><span>y,</span><span> </span><b>the NKJV is not omitting the name "God" or a name for God if in fact it was never there to begin with!! </b><span>[T</span><span>his, 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."</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">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" (<i>Elohim</i> or anything else) was never there in the Hebrew.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>Step 4: Check the New Testament</b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">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 <u>net difference</u>, because (shocking!) <b>there are a couple places the NKJV has "God" where the King James does not</b> (more on this later).</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">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):</span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjjP39SQ86gMOP-vuasT9NtO7i3VhBT6VttfQx_ftig1On6YgrZgQa4uBFHKUZenqjUkKDHjmrtRuKIwAiIvpV0LyipHeNT_ZUB8cz7MAfvHOOSzuyKbH9hI0laXfbHj3pnSelUHT3DKNoSSJsBzejvcS8xI7ZvTypEwc5ZxHOtbumoyqUmhkgLHVKu/s1280/Matthew%202%2012.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1024" data-original-width="1280" height="466" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjjP39SQ86gMOP-vuasT9NtO7i3VhBT6VttfQx_ftig1On6YgrZgQa4uBFHKUZenqjUkKDHjmrtRuKIwAiIvpV0LyipHeNT_ZUB8cz7MAfvHOOSzuyKbH9hI0laXfbHj3pnSelUHT3DKNoSSJsBzejvcS8xI7ZvTypEwc5ZxHOtbumoyqUmhkgLHVKu/w582-h466/Matthew%202%2012.png" width="582" /></a></div><p><br /></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Now, you will see very clearly that "God," <i>Theos</i>, is lacking in the Greek. So, again, <b>the NKJV is not omitting "God" or a name of God if the inspired apostolic writer did not actually write it to begin with</b> (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, <i>chrēmatizō</i>). 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 <i>chrēmatizō</i>, it is difficult to understand why the KJV did not translate Acts 11:26 as "called Christians <u>by God</u> first in Antioch" (which, of course, would not make sense).</span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgLsqDn8Xd_THg8G5hxjbRmsi7FfXKgzMMv_wtfbBVKVSktbZLQ0zdFnYExgCNXItt7bCZodhon9NH0yVBZJh21Iz_bqpl-h7_7U_Kgz4dgD_eR_myasAkMkqFicU-WV2KWiV202ye-Kktzu35MFf9fY_0qss4jfYTYPpVMJUVLkvl-Q6g1LMyexNYt/s1280/Greek%20word.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1024" data-original-width="1280" height="450" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgLsqDn8Xd_THg8G5hxjbRmsi7FfXKgzMMv_wtfbBVKVSktbZLQ0zdFnYExgCNXItt7bCZodhon9NH0yVBZJh21Iz_bqpl-h7_7U_Kgz4dgD_eR_myasAkMkqFicU-WV2KWiV202ye-Kktzu35MFf9fY_0qss4jfYTYPpVMJUVLkvl-Q6g1LMyexNYt/w563-h450/Greek%20word.png" width="563" /></a></div><p><br /></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Looking at almost all of the rest of the NT, I can categorize the differences thusly:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span>1. The KJV translator(s) wrote down "God forbid" for <i>mē genoito</i> ("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" (<i>Theos</i>) was not a word that the Spirit-inspired apostle wrote down in the first place. Luke 20:16, </span><span>Romans 3:31, 6:2, 6:15, 7:7, 7:13, 11:11, First Corinthians 6:15, Galatians 2:17</span><span>.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">2. The Greek is <i>opheilō</i>, "I wish" or "I desire," and the KJV translated it "I would to God." First Corinthians 4:8, Second Corinthians 11:1.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">3. In both Second John 10 and 11, the Greek has <i>legō</i> plus <i>charein </i>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."</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">4. The Greek is <i>Kurios</i>, so the NKJV translated it as "Lord" instead of "God." Acts 19:20. Thus the NKJV is more literal here than the KJV. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">5. The Greek is <i>chrēmatizō </i>(as in the example above). Matthew 2:12, Romans 11:4, Hebrews 8:5, 11:7.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span>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, t</span><span>he KJV has "as </span><i>God</i><span> 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 </span><span>First Peter 5:3</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">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 <i>hē tou Theou makrothumia</i>, 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 <b>Acts 7:20</b> would be, by the same logic, enough to demonstrate the inferiority of the KJV.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">8. Another unique case: First John 3:16. Here the KJV has "the love <i>of God</i>," 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 <i>tou Theou</i> ("of God") is in Stephanus' <i>TR</i> as well as the Trinitarian Bible Society's <i>TR</i> (Scrivner's). So did the KJV make a mistake by putting it in italics? And why did the NKJV not include it?</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">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 <i>Theos</i> 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 <b>omits "to God</b>"! You can see it for yourself below:</span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjA2--HDS_r_2DhyoGpdh3yvhyEm2a0r6_RjDVGP2DZP66kmh-Y3OLAiFozKAelguYHX5TBDBXIrojmhFSyTTXr2k1m9PjISrbKOCxzo_4uRbm8l3d6uvgfrjhyjPzjrKneH9dflm2HrUYTP2cql8YnVfwOLjmYfdinHFpJuJ5eg4BdbEG7CD0IJuw7/s1280/acts%207%2020.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1024" data-original-width="1280" height="450" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjA2--HDS_r_2DhyoGpdh3yvhyEm2a0r6_RjDVGP2DZP66kmh-Y3OLAiFozKAelguYHX5TBDBXIrojmhFSyTTXr2k1m9PjISrbKOCxzo_4uRbm8l3d6uvgfrjhyjPzjrKneH9dflm2HrUYTP2cql8YnVfwOLjmYfdinHFpJuJ5eg4BdbEG7CD0IJuw7/w562-h450/acts%207%2020.png" width="562" /></a></div><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Since Stephanus' <i>TR</i> has "to God" (<i>to Theō</i>, τῷ Θεῷ), it's a bit puzzling why the King James does not. Looking at the Trinitarian Bible Society <i>TR</i> (Scrivner's), I find that it also has <i>tō Theō</i>. So I am honestly puzzled why the King James omitted "to God."</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">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 (<i>axiōs tou Theou</i>), with <i>Theos</i> clearly <u>as a noun</u>, I favor the NKJV here just as I favored the KJV in 1 Peter 3:20.</span></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEguEOW9NHeQtXGni5ZKB5TZLjK-9dl6I0XM1UYOkEZjk7MPjInaX9hB-t5yubk9KTYEgs-GV_d1PpsPu9gFAHMQo6Ue-eifUAnJeW2WnB9iCN_PNi90ZacjaIgn2te171H1N5uW2LmgfVSDGiKPaJLbQHL2Rt3lJFsyKMXjLx5XzYI13cRsz7WeZkuL/s1280/3John%206.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1024" data-original-width="1280" height="487" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEguEOW9NHeQtXGni5ZKB5TZLjK-9dl6I0XM1UYOkEZjk7MPjInaX9hB-t5yubk9KTYEgs-GV_d1PpsPu9gFAHMQo6Ue-eifUAnJeW2WnB9iCN_PNi90ZacjaIgn2te171H1N5uW2LmgfVSDGiKPaJLbQHL2Rt3lJFsyKMXjLx5XzYI13cRsz7WeZkuL/w609-h487/3John%206.png" width="609" /></a></div><br /><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span><p></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">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). </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Now, even using a sophisticated program like <i>Accordance</i>, 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 <i>Theos</i> is not what the Apostle wrote; conversely there are only two places (not a hundred, and not dozens) where, if we stick to the <i>TR</i>, 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.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p>Paul A Himeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07238272703123690959noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3390403314045876459.post-57246463744792592322022-04-08T14:15:00.002-07:002022-04-13T15:42:57.991-07:00Has Ugbaru/Gubaru [Gobryas] been dethroned as Daniel's "Darius"? Rodger C. Young's recent JETS article.<p><span style="font-size: medium;">[<i>Added a point of clarification on 4/13/2022</i>]</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">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. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">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 <i>could</i> 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).</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">It is also possible that "Darius" was simply a different name for Cyrus the Great, and the syntax of Dan 6:28 could, <i>in theory</i>, allow for that, but in my opinion that would be unlikely.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Generally, what I have taught my Hebrew History students is that Darius was <i>probably</i> 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).</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Enter Rodger C. Young. In his recent article "Xenophon's Cyaxares: Uncle of Cyrus, Friend of Daniel," <i>Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society</i> 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]</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">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 <i>JETS</i> articles to come out in recent years.</span></p>Paul A Himeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07238272703123690959noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3390403314045876459.post-20618871077641596092022-02-12T11:16:00.004-08:002022-02-18T09:49:19.444-08:00John R. Rice: The Last Revivalist of the 20th Century (new book by my father, John R. Himes)<p> <span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">I am pleased to announce that my father, 30+ year veteran missionary to Japan and now my fellow colleague at BCM, has just published </span><i style="font-family: inherit;">John R. Rice: Last Revivalist of the 20th Century</i><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">. 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.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">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 <u>is</u> 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).</span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">Naturally the book will be very positively-oriented (that can hardly be helped), but it is <u>not</u> 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."</span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">For now, the book may be purchased from the website of "On to Victory Press" <a href="https://ontovictorypress.com/product/john-r-rice-the-last-revivalist-of-the-twentieth-century/">here</a>. 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.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p>Paul A Himeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07238272703123690959noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3390403314045876459.post-59489077968099608682022-01-05T11:36:00.004-08:002022-01-06T06:45:13.084-08:00Born Again from Incorruptible Seed: 1 Peter 1:23-25 and eternal security<p><span style="font-size: medium;">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.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">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.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Recently the online journal <i>Sacrum Testamentum</i> published my article "'Born Again from Incorruptible Seed': The Irrevocable Nature of Salvation in 1 Peter." The specific article is linked to <a href="https://8325c28f-bb46-49f6-b716-b201ebad2f47.filesusr.com/ugd/552dd1_33634cc2f7004e9abc5cfac960d1e343.pdf">here</a>, and the whole issue can be read <a href="https://sacratestamentum.wixsite.com/sacrum-testamentum/copy-of-volume-1">here</a>. <i>Sacrum Testamentum</i> is not as well-known or prestigious (not in the same ballpark as <i>JETS</i>, <i>BBR</i>, <i>BibSac</i>, 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).</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">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:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">"</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT; font-size: 12pt;">Secondly, one must ask: if one is currently a child of the divine nature, can such status be lost? </span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT; font-size: 12pt;">In other words, can one’s 'born</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT; font-size: 12pt;">-</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT; font-size: 12pt;">again' status be revoked?</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT; font-size: 8pt; vertical-align: 4pt;"> </span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT; font-size: 12pt;">Only if the divine seed could be corrupted or </span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT; font-size: 12pt;">destroyed, and the Word of God’s creation of the new birth within somebody be </span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT; font-size: 12pt;">voided. Yet to this possibility both Isaiah and Peter </span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT; font-size: 12pt;">respond with a definitive '</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT; font-size: 12pt;">N</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT; font-size: 12pt;">o!' </span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT; font-size: 12pt;">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)</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT; font-size: 12pt;">. This is the whole point of Peter’s argument. While man either chooses to </span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT; font-size: 12pt;">accept or reject the Word of God and the resurrected Christ (1 Pet 2:4</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT; font-size: 12pt;">–</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT; font-size: 12pt;">8), both the giving and the sustaining of that new life is the work of God, not man.</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT; font-size: 8pt; vertical-align: 4pt;">75</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT; font-size: 12pt;"> [citing Feldmeier's essay; see below] Thus 1 Pet 1:23 stresses that the Word of God which initiates rebirth </span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS; font-size: 12pt; font-style: italic;">remains forever</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT; font-size: 12pt;">, i.e., 'can never be made ineffective'</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT; font-size: 12pt;">!</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT; font-size: 8pt; vertical-align: 4pt;">76</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT; font-size: 12pt;">" [quoting from Peter H. Davids, </span><i style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT; font-size: 12pt;">The First Epistle of Peter</i><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT; font-size: 12pt;">].</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">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: </span><span style="font-size: large;">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 </span><i>Wiedergeburt</i><span style="font-size: large;">, ed. Reinhard Feldmeier, Biblisch-theologische Schwerpunkte (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecth, 2005). Also, Martin Williams has written an entire monograph on soteriology in 1 Peter, </span><i>The Doctrine of Salvation in the First Letter of Peter</i><span style="font-size: large;">, SNTSMS 149 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011).</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p>Paul A Himeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07238272703123690959noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3390403314045876459.post-7680929079932805462021-11-24T11:55:00.003-08:002021-11-24T11:55:58.419-08:00Mounce's Greek Grammar, 4th ed.: A mini-review<p><span style="font-size: medium;"><i>Full disclosure: I teach Greek Syntax and advanced seminary Greek, but not 1st year Greek Grammar. I have, however, taught beginning Greek in the past and also tutored students in Greek</i>.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">400,000 purchaser's can't all be wrong! I think that this would be a fair observation regarding William D. Mounce's <i>Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar</i>, 4th ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2019). It's been approximately 20 years since I first cracked open my copy of Mounce's 1st edition back in my Maranatha days; it served me well enough back then, and it has continued to serve other students well through three more iterations.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span>Now, here's the thing about 1st year Greek grammars: (1.) Theres a <u>ton</u> of them out there, and (2.) like sports teams, everybody has their favorite, which they can defend vociferously because </span><span>. . . well, just </span><i>because</i><span>. What I'm trying to say is, there's a level of subjectivity involved with this kind of analysis, and the ultimate bottom line is, "Did the grammar help you read your Greek New Testament?" All other issues are secondary.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">From that perspective, Mounce's grammar is a raging success, but then so are most grammars with a halfway competent teacher and a group of students who are not forced into the class against their will. What sets apart Mounce, to a certain degree, is (1.) a heavy focus on memorization and paradigms, (2.) a straightforward "nouns-to-verbs" approach in progression, and (3.) an effective integration with online material such as "FlashWorks."</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The first two points can be somewhat controversial. There is nothing "fancy" about Mounce's pedagogical perspective, and I'm actually quite ok with that (many may wish to look elsewhere for "total immersion" methods, etc.) The paradigm layout, in my opinion, is effective enough, though intelligent teachers may wish to adapt them somewhat (it's easy enough to make one's own charts on MS Word).</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">As to Mounce's decision to complete nouns, adjectives, and pronouns before even dipping the toe into present indicative, this stands in stark contrast with many other grammars these days, including that of my own <i>Doktorvater</i> David Alan Black, who introduces verbs on chapter 2, and Stanley Porter, who introduces 1st Aorist verbs in chapter 4 (and before present tense! Which, to be fair, from his linguistic perspective actually makes sense). I have mixed feelings about that, but naturally the inventive professor is free to adjust the schedule in which his or her class tackles those chapters, anyways.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The third point is an ongoing, cumulative improvement since the first edition, and the range of possibilities inherent within "FlashWorks" is incredible, for those willing to get their hands a bit dirty (I will confess, however, that a couple aspects of the Hebrew vocab version of FlashWorks drives me nuts; I haven't used the Greek side as much, and not at all as a teacher, so I can't comment too much on it).</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Now, one point of critique (and this critique applies equally well to other grammars). The discussion of "aspect" (e.g., page 155) is, I believe, potentially misleading. Mounce, like others, conflates "aspect" with "<i>aktionsart" </i>(at least in my opinion), which has the potential to cause confusion for students going on to deeper study. In addition, since we are using the "imperfect" label for a <i>tense</i> (ch. 21), it seems needlessly confusing to use "imperfective" as an aspectual label (ch. 27) when referring to the present tense, when, in fact, we're really talking about <i>aktionsart</i> anyways. There's got to be a better way. (And, again, the Greek verbal system is probably the most controversial aspect of the <i>Koine</i> language in the NT, so good people may differ).</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Overall, though, Mounce's <i>Grammar</i> is a significant improvement over previous editions of what has already been a top-tier introduction to biblical Greek. The book looks better than the oddly-tall 3rd edition (which wasn't <i>bad</i>, really, just a bit cumbersome), the layout of the chapters is better (e.g., the "halftime review"), and it integrates well with the free "FlashWorks" software. Kudos to Mounce and Zondervan Academic for their excellent work!</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p>Paul A Himeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07238272703123690959noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3390403314045876459.post-75269010199424963722021-10-15T09:36:00.001-07:002021-10-18T06:47:57.909-07:00Only a Sinner Saved by Grace: A Mini-Review of the New Autobiography of Ed Nelson<p><span style="font-size: medium;">I am privileged to have recently finished the autobiography of evangelist and pastor Ed Nelson, <i>Only A Sinner Saved by Grace, </i>written with his granddaughter, Emilee Nelson (Castle Rock, CO: Mile Hi, 2020). The book can be purchased <a href="https://www.ednelsonevangelistic.org/product/a-sinner-saved-by-grace/">here</a>, and is also available on "Audible.com"</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">This autobiography has three key things going for it: spiritual edification, enjoyable prose, and honesty about mistakes (this last point, in my humble-but-opinionated opinion, is an element minimized in all too many Christian biographies and autobiographies). I have a lot of praise for this book (it is definitely worth its weight in gold), though at the end I will also offer two minor critiques.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">In addition, I would like to point out that this book serves as a valuable <u>primary source</u> on important figures </span><span style="font-size: medium;"><span>and some key events</span><span> of 20th century fundamentalism . Consequently non-fundamentalists researching these topics will find value in this book, even if they are not necessarily sympathetic to some of the theological commitments that marked Dr. Nelson's ministry.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Ed Nelson was born December 1923, and is alive today, approaching 100, as I type these words! He has been both a pastor and an evangelist, has ministered to the persecuted church in Russia (ch. 35), and has left quite the legacy within independent Baptist circles (our library, here at Baptist College of Ministry, is named after him). He is and has been a staunch fundamentalist, but one who is nonetheless critical of some elements of fundamentalism such as King James Onlyism (pages 365-7) and Jack Hyles (ch. 31). He was on "ground-zero," so to speak, of some conflicts within fundamentalism and broader conservative evangelicalism (the lines were not so rigidly drawn in the 50s and 60s). Chapter 20 details why he left the Conservative Baptist Association, which oversaw Denver Seminary (yes, <i>that</i> Denver Seminary). I will point out the obvious: this book has the potential to be very controversial, in some settings! Regardless, here are three key points that make this book very valuable:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>Spiritual edification</b>: The key word for much of this book is: Providence. From the gripping description of the farm accident that almost killed young Ed when he was 17 years old, to his profession of faith at the fourth night of Bob Jones' preaching (after swearing not to go back), to the circumstances (Bright's disease) that kept him in America as an evangelist rather than as a missionary to Japan--all this demonstrates God's sovereign guidance and direction in Dr. Nelson's life. Throughout the book you will also see Dr. Nelson's passion for souls, love for family, and faith in God's supernatural ability to intervene in the affairs of men, and you will be challenged accordingly.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>Quality of writing</b>: The book is well-written. This is a testament both to Ed Nelson's ability as a story-teller and Emilee Nelson's literary skill. The opening chapter (when a 14-year old Ed almost died) is a gripping way to start off the book, and the narrative flows easily. The book is definitely not technical, and yet it does not dive to an overly-simplistic or idiosyncratic level that one might occasionally expect outside of a major publisher. Furthermore, I experienced multiple "laugh-out-loud" moments (e.g., when a 94-year-old Dr. Nelson finally realizes why he shouldn't be driving anymore . . .).</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>Honesty</b>: Compared to the rest of the staff here at my beloved BCM, I probably read less Christian biographies (though I've begun to gravitate to historical biographies: currently finishing Chernow's biography of Grant and Norman Schwarzkopf's autobiography with Peter Petre). When I do read a Christian biography, it's more likely to be that of a unique German theologian than somebody more from my own circles (e.g., James Edwards' <i>Between the Swastika and the Sickle </i>about Ernst Lohmeyer). One reason I do not read so many Christian biographies is that, rightly or wrongly, I feel that too many of them are "hagiographies." It seems that often the only negative thing one learns about the minister in question is some sort of lack of faith that they overcome, resulting in decades of glorious reaping of the spiritual harvest. Rarely, especially in <i>auto</i>biographies, is the person in question held accountable for real <i>mistakes</i> that had lasting impact. Case in point: C. T. Studd's separation from his wife for <u>13 years</u> is rarely given more than a brief mention, when in my opinion such abandonment is the equivalent of divorce (for the record: I do <u>not</u> believe God would call a Christian minister to such deliberate abandonment of a spouse for the sake of ministry; God does not call us to sin for the sake of doing good, and such deliberate separation is utterly contrary to the whole purpose of marriage).</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Now, I say all that to say this: Dr. Nelson's honesty is refreshing. He discusses two major mistakes in his ministry: 1. Allowing his wife to reach the point where she suffered a mental and physical breakdown (which they were able to overcome, and learn from), and 2. Estrangement from his son (this latter issue is not dealt with as specifically, but Dr. Nelson takes much of the blame; still, it's hard not to sympathize with him somewhat on this one since his son has apparently refused all attempts at reconciliation to this day). This openness on the part of Dr. Nelson makes me appreciate his godly character <u>more</u>; his candor about mistakes does not detract from his character, it adds to it. I wish more Christian biographies and autobiographies were like this. Sometimes we can learn from the mistakes of others just as much as their successes. This, after all, is why divinely-inspired Scripture does not hold back from showing us the mistakes of its heroes.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>Two minor critiques</b>: Only Scripture is inerrant, so any book review I write will gently offer at least some critique. These are minor issues, however, that do not detract from the enjoyment nor spiritual edification offered by the book. [And, for the record, I am not one of these profs. that refuses to give a student a 100% on the basis that nobody is perfect!]</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">(1.) First, on the one hand this book at times offers a lot of clarity on the fundamentalist ethos (e.g., the criticisms of Billy Graham were appropriate without being overdone, imo, especially when considering what was essentially his betrayal of the persecuted church in Russia in 1982, though this is <u>not</u> the basis on which we should judge the entirety of his ministry). Having said that, there are times that the book could have offered more information to help the reader understand what, exactly, was going on, or perhaps briefly offered the other side of the story. The academic in me cringes a little bit in dismissing Denver Seminary as simply "A CBA school that was compromising" (p. 196). This is probably true to a certain degree from our fundamentalist perspective, but it is hardly the whole story. Even today Denver Seminary includes some evangelical "all-stars" amongst its faculty who, while hardly fundamentalist, have nonetheless taken strong conservative positions against modernism and have proven very helpful for my own studies (I'm thinking here especially of Craig Blomberg and Richard Hess).</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">(2.) Second, a book like this needs an index! [I am very opinionated about indices!!] An index would help a valuable primary source like this become more accessible to the researcher.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>Conclusion:</b> So there you have it! This book is a must-buy for: (1.) anybody interested in the story of a very important evangelist and pastor within independent Baptist circles in the second half of the 20th century; (2.) anybody who wishes to be spiritually challenged by a gripping and <u>honest</u> autobiography; and (3.) anybody researching fundamentalist history in the second half of the 20th century.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><br /></p>Paul A Himeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07238272703123690959noreply@blogger.com3