A Brief Response to Rick Brown’s “Brief Analysis of Filial and Paternal Terms in the Bible.”

Rick Brown of the Wycliffe Bible Translators has published an article in which he maintains that the Greek word υἱος denotes a “social son” rather than a biological son in the New Testament. His purpose is to provide some exegetical basis for the “Muslim Idiom” policy of his organization, in which translators have been encouraged to avoid using ordinary words meaning “son” in receptor languages wherever Jesus is called the υἱος of God in the New Testament. (See the collection of articles on “Muslim Idiom” policy on my site for more information on this controversial practice).

But the article is unconvincing, because it relies on word-study fallacies and misleading statements about the meaning of Greek words. Here I will interact with only one of his statements. Brown writes:

When the Greek Bible talks of people being “sons of God” it uses huios, the broad word for son, not gennêma “offspring.” Jesus is described as God’s huios “son.” (p. 123)

This statement is misleading because it implies that the New Testament writers would have used γεννημα instead of υἱος if they had wanted to use a word that denoted a biological son, as distinguished from a “social son.” But here are the linguistic facts:

1. In the Greek Bible, υἱος ordinarily refers to a biological son, and a biological son is ordinarily called a υἱος.

2. The singular noun γεννημα, in the other hand, is never used to refer to sons in the NT, and it is used for human beings only by a metaphor in which groups of people are likened to the “offspring of vipers” (Mt 3:7, Mt 12:34, Mt 23:33, Lk 3:7).

3. In the Septuagint we find only the plural of γεννημα, which occurs only twice, both times with reference to human offspring, but in an apparently derogatory sense (Judges 1:10 and Sirach 10:18).

4. In the post-apostolic period we find the plural of γεννημα used once in Didache 13:3, with reference to the “fruits” of plants and the “offspring” of animals. (πᾶσαν οὖν ἀπαρχὴν γεννημάτων ληνοῦ καὶ ἅλωνος, βοῶν τε καὶ προβάτων λαβὼν δώσεις τὴν ἀπαρχὴν τοῖς προφήταις· αὐτοὶ γάρ εἰσιν οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς ὑμῶν. “Hence take all the first fruits of vintage and harvest, and of cattle and sheep, and give these first fruits to the prophets. For they are your high priests.”)

From these facts it seems clear that γεννημα was a rather general and abstract word which was used of the offspring of animals but rarely used of human beings. The absence of any occurrences of the singular form in our literature is notable. It resembles our English word “offspring” in meaning and in usage. It was rarely used of human sons, and the only attestation for such a use is when more than one is being referred to. We conclude that Jesus is not called a γεννημα of God in the Bible simply because it was not idiomatic. Because the word γεννημα is never used to refer to a son in the Bible.

There are a number of other problems in this article, which lead me to conclude that Brown is not a competent interpreter. But I will not spend more time interacting with it now. Against the general thrust of it, see Friedrich Büchsel’s discussion of “Generation by the Deity” under γενναω in TDNT 1, pp. 668-675.

ESV changes for 2011

About a month ago the publisher of the ESV announced that it had made some changes in the version this year, and it provided a list of them. I have to give them credit for providing the list, because other Bible publishers typically make little changes like this without even announcing them. But unfortunately the list was presented on 27 pages in a macromedia flash container, which could not be downloaded and printed, or posted elsewhere. What's up with that? I can't think of any good reason for putting out information like this in such an incovenient form. It would have been much easier for them, and more convenient for everyone else, to put it in an html document, or a pdf. Anyway, I went and did a screenshot of each page of the list and assembled all the images in pdf file. Here it is. But be warned, it's a 4 MB file. Maybe someone else who has more time can make a text version of it for everyone.

I'm not going to comment on the changes right now. There's a discussion over at Justin Taylor's blog. I agree with the commenters who think the changes were not necessary or helpful, and especially with the point made by the last commenter: "repeatedly obsoleting a translation used in community contexts is problematic."

“The Kingdom of God Is Within You”

Readers of the King James Version will be familiar with the saying, “the kingdom of God is within you,” a literal rendering of the words ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ ἐντὸς ὑμῶν ἐστιν spoken by Christ in Luke 17:21. Several modern versions have instead “the kingdom of God is in the midst of you,” for theological reasons.

The new rendering is used only because the translators think it is theologically impossible that Jesus would say that the Kingdom of God is “within” people. But there is no clear attestation for such a meaning as “among” or “in the midst” for the adverb ἐντὸς in any ancient Greek source. It is indisputable that “within” is the ordinary meaning, and the immediate context here also seems to favor this meaning. Here Christ is obviously contrasting the outward appearance (μετὰ παρατηρήσεως “with observation,” v. 20) with the inner spiritual reality of God’s rule. It was understood thus by the translators of all the ancient versions, and by all the Church fathers. Moreover, as S.C. Carpenter explains, “For ‘among’ S. Luke would have said ἐν μέσῳ, which occurs seven times in his Gospel (see especially xxii. 27) and four times in Acts.” (Christianity according to S. Luke [London: S.P.C.K., 1919], p. 103.) See also the more recent discussion in Nigel Turner, Grammatical Insights into the New Testament (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1965), pp. 61-3. A thorough review of the linguistic evidence is given in an article published online: Ilaria Ramelli, “Luke 17:21: ‘The Kingdom of God is inside you.’ The Ancient Syriac Versions in Support of the Correct Translation,” Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies 12/2 (Summer 2009), pp. 259-286. The circumstance that in Luke’s narrative these words are addressed to unbelieving Jews does not make any difference, because as Olshausen says, “The expression ἐντὸς ὑμῶν does not make the Pharisees members of the kingdom of God, but only sets before them the possibility of their being received into it, inasmuch as an internal and spiritual manifestation is made its universal criterion.”

After reviewing all the linguistic evidence presented by Ramelli, and weighing the arguments of commentators, I must agree with the translators of the KJV and with Olshausen, whose comments I reproduce below. The “in the midst” rendering does not accurately represent what Luke wrote here; it represents an interpretation of the phrase, which belongs not in the text but in the margin. If Luke had meant to convey this interpretation of the dominical saying, he would not have used the word ἐντὸς.

---

Olshausen on Luke 17:20-21.

Excerpt from Biblical Commentary on the New Testament by Dr. Hermann Olshausen … Translated from the German for Clark’s Foreign and Theological Library. First American Edition. Revised after the Fourth German Edition, by A.C. Kendrick. Vol. 2 (New York: Sheldon & Co., 1860), pp. 88-9.

Ver. 20, 21.—Without particularly explaining the occasion, the Evangelist opens his narrative with a remark that the Pharisees had enquired of Jesus as to the time (πότε, when), of the coming of the kingdom. (Whether it was in the village itself, ver. 12, or in what other place, is not said.) The Saviour first deals with the curious and proud enquirers, and then subjoins (at ver. 22) instructions addressed to the disciples. Hence the brevity of Christ’s remark (as Schleiermacher rightly says, loc. cit.) has here its genuine significancy. For the question “When cometh the kingdom of God?” (πότε ἔρχεται ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ), obviously expresses not merely the superficial views of the Pharisees, but their self-complacent ignorance (xviii. 9). Themselves they regarded as sufficiently, by birth and theocratic position, constituted the legitimate subjects of the expected kingdom. And it therefore merely concerned them to ascertain the opinion of Jesus as to the time of its appearance. In opposition therefore to these materialistic views and hopes of the Pharisees, was to be brought forward the spiritual aspect of the kingdom of God. This our Lord does by annihilating, in the first place, their expectations of a splendid manifestation. All of outward glory which the Pharisees had conceived as combined in the rearing of an earthly Messianic kingdom, is comprehensively expressed by the term παρατήρησις, observation. (The expression is in the New Testament found only here; it denotes literally the act of perceiving, of observing; and then, secondarily, every thing that excites observation. At Exod. xii. 42, Aquila has rendered שמרים by παρατηρήσεις.) In the second place, the Saviour withdraws the kingdom of God wholly from the local and phenomenal world,—οὐδὲ ἐροῦσιν, ἰδοὺ ὧδε, ἰδοὺ ἐκεῖ, nor shall they say, lo here, lo there, and transfers it, finally, to the world of spirit (ἐντὸς ὑμῶν ἐστιν, is within you.) The expression ἐντὸς ὑμῶν does not make the Pharisees members of the kingdom of God, but only sets before them the possibility of their being received into it, inasmuch as an internal and spiritual manifestation is made its universal criterion. The explanation of ἐντὸς ὑμῶν by “among you,” which has been adopted not only by [Heinrich Eberhard Gottlob] Paulus, [Ferdinand Florens] Fleck, [Friedrich Wilhelm Bernhard] Bornemann, but also by [Wilhelm Martin Leberecht] De Wette, must be utterly rejected for this reason, that the clause so understood forms no contrast to the antecedent “lo here.” The ἐστι, is, is no farther significant, than as indicating that the kingdom was at that moment existing in some of them. It may seem, however, that this ideal view of the kingdom of God is in contradiction to the following discourse (addressed to the disciples), in which the “day of the Son of Man,” is referred to in such terms as represent it as an outward fact producing outward effects. These effects, it is true, in so far as they wear an aspect of terror, form a counterpart to the “observation” anticipated by the Pharisees, and the coming of the Son of Man is represented as an instantaneous and overwhelming phenomenon, in contrast to the ὧδε, here, and ἐκεῖ, there (ver. 21). Still, however, it remains true that the kingdom is here represented as external, while at ver. 21 it is styled within you. (Still more definitely do Matth. xxiv. and Luke xxi. represent the appearance of the kingdom as an external one.) Yet this twofold conception and portraiture of the manifested kingdom of God (see on Matth. iii. 2), present it under those two aspects which mutually complete each other. The kingdom of God shews itself as purely spiritual in its origin, and also external in its perfection. It appeared in its spiritual form, while Christ was present in his humiliation. And for this reason does the Saviour bring before the Pharisees that aspect of it, in regard to which they were wholly mistaken. In its external manifestation shall the kingdom of God reveal itself, when Christ comes in his glory, and in this form does the Saviour particularly set it forth at Matth. xxiv. and Luke xxi. Here he brings forward the future revelation of the kingdom only in connexion with the fact, that periods of suffering must precede it, and that the appearance of the Son of God himself will bring dismay upon a world entangled in the sensual pursuits of life. By this means would the disciples, on the one hand, be comforted amidst their approaching struggles, and aroused to watchfulness, that they might encounter them in faith; while, on the other side, the Pharisees would be impressed with the conviction that the manifestation of the kingdom did not necessarily carry with it any thing of a joyful nature to them; but, on the contrary, would bring upon them destruction (as happened to those living in the time of Noah and Lot), unless they were enabled to acknowledge and embrace the kingdom of God in its spiritual and internal revelation, as it presented itself in the appearance of the suffering Son of Man.

Internet Resources on the Anglo-Saxon Versions

During the month of October I have been working on some web resources for the study of the (medieval) Anglo-Saxon Versions. I have added two new pages to the “Anglo Saxon” section, and I have collected a few links to other resources on the web:

• General: The Anglo-Saxon Versions. Collection of articles on the Anglo Saxon versions by Michael Marlowe.
• Wessex Gospels:
  • Bright’s editions: The Gospel of Saint Matthew in West-Saxon (1904); The Gospel of Saint Mark in West-Saxon (1905); The Gospel of Saint Luke in Anglo-Saxon (1893); The Gospel of Saint John in West-Saxon (1906); and see also the extracts from other texts included in Bright’s Anglo-Saxon Reader.
  • Foxe: The Gospels of the Fower Euangelistes: translated in the olde Saxons tyme out of Latin in the vulgare toung of the Saxons, newly collected out of auncient monumentes of the sayd Saxons, and now published for testimonie of the same (1571).
  • Thorpe: Ða Halgan Godspel on Englisc: the Anglo-Saxon Version of the Holy Gospels, edited from the Original Manuscripts, by Benjamin Thorpe (London: Rivington, 1842).
  • Bosworth and Waring: Gothic and Anglo-Saxon Gospels in Parallel Columns with the Versions of Wycliffe and Tyndale (1874, also here).
  • The Polyglot Bible. By Mark Davies at Brigham Young University. This resource includes the Gospel of Luke in Anglo-Saxon.
• West Saxon Psalms (Paris Psalter):
  • Thorpe’s edition: Libri Psalmorum Versio Antiqua Latina; cum Paraphrasi Anglo-Saxonica, partim soluta oratione, partim metrice composita (1835, also here).
  • Bright and Ramsay: Liber Psalmorum: The West-Saxon Psalms, being the Prose Portion, or the first fifty, of the so-called Paris Psalter, edited by Bright and Ramsay (1907, also here).
  • Richard Stracke’s online edition: An edition of the Latin and Old English of the first fifty psalms in the Paris Psalter (ms. bibliothèque nationale fonds latin 8824), with introduction, notes, and glossary.
• Vespasian Psalter:
  • Sweet’s transcription, in The Oldest English Texts, edited with Introductions and a Glossary by Henry Sweet (London: Early English Text Society, 1885).
• Cædmon:
  • Thorpe’s edition: Cædmon’s Metrical Paraphrase of Parts of the Holy Scriptures in Anglo-Saxon; with an English Translation, Notes, and a Verbal Index (1832, also here).
  • The Cædmon Manuscript: parts of Genesis, Exodus and Daniel in Old English verse, illustrated with Anglo-Saxon drawings, c. A.D. 1000. From the Early Manuscripts at Oxford University. Extremely large (3-4 megabyte) digital facsimiles of complete manuscripts, scanned directly from the originals.
  • A transcription of the Cædmon Manuscript (Codex Junius 11) and of the Paris Psalter are online at the Labyrinth Library of Old English Literature.
  • Modern English translation of the Cædmon manuscript (Codex Junius 11). By George W. Kennedy, The Caedmon Poems (New York, 1916). Provided by the Online Medieval and Classical Library.
  • The Complete Corpus of Anglo-Saxon Poetry has electronic texts of many Anglo-Saxon works, including the text of the Caedmon poems and the Paris Psalter.
• Northumbrian and Mercian Glosses:
  • The Lindisfarne and Rushworth Gospels (Durham: Surtees Society, 1854, 1861, 1863, 1865): part 1 (Matthew); part 2 (Mark); part 3 (Luke); part 4 (John).
  • Walter Skeat’s Anglo-Saxon and Northumbrian Versions, Synoptically Arranged: Matthew; Mark; Luke; John.
• Ælfric’s Heptateuch:
  • Crawford’s edition of Ælfric: The Old English Version of the Heptateuch, Aelfric’s Treatise on the Old and New Testament and his Preface to Genesis, edited from all the existing mss. and fragments with an introduction and three appendices, together with a reprint of “A Saxon treatise concerning the Old and New Testament: now first published in print with English of our times by William L’Isle of Wilburgham (1623)” and the Vulgate text of the Heptateuch, by S.J. Crawford (London: Early English Text Society, 1922). Also here and here.
  • Michel van der Hoek’s Anglo-Saxon Bible website offers transcriptions of Ælfric’s Heptateuch and the Wessex Gospels.
  • Cotton MS Claudius B IV from the 11th century, containing Ælfric’s version (imperfect).
  • Images of some parts of an 11th century MS. of Ælfric’s version of the Heptateuch (Oxford, Bodleian Library, Laud. Misc. 509) are available on Luna at the Bodleian Library.
  • C.W.M. Grein, ed., Älfrik de Vetere et Novo Testamento, Pentateuch, Josua, Buch der Richter und Job (Cassel & Goettingen: Wigand, 1872, also here).
  • Edward Thwaites, ed., Heptateuchus, Liber Job, et Evangelium Nicodemi; Anglo-Saxonice (Oxford, 1698, also here).
• Related matter:
  • Sermons of Ælfric: Benjamin Thorpe, ed., The Homilies of the Anglo-Saxon Church: The First Part, Containing the Sermones Catholici, Or Homilies of Ælfric (London: Ælfric Society, 1844).

The Three Bells

“And the little congregation prayed for guidance from above … ”

I’m old enough to remember this song on the radio. It reached no. 1 on the Billboard chart in 1959, and was often played on the radio during the 60's, when I was growing up. Do you young people know what this country used to be? Listen to the words of this song.

Translation of the Tetragrammaton

My new article on the Tetragrammaton is now online. As usual, I find it hard to stop revising and adding information to a new article, but I will leave it alone for a while now. This is an interesting and complicated subject, and I hope I've treated it in a helpful way.

Dead Sea Scrolls Now Available Online

The Israel Museum in Jerusalem has now made high-resolution images of the Dead Sea Scrolls available online at its website here.

“Developed in partnership with Google, the new website gives users access to searchable, fast-loading, high-resolution images of the scrolls, as well as short explanatory videos and background information on the texts and their history.”

“The five Dead Sea Scrolls that have been digitized thus far include the Great Isaiah Scroll, the Community Rule Scroll, the Commentary on Habakkuk Scroll, the Temple Scroll, and the War Scroll … All five scrolls can be magnified so that users may examine texts in exacting detail.”