The Wartburg Project

The Top Ten Reasons that the EHV Is a Worship-Friendly Translation

2026-10-29T05:00:00+00:00

"The EHV focuses on the public use of the text." 10 reasons the EHV is suited to a public worship setting.

Fascinating Facts, Puzzling Problems, and Matters of Taste: People of the Bible

2026-07-31T00:00:00+00:00

A book presented in 17 lessons "designed to support our devotional reading of the Bible and to connect us more closely to the people of the Bible."

Books and Articles by John Brug

2026-07-10T00:00:00+00:00

This document contains a catalog of works by John Brug, who, in addition to serving as General Editor of the EHV, has served as a parish pastor and longtime seminary professor.

Why an EHV Study Bible?

2026-06-30T00:00:00+00:00

"Even before the Wartburg Project began, the number one concern was that we would have the ability to produce a confessional Lutheran Study Bible at a reasonable cost, using a text that would not be withdrawn from use."

The Microsoft EHV Study Bible

2026-06-30T00:00:00+00:00

The Microsoft EHV Study Bible

The NIV Zondervan Study Bible - Wartburg Project Review

2026-06-30T00:00:00+00:00

"The theology presented in the Zondervan Study Bible (ZSB) makes it unsuitable for confessional Lutherans or anyone wishing to simply understand what the Bible says."

Speling Is Irevelent: Ghoti and Other Fine Spellings

2026-05-30T00:00:00+00:00

Speling Is Irevelent: Ghoti and Other Fine Spellings

What is the realm of the dead?

2026-05-27T00:00:00+00:00

Translating the term "the realm of the dead" rather than "the grave" in Acts 2 may incorrectly convey connotations of a shadowy underworld which was the residence of both the blessed and the damned.

Memorization and VerseLocker

2026-04-30T00:00:00+00:00

Memorization is one important way in which we hide the Word in our heart.

The Pastor's Study Calendar

2026-04-30T00:00:00+00:00

An annual reading plan for the four branches of theology.

Gems of Joy from Philippians - Devotions by Roy Hefti

2026-04-30T00:00:00+00:00

Based on Roy Hefti's book "Philippians, Colossians, Philemon: The Fullness of Christ" (available from Northwestern Publishing House)

Early Lutheran Views of Textual Criticism

2026-03-31T00:00:00+00:00

An Excerpt from "Textual Criticism of the Old Testament: Principles and Practice" by John Brug

Bible Review: Aussie Style

2026-02-28T00:00:00+00:00

Reflecting on what we've learned from EHV reviewers.

Deuteronomy 22 and Exceptions to the Rule

2026-02-28T00:00:00+00:00

The woman is not punished by being forced into a marriage with the man who committed the crime.

Memories of Lent - an Ash Wednesday Sermon

2026-01-30T00:00:00+00:00

Memories of Lent - an Ash Wednesday Sermon

Brief Comments on the Grokipedia EHV Review

2025-12-30T00:00:00+00:00

It illustrates both the potential and the limitations of AI reviews at the present state of development.

One Billion

2025-12-30T00:00:00+00:00

On November 17, YouVersion celebrated the milestone of passing 1 billion installs of its Bible App (that is right, it is B as in billion). How did this explosion happen? The growth of YouVersion is a remarkable story.

Which is more certain, Scripture or our experience?

2025-12-30T00:00:00+00:00

Our greatest comfort is outside of us, in our gracious God and his gospel promises.

Does Isaiah 63:16 teach that the saints in heaven do not know what is happening on earth?

2025-11-30T00:00:00+00:00

Many commentators say that this passage states that the saints in heaven do not watch over what is happening on earth.

Psalm 38:1 and the EHV’s Approach to Poetry

2025-11-30T00:00:00+00:00

Our goal is not to create striking English poetry but to reflect as closely as possible the nature of the Hebrew poetry, which is very different than traditional English poetry.

Different Translations of Parallel Passages

2025-10-30T00:00:00+00:00

We recognize that there can be more than one good way to translate a passage.

Does the EHV try to lend itself to use with the liturgy and hymns?

2025-10-30T00:00:00+00:00

Scripture is primary. Hymns are secondary. But Scripture and good hymns reinforce each other.

Acceptance of New Translations

2025-09-30T00:00:00+00:00

Even the most iconic translations received opposition when they appeared.

Does All Always Mean All?

2025-09-30T00:00:00+00:00

This is another example of the principle that understanding a word requires more than looking up the word’s base meaning in a dictionary.

Are “preach” and “preacher” now negative words? (Micah 2:6)

2025-08-20T00:00:00+00:00

“Do not preach,” they preach.

Gerasa/Gadara/Gergesa (Kursi)

2025-07-31T00:00:00+00:00

Where was the location of the demon-possessed man and the pigs?

List of Jesus' Miracles

2025-05-30T00:00:00+00:00

A chart of Jesus' miracles recorded in the four Gospels.

List of Parables

2025-04-23T00:00:00+00:00

A list of Jesus' parables in the Gospels

Evaluating Bible Translations

2025-04-14T00:00:00+00:00

Evaluating Bible Translations

Treasure in Clay Jars

2025-03-31T00:00:00+00:00

In 2 Corinthians 4:7 what does it mean that we have a treasure in clay jars?

In the parable about clay jars, or in traditional terminology “jars of clay,” the gospel is the treasure. The messengers who carry and proclaim the gospel are fragile, like clay jars. The real power to work faith did not come from Paul or the apostles or from us; it came from God.

What does this parable about jars of clay show us about messengers of the Word? We have a treasure but it is in jars of clay. All the jars can do, their only responsibility, is to “store and pour.”

Clay storage jars are meant to store food, and their job is to keep the food clean, but they are meant to do more. They are meant to pour out food to the hungry. Jars of clay do not serve their chief purpose when they are in a warehouse or buried in the ground. If human jars of clay just store the gospel, if they just hide the gospel, they are not serving their main purpose. The jars that hid the Dead Sea Scrolls for 2000 years did a good thing for archaeology, but the precious scrolls were for all practical purposes lifeless during the 2000 years they lay hidden in a cave. Our Bibles are for all practical purposes lifeless when they lie on a coffee table or sit on a bookshelf. Their chief purpose is accomplished only when they are in pouring mode, not storing mode. Preserving the Word is good and necessary. Pouring out the Word is even better. The Bible is the power of God onto salvation. The Bible functions as the power of God onto salvation only when it is read, heard, and remembered. The jars of clay do not control, nor are they responsible for how often the Word converts a person who was dead in sin to life in Christ. But the jars of clay do have some control and some responsibility for how often the Word is poured out so it can be heard and remembered.

Clay storage vessels can’t make the food they contain any better than it already is, but blemishes or defects in the jar do not take away the life-giving power of the food.

Moral and spiritual weaknesses of the messengers can turn people off and prevent them from hearing the Word. We won’t address that issue here. The ability we jars of clay have to pour out the Word is also limited by physical weakness. Jars of clay are fragile. They break.

What is the biggest hindrance to your service to the Lord? I would say it is hands-down your need for sleep. How much more could you do to serve the Word if you did not have to sleep a third of your life away?

And then there is health and age. Even as our inner self grows stronger, our outer self is wasting away. After forty years of preaching and teaching and serving in a congregation, a pastor might begin to feel that now he is beginning to have enough knowledge and experience to have a somewhat of a handle on this task. How much different would your life as a teenager be if you could live it over again with the knowledge and experience you have now? How much different would your ministry be if you could start it again with forty years of study and experience? But you can’t. Age will erode your ability, and death will sweep you away. And a new jar of clay will have to start from scratch where you started 40 or 50 years ago, eager and strong, but with so much to learn, much of it perhaps to be learned the hard way.

But there is a comfort even in this. If God has passed on the gospel in jars of clay ever since the Fall, through the nearly total apostasy of the world in the days of Noah, through the great Flood, through era after era of pride and apostasy, through Israel’s unfaithfulness, through horrors of persecution, through the nearly total corruption of the Christian church, he is not going to stop now.

Even when jars of clay lie broken and buried in the ground, their work continues even after they themselves are dust, because the essence of their work was never them but the message they carried, and they have passed that message on to others who will in turn pass it on to others, and so it will continue till Christ returns.

And jars of clay, though they lie broken in the ground, do not cease to be. The broken pieces of pottery lie in the ground waiting for the archaeologist to put them back together. And so it is also with us jars of clay. We lie in the ground for a while, waiting for the pieces to be put back together again into a vessel without blemish that will serve in honor and glory forever.

We have this treasure in jars of clay
to show that this all-surpassing power is
from God and not from us.

John 1:18 in the ESV, EHV, and NIV

2025-03-31T00:00:00+00:00

A look at John 1:18 with a focus on 2025 changes made to the ESV.

Dates and Locations of New Testament Manuscripts

2025-03-01T00:00:00+00:00

A list of early manuscripts with their dates and locations.

Why Does the EHV Have So Many Headings in Psalms?

2025-02-26T00:00:00+00:00

Formatting psalms is of course a special problem because we have a dual goal—to help students understand each psalm as an individual work that stands on its own and to help them follow the interconnection and unity of Psalms as a whole.

John 12:1 - The Phrase "Who Had Died"

2025-02-26T00:00:00+00:00

The phrase is omitted in some early manuscripts, but the evidence to include the phrase is actually stronger.

Contrition in Psalm 51:17

2025-01-30T00:00:00+00:00

Contrition is not measured by counting the tears, but by the inner sorrow we feel because our sins have offended God and harmed our neighbor.

The Coherence Based Genealogical Method (CBGM)

2025-01-30T00:00:00+00:00

What is the Coherence Based Genealogical Method (CBGM) and what impact will it have on the EHV?

The Coherence Based Genealogical Method (CBGM) was developed by Gerd Mink. It is a new approach to the Greek text of the New Testament in an attempt to discover the initial text (autograph) of the New Testament (“it is a hypothesis about the text from which the manuscript transmission started”). This CBGM method uses computer tools to compare and analyze manuscript readings. This has already resulted in some changes to scholarly Greek New Testament texts. This new method is rather difficult and technical to understand and explain. We do not consider ourselves experts in CBGM.

Here is an attempt to provide a one-sentence explanation of CBGM. “The CBGM is a new set of computer-based tools for studying a new set of text-critical evidence based on a new principle for relating texts.” If this does not clarify the issue for you, you can find plenty of attempts to promote or rebut CBGM by searching Coherence Based Genealogical Method. Look at both pro and con articles.

We do not expect that this new approach to evaluating New Testament witnesses will change the way we evaluate the evidence for the EHV. We are confident in the method that we have used (see Appendix 1 in the EHV Study Bible). We plan to continue to look at each reading in terms of evaluating which are the earliest and most widespread witnesses that support it.

Some of the resources mentioned in the following article demonstrate the depth and care that was taken in evaluating the text for the EHV in specific passages:

There are different principles and applications involved in the new CBGM. The following article/interview indicates that the CBGM might have its own biases built in, and it offers some reasons to question the new results:

It should be noted that the textual goal of the EHV is not to recreate the autographs. We do not think that there is sufficient manuscript evidence nor that anyone has sufficient skill to recreate the autographs. Our goal is to objectively report the textual evidence that the copyists have transmitted to the church and to determine which of the reported variants have the best support in Greek manuscripts that are early in date and widely distributed geographically.

Addendum: Should we be concerned that we do not possess any of the autographs, that is, the first copies of the New Testament, written by the apostles or their scribes? Appendix 1 of the EHV Study Bible explains why this is not a practical problem.

There are hundreds of handwritten manuscripts of the books that make up the Hebrew and Greek Bibles. There are many small differences of spelling and wording between these handwritten copies. Copyists are not inspired or inerrant, and it is possible, maybe even certain, that the printed versions of the EHV will also contain some typos/variants/errors that escape detection despite careful checking.

Most of the variants in the handwritten manuscripts fall into the same category as simple typos—they do not raise any question about the meaning of the text. Correcting them is as easy as correcting obvious typos in an English manuscript. Many of variants are simply different spellings of the same word. But occasionally manuscripts have copying differences that add or omit some words, or even whole verses, from the text. It is this type of variant that a textual apparatus (a list of textual variants) must deal with.

It is the divinely intended meaning that is the essence of the Word of God. In a limited number of cases, the church has passed on texts that have alternate readings. Did the apostle write Jesus or the Lord Jesus? Regardless of which of these is original, the message is the same. The same is true of all of the variants.

Rather than undermining confidence in the message of Scripture, a proper use of textual criticism increases confidence in the message of Scripture, because it demonstrates that there is no doctrine of Scripture that is seriously challenged or changed by the existence of textual variants.

Another place to read about textual variants is in The Bible: God's Inspired, Inerrant Word by Brian Keller in The People’s Bible Teaching series. For the Old Testament read Textual Criticism of the Old Testament by John Brug.

The Baptism of John and Acts 19:4-5

2024-12-30T00:00:00+00:00

Martin Chemnitz reviews the various interpretations of this account.

The LORD Our Righteousness

2024-12-30T00:00:00+00:00

Why "she" in Jeremiah 33:16 - “This is what she will be called: The LORD Our Righteousness.”

Gnats or Flies - Isaiah 51:6

2024-12-30T00:00:00+00:00

In Isaiah 51:6, the EHV says "die like gnats," while the NIV says "die like flies,” and other translations have "die in like manner" (as EHV mentions in a footnote). Why the difference?

There are two questions here. One is “what is the meaning of the Hebrew insect name כֵ֣ן, gnats or flies?” The other is “what is the Hebrew word כֵ֣ן, insects or thus?”

Here is the text in the EHV.

The Hebrew construction כְּמֹו־כֵ֣ן kmo-ken is unusual. כְּמֹו is a long form of the preposition like, which is usually the single letter כ k . כֵ֣ן may be the name of an insect or it may be a word that means thus, in this way.

Let us look at the insect options first. כֵ֣ן is not the usual Hebrew word for flies (which is zebub). It appears that the translations that say “die like flies” are not seeking a biologically-correct literal translation, but are expressing the comparison by means of an English idiom.

The other main use of כֵ֣ן ken as an insect name is in the plague in Exodus 8, where it appears as a plural form. In that chapter the EHV has this note.

8:16 The identity of the insects is uncertain. Fleas, ticks, mosquitoes, and gnats are among the suggestions. The requirement is that this be an insect that appears on both people and animals. It probably must be something that is more than an annoyance, perhaps also a source of disease. Lice is retained as the traditional translation.

Since the translation was uncertain, we retained the traditional name of the plague in Exodus. Lice, however, does not seem to fit in Isaiah 51.

Whether one uses flies or gnats in Isaiah 51 the meaning for the reader is the same. Since flies live about 28 days and gnats 7-10 days, gnats is a better fit, but it does not have the proverbial familiarity of flies.

But what if כֵ֣ן ken is a word that means thus, in this way, yes? The question then is “What is the antecedent of in the same way?” Does the vanishing of heaven and earth form a good parallel to the death of many people?

The bottom line is that whatever option is chosen the point is the same.

Divorce and Remarriage - Matthew 5:32

2024-11-28T00:00:00+00:00

The dispute in Evangelicalism is a complicated dispute that involves technical points of Hebrew and Greek grammar and evidence from church history.

"Shelter" in 2 Corinthians 12:9

2024-10-31T00:00:00+00:00

"That the power of Christ may shelter me."

Boys only? Girls? The Plague on the Firstborn of Egypt

2024-09-30T00:00:00+00:00

I am a second grader who recently studied the story of the first Passover in school. I am a girl and I am the oldest child in my family. My younger brother is the firstborn son in the family. Which of us would have died in the Passover when the Angel of Death passed over the land?

Well, if you were Israelites who believed in and obeyed the LORD, neither of you would have died. It is however generally believed that in Egyptian families it was the firstborn son of every father that died. But the correctness of this answer is not quite as simple as it looks at first glance. There is some disagreement about whether this answer is correct, so we have to look at the question a bit more carefully.

The statement that the firstborn in every family would die could be understood in one of three ways:

It refers only to firstborn sons. If there was no firstborn son in a family, the family did not lose a child.
It first of all refers to firstborn sons, but if there was no firstborn son, the family lost its firstborn daughter.
It refers to the firstborn child of a family whether that child was male or female.
The situation, of course, is more complicated if a man has more than one wife or a wife has more than one husband. Does the rule apply only to the firstborn son of a man’s first wife to give birth? It seems that the answer is “Yes.”

The majority of commentators believe that the first option (the firstborn son of every father) is correct, but there is disagreement about this. It is generally agreed that when applied to people, the rule refers to the firstborn son of fathers, not necessarily to the firstborn sons of mothers (the situation is more complicated with animals). If Pharaoh had more than one wife and he had “firstborn” sons of more than one wife, only the firstborn son of the first wife to give birth was lost.

Here are the main passages that are relevant:

Here it seems clear that it is Pharaoh’s son that is involved.

Here a mother is mentioned, but this passage includes animals too. The point seems to be every firstborn from the highest to the lowest.

This is perhaps the passage that raises the most questions.

Firstborn of every mother is literally the firstborn, the opener of every womb among the sons of Israel. At first glance this would seem to refer to the firstborn offspring of every woman, but verse 12 makes it clear that it is the male offspring that are in question. Verse 2 seems to be a general statement of a principle: dedicate every firstborn, without clarifying details of how to apply this rule to animals, and this ambiguity has left the door open for much debate. With animals it is possible to determine the first lamb of every ewe. It is not possible to identify the firstborn of every ram. That is why the mothers are brought into the picture in identifying the firstborn of animals. With people it is assumed that the first son born to a man by his wife is his firstborn.

There is considerable debate about this in Jewish law, but the rite of redemption of the firstborn focuses on the firstborn sons of fathers. In some Jewish traditions, a father’s firstborn son, whose mother had given birth to sisters before him, does not need to be redeemed. There is also no unanimity in Jewish tradition whether both the female and male firstborn of the Egyptians died in the last plague or only the males.

Same as Exodus 13.

Only males are involved in levitical service.

Here it is the firstborn son of the father that determines who is dedicated.

It seems that there is clear evidence that the rule for humans is that the firstborn son of a father is the firstborn. There is no direct statement of females being included. The evidence for including females is ambiguous. The Hebrew word translated firstborn is בכור (bekor). The word is masculine, but the expression does not specifically include the word son. However, the conclusion that the word bekor in this context refers to sons does not just depend on the masculine gender of the word but on the passages that specifically refer to sons and males.

Evidence for including Egyptian women in the last plague is at best ambiguous. Israel as a nation is called God’s son, and the nation of Israel included men and women, but the nation as a composite is thought of as God’s only son among the nations. The plagues were provoked by the Egyptians killing sons of Israel. Egypt’s oppression of God’s one son was punished by the death of one son of Pharaoh.

In the Old Testament the duties and privileges of the firstborn were to receive a double portion of the inheritance and to be the head of the family, also to provide priestly service (in this they were replaced by the Levites). The rights of the firstborn could be lost or transferred to another son by God’s decision or by misconduct by the physical firstborn (Esau to Jacob; Manasseh to Ephraim; Reuben to Joseph because of Reuben’s sexual misconduct) (Gn. 35:22; 49:4; 1 Ch. 5:1-2). Where there were no sons, the inheritance of the family property could pass through the daughters, but it had to pass through their husbands who in effect became adopted sons of their wife’s father (Zelophehad’s daughters—Numbers 27 and 36)

It seems that the term firstborn in regard to Egypt referred to firstborn sons of fathers. How this applied to determining the firstborn of animals is not clear. How this was applied on the Passover evening does not concern us because we are not Egyptian, and the Passover was a one-time event. On Passover evening the only person who had to know how to apply the rule was the Angel of Death. How to apply the rule to the dedication of firstborn animals and crops may have been a difficult matter for the Israelites. How blessed we are that we are no longer burdened by such intricate laws.

The Location of Sodom

2024-09-30T00:00:00+00:00

I saw on the internet that Sodom is located north of the Dead Sea at a site called Tell Hammam. I always thought it was in the south bay of the Dead Sea where most Sunday School maps show it.

Various scholars defend one of three views about the location of Sodom and Gomorrah and the Cities of the Plain:

All five cities are located south of the deep, northern part of the Dead Sea, perhaps in the former shallow southern bay of the Dead Sea.
All five cities are north of the Dead Sea, in the Jordan Valley.
The cities are spread through the areas north and south of the Dead Sea.

View Number 1 has been the predominant view. There is however a passage that indicates that serious consideration must be given to a location north of the sea, by the Jordan.

Another passage seems to support this view:

So how did the theory that places Sodom under or around the south bay of the sea become predominant? It appears that it may be a misreading of the following passage.

Notice that the text does not say that Sodom was in the south bay of the Dead Sea. It says that the battle took place in the south bay of the Dead Sea.

The map below illustrates the campaign of the kings. The kings traveled through the Transjordan from north to south. They struck the Rephaim in Ashteroth Karnaim, the Zuzim in Ham, the Emim in Shaveh Kiriathaim. They bypassed Sodom and struck and the Horites in Mount Seir, all the way to El Paran, which is by the wilderness. They returned and came to En Mishpat (that is, Kadesh) and struck all the territory of the Amalekites, and also the Amorites who lived in Hazazon Tamar. They turned north toward Sodom, but the king of Sodom and his allies confronted them south of the sea before they could reach Sodom. After the king of Sodom lost the battle, the cities north of the sea were plundered.

Map from the EHV Study Bible

There is no decisive archaeological evidence to resolve the question. A recent archaeological study at a proposed northern site for Sodom & Gomorrah – at a location in Jordan called Tel el-Hammam – concludes that it is possible that this was the famous city in Genesis 19, but there is no clear evidence to support this identification. A number of cemeteries around the southern rim of the sea have been identified with the Cities of the Plain, but there is no evidence of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah in or around the south bay of the sea.

So where is Sodom, according to the biblical geography of Genesis 13 and 14? Sodom and its sister cities seem to have been located in an oval-shaped, fertile plain just north of the Dead Sea which is called ha-kikkar, or the Disk or the Circle. This well-watered disk-shaped plain, said to have been located east of the highland towns of Bethel and Ai, was an area “like the garden of the Lord, like the land of Egypt.” The biblical texts best seem to support a location for the cities north of the sea and a battlefield south of the sea.

The Separation of Church and State

2024-08-26T00:00:00+00:00

A reprint of a chapter of a 1999 Pastors Institute “A Christian’s Dual Citizenship.” This article presents the biblical and legal principles involved in maintaining the proper relationship of church and state.

Evangelicals and the EHV

2024-08-26T00:00:00+00:00

What is the relationship between the EHV and Evangelicals? The perception of the term Evangelical is complicated by the politicization of the term.

Job 19:23-24 "engraved in bronze" or "written in a book"?

2024-07-31T00:00:00+00:00

"Oh how I wish that my words were..."

Why are recent translations missing some New Testament verses?

2024-07-30T00:00:00+00:00

The Wartburg Project's approach to omitted verses (answering Wikipedia)

How many women were at the tomb on Easter?

2024-06-25T00:00:00+00:00

It seems there were five women named in the Easter accounts. Here is a summary of the common understanding about them.

Anniversary Reflections - How Good and Pleasant

2024-05-31T00:00:00+00:00

Reflections on the blessings of working together on this translation project.

How Many Disciples Did Jesus Send Out, 70 or 72?

2024-05-31T00:00:00+00:00

With the textual evidence evenly divided, it is not surprising that translations are also divided.

Reflections on the 10th Anniversary of the Wartburg Project

2024-04-29T00:00:00+00:00

Reflections on the 10th Anniversary of the Wartburg Project

EHV at its Fifth Anniversary

2024-04-29T00:00:00+00:00

EHV at its Fifth Anniversary

Artificial Intelligence and the Evangelical Heritage Version

2024-03-25T00:00:00+00:00

AI is very good at the machine aspects of translation. What it is not good at is the human aspects of translation.

Chart of the Psalms

2024-02-27T00:00:00+00:00

A quick and handy reference chart of some important information on each Psalm.

Review of Psalms I and II

2024-02-22T00:00:00+00:00

Commentary review from the "Protestant Reformed Theological Journal"

Cyrus and Darius

2024-02-21T00:00:00+00:00

Were Cyrus and Darius the same person?

Translation of Psalm 104:4 - Winds and Blazing Fire

2024-02-21T00:00:00+00:00

EHV and NIV translate this passage differently. Which is right?

Hell in the Old Testament

2024-02-21T00:00:00+00:00

Newer translations seem to avoid the word "hell" in the Old Testament. Why is that?

Mulberry Tree? Sycamore Fig? - Luke 17:6

2024-02-21T00:00:00+00:00

The EHV calls the tree in Luke 17:6 a mulberry tree. Other translations call it a sycamine, a sycamore, a sycamore fig, or a fig tree. These trees seem quite different to me. Can you explain this confusion?

At the heart of the confusion is the fact that the names mulberry and sycamore have been applied to trees that seem quite different to us, but in which botanists have seen enough similarity to group them into the same class.

In our passage mulberry tree seems to be the most common choice among recent English translations, but this is probably misleading, because when Americans think of a mulberry tree, they think of a large maple-like shade tree of the genus Morus that produces a lot of dark-purple berries. The biblical “mulberry tree” is quite different.

Among the trees called mulberries are the following:

Chinese mulberry, several species in the genus Morus, as well as Maclura tricuspidata
Indian mulberry, two species in the genus Morinda
Paper mulberry (Broussonetia papyrifera, syn. Morus papyrifera)
Hedycarya angustifolia, Australian mulberry, native mulberry
Pipturus argenteus, native mulberry, native to Australia
Morus mesozygia, black mulberry, African mulberry
Morus serrata, Himalayan mulberry
Morus rubra, red mulberry
Morus nigra, black mulberry
Morus alba, white mulberry, popular with silkworms, invasive in American
Ficus sycomorus, fig-mulberry

A glance at the list is enough to show that confusion reigns here, and that scientific categories are not as precise and scientific as some might believe. Further compounding the confusion is that the popular names of plants often match up poorly with the scientific names. Plants with the same popular name are split into more than one scientific category and vice versa. If you do any further research on the topic, expect the find a lot of confusion, contradictions, and inconsistencies in the sources.

For our purposes here, it is sufficient to note that the tree in our text is probably the Ficus sycomorus, the fig-mulberry or more literally the sycamore fig. (This is the definition of the Greek word that occurs in our text, sykamorea. This does nothing to clarify the confusion but only spreads it. To add to the confusion Greek has another word for trees of this family, sykaminos.)

So could we perhaps clarify the situation by calling the tree in our text a sycamore rather than a mulberry? Probably not because the American sycamore is a large shade tree quite different from the Ficus sycomorus.

We could try sycamine, the choice of many older translations, but most Americans would not know what a sycamine is. Even a leading botanist in Jerusalem said he did not know what a sycamine was. An online dictionary I consulted defined sycamine in this way: in biblical use the black mulberry tree (see Luke 17:6); in modern versions translated as “mulberry tree.”

Or perhaps we could call the tree in our text a fig tree as some translations do, but that would be misleading because the fruit of the sycamine fig is much inferior to the regular fig.

We might ask does it really matter what the tree in our text was? Isn’t the point of Jesus’ story the same in any case? Perhaps so, but perhaps the specific type of tree is relevant to the story. The sycamine is known as a tree with a very deep root system, which is very hard to eradicate by uprooting it. So perhaps for American readers “sycamine fig,” with the help of an explanatory footnote, would be an improvement over what seems to be the default translation, “mulberry tree.”

Attempting to answer this question provides another illustration of a principle translators quickly learn: many questions that at first glance seem simple turn out to be quite complicated. This is true of many of the plant names, animal names, and gemstones in the Bible. They are, at best, approximations. This is true because the same plant and animal names have been applied to quite different types over the course of space and time. Rather than simplifying things, the creation of scientific categories has complicated things.

The tree in our text has been defined as “having the form and foliage of the mulberry, but fruit resembling the fig.” People of different times and places have different criteria for sorting the things that God has created into categories. So we often are not speaking the same language, even when we use the same word.

This principle applies to many examples.

We really do not know what the gemstones worn by the high priest were, because we do not know what the ancient criteria were for separating gems into categories: color? hardness? something else?
To the American reader the name “cypress” makes them think of a moss-draped tree in a Southern swamp, but the Middle Eastern “cypress” was a large evergreen similar to a fir, so perhaps we should translate it with some such term.
In America the term “elk” has been misapplied to the wapiti, an animal much different than the European “elk,” which we call the moose.
Tomatoes are botanical fruits that are considered vegetables by most people that use them. Botanically, a fruit is a ripened flower ovary and contains seeds. Tomatoes, plums, zucchinis, and melons are all edible fruits, but things like maple “helicopters” and floating dandelion puffs are fruits too. In popular usage we do not place these things into the same category.
In the same way, peanuts are not actually nuts; they are legumes. Cashews and almonds are not nuts, but drupes.

The main practical lessons to be learned here are that we try to use terms that adequately communicate the biblical story to our readers, but we recognize that our terms are often inadequate or confusing, and that we do not try to blame the Bible for the confusion caused by the inadequacy of our terms.

Ficus sycomorus Wikipedia Creative Commons 3.0

Including the Text of John 5:4

2024-02-21T00:00:00+00:00

Is this verse a part of the original text or not?

"Dedicate" a child to the way he should go - Proverbs 22:6

2024-01-30T00:00:00+00:00

Why "dedicate" and not "train" or "teach"?

Do we have a reliable text of the Hebrew Old Testament?

2024-01-30T00:00:00+00:00

Do we have a reliable text of the Hebrew Old Testament? I have read that the reason we can have confidence in our texts of the Old Testament is that the Jewish scribes followed such precise rules for copying the text, even counting every letter. The scribes followed rules like the following:

Each column of writing could have no less than forty-eight, and no more than sixty lines.
The ink must be black, and of a special recipe.
They must verbalize each word aloud while they were writing.
They must wipe the pen and wash their entire bodies before writing the word “Jehovah,” every time they wrote it.
There must be a review within thirty days, and if as many as three pages required corrections, the entire manuscript had to be redone.
The letters, words, and paragraphs had to be counted, and the document became invalid if two letters touched each other. The middle paragraph, word and letter must correspond to those of the original document.

(This is just an abbreviation of much longer lists of rules one can find online.)

It is true that some scribes may have had rules like this, but these lists are from quite late in the history of the Old Testament text, and they are not uniformly followed in the manuscripts we have.

These lists may reflect rules proclaimed by some schools of scribes, but they tell us nothing about how the originals were produced and reproduced early during the Old Testament era. Jeremiah did not write his own manuscripts but dictated them to Baruch. The originals of the Old Testament were written in alphabetic scripts very different from the ones in the Masoretic manuscripts that survive. The oldest Hebrew manuscripts have no vowels, so one could not pronounce the words just from the written text. A reader had to learn how to pronounce the text from his teacher, just as we must learn how to pronounce $ or #. In the manuscripts that we have, the number of letters is not constant, and spelling changes and additional vowel letters were constantly added or omitted. There are notations in the Hebrew manuscripts that we use, which identify a certain letter as the middle letter of some part of a work, but if you actually count the letters, these notes are not always true. The scribes kept recording the letter counts in the margin of the manuscript that they were copying, but it seems they were not actually counting the letters themselves.

While these lists may reflect some rules proposed and followed by some scribes, this does not tell us much about the history of the manuscripts we actually have. There are some surviving copies that are more carelessly produced than others. There are some manuscripts in which we can see the corrections of the proofreaders on the page. The Tetragrammaton (YHVH) was sometimes written by a different hand, in a different script, and with various pronunciations. There are many variations within the manuscripts we have.

There is some value in these lists as evidence of the diligence of the copyists, but even if these rules were carefully followed, they would, at best, tell us how close our manuscript is to the manuscript from which it was copied. It would not tell us how close it was to the original or to its cousins copied in other places. We find it best to not focus too much on scribal rules and practice, but on showing how faithfully the text that we possess has been transmitted. When the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in the 1940s, we suddenly had Hebrew manuscripts 1000 years older than the oldest ones we had possessed. There was much speculation that now we would see how much the texts had changed in 1000 years of copying. It turned out that the biblical texts from Qumran were essentially the same as our Masoretic texts but without the vowel pointing.

When people have fears raised by textual criticism, we address those concerns in one of four ways. When they ask a specific question about a specific text, we address the question in a FAQ on our website wartburgproject.org/faqs. Then, if they desire more in-depth study, we can send them to one of three sources of varying difficulty.

Our most basic source on textual criticism is Appendix 1 of our print Bibles. In the pew Bible it is at page xv in the front. In the study Bible it is at page 2102 in the back. It says:

There are hundreds of handwritten manuscripts of the books that make up the Hebrew and Greek Bibles. There are many small differences of spelling and wording between these handwritten copies. Most of the variants in the handwritten manuscripts fall into the same category as typos—they do not raise any question about the meaning of the text. Correcting them is as easy as correcting obvious typos in an English manuscript. Many of the variants are simply different spellings of the same word originating from different periods of history. But occasionally manuscripts have copying differences that add or omit some words, or even whole verses, from the text. It is this type of variant that a textual apparatus (a list of textual variants) must deal with.
The EHV does not attempt to provide a full apparatus, but only to alert English readers to the existence of variants and to demonstrate that the existence of textual variants does not bring into question any doctrine of Scripture.
Rather than undermining confidence in the message of Scripture, a proper use of textual criticism increases confidence in the message of Scripture, because it demonstrates that there is no doctrine of Scripture that is seriously challenged or changed by textual variants.

A second source, the book Fascinating Facts, Puzzling Problems, and Matters of Taste: Controversies about the Bible, which is based mostly on FAQs from our website, is part of our Wartburg Bible series of books, which is available from Lulu, Amazon, and many other world-wide publishers. It addresses many questions our readers have about the Bible, including questions about the text.

The last source is John Brug’s book Textual Criticism of the Old Testament, which is also included in the Wartburg Bible series. It is for readers who want an in-depth study based on Hebrew and Greek, but many of the sections on the reliability of our biblical texts are also useful for English readers. This book also has a chapter about Martin Luther as a textual critic, since he was the pioneer of modern Evangelical textual criticism.

For most questioners troubled by Old Testament textual criticism, a simple comparison of the Dead Sea Scrolls and our Masoretic text is the best way to go, since it shows how faithfully the text was transmitted for 1000 years. This gives objective evidence of the providence of God in preserving the text and of the faithfulness of the copyists.

In the Old Testament, writing was so difficult that kings and even prophets often did not write their own scrolls. Professionals wrote them. Below are the words (r to l) “in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” The top line is in the writing of Moses’ time. The second and third lines are from the times of the kings. The fourth line is today’s style.

Note the third letter in the second line. It is our A. It is an upside-down ox-head.

Note that early letters were pictures of things, so they were very hard to write.

Put to Death in Flesh but Made Alive in Spirit

2023-12-27T00:00:00+00:00

Commentary on 1 Peter 3:18

Grace vs. Mercy

2023-12-27T00:00:00+00:00

Is "mercy" in the Old Testament the same as "grace" in the New Testament?

The Gospel of Mark Study Guide

2023-11-29T00:00:00+00:00

A study guide that goes with the book by Daniel Deutschlander

An Announcement to the Spirits in Prison

2023-11-28T00:00:00+00:00

Commentary on 1 Peter 3:19, Jesus' descent into hell.

Where did the name "Cainan" come from in Luke 3:36?

2023-11-22T00:00:00+00:00

Readers of the Bible should retain a healthy degree of skepticism about statements about textual variants in the Bible.

Wartburg Project Anniversary Reflections 2013-2023

2023-10-31T00:00:00+00:00

On the tenth anniversary of the Wartburg Project we reflect on the lessons learned, blessings received, and milestones reached.

Baptism Saves Us

2023-10-31T00:00:00+00:00

Commentary on 1 Peter 3:21 - Is it baptism that saves, or faith?

Leprosy in the Bible

2023-09-26T00:00:00+00:00

Did the Bible’s practice of separation of unclean lepers from society play a role in this harsh treatment of lepers in Hawaii?

Christ, The Cross, and You

2023-08-29T00:00:00+00:00

A basic presentation of God's plan of salvation in everyday language.

"Virgin" or "Young Woman" in Joel 1:8?

2023-08-29T00:00:00+00:00

It is hard to imagine how anyone who has read the ancient religious literature of the Near East could come to the conclusion that “neither the word or concept of virgin or virginity is of any importance in the religious thought of the Old Testament.”

The Guarantee of a Good Conscience

2023-07-01T00:00:00+00:00

In 1 Peter 3:21, why does the EHV use the word “guarantee,” while other translations use various other words, such as “pledge” or “answer” or “appeal” or “request” or “question” or “promise”?

Wartburg Project Report 2023-06

2023-06-30T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2023-06

Wartburg Project Report 2023-05

2023-05-30T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2023-05

Josiah's Four Sons

2023-05-30T00:00:00+00:00

Question:
The following image appears in the first edition of the EHV Study notes under 2 Chronicles 36.

However, 2 Kings 23:31 says that Jehoahaz was twenty-three years old when he became king, and he ruled in Jerusalem for three months. His mother’s name was Hamutal daughter of Jeremiah from Libnah. It appears that Jehoahaz should be moved to the right side of the chart.

The information in 2 Kings 23:31 support your suggestion to redraw the chart, but before we do that, let’s take a closer look at the bewildering succession of Josiah’s four “sons”. The word “sons” is in quotation marks because Josiah had four sons in two different senses of the word “son”. He had four physical sons, three of whom followed him as king. He had four “sons” who succeeded him as king, but one of these “sons” was a grandson.

The chart above conveys the most important information about Josiah’s sons who succeeded him as king. All of them had more than one name, leading to much confusion for readers. They came from two different mothers. They did not follow the normal pattern of ascending to the throne by birth order.

In 1 Chronicles 3:15-16, four sons of Josiah are listed:

The listing of Josiah’s sons as “firstborn, second, third, and fourth” seems to imply that Jehoiakim was the second-born; Zedekiah was the third-born, and Jehoahaz was the fourth-born. But data gathered from 2 Kings indicates that Jehoiakim was the second-born; Jehoahaz was the third-born; and Zedekiah was the fourth-born. It seems that despite appearances, the order in Chronicles must not be chronological.

Jehoiachin and Zedekiah are both called sons of Jehoiakim, but unless the Zedekiah listed here is a different Zedekiah than the one who became king, this Zedekiah was Jehoiakim’s brother not his son. The Zedekiah who became king was Jehoiachin’s uncle, not his brother. He seems to be called Jehoiakim’s “son” because he followed him as king. There are some other instances in which the data in Chronicles seems to be offered from a different perspective than that in Kings.

Josiah was the last good king of Judah. He ruled for thirty-one years from 641-609 BC. He was a very good king who carried out reforms in the worship life of the people, especially after the discovery of the Book of the Law in the temple (either the book of Deuteronomy or a larger portion of the writings of Moses) around 621 BC. Josiah tried to preserve Judah’s independence from the great powers who were dueling for control of the Near East, but he was killed in battle when he tried to prevent Pharaoh Neco from crossing through Israel to help the Assyrians ward off the rising power of Babylon. With Josiah’s death, Judah’s last political hope was gone.

Johanan, Josiah’s first-born, either had died before his father or he had been disqualified from being king for some other reason.

When Josiah died, the people of Judah by-passed Jehoiakim, Josiah’s second-born son, in favor of Jehoahaz, the third-born son, who was two-years younger than Jehoiakim. This was apparently because Jehoahaz’s views were more in line with his father’s policy of resisting Egyptian power. He ruled for only three months before Pharaoh Ncco removed him from the throne, deported him to Egypt, and replaced him with his brother.

Jehoiakim ruled for eleven years (609-597 BC). He was a very bad king, who was a bitter enemy of the prophet Jeremiah. During his reign, Judah passed from the control of Egypt to the control of Babylon. In 605 BC Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon made the first deportation of Jews to Babylon. This group of exiles included Daniel. Jehoiakim’s revolt against Nebuchadnezzar led to his removal as king and led to the second major deportation of Jews to Babylon in 597 BC. This group of exiles included Ezekiel and young king Jehoiachin.

There is some confusion surrounding the timing of the death of Jehoiakim, but his son Jehoiachin ruled for only three months before he was deported to Babylon as a captive.

Jehoiachin’s uncle Zedekiah ruled as a Babylonian puppet for eleven years (597-586 BC). He was a weak wishy-washy king, who was half-hearted in his support for Jeremiah. He wavered back and forth between allegiance to Egypt or Babylon. His revolt against Babylon led to the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the Judean monarchy in 586 or possibly 587 BC.

The era of Josiah and his four sons is the most difficult and confusing period of Old Testament history. This period corresponds with the ministry of Jeremiah the prophet.

A number of nations threatened Judah during Jeremiah’s lifetime. When Jeremiah was called as prophet in about 627 BC, the Assyrian empire still seemed to be strong, but Babylon was on the rise, and in less than twenty years Assyria would fall. Assyrian power was ended by 612 BC. Then Judah was caught in the crossfire between Egypt and Babylon. Egypt, formerly crippled by civil war, was regaining some strength and stability but would fail in its efforts to re-establish itself as an international power. Scythians, Medes, and other peoples threatened the Near East, either as raiders or as mercenaries in the imperial armies. Jeremiah’s many warnings about attackers “from the north” could have referred to any of these nations, although ultimately it would be the Babylonians who would lay siege to Jerusalem and carry the people of Judah into captivity (Jeremiah 52).

Internally the nation of Israel was a shadow of what it had been. Samaria and the northern kingdom of Israel had fallen and had been taken into exile a century earlier. Judah had reached a spiritual low point under King Manasseh, although for a short time Judah returned to the LORD under the reforms led by good King Josiah, who ruled during Jeremiah’s early years.

This chaotic situation explains the tumultuous reigns of Josiah’s four sons,

Two of the last four kings, Jehoahaz (609) and Jehoiachin (597), each reigned for only a very short time before they fell victim to the power struggles between Egypt and Babylon. Between these two short-term kings, Jehoiakim reigned for eleven years (609-598 BC), and many of Jeremiah's prophecies of judgment against Judah come from his time as king. Jehoiakim was a bitter enemy of Jeremiah, who even burned Jeremiah’s scroll.

The last king of Judah was Zedekiah, Jehoiakim’s much younger half-brother. Zedekiah imprisoned Jeremiah more than once, and he even dumped the prophet into a dry cistern, but he did try to protect Jeremiah from his most bitter enemies in the Judean government. Jeremiah summed up Zedekiah’s lack of faith with this comment: “Neither he nor his attendants nor the people of the land obeyed the word of the LORD that he spoke through the prophet Jeremiah” (Jeremiah 37:2).

These last four kings all fluctuated between submitting to Babylonian power and seeking Egyptian help against Babylon. Egyptian help provided only limited, temporary relief. The key to the kings’ downfall was their lack of trust in the LORD.

If it is hard enough to keep these kings straight in Kings and Chronicles, it is even more bewildering in Jeremiah. The prophecies in Jeremiah are not in chronological order and all these kings of Judah were known by more than one name. This makes it difficult to keep track of these kings through the course of Jeremiah. The arrangement of the prophecies in Jeremiah seems disjointed, because they jump from one subject to another and from one time period to another without much introduction. The following chart will help readers sort this all out.

The non-chronological order of events in the book of Jeremiah is illustrated by this list of the chapters of Jeremiah in which each of the five kings appears:

We see that in the book of Jeremiah, Jehoahaz makes his appearance after the first appearances of Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin, and Zedekiah even though he was the first of the group to be king. (It may be coincidence, but it is interesting that the order of the three sons in 1 Chronicles 3 appears to match their relative importance in Jeremiah.) It is for all these reasons that a chart like the one that precipitated this question is a very necessary tool to help readers keep their bearings in the bewildering succession of kings.

Does moving Jehoahaz to the right side of the chart make any significant difference in our understanding the situation? Not much, because the birth-order, the order of succession, and the confusion caused by multiple names for the same king all remain the same. But this correction may add one additional insight. If Hamutal was the favored wife, this may an additional reason why Jehoiakim was passed over in favor of Jehoahaz.

Brief Summaries of the Books of the Bible

2023-04-28T00:00:00+00:00

A brief sketch of each book's part in the whole Bible's message of salvation through Jesus.

Wartburg Project Report 2023-04

2023-04-28T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2023-04

Wartburg Project Report 2023-03

2023-03-31T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2023-03

Resources for the Study of New Testament Textual Criticism

2023-03-31T00:00:00+00:00

As I have continued to use the EHV Bible over the last year and have come to thoroughly enjoy it for its balance of accuracy and readability, I have also become more interested in studying the "objective approach" to the manuscript evidence that the Wartburg Project used in establishing the text to translate. You distinguish this approach in Appendix 1 from the Received Text on the one hand and from the Critical Text on the other. I have been reading a book titled The Byzantine Text-Type and New Testament Criticism by Harry Sturz. Do you know if this scholarly work reflects the objective approach of the Wartburg Project? It certainly appears so from my perspective as I'm reading through it. What good scholarly, or even popular, works would you suggest to better understand this approach to evaluating the manuscript evidence?

Thank you for your kind words about the EHV's "balance of accuracy and readability." We certainly hope that the EHV will be a blessing for many people!

Great question! The short answer to your first question is "yes." Harry Sturz was recommended to students of Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary by professors of New Testament textual criticism. Below is a review of Sturz's book by Prof. David Kuske from the Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly. Professor Kuske helped us with carrying out this method for the EHV. Kuske wrote a textbook on this too: "The History and Practice of New Testament Textual Criticism" (Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary Press, Mequon, WI, c. 1992).

Some have found this linked chart/listing to be handy when following this objective method.

Brief popular treatments are included in the following books published by Northwestern Publishing House (NPH):

"Biblical Interpretation" by David Kuske (NPH, 1995), pp. 47-58 (chapter 4). He lists Sturz in the brief bibliography at the end of the chapter. He also mentions D. A. Black.
"Bible" by Brian R. Keller (NPH, 2002), pp. 152ff.
There are some FAQ articles on the Wartburg Project website. Click here and check the ones under section D.

Other writers that we’ve found helpful include:

James Snapp, Jr. - see his Kindle books on Amazon. His works on the TC of Mark 16 and John 8 are definitely worth it! Here are links to them:

Authentic: The Case for Mark 16:9-20: 2016 Edition

A Fresh Analysis of John 7:53-8:11: With a Tour of the External Evidence

He also ahas a website with many useful contributions. TheTextoftheGospels.com

Nicholas Lunn on the ending of Mark: The Original Ending of Mark: A New Case for the Authenticity of Mark 16:9–20. This is the most scholarly treatment. He mentions the work of Snapp. See the recommendation on the book by Craig Evans.
With those two, you will soon learn about others, such as Maurice Robinson. While Dr. Robinson favors Byzantine, it's fascinating how similar the results end up. He’s worth reading.
David Alan Black has had an open mind about such things, more so than others.

Once you've checked through some of that material, you should be able to find your way very well. It's fascinating and eye-opening, once you learn more in this area.

Book Review

The Byzantine Text Type and New Testament Textual Criticism
by Harry Sturz. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1984. 305 pp, hc, $14.95.
[Amazon.com]

This is the best book written on the practice of New Testament textual criticism, bar none.

It will not give you the basic information about the various witnesses: their dates, their relative strengths and weaknesses as witnesses, etc. But if you are wondering why the theory of Westcott and Hort which favors Aleph and B as the “best witnesses” no longer can be upheld, if you want an explanation why the Textus Receptus cannot be touted as the text by which all other NT texts are to be judged, if you want proof that the only proper approach to New Testament textual criticism is to weigh the combined evidence of all the New Testament witnesses (papyri, uncials, minuscules, versions, church fathers)—this book will give the answers and more.

Prof. Sturz’s interest in the papyri and his participation in the International Greek New Testament Project led to the writing of this book. It is the entrance of the papyri into the picture of the New Testament text which has shown that the Byzantine uncials and minuscules present a text which is neither late nor corrupt as Westcott and Hort had theorized.

Prof. Sturz documents the fact that distinctively Byzantine readings (readings that are found only in the Byzantine MSS.) are contained in the second and third century papyri. Therefore, they cannot be readings added to the New Testament text in the fourth century as Westcott and Hort postulated.

Westcott and Hort also rejected the Byzantine MSS. because they had eight conflations. Conflations proved, they argued, that the Byzantine text was a fourth century composite of the Alexandrian and Western texts. Prof. Sturz documents the fact that not only are some of these conflations found in the earlier papyri but that there are conflations also in such uncials as B in Egypt and D in the West.

Almost half of the book is documentation of how the papyri align themselves with all of the later witnesses, minuscules as well as uncials. For anyone who wants to pursue the evidence for himself, the information is all here: tables of various alignments (papyri with Byzantine, papyri with Byzantine and Western, papyri with Alexandrian) and the details of each alignment.

Though Prof. Sturz is defending the Byzantine uncials and minuscules, he does not agree with those who want to make the Textus Receptus or the Byzantine text the primary text. He shows that those who hold this view rest their argument on the premise that the perfect preservation of the Scripture is a necessary corollary of the inspiration of Scripture. This position, Prof. Sturz argues, is both “unscriptural and impossible to demonstrate.”

Scripture does not say that God would preserve the original words of Scripture only in the area of Byzantium, and to insist that God’s purpose could be accomplished only in this way does not have a scriptural basis either. Furthermore, if providential preservation is put on the same level as inspiration and is made the equivalent of the Byzantine text, then how could the Byzantine text (the K text) have differences in it such as Kx, Kl, Ki and Kr?

Instead of making the Byzantine text “secondary” (Westcott/Hort) or “primary” (the TR and Byzantine text people), Prof. Sturz contends that it should be recognized as an “independent” text. And this contention he has ably shown to be the only proper view in the light of the evidence provided by the papyri.

Prof. Sturz presents the history of the New Testament text as follows: 1) Since from the very beginning the Christian church knew that the text was inspired by God, the only deliberate changes introduced into the text were the changes made by heretics. Apologists consistently condemned this mishandling of the text; 2) As copies of the New Testament multiplied and spread, scribal errors and tendencies caused distinctive variations in various areas of the church; 3) Therefore we today need to examine the evidence from the major local text-types (Prof. Sturz proposes four: Western, Caesarean, Antiochan or Byzantine and Alexandrian). When we are faced with a variant, we need to recognize each local text-type (when it is supported by a consensus of its leading witnesses) as an independent witness from the end of the second century. The reading which is supported by a consensus of the major local text-types is the one attested by external evidence.

For the busy pastor who has some knowledge of the New Testament witnesses, here is an excellent book which will give you both a short summary (120 pages) of the pertinent facts about the opposing theories of New Testament textual criticism as well as the proper approach to the consideration of variants. Here also is the information (95 pages) for the person who wants to pursue the details. And finally, here is a complete bibliography (43 pages) of all that has been written on the subject of textual criticism since 1900.

It is the best single book written on the practice of New Testament textual criticism.

(Review by D.P. Kuske)

Why Does the EHV Not Say "Immediately" in Mark 1:21?

2023-02-28T00:00:00+00:00

Why did the EHV not use the word "immediately” in Mark 1:21? I noticed that some translations have “immediately” in that verse while others do not.

The Greek word euthus is often translated “immediately.” But sometimes in Mark’s inspired Gospel account, it seems that the Greek word combination kai euthus instead indicates a new section. It’s almost like punctuation or a heading. In Mark 1:21, it seems that the Greek kai euthus is indicating a new section. So here is how the EHV translated kai euthus: There is a period after “Capernaum.” That is followed by a new section heading, “Jesus Drives Out a Demon.” Then there is a space, an indentation, and a capital letter indicating a new sentence. All of that is the translation of kai euthus in Mark 1:21.

When people wrote in Greek on papyri they left no spaces between words, paragraphs, and sections. They had other ways of marking transitions and pauses and new sections or subjects for the reader. Today, we mark those in English by using commas, periods, new paragraphs, and section headings. For example, the Greek words kai or de appear very often in the Gospel accounts. One of challenges of translating the Gospel accounts from Greek into English is how to render these markers into English. Sometimes the Greek words kai or de are actually “translated” into sentence divisions, punctuation, and new paragraphs. Sometimes it is said that these words are left untranslated, but that is not really the case if they are “translated” by English punctuation and a new sentence. Rather than starting almost every sentence with “and,” there are periods, spaces, and capital letters indicating new sentences in English.

In addition to that, each of the four Gospel writers has a unique word or phrase that does not seem to always retain its usual meaning (when it does not appear next to a verb) and instead marks a new thought or section/scene.

Matthew regularly uses tote this way.
Mark uses kai euthus.
Luke uses kai egeneto.
John uses oun.

What makes this difficult is that not every use of kai euthus in the Greek text is an indication of a new section in Mark. Professor David Kuske wrote an article entitled, “Translating Connectives,” which explains this translation issue in more detail.

Here are a few additional notes/references for those who know Greek:

One Greek grammar text notes: “Mark, for example, often uses εὐθύς, an adjective functioning adverbially (often preceded by καί), to signal significant turning points in his narrative” (Stanley E. Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament (Sheffield: JSOT, 1999, p. 305).
Those who know Greek might also consult Moulton’s Grammar of New Testament Greek, volume 3, page 229 for more examples.
One commentator explains on Mark 1:10: “Here is the first use of Mark’s characteristic adverb εὐθύς, which occurs 11 times in the first chapter alone…usually to introduce a new incident, or a dramatic new phase within an episode…” (R. T. France, The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text, 2002, page 76).

Wartburg Project Report 2023-02

2023-02-27T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2023-02

Wartburg Project Report 2023-01

2023-01-31T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2023-01

What is the most accurate Bible translation?

2023-01-31T00:00:00+00:00

What is the most accurate Bible translation?

There are many answers to this question posted online, but most of them are not very accurate because they do not use an accurate definition of the word accurate. Many of these lists rank the NASB as the most “accurate” translation, which they define as “closest to a word-for-word translation of the Hebrew or Greek words.” This is not a correct definition of accurate. The most accurate translation of a passage is the one that most accurately conveys the meaning and the emotional tone of the Hebrew and Greek idioms in contemporary English.

We can explore this question by examining various translations of Song of Songs 5:4, which is the passage that is most often cited as the prime example of the weakness of “literal” or word-for-word translation. Bible Gateway is the source of the list of translations.

The Context of Song 5:4

The woman is sleeping at home. She is half awake. She hears her lover knocking at the door. He calls to her to open the door, but she does not want to get up to open the door because she is in bed and does not want to get dressed again. She then realizes that he is still trying to get the door open. It is at this point of the story that the arousal of her feelings which we are discussing in this article occurs. She then changes her mind and gets up to open the door, but it is too late. He is gone.

The Hebrew

וּמֵעַ֖י הָמ֥וּ עָלָֽיו׃

The first word, the noun me‘im, means intestines, belly, or womb. It includes the reproductive areas of both men and women. It is regarded as a seat of emotions, in a way similar to the way that the word heart is used in English.

The second word, the verb hamah, means to make a sound like humming, sighing, or the sound of rain or waves. It also refers to the expression of emotions. The closest English expressions are “gut feeling” or “butterflies in the stomach.” The verb refers to being “moved” with emotion but not to the literal movement of anything.

The third word, the preposition ‘al, has a wide range of meanings. Here because of him seems to be the most appropriate.

If accuracy were measured by the closest agreement to the literal base meaning of these three Hebrew words, the most accurate translation would be my bowels made a sound because of him. I am not aware of any version that uses this word-for-word rendering in its translation.

The Bowels

Many translations, following the lead of the King James, render me‘im as bowels. Although this is a good literal translation, it obviously does not work well in contemporary English, especially in conjunction with the verb moved.

KJV	My beloved put in his hand by the hole of the door, and my bowels were moved for him.
AKJV	My beloved put in his hand by the hole of the door, and my bowels were moved for him.
BRG	My beloved put in his hand by the hole of the door, and my bowels were moved for him.
JUB	My beloved put in his hand by the hole of the door, and my bowels were moved for him.
YLT	My beloved sent his hand from the net-work, And my bowels were moved for him.
DARBY	My beloved put in his hand by the hole [of the door]; And my bowels yearned for him.
DRA	My beloved put his hand through the key hole, and my bowels were moved at his touch.

This list seems to be mostly a case of follow-the-leader. Darby lessens the problem by substituting the verb yearned. DRA increases the problem by adding the idea at his touch.

Wycliffe’s translation falls into the same category, but it is something of an oddity.

WYC	My darling put his hand by an hole (of the door); and my womb trembled at the touching thereof.

[There is a table of abbreviations at the end of the article if anyone wants to check individual translations.]

The Heart

The heart is a good substitution for the bowels. Though anatomically wrong, heart is correct at conveying the meaning to English readers.

KJ21	My beloved put in his hand by the hole of the door, and my heart was moved for him.
ASV	My beloved put in his hand by the hole of the door, And my heart was moved for him.
AMPC	My beloved put in his hand by the hole of the door, and my heart was moved for him.
GW	My beloved put his hand through the keyhole. My heart throbbed for him.
NOG	My beloved put his hand through the keyhole. My heart throbbed for him.
WEB	My beloved thrust his hand in through the latch opening. My heart pounded for him.
NIRV	My love put his hand through the opening. My heart began to pound for him.
NIV	My beloved thrust his hand through the latch-opening; my heart began to pound for him.
NIVUK	My beloved thrust his hand through the latch-opening; my heart began to pound for him.
OJB	Dodi (my beloved) thrust his hand through the latchopening, my heart began pounding for him.
NCB	My beloved thrust his hand through the opening in the door, and my heart began to tremble.
ESV	My beloved put his hand to the latch, and my heart was thrilled within me.
ESVUK	My beloved put his hand to the latch, and my heart was thrilled within me.
NLT	My lover tried to unlatch the door, and my heart thrilled within me.
RSV	My beloved put his hand to the latch, and my heart was thrilled within me.
RSVCE	My beloved put his hand to the latch, and my heart was thrilled within me.
GNV	My well-beloved put in his hand by the hole of the door, and mine heart was affectioned toward him.
MEV	My beloved put his hand by the latch, and my heart yearned for him.
NKJV	My beloved put his hand By the latch of the door, And my heart yearned for him.
TLV	My lover extended his hand through the opening —my heart yearned for him.
NLV	My love put his hand through the opening, and joy filled my heart.

Numerically, the substitution of heart for bowels is a big winner as the choice of the most translations, even among descendants of the King James. The verbs used range from the more emotional (moved, thrilled, yearned) to the more physical (pounded, throbbed, trembled). Can any of these rendering be said to be more or less accurate than the others, except that the rendering within me has chosen a different reading of the Hebrew text.

The OJB retains a transliteration of the Hebrew word for lover (Dodi).

A comparison of the following two readings is interesting. They try to interpret the woman’s bodily reaction, but they reach the exact opposite conclusion about what it was.

CJB	The man I love put his hand through the hole by the door-latch, and my heart began pounding at the thought of him.
CEV	Then my darling's hand reached to open the latch, and my heart stood still.

The CEB is a bit of an oddity.

CEB	My love put his hand in through the latch hole, and my body ached for him.

The Feelings

The first three renderings (bowels, womb, heart) retain an anatomical reference. The next option focuses on the feelings felt by the woman rather than on the place in her body where she felt them. Some of these renderings deal with feelings in general without trying to specify one particular feeling. Some take a stab at what feeling was involved. The context suggests that a sudden longing to see her lover, plus a feeling of guilt for failing to go to the door, were the feelings involved.

Feelings in General

NASB	My beloved extended his hand through the opening. And my feelings were stirred for him.
NASB1995	My beloved extended his hand through the opening, And my feelings were aroused for him.
AMP	My beloved extended his hand through the opening [of the door], And my feelings were aroused for him.
CSB	My love thrust his hand through the opening, and my feelings were stirred for him.
HCSB	My love thrust his hand through the opening, and my feelings were stirred for him.
ISV	My beloved reached out his hand for the latch. My feelings for him were aroused.
NET	My lover thrust his hand through the hole, and my feelings were stirred for him.
EHV	My lover thrust his hand through the opening in the door. My feelings were aroused for him.

Since people’s ratings of the NASB were the starting point for this article, it seems worthwhile to comment briefly on the versions of the NASB. Unlike the NIV which seems to want to limit the market to one version of NIV, namely the 2011 version, the NASB allows several versions to remain on the market: the 1977 version, the 1995, and the 2020. In addition, the Legacy Standard Bible (LSB) (2021) is an effort to roll back certain aspects of the 2020 version to make it more like earlier versions. Interestingly, none of the recent versions of the NASB, which allegedly is the exemplar for accurate, word-for-word translation, follow a literal translation of bowels in the main text. Rating the NASB as the most “accurate” because it is more of a word-for-word translation may be more reflective of the original version than of any of the official updates.

Specific Feelings

GNT	My lover put his hand to the door, and I was thrilled that he was near.
ERV	But my lover put his hand through the opening, and I felt sorry for him.
ICB	My lover put his hand through the door opening. I felt excited inside.
EXB	My lover put his hand through the ·opening [L hole], and I felt ·excited inside [aroused; warmed].
NCV	My lover put his hand through the opening, and I felt excited inside.
MSG	But my lover wouldn’t take no for an answer, and the longer he knocked, the more excited I became.

“Excitement” is the main choice. “Feel sorry for” is bit of an outlier.

Inmost Part

Translations using the concept inmost are a straddle between a more anatomical and a more figurative understanding of the concept.

LEB	My beloved thrust his hand into the opening, and my inmost yearned for him.
NABRE	My lover put his hand in through the opening: my innermost being trembled because of him.
NRSVA	My beloved thrust his hand into the opening, and my inmost being yearned for him.
NRSVACE	My beloved thrust his hand into the opening, and my inmost being yearned for him.
NRSVCE	My beloved thrust his hand into the opening, and my inmost being yearned for him.
NRSVUE	My beloved thrust his hand into the opening, and my inmost being yearned for him.
VOICE	My love put his hand on the latch; my insides began to throb for him.

Conclusion

It is impossible to declare one translation to be the most accurate in its rendering of the Hebrew phrase me‘im hemu ‘alav. It is possible to declare some translations to be inaccurate, but since there may be many accurate translations, it is not possible to declare one to be the most accurate.

If it is impossible to make such a blanket judgment of accuracy for one short three-word phrase, how much more is it impossible to do so for a whole translation. Such a rating would require many thousands of individual decisions and a computer weighing of all of them. Then one would have to do this for dozens of translations in order to say which is the most accurate. It is hard enough to say which is the most accurate translation of one verse, yet alone of a whole Bible.

It is also impossible to say which is the best Bible. Best for what use? If you are a student of biblical Hebrew looking for a Bible translation to help you do your homework assignment (a resource classical students used to call a jimmy or a pony), the best Bible is obviously an interlinear, word-for-word translation. If you want to pick a translation for congregational or personal reading, you want to pick a translation which has the best balance between reflecting the Hebrew and Greek text and providing clarity and readability for contemporary readers of all ages, who have varying degrees of familiarity with the Bible. Bible Gateway created a chart which offers their opinion on the placement of a number of the translations which are posted on its site on such a spectrum.

We can agree with Bible Gateway’s general placement of translations on this chart, but not necessarily with the exact order and placement of all the translations. We would, for example, slide the NASB, EHV, and NIV somewhat to the right.

In ranking translations we prefer to focus on the concept of balance.

For all-purpose use in the church, translators should seek a balance between the old and the new. Translations should make an attempt to avoid to radical a break from translations which their readers have known and loved in the past.

They should seek a balance between the poles of so-called literal and dynamic equivalent theories of translation. A translator should not adhere too closely to any one theory of translation because literalistic, word-for-word translations sometimes convey the wrong meaning, or they do not communicate clearly in the receiving language. Overly free translations deprive the reader of some of the key expressions, imagery, and style of the original biblical texts.

Translators should strive for a balance between preserving the original meaning of the text and producing English which sounds natural, but the preservation of meaning takes priority.

The Bible contains many types of literature and different levels of language, from the very simple to the very difficult. For this reason, the translator should not be too committed to producing one level of English but should try to reproduce the tone or “flavor” of the original. Informal conversation should follow a more informal style than a royal proclamation or a divine decree.

A translation should preserve not only the meaning but also the emotional impact of the original. Gentle passages should sound gentle. Harsh passages should sound harsh. Strong language should not be watered down. Emotional outbursts should be preserved in the
translation.

A translation should practice a balanced weighing of textual variants on a case-by-case basis, rather than favoring a handful of manuscripts.

A translation should reflect the connection of the Old and New Testaments, especially in regard to Messianic prophecy.

These are a few of the aspects of a translation’s balance to consider in deciding which translation is the best for you to use as your main translation. There should be some objectivity in this decision, but personal preference and which translation you enjoy reading the most are also factors to consider.

Bible Gateway's List of Translations

21st Century King James Version (KJ21) Copyright © 1994 by Deuel Enterprises, Inc.;
American Standard Version (ASV) Public Domain;
Amplified Bible (AMP) Copyright © 2015 by The Lockman Foundation, La Habra, CA 90631. All rights reserved.;
Amplified Bible, Classic Edition (AMPC) Copyright © 1954, 1958, 1962, 1964, 1965, 1987 by The Lockman Foundation;
BRG Bible BRG) Blue Red and Gold Letter Edition™ Copyright © 2012 BRG Bible Ministries. Used by Permission. All rights reserved. BRG Bible is a Registered Trademark in U.S. Patent and Trademark Office #4145648;
Christian Standard Bible (CSB) The Christian Standard Bible. Copyright © 2017 by Holman Bible Publishers. Used by permission. Christian Standard Bible®, and CSB® are federally registered trademarks of Holman Bible Publishers, all rights reserved. ;
Common English Bible (CEB) Copyright © 2011 by Common English Bible;
Complete Jewish Bible (CJB) Copyright © 1998 by David H. Stern. All rights reserved. ; Contemporary English Version (CEV) Copyright © 1995 by American Bible Society For more information about CEV, visit www.bibles.com and www.cev.bible.;
Darby Translation (DARBY) Public Domain;
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA) Public Domain;
Easy-to-Read Version (ERV) Copyright © 2006 by Bible League International;
Evangelical Heritage Version (EHV) The Holy Bible, Evangelical Heritage Version®, EHV®, © 2019 Wartburg Project, Inc. All rights reserved.;
English Standard Version (ESV) The Holy Bible, English Standard Version. ESV® Text Edition: 2016. Copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers.;
English Standard Version Anglicised (ESVUK) The Holy Bible, English Standard Version Copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers.;
Expanded Bible (EXB) The Expanded Bible, Copyright © 2011 Thomas Nelson Inc. All rights reserved. ;
1599 Geneva Bible (GNV) Geneva Bible, 1599 Edition. Published by Tolle Lege Press. ;
GOD’S WORD Translation (GW) Copyright © 1995, 2003, 2013, 2014, 2019, 2020 by God’s Word to the Nations Mission Society. All rights reserved.;
Good News Translation (GNT) Good News Translation® (Today’s English Version, Second Edition) © 1992 American Bible Society. All rights reserved. For more information about GNT, visit www.bibles.com and www.gnt.bible.;
Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB) Copyright © 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2009 by Holman Bible Publishers, Nashville Tennessee. All rights reserved.;
International Children’s Bible (ICB) The Holy Bible, International Children’s Bible® Copyright© 1986, 1988, 1999, 2015 by Thomas Nelson. Used by permission.;
International Standard Version (ISV) Copyright © 1995-2014 by ISV Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED INTERNATIONALLY. Used by permission of Davidson Press, LLC.;
Jubilee Bible 2000 (JUB)Copyright © 2013, 2020 by Ransom Press International ;
King James Version (KJV) Public Domain;
Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV) KJV reproduced by permission of Cambridge University Press, the Crown’s patentee in the UK.;
Lexham English Bible (LEB) 2012 by Logos Bible Software. Lexham is a registered trademark of Logos Bible Software;
Living Bible (TLB) The Living Bible copyright © 1971 by Tyndale House Foundation. Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers Inc., Carol Stream, Illinois 60188. All rights reserved.;
The Message (MSG) Copyright © 1993, 2002, 2018 by Eugene H. Peterson;
Modern English Version (MEV) The Holy Bible, Modern English Version. Copyright © 2014 by Military Bible Association. Published and distributed by Charisma House. ;
Names of God Bible (NOG) The Names of God Bible (without notes) © 2011 by Baker Publishing Group. ;
New American Bible (Revised Edition) (NABRE) Scripture texts, prefaces, introductions, footnotes and cross references used in this work are taken from the New American Bible, revised edition © 2010, 1991, 1986, 1970 Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, Inc., Washington, DC All Rights Reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the copyright owner. ;
New American Standard Bible (NASB) New American Standard Bible®, Copyright © 1960, 1971, 1977, 1995, 2020 by The Lockman Foundation. All rights reserved.; New American Standard Bible 1995 (NASB1995) New American Standard Bible®, Copyright © 1960, 1971, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation. All rights reserved.;
New Catholic Bible (NCB) Copyright © 2019 by Catholic Book Publishing Corp. All rights reserved.;
New Century Version (NCV) The Holy Bible, New Century Version®. Copyright © 2005 by Thomas Nelson, Inc.;
New English Translation (NET) NET Bible® copyright ©1996-2017 by Biblical Studies Press, L.L.C. http://netbible.com All rights reserved.;
New International Reader's Version (NIRV) Copyright © 1995, 1996, 1998, 2014 by Biblica, Inc.®. Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide.;
New International Version (NIV) Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV® Copyright ©1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.® Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide.;
New International Version - UK (NIVUK) Holy Bible, New International Version® Anglicized, NIV® Copyright © 1979, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.® Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide.;
New King James Version (NKJV) Scripture taken from the New King James Version®. Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson. Used by permission. All rights reserved.;
New Life Version (NLV) Copyright © 1969, 2003 by Barbour Publishing, Inc.;
New Living Translation (NLT) Holy Bible, New Living Translation, copyright © 1996, 2004, 2015 by Tyndale House Foundation. Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., Carol Stream, Illinois 60188. All rights reserved.;
New Revised Standard Version, Anglicised (NRSVA) New Revised Standard Version Bible: Anglicised Edition, copyright © 1989, 1995 the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved.;
New Revised Standard Version, Anglicised Catholic Edition (NRSVACE) New Revised Standard Version Bible: Anglicised Catholic Edition, copyright © 1989, 1993, 1995 the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved.;
New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE) New Revised Standard Version Bible: Catholic Edition, copyright © 1989, 1993 the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved.;
New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition (NRSVUE) New Revised Standard Version, Updated Edition. Copyright © 2021 National Council of Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide.;
Orthodox Jewish Bible (OJB) Copyright © 2002, 2003, 2008, 2010, 2011 by Artists for Israel International;
Revised Standard Version (RSV) Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright © 1946, 1952, and 1971 the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved.;
Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE) The Revised Standard Version of the Bible: Catholic Edition, copyright © 1965, 1966 the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved.;
Tree of Life Version (TLV) Tree of Life (TLV) Translation of the Bible. Copyright © 2015 by The Messianic Jewish Family Bible Society.;
The Voice (VOICE) The Voice Bible Copyright © 2012 Thomas Nelson, Inc. The Voice™ translation © 2012 Ecclesia Bible Society All rights reserved. ;
World English Bible (WEB) by Public Domain. The name "World English Bible" is trademarked.;
Wycliffe Bible (WYC) 2001 by Terence P. Noble;
Young's Literal Translation (YLT) by Public Domain

Translating Connectives in the New Testament

2023-01-26T00:00:00+00:00

An article by David Kuske on cases where words might be translated with punctuation marks.

Wartburg Project Report 2022-12

2022-12-30T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2022-12

Condensed Bibles and "The Story of God's Love"

2022-12-06T00:00:00+00:00

An article about the challenges and benefits of condensed Bibles.

Wartburg Project Report 2022-11

2022-11-30T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2022-11

Wartburg Project Report 2022-10

2022-10-31T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2022-10

Can the same word mean “yes” and “no”?

2022-10-31T00:00:00+00:00

How can the same word mean “yes” and “no”? In Genesis 17:19, in the EHV God responds with a “No” to Abraham’s question. In the NIV he responds with “Yes.” How can this be?

Can the same Hebrew word be translated either “yes” or “no”? The short answer is “yes.” Abal is one of a number of Hebrew interjections that can either affirm or deny the preceding statement. It can also be a corrective to the preceding statement, “yes, but.”

Here is the context in Genesis 17:

There are two questions in play here. Will Sarah really bear a child? The required answer is “yes.” The second question is whether Ishmael can live in God’s presence. The answer to that depends on what the question means. If Abraham is simply asking whether Ishmael can still live in God’s presence, the answer would be “yes.” Ishmael cannot be Abraham’s heir, but he can still be a child of God. But Abraham seems to be asking “Can’t you accept Ishmael as my heir?” To that the answer is “No! Isaac, Sarah’s son will be your heir.” Here is a case in which the translation “yes—but” works well. “Yes, Ishmael can live with me, but Isaac must be your heir.”

Most English translations answer the question with a “no” or with a paraphrase that says Isaac must be the heir. The NIV seems to be in the minority with its rendering, “Yes, but your wife Sarah will bear you a son, and you will call him Isaac,” but notice that its answer is not a plain “yes” but a “yes, but.”

An additional question is what attitude is implied by Abraham’s laughter and speaking in his heart. Is it pure joy that Isaac will be his heir, or is he asking why can’t God use Ishmael, the heir Abraham and Sarah had provided by using Hagar as a surrogate mother? The text does not explicitly answer these points. It is, however, explicit about this: Isaac must be the heir.

Where did Israel cross the Red Sea, and where is Mount Sinai?

2022-10-31T00:00:00+00:00

For centuries the predominant answers to these two questions have been that Israel crossed the Red Sea near the eastern border of ancient Egypt, somewhere near the spot where the present Suez Canal meets the Gulf of Suez (Crossing 1 on the map). The Gulf of Suez is the western arm of the large body of water which we today call the Red Sea. Mount Sinai is then located in the south central part of the Sinai Peninsula, at one of the peaks near the present-day Saint Catherine’s monastery (Sinai 1).

Recently a minority of writers have claimed that Israel crossed the Red Sea on the eastern shore of the Sinai Peninsula, at the Gulf of Aqaba, 250 miles from the eastern part of the Nile Delta (Crossing 2 and Sinai 2). Three pillars of this theory are 1) that the Red Sea or Sea of Reeds always refers to the Gulf of Aqaba; 2) that Mount Sinai must be in Arabia, not in the Sinai Peninsula, and 3) that Mount Sinai is in Midian which is in Saudi Arabia.

The Term Red Sea

Our modern term the Red Sea is not a literal translation of the Hebrew term Yam Suph, which is usually translated as the Sea of Reeds. (With different vowel pointing of the Hebrew, some read Yam Suph as Sea of the End or Sea of Destruction.) Our English term Red Sea is a translation of the Greek Erythra Thallasa and the Latin Mare Rubrum, terms which occur some 800 times in the classical writers, in which these terms may refer to any of the arms that run off the Indian Ocean, including the Gulf of Suez, the Gulf of Aqaba, and branches of that sea as far away as the Persian Gulf and the Bay of Bengal.

While the term Red Sea can indeed refer to the Gulf of Aqaba, which is east of the Sinai Peninsula (Yam Suph in 1 Kings 9:26 is the Gulf of Aqaba), it can also refer to the Gulf of Suez, west of the Sinai Peninsula. In Exodus 10:19 the LORD ends the eighth plague, the plague of locusts, by bringing a strong wind that drove the locusts into the Red Sea. This must refer to the Gulf of Suez. It can hardly be the Gulf of Aqaba, 250 miles away. The usage of the term Red Sea thus allows it to refer to the Gulf of Suez. This conclusion invalidates one of the chief objections against the traditional identification which locates Israel’s crossing of the sea on the eastern border of ancient Egypt.

The Genesis Apocryphon, one of the Dead Sea Scrolls, supports this wide use of the term Red Sea and connects the Red Sea with the Yam Suph.

I, Abram, went out to travel around and to see the land. I began to travel around from the Giḥon River (the Nile), and I went along the side of the (Mediterranean) Sea until I arrived at Mt. Taurus. Then I traveled away from the side of this great sea of salt, and I went along the east side of Mt. Taurus through the breadth of the land until I arrived at the Euphrates River. I traveled along the side of the Euphrates until I reached the Red Sea toward the east (the Persian Gulf). I continued going along the side of the Red Sea until I reached the inlet (lit. “tongue”) of the Sea of Reeds which emerges from the Red Sea (circumnavigation of the Arabian Peninsula), and then I traveled toward the south until I arrived at the Giḥon River.

The Red Sea here runs all the way around the Arabian Peninsula and the Yam Suph is an extension of it.

Location of the Crossing and the Mountain

The Sinai was not considered part of Egypt proper. It was called the land of Mefkat. The crossing of the sea therefore must be on the eastern border of Egypt proper, near Goshen, not far away on the east side of the Sinai wilderness.

All the sites mentioned in Exodus 13 and 14 before Israel’s crossing of the sea seem to lie within the eastern part of the Delta in the land of Egypt, though the identification of several of them is uncertain. The crossing seems to follow fairly quickly after the Passover, and so it must be quite near to Goshen. Deuteronomy 33:5 mentions only two camps (Sukkoth and Etham) before Israel arrives at the seashore. As he gets ready to pursue Israel, Pharaoh says that Israel is wandering around in the land (Exodus 14:3). Would he say this if they were 250 miles away on the shore of the Gulf of Aqaba on the far side of the Sinai wilderness? This evidence points to a crossing of the sea on the eastern border of Egypt proper, not to a crossing hundreds of miles to the east.

There are three main routes considered as possibilities for Israel’s travel across Sinai: northern, central, and southern. The northern route is the Way of Shur, about 30 miles south of the Mediterranean coastline. Today it runs from Ismailiya, on the Suez Canal, to Beersheba. The central route follows the Darb el-Haj (as its name implies, the route to Mecca) that today runs from Cairo to Elat (Ezion Geber) via the Mitla Pass. The southern route runs south along the Gulf of Suez, turns inland at Wadi Feiran (identified with the biblical Rephidim), crosses the mountain range by the Monastery of St. Catherine and then turns north toward Elat and Kadesh Barnea.

After the crossing, Israel finds itself in the Wilderness of Shur (Exodus 15:22). Shur lies between Canaan and Egypt on a direct route from Canaan to Egypt. In Genesis 16:7 Hagar passes through the Wilderness of Shur on her flight from southern Canaan to Egypt. In 1 Samuel 15:7 Shur borders Egypt on the east.

If Israel was heading for a Mount Sinai in Saudi Arabia, they could have gone directly east through the Wilderness of Paran to Elat/Ezion Geber at the northern tip of the Gulf of Aqaba and then traveled down along the west coast of Arabia. It would make no sense for them to turn south and trap themselves against the Gulf of Aqaba. The explanation for this strange act by proponents of an Arabian Mount Sinai is that the LORD ordered the detour so they would be trapped and Pharaoh would be provoked to pursue them. But this location seems too far away from Egypt to be plausible. Israel would have to travel over 200 miles to get to the Gulf of Aqaba. It would then take some days for word to get back to Pharaoh. He then had to gather his army and travel across over 200 miles of wilderness to catch Israel. Some proponents of an Arabian Mount Sinai place the crossing of the sea even further south, which would increase the difficulty of this problem. Also the depth of the middle of the Gulf of Aqaba averages 900 meters with steep descents. This does not seem to fit the description of the crossing site.

The traditional route of Israel during the forty years makes good geographical sense if Mount Sinai is in the southern Sinai Peninsula. From Mount Sinai Israel goes north to Kadesh on the southern border of the land of Canaan, but they fail to enter the land from that direction because of their unbelief. At the end of the forty years they are again at Kadesh. Now the plan is to invade Canaan from the east near Jericho. To get there they must make a long detour around the west and east borders of Edom. None of the later movements to and from Kadesh make geographical sense if Mount Sinai is in Saudi Arabia. They could have just traveled to Canaan on the east side of the Dead Sea.

Later Tradition

In 2 Kings 19 when Elijah is fleeing from Jezebel, he heads south through Judah to Beersheba, and from there he goes a day’s journey into the Sinai wilderness. From there he heads to Mount Sinai (Horeb). The text seems to assume that its readers will be familiar with the general location of Sinai/Horeb. The geographical clues in the text support a location for Mount Sinai in the Sinai Peninsula.

There is evidence that prior to 100 BC, well before the Christian monastic period, Jewish sages and early Jewish pilgrims already identified Jebel Musa as Mount Sinai, and this identification was later adopted by Christian pilgrims. Other early pilgrims chose other peaks in the vicinity, but they were all searching in the same neighborhood. A number of Christian hermit monks settled on nearby Mount Serbal, considering it to be the biblical mountain. Others settled on Mount Catherine since it was the highest peak in the area.

In Christian tradition, the identification became firmly attached to the plain below Jebel Musa when Helena, mother of Constantine, chose it as a site for a church around 325 AD. This site was further supported by the account of the pilgrim Egeria, who visited the site later in the 4^th century AD, and when Saint Catherine’s Monastery was built there in the 6^th century AD by Justinian.

Countering Objections

The objection that Paul’s statement in Galatians 4:25 which says that Mount Sinai was in Arabia rules out the Sinai Peninsula as the location of Mount Sinai is not valid. The Sinai Peninsula was included in the Roman province Arabia Petraea or Petrea (Latin: Provincia Arabia; Greek: Ἐπαρχία Πετραίας Ἀραβίας). This province is distinguished from Arabia proper, known as Arabia Deserta and Arabia Felix.

In Exodus 2 and 3 Moses meets a priest of Midian in the vicinity of Mount Sinai. The heartland of the nomadic Midianites territory seems to be in northwest Arabia, but they roamed widely, and like the Edomites and Arabs, they could be found both east and west of the Arabah that runs from the Dead Sea to the Gulf of Aqaba (Gulf of Elat). Presence of Midianites somewhere near Mount Sinai does not rule out a location for Mount Sinai in the Sinai Peninsula. In addition, Exodus 18:27 and Numbers 10:30 imply that the area around Mount Sinai was not Jethro’s home territory.

Conclusions

There is no compelling reason to move the crossing of the sea to the Gulf of Aqaba or to locate Mount Sinai in Saudi Arabia. The traditional locations still seem to be more likely, although neither of them can be pinned to a precise location.

Mount Sinai could be one of a number of peaks in the same range as the present-day Mount Sinai (Jebel Musa).

The terrain around the south end of the Suez Canal may be quite different today than it was 3500 years ago, due to changing sea levels and changes caused by the creation of the canal, so it is impossible to assume that the features of the area today are close to those of Moses’ time.

There are several bodies of water north of the present-day tip of the Gulf of Suez that are plausible sites for the location of the crossing. These sites also offer a possible correlation with the name Sea of Reeds. The sea itself may have extended further north than it does today. The present lakes in the vicinity are quite deep. Thus, there are a number of plausible candidates, but none of them can be pinpointed as the site.

The Israelites and their neighbors thought of the world as having two great Seas or Oceans. The inner sea (the Mediterranean) was surrounded by the lands they were most familiar with. They were aware of another Ocean that ran around the outside of their world. By the middle of Old Testament times they knew quite a bit about these inner and outer Oceans. They were aware of the Red Sea, the Indian Ocean, and the Persia Gulf as arms of the outer ocean. They also knew there was an ocean outside the Pillars of Hercules (the Atlantic). Herodotus reports that by the 5th century BC the Phoenicians were aware that this ocean ran all the way around Africa, and that they had circumnavigated Africa.

The effect of the biblical reference to the place of the crossing in Exodus 13:17-18 is to disassociate the crossing site from the inner ocean (the Mediterranean) and to connect it with the outer ocean (the Red Sea).

Another reason to be very cautious about adopting the Mount Sinai in Arabia theory in a general reference book like the EHV Study Bible is that it was popularized in part by the discredited work of Ron Wyatt, whose work and claims are rejected by archaeologists from across the whole spectrum of scholars. This does not in itself prove that the theory is wrong, but should make us very cautious about turning to it without compelling reasons to do so.

The locations of the crossing of the sea and Mount Sinai cannot be identified with any degree of certainty, but if one simply triangulates all of the geographical references that pertain to the crossing of the sea and Mount Sinai, they all point to the north end of the Gulf of Suez and to the mountains of south central Sinai. Even if Helena’s informants were simply guessing at the location, they were making an informed guess. None of the objections to the traditional locations are compelling. So there is no reason to abandon the traditional view. In dubious cases, it is wise to stay with tradition. “Be not the first by whom the new is tried.”

The crossing of the sea and the giving of the Law at Sinai were real historical events at real geographical places. The important thing is not the precise location, but the reality of the events and their meaning.

Wartburg Project Report 2022-09

2022-09-28T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2022-09

Coffins in Israel

2022-09-28T00:00:00+00:00

2 Chronicles 16:13-14 says, “Asa rested with his fathers. … They buried him in his tomb, which he had cut out for himself in the City of David. They laid him on a bier that was covered with all kinds of fragrant spices and perfumed ointments, skillfully blended by the perfume makers. They burned a very large bonfire in his honor.” The EHV Study Bible adds the footnote: “Or in a coffin.” Is “coffin” really a possibility? Did they use boxes for burial or even for burning? It does not appear that משכב is ever used for the concept of a box. Wouldn’t suggesting “coffin” be a case of transposing our culture onto that of the text?

“Is coffin really a possibility?” The short answer is “yes” —a possibility but not a certainty or even a high probability. That is why the suggestion is in the footnote.

The first (and maybe the only) person in the Bible who was buried in a coffin was Joseph (Genesis 50:26). Joseph died and was embalmed and placed in a coffin in Egypt, where he would remain for many years until Israel took Joseph with them on the Exodus and buried him near Shechem in the middle of his tribal inheritance in Israel. The Hebrew word for his coffin is aron, which can refer to any sort of box or chest. Most often it refers to the Ark of the Covenant. Since Joseph was being honored as a prince of Egypt, it is likely his coffin was an anthropoid (human-shaped) coffin, the form common in Egypt. It was likely made of metal. Many clay coffins of this type have been found in the land of Israel. Most of them probably are burials of Egyptians, though some may be local nobility trying to adopt Egyptian fashion.

Incidentally, Jacob’s burial at Machpelah also required a long journey across the desert. Jacob was embalmed and his body was kept in Egypt for 70 days before the funeral trip. The text does not say whether he had a coffin, but it seems probable due to the circumstances of the long journey.

The next interesting instance is in Deuteronomy 3:11: “Only Og king of Bashan had remained from what was left of the Rephaim. His bed, a bed of iron, is it not in Rabbah of the people of Ammon? Its length is thirteen feet, and its width is six feet.” EHV has the footnote: “Or sarcophagus.” The relevant Hebrew word is ‘eres, which most translations render as bed or bed frame. CEV, GNT, and NET render it as some form of coffin. The BDB Hebrew lexicon offers coffin as an option. ‘Eres does not seem to be an ordinary resting place but a luxurious one. Israel had just recently defeated Og and seized his territory. The question is whether this was a bed which Israel found in his palace or his final resting place.

That brings us to 2 Chronicles 16:14, which is our text. “They laid him on a bier that was covered with all kinds of fragrant spices and perfumed ointments.” EHV offers the footnote: “Or in a coffin.” Rather literally rendered, the passage says that Asa lay down with his fathers, and they laid him down on or in a lying down spot. All three expressions are from the same Hebrew root. The root shakav can mean lie down in death, lie down to sleep, or lie down to have sex. For the noun lying down spot most translations have bed. Others have bier. A few have coffin. Others simply skip the cognate noun that follows the verb lay down. One Jewish translation has mishgav, a nice non-committal, straddle translation.

The third instance, the funeral procession of the young man at Nain in Luke 7:14, is in some respects the most surprising. The Greek word for his coffin is soros. The BAG lexicon for New Testament Greek defines it as coffin or bier, but the Liddell and Scott lexicon of classical Greek defines soros as: a vessel for holding anything , especially a cinerary container; a coffin; or a nickname for an old person. Soros is the word used for Joseph’s coffin in the Greek Old Testament in Genesis 50. It is clear that the primary meaning of the word was a container for the ashes of the deceased, but by extension it seemingly can refer to a coffin or even a bier to carry the dead (the last meaning seemingly deduced from Luke 7). The most common English translation in Luke 7 is bier, though this is not the original base meaning of the word. Other translations include stretcher, funeral bed, coffin, open coffin, and the thing on which the body lay. The last translation the thing on which the body lay has much to commend it. It reflects the translators’ frustration at trying to find an English word to express the concept.

Ambiguity of terminology is really the heart of the problem. Words have a wide range of meanings and usages, and there seldom is a one-to-one matchup between English words and Greek or Hebrew words. None of the biblical words in our discussion is a one-for-one match with the English word coffin, which is a container used to hold a body, usually small enough to be used in transporting the body. A larger container into which the body is placed at the tomb site could be called a sarcophagus (a flesh-eating stone box). To make things more complicated, a coffin could be placed inside a sarcophagus. Bier means a framework for carrying something; a stand for a coffin; or the coffin with its stand. A stretcher is used to transport a body, but it does not remain with the body. None of the biblical words in our discussion align neatly with any of these categories.

In Luke 7:14 the EHV goes with what is a minority rendering, open coffin. The Concordia Commentary, like many others, has the rendering bier, without offering any explanation for its choice. The choice of the EHV translator, open coffin, is good in that it considers two somewhat contradictory points: the base meaning of the Greek word is container or coffin, but many authorities confidently state that the Jews of the time did not use what we would call coffins. The term open coffin considers both aspects of the issue. The term open coffin also leaves the issue somewhat unresolved since there is not a uniform understanding of the term open coffin. Different writers use the term to refer to either an open box, a plank, a bier, or something else that they were using. The soros, however, seems to be more than a stretcher. It is something funerary, but exactly what it was is uncertain.

So did Israelites ever use what we would call coffins? There are quite a few coffins in the land of Israel, but most of them seem to be burials of non-Israelites, or local elites trying to emulate Egyptian, Assyrian, or Roman practices. A large stone coffin or we might call it a sarcophagus was found at the site of Herod’s tomb. Ahiram, a Phoenician king who was a near contemporary of Asa, was buried in a coffin. It seems clear that the predominant form of burial for Israelites was in a shroud without a coffin. Coffins were used mainly when the body had to be transported some distance. The protective function of a coffin could be served by the structure of the grave or tomb. In family tombs the deceased were placed on a bed. Later, when they had been reduced to a skeleton, their bones were placed in a container with other family members. In New Testament times, the bones could be placed in an individual stone box called an ossuary. One such box may be the resting place of Jesus’ brother James. Simple graves could be made into a coffin of sorts by lining them with stones or packing hard red clay around the body. If the shroud was placed in a wooden box, the only remaining evidence today would be the nails. Though the references to coffins in the Talmud may refer to later times, they should give us pause about accepting the common claim that Jews never used coffins.

To sum up, Joseph and very likely Jacob were buried in coffins. There is archaeological evidence that Herod the Great was buried in a sarcophagus after being transported from Jericho on a golden bier. Elites around Israel used coffins. There is no unambiguous evidence concerning the kings of Israel. It is not clear why Asa’s committal receives special attention. The assumption that Jews never used coffins may be an oversimplification. The Greek word used for the youth of Nain’s resting place is the same word used for Joseph’s coffin.

The main lesson to be learned here is one which we repeat so often at the conclusion of these FAQs that we sound like a broken record: “Things that at first glance seem very simple turn out to be more complicated than anyone imagined.” As long as we are on the subject of the complexity of language, how many of you remember from personal experience what it means to “sound like a broken record”?

Why Should I Use the EHV?

2022-09-15T00:00:00+00:00

The main reasons for you to use the EHV.

Wartburg Project Report 2022-08

2022-08-31T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2022-08

Deliver Us From Evil

2022-08-30T00:00:00+00:00

Can you explain the translation difference between the EHV and NIV concerning the phrase τοῦ πονηροῦ (tou ponerou) in Matthew 5:37 and Matthew 6:13. There seems to be an inconsistency.

Here are the translations:

EHV	NIV
Instead, let your statement be, ‘Yes, yes,’ or ‘No, no.’ Whatever goes beyond these is from the Evil One. (Mat 5:37)	All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one. (Mat 5:37)
Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. (Mat 6:13)	And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one. (Mat 6:13)

The inconsistency is that the EHV translates the phrase τοῦ πονηροῦ “the Evil One” in Matthew 5:37 and “evil” in Matthew 6:13.

Either translation is possible. Both passages could be translated the same way. The reasons that they were not kept the same are the context and the familiar text of the Lord’s Prayer.

In Matthew 5:37, it seemed more likely in the context that the influence of a person was involved. Compare the translation of John 17:15; 2 Thessalonians 3:3; 1 John 3:12. The context suggests that ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ is masculine, “from to the wicked one,” not neuter: “from to the wickedness.” Why weaken the power of the thought by substituting the impersonal power of evil for the personal author of evil? And is there any wickedness that is not due to the Devil? In this verse, EHV has the same approach as NIV.

In the case of Matthew 6:13, we did struggle some on which way to choose. You will notice that the EHV adds the footnote "Or the Evil One" as an option, so this one could go either way.

In this case, however, familiarity mattered. This is, after all, the Lord’s Prayer. The background of the KJV and the traditional liturgical versions of the Lord's Prayer (which are still what most people say) leads one to lean toward, “deliver us from evil.” Many Christians say the Lord's Prayer with this very wording every day in many places. All of this is to say that it sounds very familiar to most people to say, “deliver us from evil.”

Often when I pray the Lord's Prayer in private, such as on my walks, I expand on the petitions, as Luther taught. In this case, I very often have prayed, “Deliver us from evil and from the Evil One.” So you can think of both options as you pray. But when we pray the Lord’s Prayer in worship, we say, “Deliver us from evil.”

When it came to translating the Lord’s Prayer, it seemed valuable to try to remain as familiar as possible. With very familiar, beloved passages like the Christmas story or Psalm 23, it seems wise to stay with the traditional wording unless there is compelling reason to change. There is no reason to “reinvent the wheel” or change just for the sake of being different.

Sea Cow Skins and the Dwelling

2022-08-30T00:00:00+00:00

Why did you translate the Hebrew word “tachash” as “sea cows” in Exodus? I understand that the meaning of the Hebrew word has been lost to time, and the translation in the 1984 NIV was also sea cows, but I’ve never liked this translation. The KJV has the word translated as badger skins, and other translations read dolphin skins or seal skins, but these are all unclean animals that God would not have commanded the Israelites to cover his sacred objects with. The only thing we really know about the word is that it was some type of high-quality skin or leather. Sea cow skins is a very specific translation of a very ambiguous word. Wouldn’t it have been better to keep a more ambiguous translation such as “fine leather”? I feel that using the translation “sea cows” can send the wrong message to some people that God allowed unclean animal skins to come into contact with the sacred objects.

The first question we must address is whether there is any clear biblical command or evidence that Israel could not use products derived from unclean animals without contracting uncleanness. Ivory, purple dye from shellfish, honey, and pearls were among the products from unclean animals that the Israelites seem to have used. Purple dye was even used in materials for the Dwelling. Ivory seems to have been permissible for objects used by priests since there is an ancient ivory pomegranate with the inscription “holy to the priests.” Even if the inscription is a later addition as some suspect, its creators saw no problem with ivory being put to holy use. Israelites used camels, donkeys, and horses, but camel milk is not considered kosher for food. Israelite women could wear shoes made from tachash (Ezekiel 16:10). The biblical ban appears to be on unclean food, not on all other uses of unclean animals.

Is there a biblical command that would forbid Israelites from obtaining and using leather of sea cows? Is there a scriptural statement to that effect, or is this a conclusion drawn from the fact that their corpses were unclean? The corpses of unclean animals were unclean. but that was true of corpses in general. If sea cow leather was unclean for this reason, it would seem that all leather would be unclean. This was clearly not the case.

Or is this opinion that dolphin skin or sea cow skin could not be used based on an assumption that God would not allow materials from unclean animals to be used in the Dwelling? This assumption does not seem to have direct scriptural support.

There are some rabbinical writers that argue that materials from unclean animals could not be used in the Dwelling, but their discussion makes the topic even more murky. Some say that the tachash was a clean animal that no longer exists, such as a special unicorn. Others offer rationalizations about why dyes from unclean shellfish and worms could be used in the Dwelling. There is no clear guidance here. The rabbinic commentary on Exodus in my library uses dolphin and seal skin as the translation, so they do not seem to be troubled by the issue.

There is near universal agreement that this word tachash is the name of an animal. There is no clear linguistic evidence in biblical Hebrew to support the idea that tachash is the name of a color or that it means “fine.” Those translations, followed by some Greek and Latin versions, seem to be guesses based on context. There is support in the cognate language Arabic that the tachash is the name of a marine animal, whether seal, dolphin, or sea cow. Leather of sea cows was in fact used by inhabitants of the Sinai Peninsula. There is no support in cognate Semitic languages for badger or goat. There may be remote support in Akkadian for a type of dye or animal skin.

The use of tachash in shoes and the outer layer of the tent suggests that water resistance and toughness may have been the qualities that were desired, rather than the luxuriousness of the leather. The skin of a marine animal seems to fit this use. The tachash skin did not come in direct contact with the sacred objects of the Dwelling but were separated from them by an intervening layer.

Though tachash is a rare word, the connection with a sea animal fits the context of the Sinai Peninsula and the purpose of the outer layer of the Dwelling. Our EHV Study Bible note at Exodus 25:5 states the uncertainty of the term tachash: “The meaning of tichashim, translated sea cows, is uncertain. Sea cows are similar to the manatees of Florida. The local name of the Red Sea variety is dugong. Alternate translations suggested for tichashim skin are dolphin skin, badger skin, goat skin, and fine leather.” In Ezekiel 16:10 where the emphasis is on the luxury of the shoes, we lead with that idea in the text, and put the animal name in the note.

There is more linguistic evidence for an animal name than for a meaning like fine or luxurious, for which the evidence is largely circumstantial. For a maritime animal, there is some Semitic linguistic evidence. Luxurious leather is as much or more of a conjecture as the maritime animal suggestions. In the absence of biblical evidence ruling out use of such materials in the Dwelling, it seemed wisest to stay with sea cow, the closest thing to a contemporary consensus concerning the name of the animal and to state the uncertainty about the identity of the material in the footnotes. If we agree that tachash is an animal, we should attempt to translate it rather than to cop out with tachash skin as the translation. Many of the animal names in Leviticus 11 are also uncertain, but we attempt to translate them. We have to do the best we can. Perhaps our note should include a stronger reference to why many translations go with the noncommittal fine leather.

Wartburg Project Report 2022-07

2022-07-30T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2022-07

Spirit or spirit in Galatians 5:16-18, 22, 25

2022-07-29T00:00:00+00:00

How do choose between upper-case "Spirit" and lower-case "spirit"?

In Galatians 5:16-17, why do you translate “What I am saying is this: Walk by the spirit, and you will not carry out what the sinful flesh desires. For the sinful flesh desires what is contrary to the spirit, and the spirit what is contrary to the sinful flesh.” Why don’t you capitalize Spirit? I'm not sure that the case for "spirit" outweighs the use of "Spirit" in these verses. While I understand the desire for a balance of the spirit/flesh dynamic, it only makes things more difficult for the reader and preacher. In the end, you reach the conclusion that the only reason our spirit can wage war against the flesh is because of the Spirit's power. But now that has to be explained when it could have just been printed that way.

Underlying your question are two other issues: the issue of capitalization in the Bible and the nature of exegetical questions.

There is no capitalization in the Hebrew and Greek texts of the Bible. To reproduce the Bible very literally, a translator would have to use no capitalization, but English grammar calls for the capitalization of proper names and titles. In English, capitalization or non-capitalization may also be used to express differences of emphasis. A writer may use “the temple” or “the Temple” to indicate whether he is thinking primarily of the type of building that this structure is, or he is emphasizing that this is the unique Temple of the LORD in Jerusalem. Other examples are the Antichrist or an antichrist; the Evil One or an evil one; the Church or the church, and the Holy Spirit or our spirit. None of these distinctions are explicitly indicated in the Hebrew and Greek texts, so every act of capitalization in a translation requires an act of interpretation. The work of English translation requires that some explicit decisions be made in matters which are left up the reader to determine from context in Hebrew and Greek.

An exegetical question is a situation in which there are two unquestioned doctrines in Scripture, but it is uncertain which of those two doctrines is in the foreground in this passage. Spiritual life is worked in us by the Holy Spirit. But the Holy Spirit does not live this life for us. He works in us to will and to do according to God’s will. With our new nature we are participants in the battle against sin.

The key statement in this text in Galatians 5 is “The flesh desires what is contrary to the spirit, and the spirit what is contrary to the flesh.” All interpreters agree that in this passage the term flesh does not refer to the muscles and organs of our body but to the sinful nature that we sometimes call the Old Man or the Old Adam. Since the word spirit here is paired with the word flesh, this suggests that the word spirit here is the counterpart to the sinful nature, that is, that it is the new spirit that the Holy Spirit has placed into us. We call this the new nature, the new man, the new person, a new heart.

In this section, it is debatable in several places whether Spirit or spirit is the best choice. Our translation policy states: If it is uncertain whether a text refers to the Spirit or to spirit, put one of the options in the text, the other in a footnote. That is what we have done here. The preceding paragraph explains why we decided spirit was the best choice here in verse 17. Our footnotes on these verses include the following comments: In this section, the term spirit refers to the new nature in contrast with the sinful flesh. The new nature (the spirit) given to Christians by the Holy Spirit leads them to obey God motivated by thanks to Jesus (2 Corinthians 5:14-15, Colossians 3:17). The footnotes also list the option Spirit.

In most exegetical questions, it will not make much difference to the preacher which option is in the text and which is in the footnote. If the preacher is preaching about the battle of the flesh with our new spirit, he cannot do this without referring to the Holy Spirit who created the new spirit in us through the means of grace. If he is preaching about the battle of our flesh against the Spirit, he cannot do this without referring to the new spirit that is engaged in the battle against the sinful nature. Whatever the preacher’s starting point is, a well-rounded sermon will end up in the same place.

Regardless of which option is placed in the text, and which is placed is the notes, there will be the same need for explanation of the relationship of the two options.

It is true, as you say, that many translations do not even take note of the option spirit. This is all the more reason for us to call attention to that option so that our readers will see the whole picture.

Why Copyright the EHV?

2022-07-29T00:00:00+00:00

Why have you copyrighted the EHV? Nobody can own the Word of God. It belongs to everybody.

Scripture says, “Now, we know that the law is good as long as one uses it correctly— keeping in mind that the law is not laid down for a righteous person, but for lawless people” (1 Timothy 1:8-9). This general principle is true also of copyright law.

Copyright is not some sort of license you apply for. Copyright is something you automatically have as a result of creating a work.

Copyright law protects a translation in two ways. It prevents people from taking our translation, making doctrinal alterations to it, and keeping the name EHV on it. (Though trademark is also involved in this kind of protection). It also protects the biblical principle that the laborer is worthy of his wages. There is a lot of cost involved in setting up publications. Those who have contributed nothing to this should not sell the labor of others for their own profit. Today most literary pirates do not pirate printed works. They steal the electronic versions because they can produce unlimited additional copies with the touch of a button. Instant profit! Sometimes they claim that they are giving it away for free. They steal a copy of the EHV, post it on their site with the notice “free EHV” but they surround it with ads and make their money off the ads.

The United Bible Societies, whose mission is to distribute Scriptures around the world, grants both commercial and non-commercial licenses. A non-commercial license gives the holder the right to make free distribution of the work, but if the licensee attaches ads to the work or asks for donations for the work, it must pay fees to the United Bible Societies. Our EHV licenses follow the practices of the UBS, which sets good standards for everyone. We offer our licenses directly or through the Digital Bible Library of the UBS.

Our translators worked for free, but if money is made from their work, they should share in that gain. Those who distribute Bibles, whether print or electronic, have costs in materials and delivery. Without income they cannot continue to distribute the Bible. It is not fair or ethical if someone else pirates their work.

We encourage free use of the EHV in derivative works. No permission is needed for anyone to use up to 1000 verses of the EHV in a work which they create. To use more than that in one work or to use whole books of the Bible, they need permission. We are very generous at granting permission. We recently gave a group permission to distribute free copies of Luke and John, but with the stipulation that they must give them away for free, which they readily agreed to do.

The reason that copyright expires after a time is that though it is intended to give the creators of a work fair wages for their labor, copyright is not intended allow endless rows of successors to profit from that work. The same principle is true for patents on drugs and other products. They protect the principle that a laborer is worthy of his hire, but after that has happened, free use of the product is open to everyone.

The essence of Scripture is the divinely intended meaning. Every translation is an attempt to convey that meaning. Copyright does not interfere with anyone’s freedom to translate and distribute the Word, but it does prevent people from selling someone else’s work as their own. The Wartburg Project has worked to establish the name Evangelical Heritage Version. Trademark law does not allow someone to make their own translation with different doctrinal views than the EHV and put the name EHV on it. Trademark and copyright laws can be misused to make excessive profit from rare or valued commodities. (The EHV is not yet close to being guilty of excess profit. 😁) Our use of trademark and copyright has two purposes. To protect the integrity of the translation and to hinder people from selling others’ work as their own (Experience shows that we cannot entirely prevent them from doing this.)

The law is good if it is used properly.

Wartburg Project Report 2022-06

2022-06-29T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2022-06

Pronouns and Antecedents in the Bible

2022-06-29T00:00:00+00:00

In Psalm 72:17, the EHV has “All nations will be blessed through him. They will call him blessed,” but other translations have “They will be blessed through him. All nations will call him blessed.” Why is this?

Summary of the Kings of Judah and Israel

2022-06-01T00:00:00+00:00

A quick-reference guide to the Old Testament kings.

Wartburg Project Report 2022-05

2022-05-27T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2022-05

God's Mercy and Faithfulness

2022-05-25T00:00:00+00:00

In reading the Psalms and other books I have noticed that the EHV often translates “mercy” where other recent translations have “love” or “steadfast love.” Where other translations have something like “the godly one” EHV has something like “recipient of God’s favor or mercy.” Why is this? It seems EHV is more like the King James in speaking of God’s mercy.

God’s love, mercy, and faithfulness are like a multi-colored cloth or rainbow. The Bible uses many different Hebrew and Greek words to describe them. Though these words can sometimes be used as interchangeable synonyms, translations should try to preserve the distinctive flavor of each word. Where two words are connected to the same Hebrew or Greek root, the translation should attempt to preserve that connection. The EHV attempts to preserve the distinctness of each of these words.

The nature of this study requires that it will refer to many Hebrew and Greek words. Because this article is intended for a general audience, it will use the Hebrew and Greek forms of the words only in their first occurrence or in a few key occurrences, and we will use English transliterations in subsequent occurrences.

This study will focus on two Hebrew terms from the same Hebrew root, חֶסֶד (ḥesed) and חָסִיד (ḥasid).

חֶסֶד (ḥesed)

The NIV and other recent translations often translate חֶסֶד (ḥesed) as “love” or “steadfast love.” It seems best, however, to reserve the translation “love” for אֲהָבָה (ahavah), the generic Hebrew word for love, which is parallel to the Greek ἀγάπη (agape). The ancient versions of the Old Testament regularly translated ḥesed as “mercy” (Greek ἔλεος—eleos). The King James Version also followed this convention. About three-fourths of the occurrences of ḥesed in the Old Testament have God as the acting subject and man as the receiving object. In the early 20th century it became popular to claim that ḥesed was a word for covenant loyalty which meant something like “steadfast love.” God’s mercy certainly is exercised within his covenant and, thus, it is always faithful. This meaning of faithfulness, however, flows from the overall concept of God’s faithful love, not from the word ḥesed itself. God’s love and mercy are not a result of a covenant obligation, but his covenant obligation flows from his love and mercy. When the psalmist wants to stress the faithfulness aspect of God’s mercy, he makes it explicit by using the word pair חֶסֶד ואֱמֶת, ḥesed v-emet “mercy and truth,” that is, dependable mercy. It is the emet that expresses the faithfulness. Recently there has been a tendency to recognize this and to return to “mercy” as the best translation for ḥesed. This is the usual translation in the EHV. More than half of the 245 occurrences of ḥesed in the Old Testament are in Psalms, with a big boost from Psalm 136.

Other Hebrew roots which share the same field of meaning with ḥesed are the adjectives חַנּוּן (ḥanun), which is usually translated “gracious,” and רַחוּם (raḥum), which is usually translated “compassionate.” The word Hebrew word ḥanun is related to the root meaning of the Greek χάρις (charis—grace), but ḥesed also partakes of some of the meaning of charis. Raḥum is usually rendered with the idea of οἰκτιρμός (compassion) in Greek. Raḥum may have the connotation of a mother’s love since the Hebrew word for “womb” is also based on the root rḥm, but this may simply reflect the same emotional connotation as the Greek σπλάγχνα (splangchna) “gut feeling.”

The four Hebrew roots which emphasize God’s gracious mercy for sinners are all brought together in the revelation of the Lord’s name in Exodus 34:6:

יְהוָה אֵל רַחוּם וְחַנוּן אֶרֶךְ אַפַּיִם וְרַב־חֶסֶד וֶאֱמֶת
“The LORD, the compassionate and gracious God,
slow to anger, and overflowing with mercy and truth."

חָסִיד (ḥasid)

The word חָסִיד (ḥasid) is translated “godly” or “devout” in many recent translations. But because ḥasid is based on the same root as ḥesed, the common word for God’s mercy, translations should attempt to preserve that connection. The word ḥasid may describe a person as a recipient of God’s mercy, as a dispenser of mercy, or both. Hebrew words of this form may create an adjective expressing a passive idea (mercied) or a quality or state (merciful). Though the term was originally passive (mercied), such nouns also can express a state. Most lexicons favor the stative interpretation of ḥasid (merciful). This understanding is supported by Psalm 18:26 (English v 25), “with the merciful you show yourself merciful,” That ḥasid also carries with it the connotation “devout” is clear from the fact that it is sometimes parallel with the word, “servant,” and that the ḥasid is contrasted with the ungodly man. The strictly observant among modern-day Jews call themselves hasidim. Keeping both meanings together, we can say that the ḥasid is one who is merciful because he is motivated by God’s mercy. The ḥasid is what he is because of God’s ḥesed.

The word ḥasid occurs 32 times in the Old Testament, 25 of them in Psalms.

More than any other Hebrew word, ḥesed is the word that that expresses the Lord’s basic attitude toward his people. It is the practical and emotional equivalent of the word charis “grace” in the New Testament, but ḥesed focuses more on the mercy we receive and charis more on the undeserved love that gives it. The EHV tries to maintain the distinct emphasis on “mercy” in the ḥesed/ḥasid word pair. However, because “mercied” is not a common English word, it is often necessary to use a term like “recipient of mercy or favor” in those cases which emphasize what the person receives rather than on what he dispenses.

Wartburg Project Report 2022-04

2022-04-30T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2022-04

Acts 1:26—Lottery or Election?

2022-04-30T00:00:00+00:00

In Acts 1 did they choose a new apostle by casting lots or by voting for a candidate?

The vast majority of commentaries and translations suggest that the Jerusalem congregation chose a successor for Judas by some form of casting or drawing lots. The NIV says: Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles. The Greek text, however, says: καὶ ἔδωκαν κλήρους αὐτοῖς καί ἔπεσεν ὁ κλήπος ἐπὶ Μαθθίαν καὶ συγκατεψηφίσθη μετὰ τῶν ἕνδεκα ἀποστόλων. “And they gave lots to/for them, and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was counted in with the eleven apostles.” The question is whether “giving lots for someone” refers to casting lots or to casting a vote.

Casting Lots

The most common Greek expression for casting lots (βάλλω κλήρους) does not occur in Acts 1:26. The expression βάλλω κλήρους is found in the references to casting lots for Jesus’ clothing in the New Testament (Mt 27:35, Mk 15:24, Lk 23:34, John 19:24) and in the Greek of Psalm 22:19 (21:19 in the Greek Septuagint). This term is also used for casting lots for the allotment of land and offices in the Old Testament. Other verbs for the action of casting lots are ἐμβάλλω κλῆρον (ἐνέβαλεν αὐτοῖς Ἰησοῦς κλήρον, “Joshua cast in a lot for them” Josh 18:10); or ἐκφέρω κλῆρον (ἐξοίσω ὑμῖν κλῆρον, “I will bring out a lot for you” Josh 18:6); or λαγχάνω (λάχωμεν περὶ αὐτους, “let us appoint or cast lots for them” John 19:24^var) or κληρόω (κληροῦται Ἰωναθᾶν καὶ Σαοῦλ, “Jonathan and Saul were chosen by lot” 1 Sam 14:41). The noun κλῆρος may refer either to the lot itself, to the casting of lots, to the allotment or office that was assigned by the lot, or simply to any assigned portion. The last meaning is the most common in the New Testament. Ironically Judas is said to have received the allotment of his ministry “by lot” (ἔλαχεν τὸν κλῆρον τῆς διακονίας ταύτης Acts 1:17). Surely there was no casting of lots involved in this case. The NIV simply translates “he shared in this ministry.” The Hebrew verbs for casting lots are ידה/ידד cast, נפל let fall, and שׁלך throw. Other verbs which indicate that the lots were sometimes shaken out of a container are טול cast out, עלה go up, and יצא come out). The method used by the Jews was to place stones with the participants’ names on them into a vessel and to shake it until one lot came out. The Hebrew noun for lot is גוֹרָל. Like κλῆρος it can refer to the lot itself or to the portion assigned by the lot.

Giving a Lot To/For Someone

Thus we see that none of the common idioms for the act of casting lots occurs in Acts 1:26. If the phrase ἔδωκαν κλήρους αὐτοῖς refers to the process of casting lots at all, it probably refers to assigning a certain lot or token to a person (analogous to assigning “heads” to one person and “tails” to the other) rather than to the actual casting of the lot (flipping the coin). The lots assigned to the individuals entered in the lottery could be objects with their name on, objects of different color, or objects with some other differentiating mark or shape. However, the Greek verb for this process in a parallel passage of Scripture is not δίδωμι (“give a lot”) but ἐπιτίθημι (“place a lot upon”). In Leviticus 16:8 ἐπιτίθημι κλῆρον ἐπὶ is the idiom used when lots are assigned to the two goats in the lottery for choosing the scapegoat. The Hebrew has וְנָתַ֧ן אַהֲרֹ֛ן עַל־שְׁנֵ֥י הַשְּׂעִירִ֖ם גּוֹרָל֑וֹת “Aaron gave upon the two goats lots,” almost an exact agreement with Acts 1:26. In Joshua 17:14 “to give a lot to someone” means “to give an allotment, a portion, to him” מַדּוּעַ֩ נָתַ֨תָּה לִּ֜י נַחֲלָ֗ה גּוֹרָ֤ל אֶחָד֙ why have you given to me as an inheritance [only] one lot. In passages other than Acts 1:26, when δίδωμι is combined with κλῆρος in the idiom “to give a lot to someone,” the meaning is not “to cast lots,” nor does it mean “assign a lot to.” In Numbers 16:14 “to give a lot to someone” (ἔδωκας ἡμῖν κλῆρον) means to “assign an allotment to someone.” A similar expression occurs in Joshua 14:3 (τοῖς Λευίταις οὐκ ἔδωκεν κλῆρον “to the Levites he did not give an allotment”). Thus the most natural translation of ἔδωκαν κλήρους αὐτοῖς in Acts 1:26 would be “they gave allotments to them,” but this does not fit the context. The translation “they assigned lots to them” is supported by a literal translation from the Hebrew of Leviticus 16:8.

Giving To Someone By Lot

The Greek idiom for determining an assignment by casting lots is not “to give a lot to someone” but “to give something to someone by lot” (ὑμῖν γὰρ δέδωκα τὴν γῆν αὐτῶν ἐν κλήρῳ, “for to you I have given their land by lot” Nu 33:53). Alternate expressions for this are κατακληρονομέω τὴν γῆν ἐν κλήρῳ or μετὰ κλήρου “to assign an allotment by lot or with a lot” Nu 33:54, Nu 34:13, and κληρονομέω κατὰ κλῆρον “to assign an allotment according to lot” Josh 12:7. The term for the falling of a lot for someone is “the lot came out” (ἐξῆλθεν ὁ κλῆρος Josh 18:11) or “the lot fell upon” (ἔπεσεν ὁ κλῆρος ἐπι Ἰῶναν Jonah 1:7). Note that this last term is parallel to Acts 1:26.

Voting

The rare verb συγκαταψηφίζομαι seems to mean “to join in a vote.” καταψηφίζομαι originally referred primarily to negative votes but came to apply to any vote. Here in Acts 1:26 the passive seems to mean “to be voted in with.” In the New Testament other terms for voting or choosing someone are χειροτονέω originally “vote by a show of hands” (2 Cor 8:19) and καταφέρω ψῆφον, “cast a ballot against” (Acts 26:10). In classical usage a selection by ψῆφος indicated a choice made by a vote rather than by a lottery, but this meaning may not always be present in later usage.

Conclusion

Almost alone, the GWN translates Acts 1:26, “They provided lots for both of them, and the lot fell to Matthias; and he was chosen by vote to be added to the eleven apostles.” The possibility that this verse could refer to a vote is supported by the Anchor Bible: Acts (p 10) and by Jackson and Lake (The Acts, IV, 15). Can this rendering be justified by the evidence we have examined? In favor of the view that this verse refers to election by ballot is the fact that ἔδωκαν κλήρους αὐτοῖς is not one of the regular terms for casting lots and the verb συγκαταψηφίζομαι seems to refer to voting. If this is the case, the κλήρους referred to would be the balloting counters given to the voters to deposit in the “ballot box.” “The lot fell upon Matthias” would mean that he got the most votes and so the office was allotted to him. Also supporting this view is the variant which replaces αὐτοῖς with αὐτῶν, found in the Textus Receptus, D*, E, Y, and most minuscules. This could be translated “they gave their lots” and would refer to the voters' placing their tokens into the container. Favoring the interpretation that the reference is to drawing lots rather than giving ballots is the fact that ἔπεσεν ὁ κλῆπος ἐπὶ elsewhere refers to the falling of a lot. It seems that the linguistic evidence is inconclusive, perhaps slightly favoring a vote. The common precedent of casting lots in Israel probably tips the balance toward the theory that Acts 1:26 refers to the casting of lots rather than the casting of ballots. But the evidence for a lottery in Acts 1:26 is much less decisive than the near unanimous verdict of the commentaries and translations would suggest.

Lottery or election? Whichever method was used was sure to produce a suitable successor to Judas since only candidates with all the necessary qualifications had been nominated for the office.

*Originally published as an exegetical brief in the Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly, Summer 1998

Wartburg Project Report 2022-03

2022-03-30T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2022-03

Wartburg Project Report 2022-02

2022-02-21T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2022-02

Who were the Hittites?

2022-02-17T00:00:00+00:00

In Genesis 23 Abraham deals with a people called Hittites, who seem to be Canaanites, but historians say the Hittites were an Indo-European people that appeared much later in the land that is today Turkey. Is this a case where the Bible has its history wrong?

Actually, this is a case where history has its history wrong.

The Bible calls a people who appear in the patriarchal accounts in Genesis Hittites or descendants of Heth. These Hittites are classified with the Canaanite peoples of the land. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, newly discovered ancient texts revealed a new rival of the Egyptians at about the time of the biblical judges. They were an Indo-European people from central Anatolia (Turkey), whom the historians named Hittites.

Much has been written about the Hittite-Egyptian rivalry, and these Hittites play a prominent role in ancient history books. These people moved into an area of Anatolia called the land of Hatti, so the historians named them Hittites, on the basis of the apparently erroneous conclusion that these people were related to the Hittites in the Bible. They then pointed out that these Hittites rose to prominence in central Anatolia significantly later than the biblical dates for the patriarchal period. It was concluded that the biblical references to Hittites must be anachronisms based on confused memories of the Hittites that were introduced into biblical accounts, which these historians claimed were written long after the heyday of the Hittites.

But there is a major problem with this explanation. The problem is that these Indo-European rivals of the Egyptians did not call themselves Hittites. They called themselves Neshians. When they competed with the Egyptians, they were relatively new arrivals in the land of Hatti in central Anatolia, where they displaced an earlier non-Indo-European people called Hattians. The Neshians kept the geographic name, land of Hatti, but they did not call themselves Hattians or Hittites. The Neshians were given the name Hittites by scholars on the basis of the alleged similarity to the name Hatti to Hitti in the Bible. This error produced a discrepancy between the biblical and historical description of “Hittites.” This discrepancy was not produced by the Bible. It was produced by the historians who erroneously stuck the tag Hittites on the Neshians.

About the Hittites the University of Pennsylvania’s archaeological magazine Expedition (January 1974) says:

The first thing to realize about the Hittites is that they are not Hittites. The sad fact is that we are stuck with an incorrect terminology, but it is too late to do anything about it now. This unfortunate situation came about as a result of several deductions made by earlier scholars which, though entirely reasonable at the time, have proved to be false. …
We now know that these people we call Hittites were Indo-European. … It is now believed that the Hittites came into Anatolia sometime in the latter part of the third millennium B.C., though exactly when and from where are questions we still cannot answer. …
The Hittites were indeed a major world power in the period 1700-1200 B.C., but they were not Hittites. That is, they did not call themselves Hittites. They refer to themselves as Neshians, “inhabitants of the city Nesha,” and their language Neshian. But so much for that; the scholarly world had already labeled them Hittites and, like it or not, Hittites they shall forever remain. It is just as well, for the term Neshian only calls attention to our ignorance of this early period; we do not even know where Nesha is to be located…
There was the evidence all along: what we call Hittite should be called Neshian and the evidence for this had been available since 1887.

That is the simplified version of a complicated story. In the EHV we considered calling the biblical Hittites Hethians to avoid the confusion historians have created. But since the biblical Hittites are the real Hittites and the historical Hittites are the imposters, we decided to keep the term Hittites along with the term descendants of Heth and to explain the problem with a brief note.

We have provided an extended discussion of this relatively minor point to illustrate a too common phenomenon: scholars misread the biblical text, draw an erroneous conclusion, and then blame the Bible for their error.

Did David have red hair?

2022-02-17T00:00:00+00:00

Please explain why the word "hair" was added in 1 Samuel 16:12 in the EHV. The Hebrew word for hair (shear) is not in that verse. My understanding is that "ruddy" is the closest literal translation for admoni, which I didn't think included hair in the definition, but likely could be skin color. The Hebrew word is close to the words for red (adom) and Adam (adam) and ground (adamah). My guess is maybe you used the description of Esau in Genesis 25:25 to interpretively "add" in the word hair to describe David? The word ruddy makes me think of a Bedouin nomad, whereas "red hair" makes me think of a northern European from Scotland.

We can say that a description of David’s appearance is not “written in stone” or more precisely, it is not painted on stone in color as some pictures of ancient people are.

Plausible answers to the question “Did David have red hair are “No, Yes. Maybe. We don’t know.” Let us investigate to see if we can find which is most plausible.

The majority of translations reflect one of four options: 1) the term admoni does not refer to a natural physical trait of David but to a healthy look; 2) the word refers to a naturally reddish complexion; 3) the word refers to skin colored by the sun and wind, or perhaps blushing; 4) the word may include both a reddish complexion or freckles and red hair, which sometimes go together.

Perhaps the most common translation is “ruddy.” Two factors give us pause about this translation. Ruddy has something of an archaic sound to it. I do not recall ever hearing anyone called ruddy in live conversation, only in literature. Men with red hair and/or freckles are called Red or Rusty, not Rudd. The second factor is that the meaning of ruddy is unclear. This translation will not communicate clearly. It is non-committal. The dictionary I used as a student says ruddy refers to reddish skin color. On the other hand, a recent online word study says: “Ruddy is used to describe something that is reddish — like the color of red hair, tomatoes, or a friend's cheeks on a cold winter's day.” This definition leaves all the options open.

Before we go on to discuss some of the other options, we need to digress for a moment to discuss skin color in the ancient Near East. This issue is referred to in many ancient writings and in ancient art. Some Egyptian art reflects four basic types or “races”: relatively light Libyans/Berbers; black Nubians or Cushites; relatively light Asiatics/Canaanites; darker brown native Egyptians. Egyptians saw themselves as lighter than Nubians and darker than Asiatics.

This information must be used with caution since the coloration can be influenced by the modern reproducers of the paintings, but the general tendency is quite clear. It is supported by the following painting of itinerants from “Asia” who are pictured along with Egyptians. The relationship is the same as that above.

In the land of Canaan and Israel, people of many ethnic groups were present. Some people have Indo-European names. Black Cushites were present, often as mercenaries. If you met groups of Israelites, Canaanites, Jebusites, Girgashites, and Perezzites, could you distinguish them by their skin tone or hair and eye color, by their dress, by their first language, by their accent? We simply do not know. And the groups of course were not homogenous.

A statue of a king recently found in northern Israel has a relatively light skin color, though the skin color may reflect the color of the clay, more than a deliberate attempt to indicate skin tone, There is however a clear distinction between black beard and light skin. It is uncertain whether this is a picture of an Israelite or Aramean king, but it does not matter for our purposes since Israelites seem to have been similar in appearance. At any rate, there is evidence that Israelites in general were noticeably lighter than their neighbors to the south.

This has some relevance to the interpretation that the description of David refers to rosy cheeks or reddish skin. The Hebrew term for tanning seems to be black or dark not red. See Song of Songs 1:5-6. The term dark does not identify the woman’s race or ethnicity but her low social status. She is not one of the fine ladies who sit in the shade all day. She is tanned and dark because she must work in the hot sun all day.

In the case of David the trait admoni must be something quite distinctive that makes him stand out in a crowd. Would he be any more or less sun-kissed than his brothers? Would it be remarkable if his skin was redder than his brothers'? Red hair would be quite remarkable.

What about red hair? Is it possible? It definitely was present in the ancient Near East. The trait does seem more prevalent in the north Aegean area. Two ladies said to be red-heads were Helen of Troy and Cleopatra (perhaps chemically enhanced). Achilles and Alexander the Great were said to be redheads. Perhaps some of these identifications relate to the stereotype of redheads as strong willed. The same may be true of the portrayal of Adam and Eve and Mary Magdalene as redheads. In the case of Adam and Eve at least there is a slim shred of evidence. The claim that red is the original hair color on humanity is linked to the use of the roots adam and adamah in reference to Adam and Eve.

For Egypt the evidence for red hair is quite strong. Most interesting is the evidence for Ramses II. He was near 90 at death. His mummy’s white hair was died red, but microscopic inspection of the roots of Ramses II's hair and other analysis showed that the king’s hair originally was red, which suggests that he came from a family of redheads. (The common practice was to color grey hair the color it had been when you were young. Herod died his gray hair black.) There is also quite a bit of other evidence for red hair in Egypt.

(Though the Egyptians were not black, there were dynasties of black Nubian pharaohs, and the last dynasty was Macedonian.)

But is there any objective evidence related to Israelites? A first century tomb south of Jerusalem preserved skeletal remains of a Jewish male which preserved a sample of his hair. The color of the hair was “reddish.”

Red hair is reasonably well represented among today’s Jews. The Hebrew name for this is gingi, and they have a website devoted to them named Ginger Jews. But it seems that this trait tends to be concentrated among those known to have some northern European heritage, so we can’t put much weight on it. But just as little can we look at present-day inhabitants of the Middle East and think that they tell us much about the appearance of ancient Israelites.

It is also wrong to think of Israelites as having a homogenous appearance. They were a mixture of many ethnic lines. The well known ability of red hair to appear across racial lines may be illustrated by the case of Malcolm X, who hated his red hair and his nickname “Detroit Red.” It seems quite possible that his red hair was a heritage of Celtic genes from a slave owner. We should be careful about stereotypes and about assumptions about traits within certain groups.

But what about linguistic evidence? My Gesenius Hebrew Lexicon (Gesenius was a pioneer of modern Hebrew lexicons) gives the definition of admoni as “red, that is, red-haired, German rothaarig.” Other word studies, translations, and commentaries say the same, and there are Jewish traditions about David’s red hair. The problem with all of these is that they are very likely doing the same thing as we are doing—looking at the two cases we have and taking their best educated guess.

Admoni is a special word for which we have little evidence of usage. In the case of animals with red hair (the red heifer—Numbers 19:2), the adjective for red is used. That leaves us only the cases of Esau and Jacob as our resources. In the case of Esau (Genesis 25:25) the link with his hair is more strongly implied but is not explicit. The case of David has even less specificity.

It should be noted that translating admoni as red haired is not adding anything to the definition. It is simply attempting to define the word. Many words in other languages require more than one English word to translate them.

A Jewish Encyclopedia article about hair summarizes: The hair of the ancient Hebrews was generally black (comp. Cant. iv. 1, v. 11). Black hair was in any case considered beautiful, black being the general color, while light or blond hair was exceptional. David is designated as "admoni" = "ruddy" (I Sam. xvi. 12, xvii. 42), this expression being also applied to Esau's hair (Gen. xxv. 25).

So after considerable time looking at the evidence, what can we conclude about the answer to our original question “Did David have red hair?”

After considerable study we find that plausible answers to the question “Did David have red hair?” are “No, Yes, Maybe, and We don’t know.”

Option 1 “No” seems to be the most popular, often with a focus on either natural or weather-influenced complexion. The translation ruddy could also be listed as a “maybe” or “we don’t know” since the word is ambiguous. A major factor cited in favor of the answer “No” is the opinion that Jews of that time could not have had red hair, but this is based on assumption not evidence.

Answer 2 “Yes” is the most interesting answer, because it does not just parrot a common opinion, but digs into the issue. The EHV’s frequent practice is that when we are aware of questions or disputed issues, we try to dig into the issue and to call attention to the issue. By putting one view into the translation and another one into the notes, we invite readers to look at the issue. In this case, it would be easy to justify putting either view into either the text or the footnote. Intriguingly, the EHV’s answer to the question “Did David have red hair?” is “Yes, maybe, but we don’t know for sure.” Nor does anyone else.

Wartburg Project Report 2022-01

2022-01-27T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2022-01

Who Were the Magi?

2022-01-25T00:00:00+00:00

Notes on the Magi based on the EHV Study Bible

The Magi (or wise men) were learned men from a foreign country to the east, most likely Persia or perhaps Babylon. The original members of the class magi were Persians, but by New Testament times not all magi were Persians. Often magi were involved in the practice of astronomy/astrology (which were not necessarily separate fields at this time). The biblical text does not say that there were three magi. Other traditions say that there were as many as twelve.

The idea of three magi perhaps arose from the three gifts that the Wise Men brought. Gold was very valuable then as it is today. These Gentiles gave gifts fit for a king (Psalm 72:15). Frankincense was a very expensive substance made from the resin of a certain type of tree (Boswellia sacra) which was used as a sweet-smelling incense. Myrrh was made from the natural gum or resin of certain small trees (commiphora) and was used in preparing a body for burial (John 19:39).

A better reason for proposing three magi was the idea that the Wise Men were representatives of the descendants of Noah’s three sons: Shem, Ham and Japheth. One of them is brown, one black and one white. In this way they were representatives of the whole human race.

Interpretations of the Magi often borrowed heavily from Old Testament prophecies like Psalm 72:10:

Tarshish, a Mediterranean port far to the west, perhaps in Spain or Portugal, was the most distant place that the Israelites were familiar with on the western sea. This location represents Europeans, the descendants of Japheth. Sheba and Seba, places in southern Arabia and eastern Africa, were the most distant place that the Israelites were familiar with on the eastern sea (the Red Sea and Indian Ocean). This represents descendants of Shem and Ham.

Medieval paintings of the Magi often portray one of them as black, and the others as shades of brown or white, but this is not consistent. Many traditions provide three names of the magi, but this is not consistent either. The most common names are Gaspar (or Caspar), Melchior, and Balthasar.

We are not told in the New Testament that the Magi were kings. That idea is based on Psalm 72:10-11 and Isaiah 60:1-6. It is very likely that the Magi were not kings. These magi possibly were learned advisors to a king or kings, as Daniel was (Daniel 1:20; 2:2; 4:7; 5:7). The identification of the Magi as three kings is especially strong in Hispanic tradition.

Contrary to many manger scenes and common notions, the Wise Men were not at the manger that first Christmas. Instead, they arrived some time later when Jesus was a child living in a house. The meager offering which Mary and Joseph could afford at the time of Jesus’ presentation indicates that they were still poor, forty days after his birth (Luke 2:24).

It is most likely that the Magi, however many they may have been, were astronomer astrologers from Persia or Babylon. According to legend, early in the 7^th century, when Persian invaders destroyed many churches in Israel, they chose not to destroy the Nativity Church in Bethlehem because they saw the Magi pictured as Persians in the nativity art.

The association of the Magi with descendants of Shem, Ham, and Japheth is likely a very nice legend that expresses a great truth, but nothing in the New Testament text suggests this as the historical identification of the Magi.

The Star of the Magi

Many attempts have been made to provide a natural explanation for the star of the Magi (a conjunction of planets, a comet, a supernova), but Scripture seems to describe a special, miraculous phenomenon, because of the way it moved and then stayed over the place where the child Jesus was. Long before GPS, God directed these Gentile Wise Men to the very house where they could find their Savior. Like the plagues in Egypt, the star may have been a combination of natural and supernatural elements, possibly the appearance or reappearance of a conjunction of planets, with special divine direction. It seems to be an event significant to astronomers but not necessarily spectacular to ordinary observers. Some references in the text seem to refer to a type of observation significant to astronomers.

In Matthew 2:2,9, did the Wise Men see the star “in the east” or “in its rising”? “In the east” certainly has a lot of support in recent translations, but if the Wise Men were from the East why would the text have to tell us that they were “in the east” when they saw the star? We would know that. Or why would they need to tell us that they saw the star rise in the eastern part of the sky? All stars arise in the eastern part of the sky and march across the sky from east to west. Since the Wise Men were astronomer/astrologers, it was the appearance of a star at a certain time and place that was significant to them. The study of exactly what the Christmas star may have been is a complicated and much disputed topic that we cannot resolve here, but a translation should recognize the astronomical significance of the text of Matthew. “In its rising” in this passage is a technical term that points to the astrological significance of the appearance or the reappearance of a star in a particular portion of the sky. The term translated “from the East” in verse 1 is ἀπὸ ἀνατολῶν (apo anatolon). It is a plural form, risings, that is typically used of the rising of the sun. In verses 2 and 9, however, a singular form, ἐν τῇ ἀνατολῇ (en tey anatoley), in the rising, is used. This singular form here is used of the rising of a star and should not be translated “in the east.” Because of the singular form and the article, this phrase in verses 2 and 9 is probably not a geographical expression like the one in verse 1, but it is instead an astronomical term. See the article on anatole in the BDAG Greek Lexicon. Recent translations that recognize the astronomical significance of this phrase include NET, NLT, ESV, and NRSV. To find out more about the “rising of stars” google “heliacal rising.”

Annual Bible Study Calendar

2021-12-24T00:00:00+00:00

A Bible Study Calendar in Microsoft Excel format that can be used as-is or customized to your needs.

Wartburg Project Report 2021-12

2021-12-24T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2021-12

Wartburg Project Report 2021-11

2021-11-24T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2021-11

Christ's Birth Date

2021-11-18T00:00:00+00:00

In what year was Jesus born? This brief article gives an overview of the most popular theories.

Wartburg Project Report 2021-10

2021-10-29T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2021-10

500th Anniversary of the Wartburg Project: Luther at the Wartburg

2021-10-28T00:00:00+00:00

The year 2021 is the 500th anniversary of the first Wartburg Project, Luther’s initial translation of the New Testament, which he completed during his exile to the Wartburg Castle.

Luther and Genesis 4:1

2021-10-28T00:00:00+00:00

In his translation of Genesis 4:1 Luther had a unique rendering for the words of Eve spoken at the birth of Cain, “I have a man, the LORD” (Ich habe den Mann, den Herrn). As a Lutheran translation, does the EHV follow Luther’s unique rendering of this verse?

First of all, before we address the question itself, we will comment on the issue of whether the EHV is a Lutheran translation. The EHV is a translation by Lutherans, but it is not “Lutheran” in the sense that it introduces Lutheran interpretations into the translation. The aim of the translation is to say what the Hebrew and Greek say without introducing interpretation into the translation itself. The proper place for such interpretive comments is in study Bibles or commentaries. Our Wartburg Project EHV study Bibles, which primarily focus on history, geography, and archaeology in their notes, do include Lutheran understandings and comments in their doctrinal notes. Study Bibles based on the EHV text which were produced by non-Lutherans would very likely include notes reflecting the doctrinal perspective of the scholars who produced them. That is one of the functions of a study Bible.

When asked if the EHV is a Lutheran Bible, we say, “It is a Bible translated by Lutherans (with lots of input from non-Lutherans) but it is not just for Lutherans, it is a gift from Lutherans to the whole church.” Its audience and aim are identified by its full name, the Evangelical Heritage Version. It is a translation which everyone with an interest in the evangelical heritage of Bible translation will feel comfortable with.

Back to the original question—Does the EHV follow Luther’s unique rendering of this verse? Here is what the EHV does with Genesis 4:1:

So the answer to the question, “Does the EHV follow Luther’s unique rendering of this verse?” is no and yes. It does not follow Luther’s translation verbatim, but it does take note of the impact of Luther’s rendering upon the interpretation of Messianic prophecy. Here are a few of the reasons for our two-fold approach.

One reason to hesitate about incorporating Luther’s rendering into the translation is that virtually all other translations, including most of the ancient versions, render with something like “I have gotten a man with the help of the LORD, or through the LORD.” Those translations understand the Hebrew word eth as the common word for with, whereas Luther’s rending takes eth as the mark of the direct object, a meaning it has elsewhere in Genesis.

Even some later versions of the Lutherbibel have an altered translation, “Ich habe einen Mann gewonnen mit dem HERRN." For example, the Lutherbibel on Bible Gateway has that translation. Bible Gateway lists the date of its Lutherbibel as 1545, but it says it has no knowledge of where this text came from or its publication history, so it is not clear if this is in fact an altered Lutherbibel from Luther’s lifetime, which was approved by Luther, or a later revision. What we can say is that “I have gotten a man, the Lord” remains the accepted standard translation for Luther’s Bible. For example, Franz Pieper’s Christian Dogmatics, III, 213, treats this as the definitive Lutherbibel rendering of Genesis 4:1.

We can grant, however, that the majority of grammatical opinion regards “with the LORD” as the better translation, although Luther’s translation is certainly possible. Are there any other contextual factors that play into the decision and can help us break the tie?

The strongest contextual argument raised against Luther’s translation is that Eve could not possibly have had faith in a coming Messiah. Messianic faith is said to be a much latter development. But is this true? Interpreters’ evaluation of the context of Genesis 4:1 is dependent on their understanding of Genesis 3:15. If Genesis 3:15 is about women and snakes, it would be anachronistic to find Messianic faith in Genesis 4:1.

It is clear that the basis for Luther’s translation was his belief that Adam and Eve were saved by faith in the coming Savior. If that was their understanding of Genesis 3:15, it is plausible that Eve could express that faith when the first child came into the world. Luther states this conviction many times in this writings.

All the saints of the Old Testament were justified and sanctified by faith in the “Seed” which was to come (Weimar Edition, 42, 180; St Louis Edition, 1, 296).

Adam and Eve were encouraged by this promise. Wholeheartedly they grasped the hope of their restoration; and full of faith, they saw that God cared about their salvation, since he clearly declares that the male Seed of the woman would prostrate this enemy (American Edition, 1, 193).

“The woman’s Seed” he says. This means all individuals in general, and yet he is speaking of only one individual, of the Seed of Mary, who is the mother without union with a male. Thus the first little expression, “I shall put enmity between you and the woman” seems to denote all women in general. God wanted to make all women suspect to Satan; on the other hand, he wanted to leave the godly with a very certain hope, so that they might expect this salvation from all who gave birth, until the real one came. In the same way, this “her Seed” is spoken most individually, if one may use the expression, concerning the Seed which was born only to Mary of the tribe of Judah, who was espoused to Joseph (AE 1, 196).

Although Eve was mistaken in this hope [that Cain was the promised Seed of the woman], her words nevertheless reveal that Eve was a holy woman and believed the promise of the future salvation by the blessed Seed (St L, 1, 296).

“The Seed of the Woman shall bruise your head.” This passage is the absolution whereby God acquitted Adam and Eve and all of us (St L 3, 66).

Where and when did [Abraham see Christ’s day and rejoice]? Not with bodily eyes, as the Jews understand the words, but with the sight of faith when he recognized Christ when it was told him Genesis 22: “In your Seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed.” (St L, 11, 573).

Luther says that the first promise was both very dark and very clear. Very dark as far as the final circumstances, very clear in the promise that the Woman’s Seed in whom God is the acting subject will make an end of the devil. Romans 4 teaches us that the way of salvation was the same in the Old Testament as it is in the New. If Adam and Ever were not saved by Christ, how were they saved? ( See also St L, 1, 240ff; 1, 241; 3, 661; Pieper III, p 211-215)

In Genesis 4:1 translators find themselves in a very familiar position, between a rock and a hard place. If they simply incorporate Luther’s translation, critics will say they are going off on their own and ignoring the vast majority of translators. On the other hand, if they do not direct attention to Luther’s insight, they will miss an opportunity to share Luther’s belief in the presence of Messianic faith already in the earliest generations of history. So the translators hoped to pull off the rare feat of both having their cake and eating it, by directing their readers to both views of the passage.

It is possible to accept either grammatical approach to Genesis 4:1 and still hold a Messianic view of the Old Testament, but if one holds a non-Messianic view of Genesis 3:15, it is impossible to accept Luther’s view of Genesis 4:1. In Genesis 4:1 the most important question is not which translation is favored by the weight of grammatical evidence, but whether salvation was by faith in the Old Testament. The underlying question can be framed in this way: “Did Adam and Eve know that a Savior was coming, or did Eve just know about fighting snakes?” “Did Moses know about this Savior and write about him?” “Did David know about this Savior and write about him?” “Were these real Messianic prophecies that produced faith in the Messiah in those who received them?” We rejoice that we know so much more about the Seed, the Son of Adam, David’s Lord, the Virgin’s Son than those who first received and recorded the oracles about him, but we are also confident that at the heart of things, their gospel and ours, their faith and ours, are one. And we expect that translations and commentaries will clearly proclaim that truth.

Luther stands almost alone in his translation, but his Messianic interpretation of Genesis 4:1 did not originate with him. Its roots were already present among the Jewish scribes. This view was common in patristic and medieval interpretation. “I have gotten a man, the LORD” is probably the more difficult reading grammatically, but is this a case in which we should follow the axiom, “The more difficult reading is to be preferred”?

Luther and the EHV

2021-10-07T00:00:00+00:00

Similarities and differences between Luther's practices and ours.

Wartburg Project Report 2021-09

2021-09-29T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2021-09

Verse Numbers in Song of Songs 7

2021-09-29T00:00:00+00:00

Why are the verse numbers in Song of Songs Chapter 7 different in the EHV than in some other translations?

Before we address that specific question, we will review the common reasons for discrepancies and problems with verse numbers in the Bible.

Early Hebrew and Greek manuscripts of the biblical texts did not have the chapter and verse numbers that appear in modern versions. The verse numbers were a very late addition to the text, and, to make the matter more complicated, there are various systems of numbering that do not agree with each other. This produces some discrepancies in verse numbers in different versions.

Some verse numbers are missing from some translations such as the NIV because these translations chose to omit some verses that are found in the EHV and the King James Version, because they adopt a shorter Greek text.
For example, in Matthew 17, the ESV and NIV have no verse 21 in the text.
- In Matthew 17:20-21, the NIV reads: “ ²⁰ ...Nothing will be impossible for you. ^[21]a.” It adds the footnote ^a: “Some manuscripts include here words similar to Mark 9:29.”
- The EHV includes a verse 21 in the text: “But this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting” with the footnote: “A few witnesses to the text omit verse 21.”
There are about twenty such passages in the New Testament. Most translations that omit these verses account for the missing verse numbers with a footnote or with a blank verse number in brackets. In older editions they sometimes simply skipped a verse number, but this made it look like they had accidentally omitted a verse, so most of them have switched to using a bracketed verse number in such cases.
There are many differences between the Hebrew chapter and verse numbers and the English numbers. This means that very often when translating from the Hebrew text, the translator not only has to translate the words of the Hebrew text into English but also has to “translate” the Hebrew verse numbers to English verse numbers. The list of these discrepancies covers four small-print, double-column pages in the SBL Handbook of Style (p 172-175). That same SBL list also includes a list of discrepancies between the Hebrew numbering and the numbering in the Greek and Latin Old Testaments.
If readers of the English Bible are trying to look up the Hebrew text for a specific verse of the Old Testament, they may be baffled when they cannot see any connection between what the Hebrew text for that verse is saying and what they have just read in English. They need to look for a different chapter and verse in the Hebrew Bible. To help our readers who want to consult the Hebrew text for a verse, the EHV has footnotes at those spots in which the Hebrew numbers do not correspond to the English numbers. These notes direct readers to the appropriate Hebrew references.
The discrepancies between the Hebrew and the Greek/Latin verse numbers come into play when students are trying to use Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic commentaries, especially patristic and medieval commentaries, since these works often use the verse numbers from the Greek Septuagint or Latin Vulgate. English translations of these works of the church fathers may sometimes “translate” the original Latin or Greek verse references into English verse numbers to help their English readers.
The Book of Psalms offers a special example of the verse number problem. The headings of the psalms are part of the Hebrew text, and in Hebrew they have their own verse numbers. In English translation these headings have no verse number. The result is that verse numbers in the Hebrew Psalms are often one or two numbers higher than the numbers of the corresponding verses in the English Bible. In the EHV Study Bibles, any footnotes pertaining to items in the unnumbered headings are listed under verse one, so that all footnotes will have a verse number for computer searches.
This issue is discussed in detail in FAQ #52.
Sometimes there are simply discrepancies in the sources. An example is found in Matthew 2:2.
- This is what the EHV text says: “After Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea, when Herod was king, Wise Men from the east came to Jerusalem. They asked, 2“Where is he who has been born King of the Jews?”
- The NIV has: “Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the east came to Jerusalem, 2 saying, “Where is he who has been born king of the Jews?”
A sharp-eyed reader asked why the EHV moved the verse number. The answer is that we didn’t. We were simply following a different textual resource than the NIV. This is one of the passages in which there is disagreement in the Greek and English resources concerning the placement of the verse number. This is documented in the footnote to Matthew 2:1-2 in the UBS Greek text. The footnote is fairly cryptic but indicates that the Greek, English, and German versions are divided on the issue of the placement of the verse number. There are other such verses in the New Testament. We leave the fun of finding such verse number discrepancies, of which there are quite a few, to our readers. See FAQ #52.
In some cases, differences in Hebrew word order from English word order force the translator to move material from a Hebrew verse 5 into an English verse 6 or vice versa. If we think that this shift might raise questions for readers, we note the shift of material in a footnote.
At other times we may shift a verse number from one chapter into another, because it looks awkward to place the large chapter number that occur in the margin before each chapter into the middle of a paragraph. If the line of thought requires that the last verse of a chapter 10 be placed in the first paragraph of a chapter 11, we may place the large chapter 11 number before the last verse of chapter 10, but give the verse a special small verse number in a format like ^10:32.
An extreme example if this type of problem is found in 1 Samuel 4:1. The first half of 4:1 clearly should be the final thought of chapter 3. Placing this sentence into chapter 4 gives the wrong impression that Israel’s going out to battle was under the guidance of Samuel. This example is especially complex because of the double textual variant issues in these verses as indicated by the half-brackets. This is what the EHV has at this chapter transition:
²¹The LORD continued to appear in Shiloh, because at Shiloh the LORD revealed himself to Samuel by the word of the LORD. ˻So Samuel was confirmed as a prophet of the LORD for all Israel, from one end of the land to the other end.˼^g
4So the word of Samuel came to all Israel.
Israel and the Philistines^a
˻Eli was very old, and his sons kept getting worse in their wickedness in the presence of the LORD. In those days the Philistines gathered themselves together for war against Israel.˼^b
Israel went out to meet the Philistines in battle. The Israelites camped near Ebenezer, and the Philistines camped at Aphek.^c …
Above, as we often do, we tried to handle the problem with the headings. We probably could have improved the readability and the formatting of this section by applying the principle of verse transfer here as is done in the following:
²¹The LORD continued to appear in Shiloh, because at Shiloh the LORD revealed himself to Samuel by the word of the LORD. ˻So Samuel was confirmed as a prophet of the LORD for all Israel, from one end of the land to the other end.˼^g ^4:1So the word of Samuel came to all Israel.
Israel and the Philistines^a
4¹˻Eli was very old, and his sons kept getting worse in their wickedness in the presence of the LORD. In those days the Philistines gathered themselves together for war against Israel.˼^b
Israel went out to meet the Philistines in battle. The Israelites camped near Ebenezer, and the Philistines camped at Aphek.^c
This alteration to the verse and chapter numbers makes the transition between the chapters less awkward and clarifies the placement of the variant reading.
More rarely we may use the Hebrew verse numbers to give better structure to the translation, as we will do in the case of Song of Songs 7 which is discussed below.

Now at long last we come to the question “Why are the verse numbers in Song of Songs 7 different in the EHV than in some other translations?” In the latest printing of the EHV Study Bible, the translation of this section provides a rare example of principle number 4b: in difficult cases the translator may use the Hebrew verse numbers when necessary to clarify the flow of the text for the reader.

This is what the NIV has at the transition from Song 6 to Song 7:

NIV formatting of Song 6 & 7

Friends
¹³Come back, come back, O Shulammite;
come back, come back, that we may gaze on you!
He
Why would you gaze on the Shulammite
as on the dance of Mahanaim?^b
7^aHow beautiful your sandaled feet,
O prince’s daughter!
Your graceful legs are like jewels,
the work of an artist’s hands.
²Your navel is a rounded goblet
that never lacks blended wine.
…chapter ending with a verse 13….
¹³The mandrakes send out their fragrance,
and at our door is every delicacy,
both new and old,
that I have stored up for you, my beloved.

The NIV adds the footnotes: In Hebrew texts this verse (6:13) is numbered 7:1, and in Hebrew texts 7:1–13 is numbered 7:2–14.

This NIV formatting has the virtue that it retains the common verse numbers of most English versions. It has the disadvantage that it produces a very clunky transition from chapter 6 to chapter 7, with no clear indication of which lines constitute verse 1 and with a large chapter number 7 occurring in the middle of a paragraph. Providing clear poetic formatting is especially important in the Song of Songs, so improving the formatting here would be helpful.

This is what the latest printing of the EHV computer Bible has for the same section:

EHV formatting of Song 6 & 7

The Friends
¹³Turn back, turn back, O Shulammite.^j
Turn back, turn back, that we may look at you!
7The Woman
¹Why would you look at the Shulammite
as at the dance of Mahanaim?
The Friends or The Man^c
²How beautiful are your feet in sandals,
O prince’s daughter!
Your hips are curved like a necklace,
the work of the hands of a craftsman.
… chapter ending with verses 13 and 14…
¹³Let us go early to the vineyards.
We will see if the vines have budded,
if their blossoms have opened,
if the pomegranates are in bloom.
There I will give my love to you.
¹⁴The mandrakes^m send out their fragrance.
At our door is every delicacy,
new as well as old,
that I have stored up for you, my lover.ⁿ

Following verse 14/13 EHV has this footnote: ⁿ7:14 In the EHV, Song of Songs chapter 7 has one more verse number than many other translations since it adjusts toward the Hebrew verse numbers, which give a better layout to the chapter.

This exceptional approach has the advantage that it allows cleaner formatting and easier reading of the chapter. This approach has the disadvantage that the verse numbers are different from those in most English versions. (How much of a problem this discrepancy causes is debatable since in the first two years of use of the EHV, nobody ever noticed (or at least nobody reported) the discrepancy. We first noticed the unclarity concerning what we had done in this case while we were doing the final check of the print study Bible. We pay special attention to verse numbers at the end of chapters, since omission of a verse number there would escape detection by a computer scan which checks for consecutive verse numbers. We noticed an extremely long final verse 13 of chapter 7, which suggested omission of a verse number. On checking, we realized that if we wanted to more consistently reflect the Hebrew verse numbering system in this special case, we should have added a verse number 14 at the start of the mandrakes verse and added an explanatory note as is done in the EHV translation above. In the first printing of the EHV Study Bible we had failed to provide such an explanation of this special case, so it might have caused confusion (if anyone ever noticed it). Who could have imagined that a single verse number could have caused so much work! In any case, our formatting decision here is not the only way to try to smooth the reading, and some may prefer other solutions. For example, it might make more sense to place the large chapter number 7 before verse 6:13.

There are about 31,100 verses in the Bible. (The number cannot be exact because different editions disagree on the number of verses.) Over the years, the placement of verse numbers into the text required more than 31,000 editorial decisions by the transmitters of the text. Most contemporary translators simply follow the decision made by the editors of the base text that they are using. In the EHV we try to do whatever will best help our readers follow the flow of the text and locate the corresponding verses in the Hebrew and Greek texts. We have general rules governing verse numbers, but they are not applied mechanically. “What will be most user-friendly” is also a consideration. In many cases, including this one, the best solution is debatable, and our treatment does not aim for mechanical consistency in every case.

The problem raised by the verse numbers of the Bible is just another illustration of the principle constantly experienced by translators: “This is a little more complicated than I thought it was going to be.”

Wartburg Project Report 2021-08

2021-08-31T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2021-08

Biblical Resources for Teachers

2021-08-31T00:00:00+00:00

A list of recommended resources for Lutheran teachers and Bible students. Updated July 2025.

Singular or Plural?

2021-08-31T00:00:00+00:00

In Psalm 57 the EHV does not follow the rules of singular/ plural agreement. The EHV says:

Since the antecedent is “ferocious men,” shouldn't the text should say “whose tongues are a sharp sword” to agree with the plural “men”?

The EHV translation “whose tongue is a sharp sword” exactly reflects what the Hebrew says here. Some translations such as the NIV say something like “whose tongues are sharp swords.” This is not a wrong translation, but the translators have adjusted their translation to what they think English rules require, rather than to what the Hebrew idiom says. An author can choose to refer either to the many tongues of all the men, or the author can state that each man has one tongue. It is the author’s choice. Neither is right or wrong. The Psalmist chose the latter, and the EHV follows his choice. In some translations the hymn “Now Thank We All Our God” says we thank him "with heart and hands and voices" (each person has one heart); in other translations it says that we thank him “with hearts and hands and voices" (together the group has many hearts). A writer may say “the band got its new uniforms” or may say “the band got their new uniforms.” Either is correct, but in each case the author’s emphasis is slightly different.

The Old Testament has quite a few such cases in which the use of singular or plural agreement depends on the author’s choice. Concerning a parallel case, our EHV grammar book, Biblical Grammar: Mechanics or Meaning? says:

Biblical texts very frequently use plural pronouns like they, them, and their after collective singular nouns like people, nation, and Israel, etc., especially when the texts refer to actions carried out by many individuals within the group. This is a very common usage in Scripture, and the EHV often retains it.

This is a rather minor grammatical issue, but it seemed worthwhile to do a FAQ about it since we receive quite a few questions and comments (or complaints) about grammatical matters. One of the things that we learned as we worked on the EHV is that we had to unlearn a lot of the grammar rules that we had spent years learning in school. It is surprising how much the nature of grammatical study has been revolutionized by the ability to search vast amounts of literature by computer in order to gather objective, “real life” statistics on any specific grammatical construction or on the spelling of a word. With a quick computer search, a grammarian can gather much more data about a grammatical construction than could be gathered in a lifetime of reading. This type of research clearly shows that many of the supposed rules of English grammar are in fact myths. By using Google ngrams one can quickly collect several centuries of grammatical data from Google Books and quickly trace changes of usage over time. One of the first handbooks to make extensive use of this new tool is Garner’s Modern English Usage, the closest thing we have to a Wartburg Project grammar rulebook.

In the past, grammatical rules published in handbooks were much like the tabulated results of a poll. The grammarian read a lot of literature. He also read other people’s grammar books, and from that sample he extrapolated (took a guess) at what the usage of a construction would be across the total corpus of the language. He did this in order to formulate a rule for everyone to follow. Sometimes he also threw in his opinion of what the rule should be. Searching Google Books still provides the grammarian with only a sample, but it is a much bigger sample (big data), so statements about grammatical constructions can now be much more objective, based on real life data, with less guess work.

The main lesson to be learned by translators is that the primary function of practicing good grammar is not to conform to a rule book but to communicate clearly. For the best communication, writers and editors must focus on expressing meaning more than on fulfilling mechanical rules. Or to paraphrase the greatest communicator: “Grammar is made for man; man is not made for grammar.”

Since the Tower of Babel, God has not given anyone authority to be the czar of unchanging rules of grammar, so grammar is always a swirl of change, as innovation battles tradition, as error becomes acceptable practice, and vice versa. About some “rules” there is a high degree of agreement among the authorities; in others there is not. For a detailed account of this war. see Garner’s grammar. For the EHV response to this war, see our grammar handbook, Biblical Grammar: Mechanics or Meaning?.

Biblical Grammar: Mechanics or Meaning?

2021-08-01T00:00:00+00:00

A 55-page ebook on the philosophy of Biblical grammar. "Grammar is made for man; man is not made for grammar."

Wartburg Project Report 2021-07

2021-07-28T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2021-07

That We May Believe: Evangelism Reference

2021-07-24T00:00:00+00:00

A quick reference guide to some of the key doctrinal passages of the Bible.

Wartburg Project Report 2021-06

2021-06-29T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2021-06

Biblical Weights and Measures - Ancient, Imperial, or Metric?

2021-06-04T00:00:00+00:00

How does the EHV handle translating systems of measure?

Wartburg Project Report 2021-05

2021-05-30T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2021-05

Wartburg Project Report 2021-04

2021-04-28T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2021-04

How tall was Goliath?

2021-04-28T00:00:00+00:00

How tall was Goliath? The height given in many translations and commentaries, over nine feet tall, seems too tall to be credible.

Like many questions that come our way, this question, which at first seems to be very simple, turns out to be much more complicated than expected.

Both the question and the answer seem to be very simple. The Hebrew text of 1 Samuel 17:4 says that Goliath was six cubits and a span tall. The standard default value for the cubit used by most translations is 18 inches. A span is half a cubit. The height of Goliath using this as the standard for the calculation would be 117 inches, or 9 feet, 9 inches. Since the EHV regularly uses the default translation of 18 inches for a cubit, that is what we have used as our starting point for this verse in the study Bible.

It seems that the solution is pretty straight forward, but a look at this revised footnote in the EHV study Bible is the first indication things are not so simple.

^c17:4 Hebrew six cubits and a span. A Hebrew Dead Sea Scroll, some Greek manuscripts, and the historian Josephus have the variant four cubits and a span, that is, six feet, nine inches, for Goliath’s height. A typical Israelite teenager, like David, was probably in the 5-foot-2 range, and Saul, who was a head taller, would be more than 6 feet tall. But if David’s cubit was about 16 inches long rather than the default value of 18 inches, Goliath was considerably shorter than 9-foot-nine. This complicated question is discussed in detail in Wartburg Project FAQ 69.

The problem is that the ancient cubit did not have a set standardized value. Eighteen inches is an estimate not a precise value. This is what Appendix 3 of the EHV study Bible says about the cubit:

Ancient measurements were not based on a universal standard, but varied depending on the body size of the measurer or on the size of the container used to make the measurement, so all measurements in the EHV are approximate. Calculations are also rounded off.
A cubit was the distance from the fingertip to the elbow. Scholars use a standard cubit of 18 inches, but the cubit of a typical 6-foot-tall man is 19½ inches. There also was a long cubit of about 21 inches.
A span is the distance from the tip of the little finger to the tip of the thumb with the hand spread out. Scholars use a span of 9 inches, but the span of a typical 6-foot-tall man is 10 inches.

David was probably much closer to 5' 3" than to 6 feet, so his cubit would be considerably shorter than 18 inches, probably 16 inches or even less. We do not know the source of the measurement of Goliath. Did it come from Philistine pre-battle hype, or, as seems more likely, did David or one of the Israelite bystanders do a measurement of the fallen Goliath before David reduced his height by a foot or so? If Goliath was measured by an Israelite who had a cubit 16 inches long, Goliath’s height would translate into about 104 inches, 8' 8''. This falls into the range of the largest known modern giants. If the measurer had a cubit of 15 inches, the height would be about 97 inches, about 8' 1".

That brings us back to the variant reading of the Greek Old Testament: 4 cubits and a span = 6' 9" if one uses 18-inch cubits. Many interpreters suggest that the reading of the Septuagint was an attempt by the translator to make Goliath’s height more reasonable, but if this was so, he botched the job. If Saul, who was a head taller than other Israelites, was in the 6 foot to 6' 6" range, a 6' 9" Goliath, while formidable, would not be a wonder.

But there is another plausible explanation of the Greek reading. The translator thought that his readers in Egypt, who were familiar with an Egyptian royal cubit of about 21 inches, would not have been familiar with the shorter Israelite cubit and would have been misled by the figure in the Hebrew text. So he translated the data into Egyptian cubits. At 4 cubits and a span in Egyptian royal cubits, Goliath would have been about 94 inches, 7 feet 11 inches tall. This is close to the 8 feet 2 inches obtained by assuming that Goliath was measured using a 7½ inch span for David. Incidentally, another LXX translator (Codex Venetus) of 1 Samuel 17 opted for 5 Egyptian cubits and a span.

All the ancient scribes and their readers understood that all measurements made with the ad hoc standards based on variable body size were approximations which varied with time, place, and person. This was true also of English measurements until relatively recently. The height of horses was measured in “hands.” so two different-sized farmers could come up with different sizes for the same horse. The “hand” is now standardized as four inches. The “foot” is now standardized at 12 inches, but only a small minority of the world’s population have feet that long. The twelve-inch foot supposedly is based on the physique of Henry VIII.

Using the 18-inch cubit works reasonably well for approximating the size of large buildings, which were laid out with project-specific measuring lines or rods. In fact, this 18-inch standard splits the difference between 16-inch de facto cubits and 20-inch royal cubits. It also has the virtue of making the math easy: 2 cubits = 1 yard; 1 cubit = 1 ½ feet. But for real-life, on-the-spot measurements of medium-sized objects, the people involved had to choose the real-life cubit or span of one of the participants. What was important was not the precise size of the cubit, but that the same cubit was used when buying and when selling things.

Using the average size of Israelite men of the period, which is based on skeleton size, it is likely that David’s cubit was less than 18 inches, so Goliath was probably less than nine feet tall but more than eight feet tall. The only people who would need a precise measurement of Goliath were his tailor and undertaker (if he had one). The easiest way to take a measurement of a prone person was to place your two spans side-by-side on one end of the person and to keep leap-frogging your spans over the person until you reached the other end. No more precision than that was necessary.

Misunderstandings or unclarity due to shifting standard of measurement are not just an ancient phenomenon. They continued into modern times. For example, there is a psychological trait called the Napoleon Complex, a popular belief that short men tend to compensate for their lack of height through domineering behavior and aggression. It is named after the French general and emperor Napoleon Bonaparte, who is characterized as an egotist of small stature and fiery temper. The egotist and fiery temper part seem to be correct but what about the small stature?

Was Napoleon really short? It seems he was probably of average height. Three French sources—his valet Constant, General Gourgaud, and his personal physician Francesco Antommarchi—said that Napoleon's height was just over 5 pieds 2 pouces. Literally translated, this would be 5 feet, 2 inches, a diminutive height for an imposing general. But the French “inch” was about 1.066 times larger than then the English inch. This would make Napoleon’s height about 5' 6", not far from the period’s average adult male height. The notion of Napoleon’s small stature seems to have been derived from the way he was portrayed in British political cartoons, which pictured him as a temperamental child. This was perhaps psychologically true but not true by the yardstick.

This article provides another example of the many difficulties confronting Bible translators, which create discrepancies between translations. These discrepancies are not necessarily mistakes but derive from different evaluations of the underlying data. Even if two interpreters both accept six cubits and a span as the correct reading for Goliath’s height, they may come up with different translations of his height, based on different estimates for the size of a cubit. It is important to remember that all modern measurements used in Bible translations are estimates, not mathematically precise measurements.

Wartburg Project Report 2021-03

2021-03-24T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2021-03

An Easter Harmony from the Four Gospels

2021-03-23T00:00:00+00:00

Adapted from The Life and Teachings of Jesus Christ, a harmony of the Four Gospels, based on the text of the EHV, available from Northwestern Publishing House.

An EHV Good Friday Harmony

2021-03-23T00:00:00+00:00

Read the whole Good Friday story assembled from the four Gospel accounts.

John 13:27: "What you are about to do, do more quickly."

2021-03-23T00:00:00+00:00

Why does the EHV have “more quickly” in John 13:27? The EHV says that Jesus told Judas, “What you are about to do, do more quickly.” More quickly than what? What does that mean?

The Greek word (tachion) translated “more quickly” in the EHV is a comparative adverb. Translating that comparative form mechanically into English would yield “more quickly.” Yet, EHV is not simply translating mechanically. When we examine how this Greek word (tachion) is used in other places, it becomes clear that it could also be translated, “quickly” or “very quickly.” Context is our guide to determining which translation fits best here. In this case, all three meanings can make sense in the context. This is a case when translators have to make a choice.

Most Bible translations read, “What you are about to do, do quickly.” Because so many versions use these same words, that translation is likely most familiar to most people. Another possible translation would be: What you are about to do, do very quickly or as quickly as possible. These translations can make good sense. The last one is very close in meaning to “more quickly.”

Recall the schedule that the Jewish leaders were planning. They wanted to arrest Jesus and put him to death, but when? “Not during the Festival, or else there might be a riot among the people” (Matthew 26:5). They didn’t want it to happen during the Passover, so it would seem that Judas did not intend to turn Jesus over during the Passover. Yet Jesus said that he would be handed over to be crucified during the Passover (Matthew 26:2). So, it makes good sense that Jesus would say something like, “Do it more quickly than you intended.”

This contextual background has led a good number of Bible commentators to prefer the comparative translation, “What you are about to do, do more quickly.” So, the EHV is not alone in understanding it this way. For example, Leon Morris wrote that it seems probable that the sense is more quickly in John 13:27. He explained that Judas was apparently not originally intending to consummate the betrayal that night. Apparently, Jesus caused him to carry out the betrayal more quickly than he had intended. It is Jesus, not Judas, who determines the time of the passion. Yet Morris also properly grants that it is possible that it means very quickly or something similar” (The Gospel According to John, 1995, p. 557). Many pastors are familiar with the commentaries of Lenski and Hendriksen, who both favor the meaning, “more quickly” in this verse.

D.A. Carson indicates that do more quickly (than you were planning) may be the meaning here (The Gospel According to John, 1991, p. 475). A.T. Robertson also wrote that the sense of the term may, in fact, be more quickly than Judas would have done (Greek Grammar, p. 664).

Werner Franzmann seems to sum it up well with the following helpful explanation:

The Greek here can be translated: “do more quickly.” We naturally ask: “More quickly” than what? We find our clue in the words: “What you are about to do.” Judas was planning to betray his Master. He had met with the [Jewish leaders] and made a pact with them to betray Jesus to them. We know that the Jewish leaders did not want Jesus arrested at Passover time. (Matthew 26:5) Judas must have agreed to betray Jesus at some date after the Passover. So when Jesus told Judas to carry out his design “more quickly,” he meant that Judas was to do it sooner than what the plan agreed upon with the [Jewish leaders] called for… Jesus was the master of all events connected with his Passion. Judas would be able to carry out his dastardly act, not when he chose, but when Jesus wanted it done. He had decided that he would die exactly on the Passover, sooner or “more quickly” than Judas and the [Jewish leaders] had planned (Matthew 26:2, Werner Franzmann, Bible History Commentary, New Testament, p. 752).

Who wrote the scroll in Deuteronomy 17:18?

2021-03-23T00:00:00+00:00

In Deuteronomy 17:18, why does the EHV say that the king had a scroll of the Law written for him? Other translations say that the king himself was to write a scroll. Will you correct your error?

Either translation is grammatically possible, but the interpretation that the king was to have a copy made for him is more probable historically and contextually. Most translations, however, opt for the interpretation that the king was supposed to make the copy himself with his own hand, and some even go so far as to say that the purpose for this command was so that the king would remember the content better if he had written it himself. This idea seems to give more weight to modern educational theory than to the realities of producing an ancient manuscript, which was a hard, tedious, very time-consuming job that was generally done by professional scribes with special training.

Deuteronomy 17:18 may be translated either “he is to write a copy of this law for himself” or “he is to have a copy of this law written for him on a scroll in the presence of the priests” (EHV). The command either tells the king to personally copy the text for his own use with his own hand or to have the words written for him by a competent scribe. In either case, the term “for himself” means “for his benefit.” The issue at hand is that the scroll is to be made for the king’s personal use. The mechanics of who copied the text is likely not the issue.

Whether it was possible or practical for the king to write the text with his own hand depends in part on how long the text was. Exactly what was the king to copy? There are several possibilities. Some interpreters suggest that he was to copy only a portion of Deuteronomy 17. Another possibility is that he is to copy Deuteronomy 1–30. That idea is supported by Deuteronomy 31:9: “Then Moses wrote down this law, and he gave it to the priests, the descendants of Levi who carry the Ark of the Covenant of the LORD, and to all the elders of Israel.” Also militating against the idea that the king is to write only a few verses is the instruction in Deuteronomy 17:19, where the king is told to read this text all the days of his life. That sounds like a reference to a larger document rather than to just a snippet of instruction. The scroll was in effect the king’s handbook of kingship and his Bible. It is even possible that this book of the law included other parts of the five books of Moses.

What makes it doubtful that the king would copy such a text with his own hand? At the time Deuteronomy was written, the alphabet was still a relatively new invention. In fact, technically, it was not yet an alphabet since it did not express vowel sounds. That great step forward was made some centuries later by the Greeks. The alphabet was the greatest invention in history since it made widespread literacy and large-scale preservation of knowledge possible. The alphabet was invented at just the right time and place, so that the Bible could be the first great alphabetic work. Some scholars suggest that it was Israel rather than the Canaanites who invented the alphabet.

To be literate in alphabetic writing a reader needs to master only a couple of dozen letters, rather than hundreds of signs as one must do in hieroglyphics or cuneiform. So it was not a great problem for the king to be literate. Literacy in Israel was much more widespread than many think. Graffiti from the period are wide-spread. Gideon was able to grab a guy who was passing by and ask him to write a list of 77 names (Judges 8:14). (Of course, the guy may have been the town clerk.)

The problem for the king’s reading of the text would have been that since the text had no vowels, the king would need someone to teach him how to pronounce some of the words. The writing of the time did not tell readers how to pronounce the text. It rather reminded them of pronunciations they had learned from a teacher.

Reading a text was one thing, being able to copy a text accurately was quite another matter. Texts were written on papyrus, a writing material made from reeds, a predecessor of paper. Scribes wrote with reed pens that had to be regularly sharpened. The pen had to be repeatedly dripped in lampblack ink, since it had no ink reservoir. During the earliest stages of the alphabet, writing a letter was more like drawing a picture. There was no fast cursive form. Copying was a long, tedious job. Even after considerable improvement in the materials and technique of writing, it could take a scribe several months to copy a book the size of one of the gospels. In manuscripts, scribes often placed a note at the end of the text that lamented the patient labor involved: “As the traveler rejoices to see the home country, so the scribe rejoices to see the end of a manuscript!” Copying a text under these conditions was not an inspiring spiritual experience.

A more important reason for being skeptical about the king producing his own text was the fact that even prophets and apostles often did not write their own texts. The book of Jeremiah, especially chapter 36, gives us the best insight into how biblical texts were produced. In 36:2 the LORD tells Jeremiah to write a text. “Take a scroll and write on it all the words I have spoken to you concerning Israel, concerning Judah and all the other nations, from the day I began speaking to you in the days of Josiah until now.” Jeremiah obeys this command, not by writing a scroll, but by telling his scribe Baruch to write a scroll. “So Jeremiah called Baruch son of Neriah. While Jeremiah dictated all the words that the LORD had spoken to him, Baruch wrote them on the scroll.” Later in the chapter, the officials of Judah, hear the scroll being read and ask Baruch, “Tell us, how did you come to write all of this? Did Jeremiah dictate this to you?” Baruch answered, “He dictated all of these things to me, and I wrote them with ink on the scroll.” Later in the chapter, after the king of Judah had destroyed the scroll, Jeremiah in effect tells Baruch, “No problem, Baruch. You can write a new scroll.” “Then Jeremiah took another scroll and gave it to his scribe Baruch son of Neriah, who wrote on it all the same words that had been on the scroll that Jehoiakim king of Judah burned in the fire. And many similar words were added to them.” Jeremiah seemingly wrote his book more with his mouth than with his hand.

Paul was another inspired writer who did not write all his books with his own hand. In Romans 16:22 we learn that Tertius served as the scribe who wrote down what the inspired apostle Paul dictated. In 2 Thessalonians 3:17 and Galatian 6:11 we learn that Paul sometimes wrote the final greeting with his own hand, but that someone else apparently wrote the body of the letter. In 1 Peter 5:12 it appears that Silas/Silvanus may be the scribe who assisted Peter with the writing of the book.

If even prophets and apostles did not write their books with their own hands, it seems unlikely that a king would be expected to do so. In Scripture a common way of speaking is that the responsible party for an act is described as the doer of a work even though the physical work was done by his agents.

In 2 Chronicles 1:6 Solomon goes to the bronze altar in the presence of the LORD at the Tent of Meeting, and he offers a thousand burnt offerings upon the altar. Solomon was not a priest, and he could not even offer incense yet alone offer burnt offerings. An Israelite would understand this sentence to mean that Solomon was responsible for the burnt offerings, but by the hands of the priests, not his own hand.

In Nehemiah 3 various individuals are credited with building a portion, or even more than one portion, of the wall of Jerusalem. That does not mean they lifted the stones themselves. Their most important role was probably financing that section and recruiting and encouraging their family members or fellow citizens for the work—though there is no reason to doubt that they also joined in the labor.

When Moses built the Dwelling, Bezalel was the chief craftsman for many of the furnishings. Moses was told by the LORD to make certain things. More direct responsibility for the action was delegated to Bezalel. Some of the Hebrew pronouns and verbs in the section about the construction are singular, referring to the leader Bezalel. Some are plural, referring to the craftsmen who worked under his supervision. It is likely that most items that Moses was told to make were the work of several craftsmen directed by Bezalel.

So while it is possible that we are to think of the king laboriously copying a lengthy text, a letter at a time, it seems unlikely that an Israelite would have heard the text in that way. He likely would have understood that the king’s duty was to obtain, use, and obey the sacred text.

A nearly exact parallel is found in John 19:

Translated very literally the Greek reads “Pilate wrote a notice,” and some translations do render it that way. In this passage, however, the CSB and NIV are among the translations that follow the same approach as the EHV. None of them envision Pilate getting a piece of wood, mixing paint, and writing in Aramaic, Latin, and Greek. Someone else did the mechanics of writing, but Pilate was the “writer” of the text. Very likely the process followed by the king of Israel in Deuteronomy 17 was similar.²

Deciding on the best translation of Deuteronomy 17:18 requires more than looking up the word for “write” in the dictionary. It requires looking at the use of the term in Scripture. What would an Israelite understand when he heard the command for the king to write a text? It does not seem likely he would think that the king was going to write the text, letter by letter. The EHV translation avoids giving the reader this wrong impression.

While the best understanding of Deuteronomy 17:18 is debatable, it is incorrect to call the EHV rendering an error. Some translations and commentaries that have “the king is to write a scroll” in their main text have the reading “the king is to have a scroll written” in a footnote. These are alternate translations but the second is most plausible.

[1] This sample simply represents changing letter forms, not the grammar or spelling of the period.

[2] The text also says Pilate fastened the the notice to the top of the cross, but no one imagines him out at Calvary climbing a ladder.

Wartburg Project Report 2021-02

2021-02-25T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2021-02

Review of "When Was Jesus Really Born?"

2021-02-02T00:00:00+00:00

Review of an in-depth book by Stephen L. Ware, available from Concordia Publishing House.

Annual Report 2020

2021-01-29T00:00:00+00:00

Annual Report 2020

Acts 19:1-6: The Baptism of John and Rebaptism

2021-01-29T00:00:00+00:00

Can you explain the EHV’s understanding of Acts 19:1-6? It seems to understand verses 2 and 4 in a different way than some other translations.

Here are the EHV translation of the passage and the relevant EHV Study Bible footnote:

In verse 2 it is clear that Paul’s initial question is whether the Ephesian Christians had received the special gifts of the Holy Spirit, such as speaking in tongues, at the time of their baptism as other Christians had (Acts 8:11-17, Acts 10:44-48). In Acts 8 the gift was given at the arrival of the apostles after the people had already been baptized by the evangelist Philip. In Acts 10 the special gift was given directly by the Spirit before the people had been baptized. Paul is inquiring if either of these circumstances applied to the Ephesians.

The Ephesians reply that they had not heard about the Holy Spirit. This statement has been understood in two ways: 1) that they had never heard about the existence of the Holy Spirit, or 2) that they had not heard about such a “receiving of the Spirit.” The EHV accepts the second interpretation for the following reasons:

It is hard to believe that the Ephesians had never heard of the Holy Spirit or Spirit of God, who is mentioned often in the Old Testament. See especially Psalms 51:13 and Isaiah 63:9-10.
Jews recognized a plurality in God, though they differed on whether they thought of it as a force from God or a person.
The Spirit was also present at Jesus’ baptism. John says that he saw the Spirit descend on Jesus at the time of his baptism. John told his followers that he had seen the Spirit descend on Jesus (John 1:32-34).
We do not know if others beside Jesus and John saw the sign of the Spirit and heard the voice, but when the voice from heaven spoke again in John 12:28-30, people heard the voice, though perhaps they did not understand it clearly. Jesus says that the voice was for the sake of the people. At Jesus’ transfiguration those present heard the voice (2 Peter 1:17-18).
While the translation of εἰ πνεῦμα ἅγιον ἔστιν as “We have not even heard that there is Holy Spirit” is a possibility, it should be noted that in John 7:39 there is a similar use of the Greek verb εἰμί (οὕπω γὰρ ἠν πνεῦμα) as a reference to the giving of the Holy Spirit: “Up to that time the Spirit had not been given since Jesus had not yet been glorified.”

The next question is what is meant here by “John’s baptism.” Was it a genuine baptism received from John or one of his disciples during John’s ministry? This is hardly likely since John had been dead for many years, and it is hardly likely the Ephesians had been in Israel during John’s ministry.

That leaves two possibilities: 1) the Ephesians had recently been baptized by well-meaning but misguided disciples of John, who continued to baptize after John’s death; or 2) they were baptized by an anti-Jesus sect that claimed to be followers of John. We believe the first option for the following reasons:

It is true that some disciples of John were jealous of Jesus and the apostles-to-be (John 3:25-30; 4:1). It is also true that pro-John, anti-Jesus sects developed, such as the later Mandaeans. That does not seem to be the case here. Apollos, who was a sincere preacher of Jesus, had apparently received this baptism of John (Acts18:24-28). There is no indication he needed another baptism, but only further instruction.
Some of John’s disciples continued to baptize after the death of John. It is likely that these disciples of John baptized in the proper form that John had taught them. (We do not know what that form was.) Their form of baptism may have been valid, but was not proper in cases in which it was motivated by jealousy of the apostles and unwillingness to come under the ministry of the apostles. In some cases, jealous followers of John may have done this in spite, but in other cases like Apollos and the Ephesians their practice was simply due to lack of information, and they readily accepted the apostles’ ministry when they learned of it. It is likely that the Ephesians had received the baptism of John from Apollos, and that Luke mentions this in Acts 18 in anticipation of his account in Acts 19.

That brings us to the final question: Did Paul baptize the Ephesians? Placing quotation marks after verse 4 indicates the interpretation that Paul baptized them. Placing quotation marks after verse 5 indicates that he did not. For the reasons above, we believe he did not, because the baptism they had received was valid.

We do not have enough information to be dogmatic about the answer, and it is not a relevant question for us whether someone baptized by John had to be baptized again.

The interpretation of this passage has a long and complicated history, which we will not go into here, since this exegetical brief has already become an exegetical not-so-brief. For those who want to delve into the question in more depth we have attached the detailed study by Martin Chemnitz, with a few highlights italicized. Chemnitz’s discussion is motivated by disputes concerning rebaptism and the nature of John’s baptism.

Martin Chemnitz reviews the various interpretations of this account in his Examination of the Council of Trent (translation by Fred Kramer).

St. Louis. MO: Concordia, 1978, Part II, p 133-136.

The other passage which was appealed to very often by the Donatists in this dispute, with which also they caused Augustine much trouble, is the story in Acts 19:1-7. This story appears to relate that certain believing disciples, who confessed that they had been baptized with John’s baptism, were commanded by Paul to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. But neither does this passage prove with certainty, clearly and necessarily, that it was necessary for all who had been lawfully baptized with the baptism of John to be again baptized with water by the disciples of Christ; much less does it prove that the baptism of John was without the remission of sins in believers. For from dark, ambiguous, and disputed passages nothing can be proved.

However, this passage is explained in various ways by the interpreters. Some, in order to refute the Anabaptists more readily, contend that those 12 were not baptized twice with water, first by John and afterward by Paul, but that they were baptized with water only once. And among these some take the word “baptism” in the earlier part of the statement not for the application of water but for the institution and doctrine, as the whole ministry of John is called his baptism in Acts 18:25: “Apollos knew and taught only the baptism of John,” so that the meaning of, “Into what were you baptized?” is, “With what doctrine were you instructed and initiated?” And these think that these 12 had indeed been instructed in the teaching of John but had not been baptized with his baptism, but that they were afterwards baptized for the first time in the name of Jesus.

Others take the word “baptism” in the earlier part of the story in its proper sense, but in the second part they take it metaphorically for those wonderful and outstanding gifts of the Spirit which Christ designates with the word “baptism” when He says (Acts 1:5): “You shall be baptized with the Spirit.” And their understanding is that these had been baptized with the baptism of John but were not baptized with water by Paul, but that the particle kai (and), as often elsewhere so also here, is explanatory. They were baptized in the name of Jesus, that is, when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Spirit came upon them.

But both these explanations have something forced about them, and neither preserves entirely the simplicity and clarity of the text. Therefore some, considering the little Greek word men to which the Greek particle de in the following clause corresponds, do not take the clause “On hearing this they were baptized in the name of Jesus” to be words of the historian Luke concerning those 12 but as the uninterrupted context of the speech of Paul, in this sense: John indeed baptized with the baptism of repentance by faith in the Christ to come, and those who heard (namely, this teaching of the Baptist concerning faith in Christ) were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus; that is, it was the same thing as if they had been baptized by the apostles. The Greek context readily bears and permits this explanation. An explanation that is also akin to this is found in the Glossa which is called Interlinear, although it takes those words as words of Luke the historian, namely: “When those 12 heard that there was no difference between the ministry of John and of the apostles, except that John had baptized into Him as coming, of whom the apostles testified that He had come, they at once accepted it; they were not rebaptized, but when they had heard this declaration, the baptism of John was for them baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus. For John baptized in such a way that he commanded men to believe in Christ Jesus. Therefore those whom John baptized were baptized in His name.” That gloss, the entire statement of which is taken from Ambrose, De Spiritu Sancto, Bk. 1, ch. 3, I have quoted above. He is, however, arguing about the true and lawful baptism of John, not about those 12 of whom he thought that they had received a spurious baptism under John’s name. This explanation agrees beautifully with that which is written toward the end of ch. 18 concerning Apollos, whom, because he knew only John’s baptism, they indeed instructed more accurately in the way of the Lord; but we do not read that they baptized him again with water, but having instructed him more fully they commended him to the disciples that he should be received as a Christian. This statement of the Glossa is very simple and fitting, and Lombard also argues that those who did not place their hope in that ceremony of John but believed in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were not afterward again baptized with water by the disciples of Christ. But to the possible objection that without the Holy Spirit there is neither the grace of God nor the forgiveness of sins, and that although those 12 are said to have been baptized with the baptism of John yet they first received the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands, the answer is not difficult. For Luke himself explains that he understands by the term “Spirit” the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, as the term is understood in John 7:39. Or, if it is taken literally, it will follow that not even by the baptism of Christ was the Holy Spirit given. For it is reported that they received the Spirit after the baptism of Christ, when Paul laid his hands on them.

There are, however, those to whom the text of the story seems to convey this meaning entirely, that those 12 had first been baptized with the baptism of John and that they were afterward baptized by Paul in the name of Jesus. Ambrose, indeed, so explains this passage, Ad Galatas, ch. 3. For he thinks that those 12 had not been washed, but polluted by a counterfeit baptism under the name of John, and that therefore Paul commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Trinity. He argues the same way in De Spiritu Sancto, Bk. 1, ch. 3. And to this interpretation this could be fitted, that they do not simply confess that they had been baptized with the baptism of John but “into the baptism of John.” For what this phrase means is quickly explained, where they are said to be baptized “into the name of Jesus.” For this is the same as what Paul says in Rom. 6:3: “All of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death.” And in 1 Cor. 1:13, 15: “You were not baptized into the name of Paul.” Also it seems to follow from their confession and from the answer of Paul that they had been baptized in such a way that they neither knew the Holy Spirit nor believed in Christ, but appear to have placed their hope in that ceremony of John, so that it was a certain false zeal, yes, a manifest corruption and adulteration of the baptism of John. And so the two accounts will not hang together badly. Apollos, who had been baptized with the true and genuine baptism of John, was not again washed with water but was more fully instructed. But those 12 because they were no more baptized than those who had been washed with the baptism of the Pharisees (Mark 7:4), were not rebaptized but were truly baptized for the first time by Paul. This understanding also Lombard embraces and follows.

Augustine, however, thinks that those 12 had been baptized with the true baptism of John and that nevertheless they were afterward also baptized by Paul. For he thinks that John’s baptism is one thing and Christ’s another, so that anyone who had the baptism of John needed afterward also to receive the baptism of Christ. And yet he defended this his understanding against rebaptism. For anabaptism is a repetition of one and the same baptism. This understanding seems to be favored by the fact that Luke gives them the testimony that they were disciples, that is, Christians, as they were then called. And Paul ascribes faith to them when he says that they believed. For this reason also some among more recent writers think it is not unfitting if one takes the passage to mean that those 12 were first baptized with John’s baptism and that they were afterward baptized by Paul in the name of the Lord Christ. For as John preached, so he also baptized into the Christ who was to come (Acts 19:4). The apostles, however, taught Christ as manifested, and joined to this teaching they had a sign—the baptism of Christ. As therefore it was necessary for the disciples of John to accept the preaching of the apostles concerning the Christ who had been manifested, so if they are said to have received the sign connected with this apostolic doctrine, this is not unfitting and there is no rebaptism; nor is the previous baptism, that of John, condemned, as the Anabaptists do. And what the text says, namely, that they were baptized in the name of the Lord Christ, this is the same as if it said: “In the name of the manifested Christ.” For God made the crucified Jesus both Christ and Lord. (Acts 2:36)

I have reviewed these varying interpretations of the story in Acts 19:1–7 in order that I might show that there is no sufficient cause why he who embraces one meaning should at once condemn with the anathema those who think otherwise, and that I might wrest from the papalists this weapon in which they have great confidence. For no matter how this story is understood, one cannot draw from it a sure, clear, and necessary conclusion that there was in the baptism of John no efficacy and that the believers received neither grace nor the remission of sins from it. For by the same reasoning it would follow either that those who had been circumcised should not have been baptized or that circumcision had no efficacy in believers.

Martin Chemnitz and Fred Kramer, Examination of the Council of Trent, electronic ed., vol. 2 (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1999), 133-136.

Wartburg Project Report 2020-12

2020-12-14T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2020-12

Wartburg Project Report 2020-11

2020-11-19T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2020-11

Wartburg Project Report 2020-10

2020-10-29T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2020-10

Shouldn't Psalm 4:4 and Ephesians 4:26 agree?

2020-10-29T00:00:00+00:00

Why does your translation of Psalm 4:4 not agree with Ephesians 4:26?

Here are these verses in three familiar versions:

EHV
Ephesians 4:26	Be angry, yet do not sin.
Psalm 4:4	You may be upset, but do not sin.
ESV
Ephesians 4:26	Be angry, and do not sin.
Psalm 4:4	Be angry, and do not sin.
NIV
Ephesians 4:26	In your anger do not sin.
Psalm 4:4	Tremble and do not sin.

There are three main issues that influence the translation here: 1) What is the meaning of the Hebrew verb in Psalm 4:4? 2) What is the force of the Hebrew imperative? 3) Is Paul quoting Psalm 4:4?

The Hebrew verb rgz is not one of the usual verbs for anger. It means shake, be agitated, be excited. The Greek verb refers to anger.
The word imperative means a command, but this is a grammatical misnomer because the form does not always indicate a command. An imperative may indicate permission or tolerance or a concession. This is as true in English as it is in Hebrew. “Have another piece of pie” may be an invitation. But if grandma has baked a pie for your visit, it is a command. We do not always spell out these nuances in English, but let the reader recognize them from the context.
Paul does not say that he is quoting Psalm 4:4. He may simply be using a familiar expression. Some say Paul is quoting the Greek Old Testament known as the Septuagint. Others say his statement echoes Psalm 4.

Both the NIV and EHV recognize that the verb in Hebrew is not a normal word for anger. But it seems that the text refers to emotions more than to bodily symptoms. Hence the choice of the EHV, be upset rather than tremble.

In Ephesians 4:26, both the EHV and the NIV indicate that Paul is not commanding anger, but telling people how to deal with it when they are experiencing it. Somewhat surprisingly, in the Psalm the NIV does not indicate a shading, but sticks with straight imperative force.

The ESV stays very literal and does not indicate a shading in either passage. It adjusts the Old Testament to the New.

Paul seems to be quoting the Septuagint as we know it, but our copies are Christian, post-Ephesians texts so it is possible that the New Testament scribe made the Old Testament agree with the New just as the ESV did. It may be that Paul was not attempting to quote the Psalm.

Anger and upset are inevitable, but we are to strive to control them and direct them in the right direction.

Why doesn't EHV use more authentically Hebrew names?

2020-10-29T00:00:00+00:00

Since there is a move to make the English spelling of names in the Hebrew Bible more authentically Hebrew (Yitzak rather than Isaac), why does the EHV retain names which are so far from the Hebrew?

The EHV makes a modest step in the direction of the ongoing spelling reform which is intended to move the spelling of Hebrew names in the English Bible closer to the Hebrew spellings. An attempt is underway to move the Hebrew-based names toward a more consistent transliteration from the Hebrew. Suggested equivalents are: כ kaph=k; ק qoph=q; ח chet=ch; צ tsade=ts. But tsade is often also written as z, and chet is often written as h. Chet really needs a special character which is not an English letter—an h with a dot under it (ḥ). For example, to make a modest introduction of this reform, the EHV spells “king names,” that is, personal names ending in the word melek (which means king in Hebrew), with a final k not a final ch: Abimelek not Abimelech. But our reforms are very limited.

It would make a certain amount of academic or scholarly sense to make a consistent spelling reform, but it would not make practical sense, because we cannot ignore the fact that the EHV is an English translation, and English has established conventions for biblical names that have been used for many centuries. It would be too user-unfriendly to change names like Jacob and Isaac, which have been used for centuries, for more Hebrew-friendly names. Many of these names do not come to English directly from Hebrew but via the Greek and Latin translations.¹ This applies not only to Hebrew personal names but to place names like Egypt and to the names of Persian kings. A case in point is Jerusalem, which is the established English name of the city, not the Hebrew-like Yerushalaim (which by the way seems to have been a relatively late Hebrew spelling of the name, not a genuine reflection of the early Hebrew form of the name). It is simply not feasible to take the name Jerusalem out of the English Bible. In a translation intended for general use we cannot ignore established usage in one jump. Any spelling reform must be gradual, or what seems more likely, it will never happen, just as well-meaning reforms of English spelling always falter.

If someone like the questioner wanted to use the EHV text as a basis for their own translation moving toward Hebrew spelling to create a more “Messianic” Bible, they could seek a license to do so, but at the present time we have no plans for specialized adaptations of the EHV text except for the metric Bible. Such adaptations would have their own name for their Bible like Messianic Bible based on the EHV, not EHV or Wartburg Bible.

For more information on this mess see the chapter on spelling in our book Biblical Grammar: Mechanics or Meaning?

[1] To cite one extreme example, the English name James has evolved from a Hebrew original Ya'aqov, via the Greek New Testament form Iakobos, via the Latin form Iacomus, to English James. Quite a journey! German churches named St. Jacobi are mostly named after NT James not OT Jacob.

Welcoming the EHV

2020-10-28T00:00:00+00:00

A collection of four articles about the EHV.

Wartburg Project Report 2020-09

2020-09-26T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2020-09

English Spelling: "Worshipped" or "Worshiped"

2020-08-31T00:00:00+00:00

The EHV is an American translation that has a policy of using American grammar and spelling. Why then do you use the British spelling worshipped instead of the American spelling worshiped?

Very early in the process of developing the EHV, we learned, to our surprise, that worshipped is the established American spelling for this word. The way that we learned this was through our study of Bryan Garner’s Modern English Usage. We adopted this book as our favorite grammar reference book because it is based on extensive computer surveys of vast quantities of literature, and it is more entertaining than most grammars. One of Garner’s emphases is debunking grammatical myths.

An example of a spelling myth that is rebutted by Garner’s computer studies is reflected in the EHV’s practice of spelling worshipped with the double “p.” Many dictionaries and authorities confidently state that worshiped is the American spelling and worshipped is the British spelling, but an extensive computer survey of actual usage showed that pp is the standard American and British usage by a ratio of 3:1. Garner comments that some American dictionaries state a preference for worshiped with one “p,” but this spelling has never attained a predominance in print. Double “pp” has steadily outranked single “p” in America, and in Britain there has been no competition at all—it’s double “p” consistently. Maybe misguided spell checkers will succeed in changing the American spelling to single “p,” but it is not yet the case.

There is a spelling rule that final consonants are not doubled in inflected forms if they are in unaccented syllables. In his study of this phenomenon in his article Spelling B, Garner demonstrates that the doubling of the final consonant is indeed a British tendency, but here too there are exceptions.

So how did a British tendency become the established usage of America? My guess is that it is because American hymnody and liturgy has adopted very heavily from British sources, and when American Christians wrote about worship, hymnody, and liturgy, they were drawn to the spellings that were familiar from their worship life. In that way, their usage would agree with what their hymnal and lectionary used. But that theory does not explain why kidnapping is the dominant American spelling in violation of the alleged rule. It may be as simple as analogy with nap, napping, or it may be due to the fact that kidnap was formerly accented on the second syllable. Grammar and usage are complicated. Seldom or never does a “rule” cover all the situations and exceptions.

At any rate, this case is an example of the EHV practice that when there is an apparent conflict between a supposed rule and the actual usage as established by objective data, we tend to favor the data. The reason for this is explained a bit in the following.

One of the two most surprising lessons that we learned early in the process of working on the EHV was that we had to unlearn a lot of things that we had spent years in learning. Nowhere was this more true that in the area of English grammar and spelling. It is surprising how much the nature of grammatical study has been revolutionized by the ability to search vast amounts of literature in order to gather objective, “real life” statistics on any specific grammatical construction or on the spelling of a word. With a quick computer search, a grammarian can gather much more data about a grammatical construction than could be gathered in a lifetime of reading. This type of research clearly shows that many of the supposed rules of English grammar are in fact myths. By using Google ngrams one can quickly collect several centuries of grammatical data from Google Books and quickly trace changes of usage over time. One of the first handbooks to make extensive use of this new tool is Garner’s Modern English Usage.

In the past, grammatical rules published in handbooks were much like the tabulated results of a poll. The pollster took a sample and hoped that it accurately reflected reality. In the same way, the grammarian read a lot of literature. He also read other people’s grammar books, and from that sample he extrapolated (took a guess) at what the usage of a construction would be across the total corpus of the language, in order to formulate a rule for everyone to follow. Sometimes he also threw in his opinion of what the rule should be, even as he acknowledged that his “rule” was not in fact the rule but just his opinion. Searching Google Books still provides the grammarian with only a sample, but it is a much bigger sample (big data), so statements about grammatical constructions can now be much more objective, based on real life data, with less guess work. Where there is objective data available, the EHV generally goes with the data, except in those cases where we are following the time-honored practice of trying to create our own rules.

This is such a common issue that we have produced an EHV grammar book about the problem. It is called Biblical Grammar: Mechanics or Meaning, and it is available for free from our Wartburg Project online library.

Someone might say, “You should just pick your favorite authority and go with it, him, her, or them.” We have sort of done that with Garner, though we do not follow him 100%. The problem with this suggested approach is that God, the author of language, has not appointed anyone czar of spelling with the authority to make rules (laws) for everyone to follow. We learned early-on that if a reader warns us that one of our spellings is wrong and that we should correct it on the authority of Authority A, and if we do so, it will not be too long before someone else tells us on the authority of Authority B that our spelling is wrong and we should change it back to what we had in the first place. See our grammar book for many examples of this phenomenon. This problem is especially difficult in respect to the spelling of biblical names. In the realm of biblical spelling, we live in the days of the judges when every speller does whatever is right in his or her own eyes.

For further study of the fascinating topic grammar and spelling:

See Biblical Grammar: Mechanics or Meaning.

For a wider study of the vexing problem of English spelling, secular and biblical, see John Brug’s book, Speling Is Irevelent: Ghoti and Other Fine Spellings.

Wartburg Project Report 2020-08

2020-08-30T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2020-08

Biblical Weights and Measures - Metric Version

2020-08-03T00:00:00+00:00

Translating ancient measurements into the modern metric system.

Wartburg Project Report 2020-07

2020-07-28T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2020-07

Why don't you use more contractions?

2020-07-27T00:00:00+00:00

Why don’t you use more contractions in the EHV? People use almost all contractions when they speak.

We get an equal number of comments which say that we use too many contractions in the EHV as those which say that we do not use enough, so there is no solution here that will satisfy everyone. I wrote this FAQ because we had recently received a message strongly suggesting that we use more contractions, especially in the epistles. While I was reviewing and editing this FAQ, I received a review of the EHV expressing great happiness that the EHV did not use as many contractions as some other translations and hoping that we would not use more.

Early in the translation process for the EHV, we received more complaints about using contractions in the EHV. The thought was that contractions lack the dignity that the Bible deserves. The more recent complaint that we should use more contractions is based on the feeling that non-contractions make the Bible sound stuffy, because contractions are how we speak.

Bryan Garner is the grammarian we refer to the most. In his article in Modern English Usage about contractions, he says among other things: “Perhaps contractions do not belong in solemn contexts. ... Don’t start using contractions at every opportunity. ... It depends on whether the contraction helps or hinders the rhythm with which you want the sentence read. ... You have to go by feel not rule.” His last rule, “go by feel not rule,” is one we try to follow.

This is not an issue concerning whether contractions or non-contractions are more or less spiritual, but an issue of the degree of formality of the communication. The Bible’s texts have various levels of formality. Some of the Bible reports informal secular conversation. Some of the Bible is formal writing that uses elevated language.

This is a complicated issue with a lot of nuances. The contraction/non-contraction issue is too complex a situation to address with a simple all-or-nothing rule in either direction.

One the few universally accepted rules is: Do not use contractions in legal writing. A handbook for legal writers says: “The use of contractions is inappropriate in formal legal writing.” Much of the Bible is legal writing.
There are cases in which contractions cannot simply be substituted for non-contractions. In American English I won't go is not completely interchangeable with I will not go. There is a difference in tone and emphasis.
Contractions that are common in speech (I'd've gone if I were you) do not look good in writing. The contracted I would have gone is pronounced idov, but we can’t write it that way.
In speech, we often pronounce could’ve, should’ve, and would’ve in a way that sounds identical to “could of,” “should of,” and “would of.” Listening to such contractions being read aloud could be confusing to listeners of our metric Bible who do not have American English as their first language. Non-contractions are always grammatically correct, and they most clearly convey the meaning.
There are a few contractions, such as gonna (going to) and wanna (want to) that are written without apostrophes that are probably too informal even for informal biblical speech. On the other hand, there are times you must use a contraction no matter how formal the speech. You have to say two o’clock. You can’t say or write the uncontracted two of the clock.
Some writers use less-common contractions when they want to represent a particular style of speech. They might write somethin’ to represent the way people often don’t pronounce the final g of “something” in speech. Occasionally, you might see e’er (instead of ever) in poetry to fit the meter. And, of course, you will probably write y’all (you all) only if you are attempting a regional Bible for the American South. Even there y’all (yawl) and you all are not interchangeable. This issue does not have much relevance to translating the Bible since we do not know enough about their speech patterns or dialects to attempt such distinctions.
That brings us to the final issue. We are not trying to make Judeans sound like 21st century Americans. We are trying to make them sound like ancient Judeans who spoke good English. Did they contract words in their daily speech? Probably, because that is a very normal and natural process of speech. More to the point is whether the scribes who recorded that speech wanted to record it with contractions. Did they want us to read it with contractions? Probably not, if the intense efforts of the Masoretes to insist on exact pronunciation reflect the intent of the text. Both Jews and Christians are typically more formal in their church and synagogue reading than in daily conversation.
There are quite a few areas in which biblical speakers are more formal than American English speakers, such as in the use of deferential titles. In the EHV, we are not necessarily trying to say it “the way we would say it,” but “the way they would have said it” if they spoke English. We, of course, have only limited ability to do this.

There are many issues in which translators face this problem of formality vs informality, knowing there is no solution that is acceptable to all their readers. If Jesus says, “Who are you looking for?”, which is the way Americans talk, people will write, “Our Lord Jesus Christ would not use bad grammar.” If he says, “For whom are you looking?”, people will say, “Our Lord was not a stuffed shirt.”

In our revisions of the EHV, we may be using a few more don'ts and fewer do nots; fewer will nots and more won'ts. Use of contractions is perhaps more desirable in cases like do you not know than in cases like you do not know. Word order and rhythm play into the decision. But I don’t know and I do not know are not interchangeable in tone.

This problem comes into focus in Paul’s epistles. All epistles are letters. Not all letters are epistles. An epistle is a literary work in the form of a letter, but aimed at a broad audience, while a letter is generally intended for a specific individual or small group (actually there are a lot of different kinds of letters). The epistles are lessons for public reading aloud. They also have very friendly introductions and conclusions. The degree of informality in the greetings may not be appropriate in some of the body of the letter.

Letters are not necessarily informal. Many of the letters in the Old Testament are actually decrees. A friendly casual tone is seldom appropriate.

“You have to go by feel not rule.” This is the advice we try to follow.

Wartburg Project Report 2020-06

2020-06-30T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2020-06

Wartburg Project Report 2020-05

2020-05-27T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2020-05

Wartburg Project Report 2020-04

2020-04-14T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2020-04

Wartburg Project Report 2020-03

2020-03-26T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2020-03

Grammar: Laws, Rules, or Guidelines?

2020-03-26T00:00:00+00:00

Because we receive many questions (and criticisms) about grammar and spelling, last year we published a handbook, Biblical Grammar: Mechanics or Meaning?, to address these issues and to state our general philosophy about such matters.

It goes without saying that people who participate in a Bible translation project are going to learn a lot. One of the surprising lessons that we learned early in the process of working on the EHV was that we had to unlearn a lot of things about grammar and spelling that we had spent years in learning. It is surprising how much the nature of grammatical study has been revolutionized by the ability to search vast amounts of literature in order to gather objective, “real life” statistics on any specific grammatical construction or on the spelling of a word. With a quick computer search, a grammarian can gather much more data about a grammatical construction than could be gathered in a lifetime of reading. This type of research clearly shows that many of the supposed rules of English grammar are in fact myths. By using Google ngrams one can quickly collect several centuries of grammatical data from Google Books and quickly trace changes of usage over time. One of the first handbooks to make extensive use of this new tool is Garner’s Modern English Usage. A brief review of this work is available on our website.

In the past, grammatical rules published in handbooks were much like the tabulated results of a poll. The grammarian read a lot of literature. He also read other people’s grammar books, and from that sample he extrapolated (took a guess) at what the usage of a construction would be across the total corpus of the language, in order to formulate a rule for everyone to follow (descriptive grammar). Sometimes he also threw in his opinion of what the rule should be (prescriptive grammar). Searching Google Books still provides the grammarian with only a sample, but it is a much bigger sample (big data), so statements about grammatical constructions can now be much more objective, based on real life data, with less guess work.

The main lesson to be learned by translators and editors is that the primary function of grammar is not to conform to a rule book but to communicate clearly. For the best communication, writers and editors must focus on expressing meaning, rather than on fulfilling mechanical rules. Or to paraphrase the greatest communicator: “Grammar is made for man; man is not made for grammar.”

There are several reasons why rigidly following the dictates of one rule book is not a wise course (although publishers can, of course, choose to follow a “house style” if they wish to):

Many of the statements in grammar books and dictionaries are demonstrably wrong.
Any single rule book is just the opinion of one authority among many. God, the creator of human languages, has not appointed a grammar czar with the authority to legislate the laws of grammar. As he did with government, God established the institution, but he lets it develop its own forms. Correcting your construction to appease one grammar book will often put you into conflict with another.
Valid reasons to follow a certain grammatical rule include:
1. This rule communicates more clearly than some of the other options.
2. Following this rule will help minimize criticisms that the editor does not know anything about good grammar.

However, editors should set aside rigid adherence to a rule when the rule is demonstrably wrong or when the rule limits the writers’ ability to communicate clearly by expressing nuances of meaning. Many examples of this principle are provided in Garner’s Modern English Usage and in Biblical Grammar: Mechanics or Meaning?

Here we can illustrate the principle by considering a recent criticism of the EHV. A reader criticized the “incorrect grammar in the EHV.” The example of erroneous grammar was the use of the phrase “none of them are” in the EHV. The claim was that the only right construction is “none of them is” because the word “none” is singular.

This claim is not supported by fact. First of all, the word “none” is neither singular nor plural. It is a zero. That is why it can be construed as a singular or a plural, depending on the surrounding context. Usage of “none” falls into two categories: 1) not one (singular) or 2) not any (plural). Garner says, “None is is the more emphatic way of expressing an idea. But it is also the less common way, especially in educated speech, and it therefore sounds somewhat stilted. The problem is exacerbated by the unfortunate fact that some stylists and publications insist that none is always singular, even in the most awkward constructions.” Objective data on usage does not support the claim that the only correct construction is none is.

Sometimes singular sounds better; sometimes plural. “None of us are going” sounds okay to me. It envisions many different people in the group reaching the same conclusion. “Not one of us is going” sounds right as a singular. Not a single person is going. One expression puts emphasis on the many people involved. The other way emphasizes the individuals. It is the message you are trying to convey that governs this situation, not a supposed rule.

This is true of many singular/plural dilemmas. Both “the team received their uniforms” and “the team received its uniforms” are correct, but the emphasis is different in each case. One expression emphasizes the unity of the group, all of whom received the same style uniform. The other expression emphasizes that all the members of the team received a uniform.

A similar situation that occurs often in the Bible is whether a group of believers love/loves God with all their heart or with all their hearts. “They love the Lord with all their heart” is right because each one has one heart and the singular “heart” reflects the idiom “love the Lord with all your heart.” “They love the Lord with all their hearts” is correct because as a group they have many hearts.

Even hymnals cannot escape grammar wars. In the hymnal I used as a boy the familiar hymn said, “Now thank we all our God with heart, and hands, and voices.” I remember this after sixty years, because an overzealous seventh grade teacher deducted from my hymnology grade because I had written, “Now thank we all our God with hearts, and hands, and voices,” thus demonstrating my poor memorization skills. The hymnal my church uses now has “corrected” this to “Now thank we all our God with hearts, and hands, and voices,” possibly because “we” is plural and must have many hearts.

The bottom line for editors in making a decision in such singular/plural toss-ups is “what nuance am I trying to convey.” The bottom line for readers when confronting such singular/plural toss-ups is “what nuance is the author trying to convey.”

Grammar is made for man; man is not made for grammar.

Appendix 1: Another example of invalid rules

Many authorities claim worshipped is the correct British spelling and worshiped is the correct American spelling, but searching actual usage with Google ngrams shows that worshipped predominates on both sides of the pond. In American usage worshipped wins by 3:1.

If enough dictionaries and spell checkers repeat the erroneous information often enough, it will become the standard spelling. This is happening with some words. The historically correct plural of hoof is hoofs (like roofs). But in recent decades so many people have falsely corrected hoofs to hooves that hooves is well on its way to becoming the common spelling. Many people now think hoofs is the wrong form.

Though ax was the more correct form, axe is now the established form in British and American English.

Appendix 2: An example of expressing nuances rather than following a rule

In such capitalization issues as word versus Word or temple versus Temple the differentiation is not expressed by a rule but by what nuance the author is trying to express. Temple points to the one special temple in Jerusalem. The uncapitalized temple indicates what kind of building it is. Word refers to the whole corpus of divine revelation. The lower case word indicates spoken word in contrast to sacrament, as in “word and sacrament. No rule covers these situations. The choice is determined by the author’s intent.

Wartburg Project Report 2020-02

2020-02-25T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2020-02

Wartburg Project Report 2020-01

2020-01-31T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2020-01

Dealing with Defects

2020-01-29T00:00:00+00:00

How do we plan to deal with defects in the various editions of the published EHV?
Updated September 26, 2020

Since the print edition of the complete EHV Bible has been available for over a year now, since the complete Bible is also available in various electronic editions, and since the Study Bible with notes is now available in the Microsoft Store edition, and there is a metric version of the Study Bible, the question might be asked, "How do you keep the ten or so versions straight and together?” It is not easy. It seems to be a good time to lump together several questions under the topic “dealing with defects.”

Mechanical Issues

Let us start with the easy part of the problem first: dealing with what we will call “mechanical defects.” This is the problem that is easy to deal with (at least for the users of the Bible).

Copies are sometimes damaged in shipping. This may be the fault of the packaging or of mishandling by the carrier. Fortunately that is not the purchaser’s problem to solve. Publishers may try to reduce the problem with improved packing or by using different carriers, but users simply contact the publisher, Northwestern Publishing House, and ask for a replacement copy.

The second type of mechanical defect is a result of mishaps in the printing and binding process. All mechanical processes produce errors. Even with modern, high-quality production equipment, there are occasional volumes from which there is a signature missing. (A signature is a bundle of pages.) At other times, stitching or gluing of a signature is defective. These types of errors are essentially the same as your experience with your copy machine when two pieces of paper come through at the same time, and half of the page is printed on one sheet and the bottom half is on the second sheet. We all have had the experience of having to return a product we have bought and asking for a replacement. This problem of defective copies of books is simply one of the imperfections of life in an imperfect world. Solving this production issue is not the purchaser’s problem. You simply request a replacement copy from the publisher.

Problems with such mechanical issues relating to the EHV should be addressed to Northwestern Publishing House. In the first year since publication of the Bible, we at the Wartburg Project have heard only of three examples of missing signatures (two of them, involving the same signature from two volumes in the same shipment) and a relative handful of bad bindings out of many thousands of copies. We do not have any information about what the industry norm is for the percentage of such copies but the problem seems to be universal to all manufacturing.

There is a parallel set of problems with electronic versions that are handled in the same way.

Downloads from the Microsoft Store seem to work pretty well, but there are occasional problems. We can usually give you advice if it is a known, recurring issue with the MS Store.

Content Issues

Issues that seem to be the result of errors in the underlying text files (typos, missing words, formatting errors, etc.) as well as suggestions for improvements to the translation, should be addressed to the Wartburg Project.

Why must there be different editions of a Bible translation? “There is a sense in which the work of translation is never finished.” This statement is from the preface of the 1978 edition of the NIV. The NIV translators go on to say: “Like all translations of the Bible, made as they are by imperfect man, this one undoubtedly falls short of its goals. Yet we are grateful to God for the extent to which he has enabled us to realize these goals and for the strength he has given us and our colleagues to complete our task.”

Many people have the mistaken notion that the NIV 1984 edition, which many of us used for decades, was the first edition of the NIV. In fact, the NIV published its New Testament in 1973 and the first edition of the complete Bible in 1978 (my plain, unadorned NIV Bible is still my 1978 edition). I began teaching from the 1978 edition in 1979. Neither I nor my students experienced any significant difficulty when NIV 1984 came along, and we used it in various study Bible editions. Most readers never even noticed the little changes that occurred throughout the life-times of the two editions, though occasionally in Bible class, two students would notice that their wording of a passage in NIV 84 was not exactly identical.

The process for launching the EHV is not that much different than that of the NIV except that the advance of technology speeds up the process. Our EHV New Testament appeared in 2017. The complete Bible appeared two years later in 2019. Electronic editions of the study Bible also appeared in 2019. Our first revision will probably appear between 2022 and 2024.

We probably should begin by reminding readers what the term edition means. An edition includes all copies of a book printed from substantially the same file (or in older technology, from one setting of type), including all minor typographical variants. From time to time, readers may observe an error in the text and report it to the publisher. The publisher typically keeps these “reprint corrections” in a file, pending demand for a new print run of the edition, and before the new run is printed, the corrections will be entered. Such minor changes do not constitute a new edition, but introduce typographical variations within an edition, which are of interest mainly to collectors. This is one of the factors that accounts for the word “substantially” in the definition of an edition as “substantially the same file.”

This standard operating procedure is also the practice of the EHV. We insert “corrections” into the text every time there is a new printing. The first edition of the EHV is now in its fourth printing. None of these four printings is 100% identical to any of the others, just as no two Bible manuscripts are entirely identical. Our general policy is to insert “corrections” as soon as possible, but to hold most “improvements” for the first revision in about three years. (More on this later.)

The updating process is more rapid with computer Bibles like the Microsoft Edition of the EHV study Bible, which are automatically updated for users as soon as needed corrections have been uncovered and entered into the online files. This means corrections in the print Bible will lag behind the computer Bible, and the two versions will never be in complete sync. Various electronic versions will not be in sync with each other, depending on the update policies of the provider.

In some electronic editions, a new edition number is needed if even one letter is changed in the text, with the result that you end up with edition numbers like 1.3.4.

Our EHV policy is stated in the Continuative section of the study “Luther and the EHV,” which is available in our Wartburg Project online library. (p.13)

No translation is ever perfect or complete. That means critical and qualitative revision is essential. It is, in fact, a never-ending process from one generation to the next. During the course of a translation project, a team learns many things—about the original text, exegesis, consistency, how to handle key terms or difficult passages in the receptor language, and even organizational efficiency. Thus at the end, they realize that, in view of what they have picked up along the way, they need to begin all over again. They must undertake a careful revision in order to correct the inevitable errors and to improve the wording wherever possible, based on their past experience and also the feedback from readers.
In many cases, unfortunately, such an opportunity does not materialize. For one reason or another, the production team is disbanded and its members return to other pursuits.

To address this issue the Wartburg Project will have a continuing editorial and administrative board to oversee the typical revision that usually comes three to five years after the appearance of a first edition, but even as we continue to correct and improve, we want to have a stable text^[1] so that the churches will have a relatively uniform text in their catechisms, liturgy, and other worship resources. Even in the midst of change, we stress another c, continuity.

Here we distinguish between the correction of errors and the introduction of improvements, although the line between them is sometimes blurry as we will see later.

Errors are of two types: errors of translation and errors in reproduction of the text (typos, etc.) Among all the manuscripts and resources that we have used in working on the EHV, we have not found any that do not have mistakes. So try as we may, we do not expect to be exempt either. Even the best Hebrew and Greek manuscripts have many variants in the reproduction of the text. Though the inspired authors of Scripture were protected from error, copyists, translators, and editors are not, so we will always be rechecking our work to make corrections, and our readers will be part of the process.

Another type of updating is improvements. The judgment of what is an “improvement” can of course be quite subjective. Part of this need or desire for improvements is because of the ever-changing nature of language and because of preferences for different styles of translation, but much of it is due simply to the nature of the art of translating and editing. No matter how many times translators, writers, or editors reread their work, if they are honest, they will always see something to change. They change A to B to C, and then decide A was better after all. It simply is the nature of the discipline, which is an art not a science. In many passages, there can be more than one good translation. It is not that one is correct and the other is not. That is why there is a benefit to footnotes and to looking at different translations.

Translating, writing, and editing have two common enemies. One is carelessness or laziness that does not try to produce a clean product. The other is perfectionism that can never bring anything to conclusion and say, “I have to go with what I have.” In the Evangelical Heritage Version we are aware of both pitfalls, and we are always working to try to produce a good product, but to do it relatively quickly, so it can be of use to the church, and the church can be part of the testing process.

As stated above, we do want to have a stable text, especially for educational purposes. We, of course, will fix any typos or errors as soon as we find them, but we will do a systematic revision only after three to five years of congregational use, so that a wide cross-section of input can be sifted and compared. We expect this revision to be modest in scope, keeping the text as stable as possible. We work to keep the two goals of improvement and stability in balance.

If we try to keep the text as stable as possible, this will make some of our readers very happy, but it will make many other readers sad because it means that we will have to be reluctant to adopt many of the suggested improvements that we will receive in the next three years. The goals of stability and improvement clash with each other, and a balance must be sought.

A Few Observations

It is impossible and highly inadvisable to have an unchanging, frozen text. A couple of years ago the ESV announced that they were going to have a frozen text. Very soon thereafter they announced that they were abandoning this policy as unwise and unworkable.

One reason for this has already been mentioned: the necessary correction of inevitable errors as they are discovered. It makes sense to correct these as quickly as possible, even if this means that no two printings of an edition will be entirely identical. We hope these corrections to be relatively few.

One complication in keeping all versions and editions of the EHV 100% identical is that all the different media and apps require a proliferation of the already great number of text files which we have to work with.

Our archive of text files fills 7.72 GB in 222 folders, containing 6,732 files, and it is growing. Our project files amount to 57 GB in over 1000 folders with 40,000 files. One reason for this, besides the many generations of revisions of the translation of a given book, is that different platforms require different sets of files.

The basic print edition is produced from a special type of file which Northwestern produces from our Word .doc files.
The Windows computer study Bible is produced, not from the NPH master, but from a different set of docx files.
We need a separate set of docx and pdf files for the Logos study Bible notes-only module.
The printed edition of the study Bible will need reformatted pdf files in order to get the page breaks to come out looking fairly decent. This, in some cases, requires some changes to the text of the notes and adding or removing or resizing pictures to get a good fit. The color files have to be converted to grayscale.
In producing e-pub files for various formats, Word files that produce an acceptable e-pub file using one conversion tool do not work in another conversion tool. In one extreme case, a publisher tried to produce an e-pub file from our doc and pdf files for a week without success, and we had to turn to the e-pub converter of another publisher, which worked immediately. The file did not look nice, but we lived with it.
This problem with e-pub files and with compatibility between various formats of file is actually worse than this simplified version makes it sound, but it is abbreviated here to avoid making it more tedious than it already is.

As explained above, corrections are updated with every printing. When corrections are made, they have to be changed not only in the master or app in which we found the error, but in all our various formats of files. For example, if we find an error in a study Bible text, we not only have to fix it in the computer Bible, but in the print Bible, in the files for producing the print Bible, in the Logos files, and in the various e-pub editions. It is easy to say all these files should be alike after all the rounds of correcting, but it is easier said than done, for a number of reasons. A discrepancy can result when someone creating a new file and new format accidently uses a generation 12 file instead of the generation 13 file.

Besides simple operator errors, there are errors and inadequacies in the computer programs. Here we will limit the discussion to a couple of examples from Word. The spellcheck function in Word is not reliable. For example it misses some examples of words with an accidental asterisk, which is a common error. We know this because when we are trying to find a certain word to correct it, the search sometimes says that this term does not occur. We know that this is wrong because we know the word does occur. We track down the right verse by searching for a different word that occurs in the passage, and sure enough, there the missing term is. Since Word search is not reliable at finding individual words, we have to assume that it may miss some items in a series, and that when we use the search function to correct all the instances of one term, our search may not have turned up all the instances, and our correction is incomplete. It is not always clear whether the problem is a true software error or an operator error involving unseen half spaces or something like that.

Errors which were not present in the files which we gave to the programmers sometimes turn up in editions like BibleGateway. Their conversion process created a new error that was not there before. Sometimes files do not copy correctly from one program or from one file to another. For example, in Word, text pasted from one file to another sometimes turns up with the wrong font or spacing scattered at random intervals even when we use special paste.

It is quite possible that most of these errors involve some form of operator error, but aided and abetted by software complications.

Another example of such user-induced error is that lectionary users accidently introduce errors into the biblical text when they paste the readings into files to be projected during services. If they do not use the correct form of the special paste function, the Lords will become Lords and the superscripted verse numbers will become full-sized numbers.

Some Other Miscellaneous Observations

We will treat the biblical text and the Study Bible materials differently. For the sake of stability we will be hesitant to make “improvements” to the translation of the biblical text unless there is a pretty significant improvement, but we can incorporate many of the suggestions which we do not adopt in the main text into the notes. On the other hand, we will be pretty free to add, amend, or subtract things from the study Bible notes.

None of our published versions of the EHV are Beta versions. They are thoroughly proofed texts, read by many readers. See FAQ 24, “EHV Review Process.” A Beta version is a pre-sale, pre-publication version that is meant to be tested by reviewers. Our published works are correctable and improvable but they are not preliminary versions. (We do use Beta versions of our computer apps, which are tested by reviewers before the app goes public.)

It could also be said that some parts of the first three years of the lectionaries were Beta versions since the Old Testament translation was not yet done. The compilers are in the process of updating the lectionaries, but the changes are not major and the first editions are very useable if you prefer to keep them.

Though they are not Beta versions, all our editions are almost certain to have errors. In spite of repeated checking, errors sneak though, many of which are created after the proofreading.

A Few Examples

A few examples of textual blips will illustrate the issue. Simple typos require no comment, but there are other interesting twists.
In the first printing of the EHV New Testament three typos were reported.

Luke 19:27 – insert “of” before “me”
Ephesians 4:32 – “other” should be “another”
1 Thessalonians 2:7: the footnote needs an “s” on “infants”

This does not mean there were only three typos, since typos often go unreported for years, decades, or even centuries. (We have since found a few more typos beyond these three.)

There were two blips that appear to be computer glitches, though they could have been operator errors induced when the file was being loaded.

2 Peter 3:17 has a superscript “5” before “through.” It seems that this is a computer-induced mistake since it was not in our final manuscript.
Matthew 5:16 has the verse number full-size rather than superscript. This error was not present in the underlying text file. It may have been a pasting error by the computer program or an accidental touch of the touch pad by the operator. If you want to check whether your EHV NT is a valuable first printing of the first edition or merely a first edition, check this verse number. If it is normal size, you have a first printing of the first edition. If it is superscript, you do not.

What some people correct as typos are not actually typos. Some want to correct the word “worshipped” to “worshiped” because many dictionaries say “worshiped” is the correct American spelling, but computer studies, which can scan vast amounts of literature, show that “worshipped” is the standard spelling on both sides of the Atlantic, so this is the standard spelling in the EHV. We have to ignore the incorrect spell-checkers that tag “worshipped” as an error.

The most dreaded computer-induced error (actually it can be considered to be either a program flaw in Word or an operator error) is sudden deletions of words, lines, or even paragraphs from a file that has already been proofread. A person working on page 100 accidentally brushes the touch pad and without knowing it highlights something on page 96. When he next touches the keyboard, that line on page 96 is deleted and he does not even see it happen. Every time you open a computer file, there is danger of creating a new error.

A reader recently reported that in the Microsoft computer Bible, a line was missing in Psalm 62:12. The line was not missing in the print edition nor from the underlying files, so this must be an example of an accidental touch by someone who was getting the file ready for the programmer of the study Bible. Fortunately, this is easily fixed, and the line is already back. But this issue arises often enough to make this our most feared danger. It is enough of a problem that we turned off the typeover feature in all of the versions of Word that were being used to produce the EHV. But then you have to be extra careful that when text is replaced, you don’t end up with a doublet.

The rule for “corrections” is pretty straight-forward. Make any corrections as soon as you can, even if it means not all printings are exactly the same.

Our last example will take us back to the more difficult issue of when to make “improvements.”

A reader recently noticed that in Isaiah 2:2 the wording was not exactly the same in the computer study Bible as it was in the print Bible.

Study Bible

²This will take place in the last days:
The mountain of the House of the LORD will be established
as the head of the mountains.

Print Bible

²This will take place in the latter days:
The mountain of the LORD’s house will be established
as the chief of the mountains.

The reader wondered which was correct and which was official. Actually neither one is wrong, and neither one is more or less official than the other. It seems that the version in the print Bible was a late alteration to the file which NPH used to produce the print Bible, an alteration which did not get into the file used to produce the study Bible. (The files used to produce the NPH file cannot be used to produce the computer study Bible because they have formatting markers that must be edited out.) Looking at the two versions of Isaiah 2, it appears that the version in the study Bible is better for syncing with the parallel passage in Micah 4. The study Bible note at Isaiah 2:2 says: “Isaiah 2:2-5 is a close parallel to Micah 4:1-5, but the quotation is not verbatim, and Micah’s presentation has some material not included in Isaiah. We do not know if either prophet was consciously echoing the other. For the EHV, the two passages were translated independently, and the parallel translations retain some of the insights of each translator.” So when the print Bible is updated, it will have to be determined whether the print Bible should be moved in the direction of the study Bible or left as is. It will take at least an hour to go through all the data since it involves half a dozen different files for different formats.^[2]

As was stated earlier, we don’t intend to introduce very many “improvements” into the biblical text until the update in about three years. Any updates will have to be done separately in the files for the computer Bible and in the master of the print Bible, and well as in all the different formats and apps and in all their underlying files. Is it practical or even desirable to keep all these editions in complete sync? If a reader submits a suggestion that is a significant improvement in clarity, does it make sense for the users of the computer Bible to wait three to five years until the improvement appears in the study Bible or should they receive the most important improvements along the way? Is it worth the huge amount of time and money that would be needed to keep the print Bible and the computer Bible 100% identical? Or does it make better sense if the print Bible, which is the source of educational materials like catechisms, is less changeable than the more rapidly updatable computer Bible? All of these are difficult questions, about which different readers may have different opinions, but it seems that providing greater insights and a clearer text to the users as soon as it is possible is more valuable than striving for a mechanical identity that does nothing to add to understanding.

The time of a monolithic translation like the King James, which became a standard for the English language, will probably never return. Today students in a class often have several translations on their phone or their Chromebook or they look at several versions on BibleGateway. They understand that there is often more than one good way to translate a passage and that reading different versions brings out different nuances.

In the past, many years often went by before a book was reprinted. As errors were discovered in the printing, the publishers would put little slips with a list of the errata into the unsold copies. They could not throw away the printings with the mistakes. They had to patch them as best they could. When our EHV study Bible is printed, it may be printed in a five-year supply. If errors are discovered, would it make sense to withhold corrections from the computer Bibles for five years so that the two editions could stay identical? Should publishers try to apply the standards of a type-set world to an electronic world, or would that be sewing old patches on new clothing?

It is important for Bible readers to remember that the essence of Scripture is not the sound of the words or the shape of the letters but the divinely intended meaning. If two different wordings convey the same divinely intended meaning, they are equally the Word of God. Jesus taught the Lord’s Prayer in different editions. We use different editions of the Lord’s Prayer, and our worship edition has not always agreed with our Bible edition. Moses records two different versions of the Ten Commandments. Concern to have exactly the same wording everywhere does not seem to have been a concern of the biblical writers or the Holy Spirit. Concern to have the same divinely intended meaning was. Our concern should be to convey the divinely intended meaning as clearly as possible. If that means updating the wording, that is what we should do.

Bottom line: we want to be very conservative about making changes to the biblical text of the translation, but we do not want to stifle improvement that will benefit users.

[1] A stable text means that any changes that fit into the category of corrections will be introduced into each version of the EHV as quickly as possible. We will be more reluctant to introduce stylistic improvements or change for change’s sake, especially in passages used in worship and education. A change will have to be a significant improvement in clarity for it to be used in the text. (Even if there are new editions of the EHV at some future date, churches will always be free to continue to use the earlier editions if they prefer them.)

[2] On the issue of syncing parallel passages see the article “To Sync or not to Sync” in our online library.

Are pronouns always translated literally?

2019-12-15T00:00:00+00:00

I noticed that in the EHV it seems that the pronouns are not always translated literally. Sometimes you have a noun instead of a pronoun. Sometimes the person of the pronoun seems to be different than that in the Hebrew or Greek (a literal he is translated you). Why? Wouldn’t it be better to translate literally?

Your question is very timely because we recently published our EHV grammar handbook, Biblical Grammar: Mechanics or Meaning? It is available in our online library or by request. The following answer is adapted from that handbook.

Sometimes grammatical difficulties are due to differences between the structures and practices of the English language and the structures and practices of the biblical languages.

The interplay of nouns and pronouns is probably the area of grammar in which translators most often must depart from a word-for-word rendering of the original Hebrew and Greek texts to produce acceptable English. English often requires a noun where Hebrew might be able to use a pronoun, and vice versa.

English style normally does not permit us to use a pronoun unless there is a clear antecedent in the near vicinity. In cases in which a Hebrew pronoun does not follow its antecedent closely enough to fit English style, translators may have to replace the pronoun with the appropriate noun in order to make it clear who is being referred to (for example, using “Moses” rather than “he”) and to prevent readers from thinking that the editors are guilty of sloppy grammatical style.

Although English style normally does not permit use of a pronoun until a noun has been mentioned to serve as its antecedent, Hebrew does this very thing very often. On the other hand, repeating the same noun over and over again, which is not uncommon in Hebrew, sounds strange in English. So for readability and to avoid a mistaken perception of grammatical and stylistic errors, pronoun usage in the EHV normally follows English usage and rules. Footnotes sometimes call attention to places in which the English translation has supplied an antecedent, but this phenomenon is so common that it would be distracting to footnote them all.

The problem is that if all the pronouns are translated literally, this will sound strange or even wrong to English readers. On the other hand, if the pronouns are not translated literally, it will look wrong to people who look up the Hebrew. So notes are added to try to prevent this peon. What is being provided in such cases is not just a literal word-for-word rendering of each pronoun, but an acceptable English rendering of the whole sequence. The rendering is not just word-for-word, but thought-unit-for-thought-unit.

Here is an example from 1 Kings 20:14:

¹⁴Then Ahab said, “Through whom will this happen?”
The prophet answered, “This is what the LORD says. It will be through the young officers from the provinces.”
He said, “Who will start the battle?”
He said, “You will.”

This is a correct literal translation of the Hebrew, but the passage was red-flagged by the English reviewer as bad English because of the back-to-back use of two instances of he which do not have a clear relationship to their antecedents. Better English would be:

¹⁴Then Ahab said, “Through whom will this happen?”
The prophet answered, “This is what the LORD says. It will be through the young officers from the provinces.”
Ahab asked, “Who will start the battle?”
The prophet answered, “You will.”

Whichever way the editor decides, one set of readers will think that the translation is wrong.

Jumps in Person

A closely related problem is that Hebrew frequently jumps back and forth between first, second, and third person pronouns in ways that sounds odd in English. In some cases, the EHV adjusts these statements by producing a sequence which is acceptable English.

Agreement in Number

Biblical texts very frequently use plural pronouns like they, them, and their after collective singular nouns like people, nation, and Israel, especially when the texts refer to actions carried out by many individuals within the group. This is the common usage in Scripture, and EHV sometimes retains it. To the biblical writers expressing the sense of the passage is more important than mechanical agreement of form.

Gender of Pronouns

Nouns in Hebrew and Greek often have grammatical gender that does not reflect their actual gender. This often has to be adjusted in regard to the gender of the pronouns in the English translation.

Nouns like Israel and Edom are sometimes followed by masculine singular pronouns (he) when there is an allusion both to the nation and to the ancestral father of the nation.

Names of cities and countries are usually feminine in gender, but they are followed by feminine singular pronouns in English translation only when the city or country is personified as a woman. EHV does not always retain these feminine pronouns when they reflect only grammatical gender rather than personification.

Here as in many other translation issues translators and editors find themselves “between a rock and a hard place” knowing that whichever option they chose, it will sound wrong to some of their readers. Notes can minimize this.

Wartburg Project Report 2019-11

2019-11-29T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2019-11

What are the righteous verdicts of the saints?

2019-11-27T00:00:00+00:00

In Revelation 19:8 why does the EHV say that “the fine linen is the ‘not guilty’ verdicts pronounced on the saints”? Most translations say that the fine linen refers to “the righteous acts” of the saints.

Revelation 19:7 refers to the wedding of the Lamb and his bride, which is the holy Christian church, the assembly of all believers. Verse 8 mentions that the bride of Christ “was given bright, clean, fine linen to wear.” The fine linen was a gift. That is an important point to keep in mind. After that statement, comes the sentence you are asking about:
In fact, the fine linen is the “not guilty” verdicts pronounced on the saints.

The Greek word dikaiomata, here translated “verdicts,” could quite literally be translated “righteousnesses.” So the believers are given “righteousnesses” as a gift. But what does that mean? What are these “righteousnesses”?

Are these “righteousnesses” “the righteous acts” of the saints (believers who are holy in God’s sight through faith in Christ)?
Or are these “righteousnesses” “the ‘not guilty’ verdicts” which God pronounced on each of these believers?

The Greek word “dikaioma” is used ten times in the New Testament Scriptures. Usually it refers to a decree or judicial decision of God. (In Hebrews 9:1 and 9:10, it refers to “regulations” given by God.) There is not one case in the New Testament where it is clear and convincing that dikaiomata must mean “righteous acts.” Consider the following two examples:

Romans 5:16 And the gift is not like the effect of the one man’s sin, for the judgment that followed the one trespass resulted in a verdict of condemnation, but the gracious gift that followed many trespasses resulted in a verdict of justification [dikaioma].
Romans 5:18 So then, just as one trespass led to a verdict of condemnation for all people, so also one righteous verdict [dikaioma] led to life-giving justification for all people.

In Romans 5:18 dikaioma is often rendered “righteous act” but there it can have the same meaning as it does in verse 16. The Sanday/Headlam commentary argued that it is doubtful that dikaioma here means “righteous act.” And in their comments on verse 16, they remark that dikaioma is “usually the decision, decree, or ordinance by which a thing is declared.” In Romans 5:18, it apparently refers to God’s “righteous verdict” on the redeeming work of Christ (his holy life and atoning death on the cross). All sin was charged to Jesus, so he died in our place. After Jesus had paid the full price for all sin, God’s righteous verdict declared him “not guilty” of all the sins that were charged to him. He was absolved of all sin. That “led to life-giving justification for all people.”

When Revelation 19 says that the bride of Christ is clothed in fine linen, this refers to the righteousness which God gives to sinners when he declares them righteous (based on the redeeming work of Jesus Christ), and which sinners receive by faith. The plural form refers to the many individual verdicts of “not guilty” that God declares. These verdicts of “not guilty” are declared in gospel preaching. These verdicts of “not guilty” are also declared in absolution.

So this “fine linen” would be essentially the same as the robes of righteousness (Revelation 6:11; 7:9, 13, 14; 22:14) that are given to the saints. Way back in the Old Testament, Isaiah 61:10 looked forward to this:

I will rejoice greatly in the LORD.
My soul will celebrate because of my God,
for he has clothed me in garments of salvation.
With a robe of righteousness he covered me.

A parallel example can be found in Zechariah chapter 3. The prophet Zechariah saw a vision of Joshua, the high priest, who was standing before the Angel of the LORD. The priest’s filthy clothing was removed, and he was clothed in a special robe, and a clean turban was placed on his head. This depicted the forgiveness of sins.

We are all sinners, yet we need to be “righteous” (holy) to go to heaven. The only way we can go to heaven is through God forgiving all of our sins, through God declaring us “not guilty” through Christ. The “not guilty verdicts” refer to his forgiving all of our sins.

We believe the EHV’s translation is clearer than referring to “the righteous acts of the saints,” because we believe that the fine linen is referring to the “not guilty” verdicts that God pronounced on each of the saints. We began by pointing out that in the context it is clear that the “fine linen” is a gift that is given to the bride of Christ. Essentially, that verse means that the saints are saved by grace, by a gracious gift of God, and this gift is received through faith in Jesus Christ alone.

Also, see the commentary on Revelation by Siegbert Becker, especially pages 284-286.

The Translation of Psalm 145:16 (How do we handle updates to the text?)

2019-11-27T00:00:00+00:00

In Psalm 145:16, in the printed EHV Bible it says “he opens his hand.” In the electronic study Bible it says “you open your hand.” One of these must be a typo. Which one?

Let’s look at the whole sequence in the study Bible.

Here the psalmist jumps back and forth between second and third person pronouns (you/your, he/him) in a way which is uncomfortable in English, which prefers a clear sequence of antecedents and pronouns, and clear markers of changes in the person being addressed. The EHV tries to address this issue of rapid changes in pronouns by a footnote on verses 13-16 which calls attention to the jumping back and forth between persons. (There is a discussion of the pronoun issue in our Wartburg Project grammar book.)

“You open your hand” is a more literal rendering of the Hebrew. The reading “he” in the print Bible very likely did not originate as a typo but as an attempt to smooth out the sequence of pronouns. However, this rendering was probably a bad idea, since although it does integrate verse 16 into the main line of the narrative, it makes the pronoun he come before its antecedent LORD, so it is not very successful as an attempt to smooth the English sequence.

When we receive suggestions for “improvements” to the EHV, we hold them for the revision that will be made in two or three years, because we want to have a stable text. When we receive “corrections,” we enter them into the text immediately. The switch from he to you seems to be enough of an improvement to be called a correction so we entered it in the text right away.

Mark 16:9-20 - Textual Evidence

2019-11-21T00:00:00+00:00

Evidence for the long ending of Mark. This article builds on FAQ 39: Why does the EHV include Mark 16:9-20?

The Christmas Story from Five Translations

2019-11-15T00:00:00+00:00

Luke 2 comparison from KJV, ESV, CSB, NIV, and EHV.

Wartburg Project Report 2019-10

2019-10-25T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2019-10

Appendices of the EHV

2019-10-14T00:00:00+00:00

Appendix Resources written to go with the EHV Study Bible.

Wartburg Project Report 2019-09

2019-09-27T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2019-09

Is "boys" too informal? (John 21:5)

2019-09-13T00:00:00+00:00

In John 21:5 Jesus asks, “Boys, don’t you have any fish?” Isn’t the translation boys too informal and possibly offensive?

We thought a lot about that translation “boys.” The footnote to this verse in the EHV study Bible says: Jesus gives a friendly call to the fishermen in the boat as one might say, “Hey, guys, catch anything?” The Greek term paidion can refer to children, even very small children, but the Greek root from which it comes can also refer to servants. Here the term has the general connotation guys, boys, or lads.

In the EHV, as much as possible, we want to have distinct translations for related Greek words, and there are other Greek words that have the default translation "friends" or "servants," so we did not want to use either of those for this word in this context. The Greek root pais can have either the connotation of servant status or a certain friendliness. The commentaries we looked at suggested lads (too British), boys, and guys (which we thought was the best but that might strike some people as too colloquial). So boys seemed to be the best option.

One reader was concerned that African Americans might be reminded of the condescending use of "boy,” which was intended to be offensive in some contexts. But Jesus here does not seem to be alluding to social status but just giving a friendly greeting. We cannot avoid every word that someone might use in an offensive sense. Sometimes a word like “gay” can be used so frequently in a new sense, so that traditional senses become almost impossible to use. But “boys” and “guys” do not seem to fall into this category. I recently witnessed an incident in which someone expressed great indignation that a speaker had used the word “guys,” which allegedly excluded all the women, but I have heard girls or women call their female friends or their friends of both genders “guys.” While we have to be conscious of changing uses, we cannot tie ourselves in linguistic knots over every term for which someone can manufacture offense where none is intended. Also we cannot allow the concerns (real or imagined) in our culture to erase biblical culture.

Also the language of the Bible is not consistently formal. It is sometimes informal or colloquial. When it is, our translation should reflect that.

Possessive or Adjective?

2019-09-13T00:00:00+00:00

In 2 Kings 18:17 the EHV refers to a landmark in Jerusalem as the launderers field or wool-cleaners field. Shouldn’t this be either the launderer’s field or the launderers’ field?

Sometimes plural nouns being used as adjectives are mistaken for possessives. A pastors conference is not a conference belonging to one or more pastors, so no apostrophe is needed. The word pastors here functions as an adjective, telling what kind of conference this is.

In biblical passages, an advantage of the adjective construction rather than the possessive construction is that it is sometimes impossible to tell whether the possessive should be singular or plural. Even when singular or plural is indicated by the context, the point of the expression often is not possession or ownership of the place but what kind of activity is taking place there. In some cases, the term Launderers Field may simply be a place name, in which case it could be capitalized.

2 Kings 18:17 refers to the water channel from the upper pool, which is on the way to the launderers or wool-cleaners field (the Hebrew is literally on highway-of field-of launderer). The question here is not who owns the field. The launderers field is simply being used as a landmark to help readers identify the location of the water channel. It is possible that one launderer owned the field and worked there by himself, so we could translate launderer’s field. But in the context, it seems more likely that this is the area of the city where the launderers worked, the launderers’ quarter, so to speak. For that reason, EHV went with the descriptive adjective launderers rather than with the singular possessive launderer’s. Either translation is possible. The same situation exists with the potter’s field in Matthew 27:7. Interestingly, the UBS⁴ Greek text as it appears in the LOGOS Bible program capitalizes the term as a proper name, Potters Field. (This matches its capitalization of Field of Blood in verse 8.) Most editions and translations read potter’s field. This spelling is common enough that in English potter’s field has become a stock term that is even used as a generic term for any burial place for the poor.

In such cases, one must decide whether the point is possession or some sort of description. For many years, the baseball stadium in Detroit was named Briggs Stadium, no apostrophe. The issue was not whether Mr. Briggs owned the stadium but that it was named in his honor. St. Johns Church is not a church owned by John, but a church named in his honor, the Church of St. John.

Ram’s horn is a special case. There actually is no Hebrew word for ram in this expression. The Hebrew is the single word shofar. We translated shofar as ram’s horn to distinguish it from the regular Hebrew word for an animal horn, qeren. We probably could have (or even should have) translated it rams horn since the point is what kind of horn it is, but then many people would have wondered why there was no apostrophe. For simplicity, we choose ram’s horn as the stock name for this musical instrument. Each horn came from one ram, so we used the singular.

Wartburg Project Report 2019-08

2019-08-14T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2019-08

Wartburg Project Report 2019-07

2019-07-22T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2019-07

Psalms Chart

2019-07-18T00:00:00+00:00

The 150 psalms are carefully arranged into patterns on the basis of authorship, style and topic.

Jericho and Ai

2019-07-18T00:00:00+00:00

An introduction and summary of the archaeological disputes about these historic locations in the book of Joshua.

Wartburg Project Report 2019-06

2019-06-28T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2019-06

Wartburg Project Report 2019-05

2019-05-29T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2019-05

Wartburg Project Report 2019-04

2019-04-26T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2019-04

The Verse Numbers in the Bible

2019-04-26T00:00:00+00:00

In Matthew 2:1-2, I noticed what seems to be a discrepancy between the location of the verse number in the EHV and in some other translations. Does the EHV change verse numbers?

The short answer is No,” but as is often the case with questions our readers ask, this turns out to be more complicated than anyone expected. So before we address your specific question, we will comment on the issues concerning verse numbers that confront Bible translators.

Early Hebrew and Greek manuscripts of the biblical texts did not have the chapter and verse numbers that appear in modern versions. The verse numbers were a very late addition to the text, and, to make it more complicated, there are various systems of numbering that do not agree with each other.

Already by the time of Christ, the Hebrew text was being divided into standard paragraphs and sections. The Eastern Church also developed a system of paragraphs and divisions for the Greek text. In the 13th century AD, Archbishop Stephen Langton and Cardinal Hugo de Sancto Caro developed two different plans for the division of the biblical text into sections. Langton’s system became the basis for the modern chapter divisions of the Bible.

By 1000 AD, the Hebrew text had a system of punctuation that became a forerunner of the modern system of verses for the Old Testament. The first person to divide New Testament chapters into verses was an Italian Dominican biblical scholar, Santi Pagnini (1470–1541), but his system never became popular. Robert Estienne (aka Robertus Stephanus) created a system of verse numbers for his 1551 edition of the Greek New Testament. This system was also used in his 1553 publication of the Bible in French.

The first English New Testament to use these verse divisions was a 1557 translation by William Whittingham (c. 1524–1579). The first Bible in English to use both chapter and verse numbers was the Geneva Bible published in 1560. These verse numbers soon gained acceptance as the standard way to divide the text, and they have been used in nearly all English Bibles and in the vast majority of those in other languages.

It seems then that it would be a simple matter to use these verse numbers. There are, however, a number of complications for Bible students and editors.

There are many differences between the Hebrew chapter and verse numbers and the English numbers. This means that very often when translating from the Hebrew text, the translator not only has to translate the words of the Hebrew text into English but also has to “translate” the Hebrew verse numbers to English verse numbers. The list of these discrepancies covers four small-print, double-column pages in the SBL Handbook of Style (p 172-175).

That same SBL list also includes a list of discrepancies between the Hebrew numbering and the numbering in the Greek and Latin Old Testaments.

These discrepancies of numbering seldom are a problem for the translator, but they do pose problems for students of the Bible. If readers of the English Bible are trying to look up the Hebrew for a specific verse of the Old Testament, they may be baffled that they cannot see any connection between what the Hebrew text is saying what they have just read in English. They need to look at a different chapter and verse in the Hebrew Bible. To help our readers who want to check the Hebrew for a verse, the EHV has footnotes at those spots in which the Hebrew numbers do not correspond to the English numbers. These notes direct readers to the appropriate Hebrew references.

The discrepancies between the Hebrew and Greek/Latin numbers come into play when students are trying to use Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic commentaries, especially patristic and medieval commentaries, since these works often use the verse numbers from the Greek Septuagint or Latin Vulgate. English translations of these works of the church fathers may sometimes “translate” the original Latin or Greek verse references into English verse numbers to help their English readers.

The Book of Psalms is a special example of the problem.

The heading of the psalms are part of the Hebrew text, and in Hebrew they have their own verse numbers. In English these headings have no verse number. The result is that verse numbers in the Hebrew Psalms are often one or two numbers higher than the numbers of the corresponding verses in the English Bible. In the EHV study Bibles, any footnotes pertaining to the headings are listed under verse one, so that all footnotes will have a verse number for computer searches.

The numbering of the Psalms in our English Bibles agrees with that of the Hebrew text. It differs, however, from that of the Greek Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate. It is necessary to know this, not only for looking up scriptural references in those versions, but also for using Roman Catholic commentaries, which sometimes follow the numbering of the Vulgate.

The problem arises because the Greek Septuagint (LXX) joins Psalms 9 and 10 into one psalm; joins Psalms 114 and 115 into one psalm; splits Psalm 116 into two psalms; and splits Psalm 147 into two psalms. The net result of this is shown in the following chart:

Hebrew and English	Greek and Vulgate
1-8	1-8
9-10	9
11-113	10-112
114-115	113
116:1-9	114
116:10-19	115
117-146	116-145
147:1-11	146
147:12-20	147
148-150	148-150

In summary, the numbers of the Septuagint and Vulgate psalms are one number lower than the English and Hebrew numbers, with the following exceptions: for Psalms 1-9, 147b-150 the numbers are the same; Hebrew Ps 115 = Greek 113; Hebrew Ps 116 = Greek 114 or 115. For example, our beloved Psalm 23 is called Psalm 22 in works based on the Greek text of the Old Testament.

Another minor variant is that some rabbis and church fathers treated Psalms 1 and 2 as one psalm, Psalm 1. This is actually rather perceptive, since together these two psalms form an introduction to Psalms. This approach explains the textual variant in Acts 13:33, in which Psalm 2 is called Psalm 1.

Another verse problem is that in many recent translations certain verse numbers are missing from the text because of textual questions. In Matthew 17, the ESV and NIV have no verse 21 in the text. The EHV includes verse 21 in the text.

²¹But this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting.

There are about twenty such passages in the New Testament. Most translations account for the missing verse numbers with a footnote or with a bracketed, blank verse number. The EHV includes the text of a number of these verses that were given verse numbers in the King James Version, but that are omitted from the text of many recent translations.

Another example of this issue is found in Acts 8. Many translations skip from verse 36 to verse 38. Here is the ESV:

³⁶And as they were going along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?”⁵ ³⁸ And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him.

The ESV footnote 5 calls attention to the missing verse. The NIV and CSB are among the other translations that omit this verse because they believe it was not part of the original Greek text. In this case, the EHV agrees with placing the verse in a footnote. The EHV decision in each case is based on the strength of the textual support for the reading.

The opposite problem (too many words for a verse number) occurs in those cases in which the EHV accepts a longer reading which is present in the Greek Old Testament but which is absent from the Hebrew text. Here is one of the most extreme examples from Judges 16:13-14:

The words marked by half-brackets are not present in the Hebrew text but are included in the Greek Old Testament. An accidental omission from the Hebrew text may have occurred as the copyist’s eye jumped from one occurrence of the word loom to another. Adopting the longer reading doubles the size of verse 13. There are quite a few such longer readings in the Old Testament, especially in Judges and Samuel. In such cases the translator could reposition or add another verse number, but the EHV usually retains the common English verse numbers, and it marks the long addition with half-brackets to help the reader identify the addition.

Now at last we come to your question about the EHV changing a verse number in Matthew 2. This is what the EHV text says:

After Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea, when Herod was king, Wise Men from the east came to Jerusalem. They asked, ²“Where is he who has been born King of the Jews?”

The NIV has:

Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the east came to Jerusalem, ²saying, “Where is he who has been born king of the Jews?

A sharp-eyed reader asked why the EHV moved the verse number. The answer is that we didn’t. This is one of the passages in which there is disagreement in the Greek and English resources concerning the placement of the verse number.

This is documented in the footnote to Matthew 2:1-2 in the UBS text. This variant is not listed in the main apparatus but appears in the middle apparatus on the bottom of the page. The footnote is fairly cryptic but indicates that the Greek, English, and German versions are divided on the issue of the placement of the verse number. The explanation of the abbreviation TR in the introduction to the UBS text (p xliv, third edition) very briefly explains how UBS editors deal with such discrepancies concerning the placement of verse numbers. They consult various versions of Stephanus and other sources to resolve the discrepancy. We leave the fun of finding such verse number discrepancies, of which there are quite a few, to our readers.

But how is it that the best authorities could not agree on something as simple as where to place the verse number? In Greek texts, it makes the best grammatical sense for the word saying to be placed in verse 1 since it is a participle modifying the word magi, which also is in verse one. But if the whole statement is broken into two sentences and the word saying is translated as a finite verb, they said, the verb fits better with verse 2 as the introduction to the question. The underlying cause of this type of problem is the Greek fondness for long run-on sentences. In this case, the EHV translator followed one set of authorities. The NIV translator followed another. Very likely, since we do not follow NIV as a resource, we did not notice the discrepancy until the reader asked about it. Good arguments can be made for or against either option.

In some cases, differences in Hebrew word order from English word order force the translator to move material from a Hebrew verse 5 into an English verse 6 or vice versa. If we think that this shift might raise questions for readers, we note the shift of material in a footnote.

Although the verse numbers, chapter numbers, and the topical headings that the EHV adds to the translation are not part of the original text, they have become a very valuable tool for finding specific passages and for following the flow of thought in the text. On the other hand, they may create artificial interruptions and disrupt the flow of the text. To minimize this, the EHV prints the verse numbers as small superscripts so they are less disruptive. Readers can easily learn to just pass over all these insertions. (It is also possible to find readers’ editions of the Bible that omit all the insertions.)

Wartburg Project Report 2019-03

2019-03-29T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2019-03

EHV Permissions Statement

2019-03-28T00:00:00+00:00

Permissions and copyright info.

Wartburg Project Report 2019-02

2019-02-28T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2019-02

The Term "The Jews"

2019-02-28T00:00:00+00:00

In John’s Gospel the enemies of Jesus are frequently called “the Jews.” Won’t this foster antisemitic
hatred of Jews? Could the term be translated Jewish leaders so that blame is not placed on all Jews?

Our EHV rubric concerning the use of the term Jews states: The New Testament territory is Judea. Judeans are the residents of the province. Jews are the ethnic/religious community in the post-exilic period.

This translation issue is especially prominent in John’s Gospel, so the EHV treats the topic in the introduction to John. This FAQ is adapted from that article.

The Gospel of John repeatedly calls the bitter opponents of Jesus simply “the Jews.” (John 5:18; 7:1-10; 8:1-22, 8:40; 10:29-33; 11:8; 18:14; 18:28, and others). As a result, fears have been expressed that this common usage in John’s gospel will encourage anti-Jewish bias or hatred when it is read in the context of modern antisemitism. It is certainly possible that the New Testament could be misused in that way unless its context and intent are understood. It, in fact, has been misused that way by some people. The question then becomes what is the best way to combat this danger: changing John’s terminology or explaining his theological point?

John’s use of the term is balanced by a number of points: Of the approximately sixty times John uses the term, many of the examples are in positive or neutral contexts. There are many positive statements about Jews. Jesus’ loyal followers were called Jews (John 8:31; 12:11). Only John’s Gospel reports that Jesus says that “Salvation is from the Jews” (John 4:22). Jesus, the King of the Jews, was buried by Jews according to Jewish burial customs (John 19:40). In short, John, who was himself Jewish, often uses the term Jews in a neutral sense of Jewish people in general (John 2:6; 4:9; 11:19; 12:9; compare Matthew 28:15, Luke 7:3). The term Jews is also used this general sense in other biblical books, such as Esther. Context determines whether the term Jews is used in a context which is negative, neutral, or positive. For John, the term itself is not negative.

Yet it must be granted that in the majority of his uses of the term, John is speaking about those Jews who opposed Jesus. John’s reason for doing this is to reflect on the tragedy that he states already in the opening of his book: “He came to what was his own, yet his own people did not receive him” (John 1:11). At times, John’s use of the term the Jews is intended to make this specific theological point, the tragedy of Israel’s rejection of the Messiah, whom God sent for them.

John records a number of instances in which the hostility toward Jesus was expressed in terms of his relationship to the Jewish religion. Jews who accepted Jesus as the Messiah were declared to be non-Jews by being put out of the synagogue (John 9:22). Jesus himself was labeled as a Samaritan, that is, an outcast from Judaism (John 8:48). In John 11:54: “Jesus no longer walked about openly among the Jews. Instead he withdrew into a region near the wilderness, to a town called Ephraim. And he stayed there with his disciples.” If our identification of the location of Ephraim is correct, Jesus had to leave Jewish territory for the time being and move to Samaritan territory to escape the hostility against him.

If John has an anti-Jewish agenda, it is striking that he does not record the curse that Jesus’ enemies pronounce on themselves in Matthew 27:25. This curse is reported in Matthew, the most Jewish of the Gospels. John’s concern is with the tragedy of Israel’s rejection of Jesus the Messiah. John has no ethnic, anti-Jewish agenda. His message is not the anti-Jewish bias of a Gentile. It is a continuation of a warning already stated by Hebrew prophets such as Moses, Jeremiah, and Isaiah.

The problem is not the use of the term Jews. My experience living among Jews in Israel and belonging to societies with a large percentage of Jewish members from every part of that religious spectrum is that changing the translation of the term the Jews will not remove the offense. The objection to the Gospels (partly justified) is not to the term “Jews” but to a fear that the words, “His blood be on us and our children” has been and will be used to justify persecution of the Jews as a race. A second objection is to the Christian belief that Christianity is in one sense the continuation and completion of Old Testament Judaism. Removing the term the Jews would not address either of these issues.

The proper attitude of Christians toward Jews is discussed at length in Romans 9–11. It is summarized in the statement, “My heart’s desire and prayer to God on behalf of the Israelites is that they may be saved” (Romans 10:1). John was deeply grieved, as was Paul, about the tragedy coming upon the people of Israel, but they both confronted the problem in a two-fold way. They stated clearly, “Salvation was from the Jews and is still for the Jews” but they also dealt honestly with Israel’s rejection of Jesus and the fact that this brought judgment on them. There are two poles of danger to Jewish people today from Christian attitudes: One is hateful attitudes of some Christians, which embitter Jews against Christianity. The other is the attitude of liberal Christians who try to silence the Bible’s testimony against the tragedy of Israel’s rejection of their Messiah and the need for faith in Christ for both Jews and Gentiles. We have to keep both the law and the gospel in our testimony. We have to energetically oppose antisemitism but also to state clearly that Christ is the only way to salvation and that rejection of him brings judgment. This belief will be offensive to many Jewish people no matter how the term the Jews is translated in the New Testament.

Some years ago I was participating in what was becoming a rather emotional debate/argument among Bible scholars and archaeologists about Mel Gibson's movie The Passion of the Christ. Those who hated the movie the most were liberal Catholics, who thought that the movie gave the impression that God was an angry judge against sin and that the movie put Catholicism in a bad light. Jewish participants were concerned that the movie could foster antisemitism. I commented that Christians who paid attention to the quotation from Isaiah 53:5 at the start of the movie (he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed) would see this account of Jesus’ Passion as a condemnation of their own sins, and also as an affirmation of forgiveness for all people. An elderly, well-respected Jewish scholar responded to me, “You seem to be saying that the message of the film is that a holy God cannot tolerate sin. I agree with that.” The Old Testament prophets vehemently warned of the judgment flowing from Israel's rejection of the Lord. John is simply following in the same tradition. The quotation from Isaiah 53 sets a balanced tone for the whole movie. We cannot lose that prophetic perspective.

When all these factors are taken together, it seems best, not to re-write the Gospels, but to understand them correctly in context. A good tool for understanding this issue is Paul’s thorough, balanced treatment of the topic in Romans 9–11. Paul, who was himself a Jew and a former enemy of Jesus, wrestles with the tragedy of Israel’s history. Both his love for Israel and his sorrow at the rejection of Christ by the majority of Israel are very clear. We can try to be careful in our language and use appropriate footnotes to the text to guard against misunderstanding or misuse of the biblical text, but we cannot censor its message. We cannot remove what God’s law says in warning against unbelief, and we cannot fail to make clear that the gospel is for all.

Wartburg Project Report 2019-01

2019-01-25T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2019-01

Lawrenz Map Drawing Guide

2019-01-14T00:00:00+00:00

A simple guide to understanding and drawing maps of the Bible world.

Wartburg Project Report 2018-11

2018-11-21T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2018-11

Wartburg Project Report 2018-10

2018-10-31T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2018-10

Evangelical? Is This a Pro-Trump Bible?

2018-10-31T00:00:00+00:00

I love your translation of the New Testament and Psalms and look forward to the whole Bible coming out. I have a concern about the name "Evangelical" in your translation. I understand the historic roots of the name, but living in Southern California as I do, the term takes on a pro-Trump slant, since many American Evangelical leaders have been so supportive of the President. Using your translation with "Evangelical" in the title is a stumbling block to some people reading and using your good translation.

Thanks for the feedback on the EHV. It was quite a surprise for us. When we chose the name, it never crossed our minds that the use of the word evangelical (which means for the Gospel) would be interpreted by some readers as pro-Trump. When we chose the name evangelical, President Trump was barely on the horizon politically. I suppose this situation is evidence of the state of polarization we have reached in our society.

Every Bible we print includes a definition of the term evangelical, which should help guard against the misunderstanding about which you are concerned.

Our translation is called Evangelical because its highest goal is to proclaim the good news of the gospel of salvation through faith in the atoning work of Jesus Christ, God’s eternal Son. Though there are many topics in the Bible, all of them are there to serve the gospel of Christ. All of our work in producing and distributing this translation is directed to the glory of God and to the eternal salvation of people’s souls.

The members of the board of the EHV have the word evangelical in our churches’ names, but our churches are not engaged in political endorsements. There are a lot of good words, including ecumenical, orthodox, catholic, even welcoming, that have been appropriated by advocates of a particular doctrinal view or agenda. I am a Lutheran. Some people associate the names Lutheran or Methodist with a liberal political activism, ignoring the diversity of the churches who use those names. The solution is not to throw out the names, but for people to explain their name and what it means to them.

We cannot do anything to change the name now, because the full Bible is ready to print, but we can continue to show by our words and actions what evangelical means. Not all people who are evangelical are Evangelicals, and not all Evangelicals have the same political views. Not all are pro-Trump, in spite of some outspoken people who appear on TV as alleged spokesmen for Evangelicals. Thoughtful Christians need to look at the diversity behind various labels and not lump apples and oranges together. The best way to show what evangelical really means is by words and actions that proclaim the one gospel to all people, regardless of their race, gender, age, economic status, or political view.

If evangelical is misunderstood as pro-Trump in the minds of some people, this will not likely be a lasting problem for our translation, which will quickly be known as the EHV (to a large degree it already is). Rarely does anyone ask whether the NIV is really new or international. It is simply the NIV. No one, or at least very few, think the ESV is actually the standard version for English speakers (same for the CSB).

An easy solution for users of the EHV who are concerned that a segment of their audience might be put off the term Evangelical and not give their message a fair hearing is to simply call it the EHV and to show by their works and actions what the word evangelical really means.

It was very interesting and eye-opening to get your perspective, so we are sharing it in this FAQ in order to reach a wider audience of potential users of the EHV.

For more information on the name Evangelical Heritage Version, see FAQ 15: Why is your translation called the Evangelical Heritage Version?

Why Does the EHV Have So Many Psalm Headings?

2018-10-31T00:00:00+00:00

In the translation of Psalms you have added a lot of headings that divide the individual psalms into thought units. I like to read the psalms with few headings to disrupt the flow of the reading. Why do you have headings?

You have raised an issue for which there is no single solution that everyone likes. That issue is how should translators format the biblical text, particularly for a study Bible which is designed to help readers understand the flow of the text.

The original Hebrew and Greek texts were, for the most part, unformatted as far as margins, headings, punctuation, capitalization, etc. These features were added to the text in the process of copying and translation. So almost all aspects of formatting, including chapter and verse numbers, are editorial additions to help readers follow the flow of the text and locate specific passages.

These features are all a matter of editorial and reader preference. Some readers like the two-column-per-page format that has been used in many Bibles. A significant majority of our readers like the one-column-per page format that was used in the EHV edition of the New Testament and Psalms. Most readers like the formatting of the poetry of the Bible according to poetic lines, even though this was not part of the original text. Some readers like a lot of headings and notes. Some like fewer.

In regard to the headings of the psalms, there are two, or perhaps three, issues.

The first issue is that some (seemingly a significant majority) of our readers like the topical headings in psalms, just as they like the headings in the other biblical books regardless of genre. These headings not only help the readers outline the text, but they help them locate specific passages. Some readers, however, like few or no headings.

The headings in psalms are perhaps more conspicuous than the headings in historical books, because the many of the psalms are quite short, so the headings in psalms are often closer together than the headings in historical books.

We have approached the decision “How many headings should we include?” like the decision about how many clothes to take to a spring sports event in Wisconsin. If you take too many clothes, you do not have wear them all. If you did not take enough clothes with you, you can't wear them when the cold, driving rain arrives. We have worked with this approach, because readers who do not like headings can skip them, but they are there for those readers who want them. It is relatively easy to by-pass the headings. In numerous passes through the Psalms, I have sometimes read them with headings, sometimes without. Readers can easily exercise their preference.

The second issue is that there are two or three different kinds of “headings” in each psalm. (Some of these do not appear in the pew Bible, but will be present in the study Bible, which we hope will appear late next year, at least in electronic editions. The formatting in the pew Bible is set up in a way that will transfer easily into the study Bible.)

The first type of heading consists of the captions that are part of the Hebrew text. They are even given verse numbers in the Hebrew text. All the EHV does is translate them.

The second type of heading is the type you have asked about. These are the section headings that divide the text into topical units. These headings will be a great space saver for the study Bible, since it will be unnecessary to comment on the outline of the text in the footnotes, since it is already indicated by the headings. These headings are not part of the Hebrew text, and this is indicated by printing them in italics or a different font.

In the study Bible, there is a third type of “heading.” These are the short introductions to each psalm, which are not part of the original Hebrew text, but a feature of the study Bible.

Here is a sample of a psalm with red comments inserted to explain the type of “heading.”

PSALM 6
Do Not Rebuke Me in Your Anger
This is the last of the morning and evening prayers from the time of David’s suffering. The reference to sickness suggests this psalm may come from the time of the rebellion of David’s son Adonijah (1 Kings 1). This is the first of the seven psalms traditionally identified as penitential psalms (Psalms 6, 32, 38, 51, 102, 130, and 143).
This is a type 3 heading, which the EHV has added to introduce the psalm. It could be called an introduction rather than a heading.
Heading
This type 2 heading marks the beginning of the Hebrew text by separating it from the introduction.
For the choir director. With stringed instruments.
According to sheminith. A psalm by David.
This type 1 heading (caption) originated as part of the Hebrew text.
Anxious Prayer
This type 2 heading is a sub-division was added by the EHV translation.
¹LORD, do not rebuke me in your anger.
Do not discipline me in your wrath.
²Be merciful to me, LORD, for I am fading away.
Heal me, LORD, for my bones are trembling,
³and my soul is terrified.
But you, O LORD—how long?
⁴Turn, O LORD, and deliver my soul.
Save me because of your mercy.
⁵For in death no one remembers you.
In the grave who praises you?
⁶I am worn out from my groaning.
I flood my bed all night long.
With my tears I drench my couch.
⁷My eyes are blurred by sorrow.
They are worn out because of all my foes.
Confident Trust
This type 2 heading is a sub-division that was added by the EHV translation.
⁸Turn away from me, all you evildoers,
because the LORD has heard the sound of my weeping.
⁹The LORD has heard my cry for mercy.
The LORD accepts my prayer.
¹⁰They will be put to shame.
All my enemies will be terrified.
They will turn back.
They will be put to shame in an instant.
End of psalm

It is clear at that there is no one formatting solution that everyone prefers, because the preferences of readers are so dramatically different. So as we create the EHV, we are producing a fuller set of reader helps, like special formatting, headings, etc. Once we get past the first edition, we can print some editions with minimal or no headings or notes and some editions with lot of headings, and readers can choose their preferred style. It will be easy enough to remove captions and notes to produce a more vanilla edition. It would be more difficult to go back and create more headings after the fact. In the meantime, readers can use the helps they like and skip those they do not.

Wartburg Project Report 2018-09

2018-09-21T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2018-09

Wartburg Project Report 2018-08

2018-08-30T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2018-08

EHV Study Bible Preview: Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther

2018-08-13T00:00:00+00:00

Preview three OT books of the EHV study Bible.

Wartburg Project Report 2018-07

2018-07-25T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2018-07

Wartburg Project Report 2018-06 compact

2018-06-01T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2018-06 compact

Can the exact calendar dates of biblical events be determined?

2018-06-01T00:00:00+00:00

I have noticed that the footnotes in some Bibles date biblical events to exact dates in our calendar, such as January 11, 678 BC, but the dating formulas in the EHV notes are generally more vague, such as January/February 678 BC. Why don’t you use the more precise dates?

None of the systems for translating Old Testament events into exact dates in our calendar are valid because the ancient calendars were based on subjective observation not on mathematical calculation.

The problem starts from the fact that Jewish calendar years do not match up evenly with our solar years of 365 (or 366) days, which begin in January.

The historical books of Kings and Chronicles and the prophetic books dated kings’ reigns in terms of two different calendar years: one of which began with the month of Nisan at the time of the spring equinox and the other which began with Tishri near the autumn equinox. These years did not have a uniform number of months or days. Because twelve lunar months, which total approximately 354 days, do not equal one solar year, the Jewish lunar calendars had to occasionally add a thirteenth month to a year in order to bring the lunar calendar back into line with the solar year and to keep the agricultural seasons in the right months. The result is that a calendar year with 13 months could have as many as 383 days. This problem perhaps could be overcome if the insertion of 13^th months had been done on the basis of a regular mathematical rule, but the beginning of both their months and their years were not determined by a set mathematical formula but by observation, so their months and years did not follow a set mathematical pattern as our modern calendar does.

On the evening of the 29^th day of a month, an observer looked for the new moon. If he saw it, the day that was beginning on that evening was the first day of a new month, and the old month was a month of 29 days. If he did not see the new moon (maybe it was there but he did not see it because it was cloudy), the new month started at the end of the next day, and the old month had 30 days. (In the traditional Muslim way of setting the start of the fast of Ramadan, the worshippers do not know what day Ramadan will start, until the actual day arrives and the observer makes his ruling.)

In ancient times, the decision to add an extra month of Adar (called Adar I) before the real Adar (which became Adar II), was based on observation: the Sanhedrin (or whoever was the authority at that point of history) observed the conditions of the weather, the crops, and the livestock, and if these were not sufficiently advanced for it to be considered “spring,” then the Sanhedrin inserted an additional month into the calendar to make sure that Passover would occur in the spring. Such a year of thirteen months was called a “pregnant year.”

Because of the irregular method of this inserting days and months into the calendar, we do not know which years in ancient times had twelve months and which had thirteen. For this reason, all systems of trying to link days of the month in these biblical books to an exact day in our calendar by mathematical calculation are not valid. Mathematical calculations perhaps can determine when that date should have occurred on our calendar. They cannot determine when it actually did occur.

In a synagogue, a young worshipper asked one of the elders, “What date is Chanukkah this year?” To which the elder replied with a smile, “It is, of course, the same date that it is every year—the 25^th of Kislev.” The dates of the Jewish holidays are always the same in the Jewish calendar, but they bounce around when translated to our calendar. In modern times the correlations can be calculated mathematically. In ancient times they could not.

Another complication of calendar correlation is that throughout history, calendar systems have had occasional corrections and adjustments, and we are not necessarily aware of all of these adjustments. This problem of calendar correction is not just an ancient phenomenon. George Washington was born in Virginia on February 11, 1731, according to the Julian calendar in use at the time of his birth. So if he had a birth certificate, February 11, 1731 would be the date listed on it. However, in 1752, Britain and all its colonies switched to the Gregorian calendar, a change which moved Washington’s birthday a year and eleven days to February 22, 1732. Another recent problem caused by calendar shift is the question whether the Russian Revolution of 1917 happened in October (Julian calendar) or November (Gregorian calendar). Adding to the calendar confusion is the fact that to this day Western Christians, Eastern Christians, Jews, and Muslims each follow their own religious calendars, plus the Gregorian calendar. To complicate things further, the Gregorian, Jewish, and Islamic calendars number years from different starting points; for example, Gregorian 2018 is the Jewish year 5778, and the Islamic year 1439.

For more information on calendar complications see the appendices on chronology and the note at the beginning of Ezekiel in the EHV study Bible.

How should the term "men and brothers" be handled?

2018-06-01T00:00:00+00:00

In the book of Acts, assemblies of the church are sometimes addressed with the special term “men and brothers” (andres adelphoi). How does the EHV handle this?

A much-discussed issue concerning some recent Bible translations has been the rendering of the Greek word adelphoi as “brothers and sisters” in those translations. The gist of the problem is that adelphoi is not strictly equivalent to the English word “brothers,” since in some contexts it may be addressed to mixed groups that include men and women. On the other hand, adelphoi is not strictly equivalent to the English term “brothers and sisters” or “siblings” since those expressions explicitly include females, whereas adelphoi does not. This is an issue which deserves its own article. Here we will address only those cases in which the term adelphoi (brothers) is reinforced by the addition of the term men (andres).

One such passage is Acts 1:16, in which those who are to participate in choosing a replacement for Judas, are addressed as andres adelphoi, “men, brothers.” It is very likely that women were present in the crowd, but were they asked to participate in the selection of the new apostle?

The NET translates brothers but adds this footnote: “Grk: ‘Men brothers.’ In light of the compound phrase ἄνδρες ἀδελφοί (andres adelphoi) Peter’s words are best understood as directly addressed to the males present, possibly referring specifically to the twelve.”
NIV84, ESV, NLT, BBE, and HCSB are among the other translations that read “brothers.”(ESV has the footnote “brothers and sisters.”)
NASB has “brethren.”
KJV and NKJV read “men and brethren.”
MSG and NRSV have “friends.”
NIV11 and CSB read “brothers and sisters.”
- NIV11 has the note: The Greek word for brothers and sisters (adelphoi) refers here to believers, both men and women, as part of God’s family; also in 6:3; 11:29; 12:17; 16:40; 18:18, 27; 21:7, 17; 28:14.
CSB also has “brothers and sisters” in Acts 2:29; 6:3, 13:26, 38; and 15:7, 26.

In Acts 6:3 the same pattern holds. NET has this note: “It is not clear from a historical standpoint (but it is unlikely) that women would have been involved in the selection process too. For this reason the translation ‘brothers’ has been retained, rather than ‘brothers and sisters’ (used in contexts where both male and female believers are clearly addressed).”

Acts 22:1 has the triple masculine ανδρες αδελφοι και πατερες (men, brothers, fathers) for which all the translations retain the masculine.

In Acts 1:16 the EHV reads:

The EHV agrees with the rationale presented by the NET that the text does not provide clear evidence that the assignment to choose an apostle was addressed to both the men and the women. For that reason the translation should remain relatively literal to avoid prejudging the discussion concerning the relative roles of men and women in the early church.

What does it mean to be clothed in Christ or to put on Christ?

2018-06-01T00:00:00+00:00

In Galatians 3:27 should the translation be “Indeed, as many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ” or “Indeed, as many of you as were baptized into Christ have been clothed with Christ”?

Grammatically both translations are possible. The Greek verb form is a so-called middle/passive, so it may translated with a passive sense in which the subject acted on by another agent— in baptism God clothes us with Christ. Or it may be translated in a middle sense—baptism is an act through which we put on Christ, who covers us throughout our lives like a garment.

Translations are divided on the issue, but of the sixteen translations consulted for this FAQ, thirteen have a middle or reflexive sense, you clothed yourselves (the middle sense in English may come out as an active verb, put on, since the middle sense is often not made explicit in English.) It seems that a middle sense is the most common sense for this verb.

The less-common passive sense seems to fit best with baptism, which is a gift we receive from God. Baptism is God’s work for us. Scripture often speaks of us being clothed with Christ or with his righteousness.

The middle does seem to be by far the most common sense of the verb. This is probably the reason so many translations use it here. But does the middle sense here create a problem by implying that we co-operate with God in our conversion or that we earn any of the gifts we receive from God?

The middle here describes the result of God’s action, a result which visible to observers—we have put on Christ. The passive sense stresses that God the Holy Spirit is the invisible cause that brought this change about. These two ways of viewing the one action are very common in Scripture.

For example, Scripture teaches that we do not cooperate in our conversion. We are turned to God by the Holy Spirit. But Scripture also uses active language of people turning to God. The interplay between the passive and active is best expressed by Jeremiah 31:18:

הֲשִׁיבֵ֣נִי וְאָשׁ֔וּבָה
“Cause me to turn and I will certainly turn.”

The first verb is hiphil causative. God is the cause of our turning.

The second is emphatic qal. We are seen to be turning from sin to God.

A literal translation is best in this verse because it provides us with a basis for understanding the other passages that speak of people turning to God. We may say, “I see a car turning at the corner,” but we understand that a driver is causing the car to turn. We see a person turning to God, but we understand that we can see him turn only because the Spirit turned him.

The situation is similar with putting on Christ. God clothes us with Christ. The visible result is that we have put on Christ and that he covers us our whole life long.

The verb in question and its synonyms may describe a variety of situations.

Sometimes the verb simply describes a result without specifying how it occurred:

Acts 12:21 Herod, dressed in his royal robes and seated on his throne, delivered a public address to them.

Herod likely had an attendant who helped him put on his robes, but the only concern here is that Herod is wearing them.

The same situation applies to spiritual uses of the term.

Revelation 19:14 The armies in heaven, which were clothed with white, clean, fine linen, were following him on white horses.

Sometimes both aspects of the situation may be expressed in one passage.

2 Corinthians 5:2-3 In fact, the reason we groan is that we long to be clothed with our dwelling from heaven. ³If we do indeed put it on, we will certainly not be found naked.

In some cases it may be argued whether the sense should be active/middle or passive.

1 Corinthians 15:53 For this perishable body must put on [be clothed with] imperishability, and this mortal body must put on [be clothed with] immortality.

The Bible often speaks of us putting on virtues and putting off vices. We know that in all these cases the change is worked by the Holy Spirit through the means of grace.

Ephesians 4:22-24 As far as your former way of life is concerned, you were taught to take off the old self, which is corrupted by its deceitful desires, ²³and to be renewed continually in the spirit of your mind, ²⁴and to put on the new self, which has been created to be like God in righteousness and true holiness.

Colossians 3:9-10 Do not lie to each other since you have put off the old self with its practices, ¹⁰and put on the new self, which is continually being renewed in knowledge, according to the image of its Creator.

Ephesians 6:11 Put on the full armor of God, so that you can stand against the schemes of the Devil.

1 Peter 5:5 Clothe yourselves with humility.

Colossians 3:12 Therefore, as God’s elect, holy and loved, clothe yourselves with heartfelt compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness, and patience.

Romans 13:12 So let us put away the deeds of darkness and put on the weapons of light.

Colossians 3:5 So put to death whatever is worldly in you: sexual immorality, uncleanness, lust, evil desire, and greed, which is idolatry.

The interplay of active, middle, and passive verbs becomes especially sensitive when the doctrines of conversion and repentance are involved. But we should remember that the Bible often describes the same event from two viewpoints: the visible change we see in a person and the invisible underlying cause. The Bible often speaks in paradoxes. (A paradox is two statements that seem to be contradictory but really are not.)

Romans 6:6 We know that our old self was crucified with him

Romans 8:13 But if by the Spirit you put to death the actions of the body, you will live.

Our old self has been put to death, but we are to put it to death. Both sides of the paradox express spiritual truths.

How are the locations of biblical sites identified?

2018-05-16T00:00:00+00:00

The footnotes of the EHV sometimes discuss the location of biblical places. How do geographers identify the locations of ancient cities so they can place them on a map?

There are about 475 places named in the Bible, and the locations of about 270 are well identified.

The simplest and surest identification is for those cities that have been continuously occupied since biblical times under the same name that they had in ancient times. This includes such major places as Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Nazareth, Capernaum, Athens, Rome, etc.

When the ancient identification of a site has not been preserved until modern times, there are a number of methods that are used to rediscover the ancient locations by investigating the ancient ruins that remain visible in the land. This science or art is called toponomy (a fancy word that means place names). The general location of the place is generally clear from the biblical account. The identification can then be pinpointed by evidence discovery during a study of the ruins in that area.

In very rare cases, the name might be found on the site in inscriptions, letters, boundary stones, potters marks, or other written records. For example, jar handles inscribed with the name of the site Gibeon were found during the excavation of the site. Boundary stones with the name of the site were found at Gezer.

There are written records of ancient travelogues and ancient itinerary lists from military campaigns, commercial journeys, and pilgrimages. If we do not know the location of place x, but an ancient itinerary lists places w x y and z as successive stops on a trip, and we know the locations of w y and z, we can look for the ruins of x between places w and y.

The most important method, however, is studying the Arabic place names attached to the ruins or to nearby geographic features. Extensive mapping of these place names was done by American and British explorers during the 19^th century. Arabic and Hebrew are similar languages, and the Arabic names often preserve echoes of the ancient name of the place. Examples of such echoes are Ain Shems—Beth Shemesh, Beit Lahm—Bethlehem, Taffuh—Tappuach, Wadi Yabis—Jabesh, El Gib—Gibeon, El Kadi—Dan, [1] Seilun—Shiloh, Beitin—Bethel. These transformations follow fairly predictable rules. These similarities are not fool-proof because sites may have moved.

In spite of this evidence, the locations of some important biblical places remain unknown or disputed. Among them are Gadara/Gerasa/Gergasa/Kersi, Emmaus, Cana, Dalmanutha, Bethsaida, and Bethel and Ai. We will discuss these debates at appropriate points of the study Bible.

Appendix: Meaning of Some Hebrew Place Names

Many Biblical place names have a meaning in Hebrew. In some cases, the meaning may provide a hint at the identification of a site, but for the most part they are too generic to be very useful. Sites are named after:

Land forms: Gibeah—hill, Geba—hill, Merom—height, Ramah—height, Sela—rocky cliff, Tzur—rock
Agricultural featured: Tob—good, Ophrah—fruitful, Shapir—beautiful, Goren—threshing floor, Gan—orchard, Kerem—vineyard, Gath—wine or oil press
Crops: Rimmon—pomegranite, Tappuach—apple
Water sources: En, Beer, Aphek
Fortifications: Migdal—tower, Hazor—enclosure, Geder— enclosure
Plants: Shittim—acacia tree, Tamar—date palm, Anab—grapes, Soreq—vines

[1] Kadi means judge in Arabic, Dan means judge in Hebrew.

Wartburg Project Report 2018-05

2018-05-11T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2018-05

What is the relationship of the EHV Text and the EHV Study Bible?

2018-05-11T00:00:00+00:00

Updated October 16, 2019

We have been asked about the relationship of the Evangelical Heritage Version of the Bible (EHV) and the study Bible which the Wartburg Project has just issued in an electronic version (Fall 2019). The two are related, but they are distinct products that serve distinct purposes. The EHV is the basic translation of the Bible, together with its accompanying translation notes. Developers can obtain permission to use this EHV translation in any number of derivative products: study Bibles, commentaries, catechisms, etc. The material that they develop to accompany the EHV text in such products is the responsibility of the developers, and they publish it through whatever outlet they choose.

The first study Bible that the Wartburg Project has produced is such a derived product. In addition to the basic EHV translation, it includes detailed introductions to each book of the Bible as well as supplemental appendices on subjects such as weights and measures, Israel’s neighbors, biblical chronology, and so on. It includes maps and charts. Its additional notes focus on archaeological, historical, and geographic information about the text, but it also includes doctrinal notes. This study Bible is written from a Lutheran perspective, so the doctrinal notes on topics like the sacraments, the millennium, etc., will reflect a Lutheran understanding of these topics. We do not think this will limit the usefulness of our study Bible to Lutherans only, since the archaeological, historical, and geographic information is not dependent on any denominational understanding, and non-Lutherans may appreciate including in their study Bible collection a study Bible that helps them understand the confessional Lutheran perspective on various issues.

At present (Fall 2019) this study Bible is available only as a Windows computer Bible, but we hope that an Apple compatible edition, other electronic versions, and a print edition will follow.

We certainly hope our study Bible will not be the only study Bible based on the EHV, because we do grant licenses to use the EHV translation in study Bibles, catechisms, and other derived works. In a Lutheran catechism that uses the EHV translation, the comments on the text would be Lutheran. If a Presbyterian church, for example, used the EHV text in their catechism, the text would be the EHV translation, but the comments would be those of the editors of the catechism. The same would be true for study Bibles that are licensed to use the EHV text.

This situation for the EHV is the same as that which exists for study Bibles based on other translations. There are, for example, many different study Bibles, from a variety of perspectives and purposes, that are based on the NIV text, including a Lutheran version of the NIV study Bible, which was produced by Concordia. Another example would be the Lutheran Study Bible published by Concordia, which is based on the ESV text, but there are also other study Bibles based on the ESV text from other perspectives.

If producers of existing study Bibles wanted to produce an EHV version, they could seek a license to do so.

Since study Bible notes are now sometimes published as electronic modules separate from the text of the translation, it will also be possible for people to use our study Bible notes with other translations such as ESV or NKJV. The first versions of these study notes will be in various electronic formats because we can get those out much closer to the time when the complete, printed EHV appears next year.

So there is a difference between the EHV translation, which has a duty to say no more or less than the text says, and derived products that use the EHV translation, which will include the perspective of their producers. Most of the notes in any study Bible could be the same regardless of the denomination of its producers (notes on Herod, on dating, on geography, etc.), but on some topics such as the Lord's Supper or the millennium, the notes would likely vary with denominational perspective. In the NIV Zondervan Study Bible, for example, the comment on 1 Peter 3:21 says, “Baptism saves only in the sense that it represents what Christ has achieved.” It is to be expected that this comment would be different in a Lutheran version of an NIV study Bible if there was one.

To summarize: The main version of the EHV translation, which will simply be called the Holy Bible: Evangelical Heritage Version (EHV), will not include the many additional notes and helps that will be contained in the study Bible. It is similar to the EHV version of NT and Psalms that was published in 2017. The EHV Bible and the study Bible (or, hopefully, study Bibles) based on it will be separate publications with different names and very likely, in some cases, different publishers.

Peniel or Penuel?

2018-05-09T00:00:00+00:00

A question that looks simple, but is really not simple at all.

A Scriptural and Historical Survey of the Doctrine of the Antichrist

2018-04-23T00:00:00+00:00

A survey of some less-studied passages on the Antichrist.

Comparing Genesis 1-3 in the EHV and NIV

2018-04-16T00:00:00+00:00

Side-by-side comparison with differences highlighted.

Israel and the Nations

2018-04-16T00:00:00+00:00

A summary of Israel’s relations with surrounding nations.

Principles and Practices of Bible Translation: An Expanded Study Guide for Translators

2018-04-16T00:00:00+00:00

Principles that illustrate the types of issues which a translation committee has to resolve.

The Herods

2018-04-16T00:00:00+00:00

The four generation of the Herods are a tangled soap opera of a story.

The Intertestamental Period

2018-04-16T00:00:00+00:00

What is between the end of the Old Testament and the beginning of the New?

A New Resource for Translation: Garner's Modern English Usage

2018-04-16T00:00:00+00:00

Current standards for contemporary prose.

Recommended New Testament Commentaries

2018-04-16T00:00:00+00:00

A list of recommended New Testament commentaries with comments.

Old Testament Commentaries for the Pastor's Study

2018-04-16T00:00:00+00:00

A list of recommended commentaries for the Old Testament.

Wartburg Project Report 2018-04

2018-04-16T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2018-04

Key Passages for a Doctrinal Evaluation of Bible Translations

2018-04-10T00:00:00+00:00

Key passages that may reveal doctrinal biases of translators.

Wartburg Project Report 2018-03

2018-03-22T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2018-03

In Matthew 28:19 why do you translate “gather disciples” instead of “make disciples”?

2018-03-22T00:00:00+00:00

Why does the EHV translate Matthew 28:19, “gather disciples” instead of “make disciples”?

The first question we have to ask is “what is a disciple?” A random online dictionary defines “disciple” as “a personal follower of Jesus during his life, especially one of the twelve Apostles” or “a follower or student of a teacher, leader, or philosopher.” It seems that the two main synonyms of “disciple” are “follower” and “student,” or in some cases something like “trainee” or “apprentice” or “adherent.” That definition is okay as far as it goes, but it seems that it should go further in distinguishing two main uses of the term “disciple” in the Bible.

In the Gospels the disciples are most often a group of men that Jesus has called in order to prepare them for serving in the ministry of the Word. Jesus called his first disciples from among the disciples of John the Baptist. They were already believers in the promised Messiah, but now they were called to recognize Jesus of Nazareth as the Christ promised by God. They are called to follow him and to learn from him. They were not immediately called to leave their homes and professions behind in order to enter a full-time ministry. After a time Peter and his fishing partners were called to leave their businesses behind (Luke 5:8-11). From now on they will be fishers of men. Now they have a permanent divine call to ministry, and they leave their nets and boats and homes and follow Jesus. Jesus’ disciples were first called, then trained. Later Jesus selects twelve men from among a larger group of disciples to be apostles (Mark 3:14; Luke 6:13; compare Matthew 10:2). Some of the disciples who were not called to be apostles were later sent to serve as members of the Seventy.

When we meet the term “disciple” in the Gospels, we have to determine from the context whether the term refers to the Twelve or to a larger group, which at times may include all believers. Sometimes the text may say something like: “the twelve disciples” or “the eleven disciples” so the choice is clear. In some passages like Luke 14:26-27 and John 8:31, the characteristics of “disciples” refer to traits of all believers. In Acts, the term “disciples” very often serves as a name that can be applied to all believers. “Disciples” means “Christians” (Acts 11:26). The term does not refer to limited class or to higher status. In the epistles, the term “disciples” no longer occurs as a common title for believers, as it does in Acts. It is replaced by terms like “saints” or “brothers.”

One of the places where this question “Who are these disciples?” arises is in Matthew 28:16-17. The eleven disciples are mentioned in verse 16. In verse 17 some of the people who are present, believe; some of them doubt or hesitate. Some commentators believe that only the eleven disciples were present when Jesus spoke the Great Commission. Many commentators connect the giving of the Great Commission with the meeting with 500 disciples[1] mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15:6. In either case it is clear that the commission was given not just to the eleven (soon to be twelve again) apostles, but to the church, and that it extends to the end of time.

The related Greek verb (μαθητεύω / matheeteuo) is most often used intransitively with the meaning “be or become a disciple.” Twice it is used transitively with a direct object (Matthew 28:19 and Acts 14:21). It should be noted that this verb consists only of the root for “disciple,” with no indication of what other verb, if any, should be supplied to fill out the thought. The most literal translation would to be to use “disciple” as a verb, and some have suggested this: Go and disciple all nations.

There were two fairly well-established translations in use when the EHV was being translated:

“make disciples” NIV, ESV, and many others
“teach/instruct” Vulgate, Luther, KJV, and others

Both of these are acceptable translations. Both can be understood correctly, but in some situations both have been misunderstood.

The translation “teach” has the disadvantage that it will lead English readers to miss the fact that later in the verse there is another Greek verb (didasko) which can also be translated “teach. It seems useful to use two different English verbs to render these two Greek verbs in order to bring out the distinction in the text. Hence, the value of the translation “make disciples” for the first verb and “teach” for the second. There is nothing inherently wrong with the translation “make disciples,” and it is very widely used, but it has sometimes been misunderstood or misapplied or wrongly criticized. In an article in the Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly David Kuske offered a helpful caution:

The broad expression “make disciples” can easily be misunderstood. Therefore, when we use or explain these words, we always need to make sure that we clearly distinguish our part in carrying out Jesus’ command from God’s part. Only God the Holy Spirit can turn people from unbelief to faith and constantly increase that faith. Only God the Holy Spirit can create a living faith that clings to and willingly does all that Christ commands. But we also have a part in this work because God has chosen to use us as his agents to proclaim the Word through which the Spirit does his work. Therefore, God does speak of human beings having a part in bringing people to faith (for example., Acts 26:17 where Paul is described as opening people’s eyes and turning people from darkness to light, from Satan to God). But whenever we cite such passages we need to speak carefully so that the part we have in this action, what we do, is never confused with the Spirit’s work, with what he does.[2]

The following are some of the passages that speak most boldly in proclaiming the human role in making disciples:

1 Timothy 4:16 “Pay close attention to yourself and to the doctrine. Persevere in them, because by doing this you will save both yourself and those who listen to you.” (EHV)

1 Corinthians 9:22 “To the weak, I became weak so that I might gain the weak. I have become all things to all people so that I may save at least some.” (EHV)

The apostle Paul certainly did not mean to indicate that he or Timothy could take the place of Jesus as Savior or even assist in Jesus’ work of being Savior! Rather, believers may serve in an instrumental or ministerial role by proclaiming the message of salvation which tells people what Jesus has done to save them. Jesus said that he would make his disciples “fishers of men.” How did Jesus seek to “catch” men? “Jesus went throughout Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the good news of the kingdom” (Mt 4:19, 23). The method that he gave to his disciples was the same. God works faith through his chosen means, the gospel in Word and sacrament (Rom 10:17). The difference is that Jesus is both the provider and messenger of salvation. His disciples are only the messengers who deliver the means through which the Spirit works.

So there is no inherent problem with the term “make disciples,” and the EHV will include it in a footnote in the EHV Study Bible, because the term is so widely used and to indicate that we do not object to this rendering.

But terms which in themselves are proper can be misunderstood when they have been misunderstood or misused by other people. So sometimes translators may choose to avoid such a term to try to anticipate and prevent predictable but erroneous misunderstanding or criticism.

In the sixteenth century, as far as we know, Luther never found it necessary to wrestle with the choice between “teach” and “make disciples” in Matthew 28:19 when he was translating the New Testament. He had no reason to depart from the time-honored rendering of the Latin Vulgate, which translates μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη as docete omnes gentes, “teach all nations.”[3] But as the Anabaptist movement arose, some of the Anabaptists interpreted the traditional rendering of Matthew 28:19, “teach…baptizing…teaching,” as a chronological series and exploited it as an argument against infant baptism. Jesus, they said, commanded that teaching should precede baptism, and that cannot happen in the case of infants. In response, some exegetes of the Greek text argued that a more precise rendering of μαθητεύσατε was “make disciples of” all nations, and that the rest of the sentence showed how it takes place: by baptizing, etc. According to that exegesis, infants are not excluded from baptism. We do not know who was the first scholar to use that argument against the Anabaptists, but it quickly caught on among Lutherans, beginning already in the sixteenth century. We find it in the writings of Aegidius Hunnius, Johann Gerhard, and Johann Andreas Quenstedt. Erasmus Schmidt continued to defend the traditional rendering of μαθητεύσατε as “teach.” He acknowledged that the verb literally means “make disciples,” but he said disciples are made chiefly through teaching, and for that reason he still likes the translation “teach.” In a similar way, Georg Stoeckhardt in the 19th century does not hesitate to use Luther’s translation of Matthew 28:19 (lehret, “teach”), but he adds that “make disciples” is more precise.[4] Interestingly enough, though these scholars saw the weakness in Luther’s translation, they apparently did not change Luther’s Bible.

Is it possible in light of all this to come up with a tweak of “make disciples” that might avoid some misunderstanding?[5]

After study and discussion, the EHV came up with “gather disciples.” This tweak seemed to have two advantages. It might alleviate some of the unnecessary baggage that has become attached to the term “make disciples” for some people. (Though we do not doubt that some people will find fault with “gathering disciples,” for example asserting that “making disciples” requires a deeper relationship than merely “gathering” them.) That brings us to the second advantage of the term “gather disciples.” The term “make disciples” is understood in two main senses: the evangelism sense of bringing people into the church or the nurturing sense of leading them deeper into the Word. Which is it in the first verb of Matthew 28:19? The context of the Great Commission, which speaks of going into the all the world suggests that the gathering of the Christian church is in the foreground here. The ongoing nurturing of disciples is more prominent in the second verb of the series, “teaching them to obey everything.” The translation “gather disciples” seems to more clearly indicate the evangelism thrust of the first verb and thereby to help remove one ambiguity from the translation.

One of the comments we have received about the translation “gather disciples” is that it is an innovation. At first we thought that might be true, but whenever translators think they have discovered something new, their hopes are quickly dashed and they again realize the truth of the statement, “There is nothing new under the sun.” While following up on the question, we found that we were not the first to tweak the term “make disciples.”[6] One translation that preceded us in the concept but not in the exact wording of tweaking the term “make disciples” was the NIV.

Consider Acts 14:21

They preached the gospel in that city and won a large number of disciples. (NIV)
After they preached the good news in that city and had gathered many disciples… (EHV)[7]

Since the EHV does not use the NIV as a resource for our work, we were not aware of the NIV’s tweak of “make disciples” until we stumbled upon it, after the fact. Each translation reached the idea of tweaking “make disciples” independently and each made their own tweak. We have no objection to their tweak “win disciples,” but we like our idea of “gathering disciples” a little better in the context.

Christians can “make disciples” or “win disciples” or “gather disciples” without a significant difference of meaning as long as they understand that this cannot mean that we are the ones who really convert people or create faith, because only God can do that through the means of grace. And if we use the translation “teach” in English, it does not mean that babies should not be baptized. And if we use “gather disciples,” it cannot mean that people become disciples on their own. Only God can create faith, and he has chosen to do this work through his means of grace which are delivered by his messengers (Romans 10:17).

The most important part of the testing process for EHV is not the testing in the ivory tower of academia but in the worship life and daily use of the church. Every new expression in a translation requires some explanation and some getting used to. After a few years of congregational use, we will know if readers find the tweak useful. We will then revisit this and other issues, giving the congregations an opportunity to have their voice heard in potential revisions.

[1] The Greek text here uses the word “brothers,” a word which in this context may include men and women.

[2] Kuske, “Exegetical Brief: The meaning of μαθητεύσατε in Matthew 28:19,” Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly (Vol. 94, no. 2, Spring 1997, p 115-121). (Also available from the WLS online essay file.)

[3] It would be interesting to check through the multi-volume collection of minutes of Luther’s translation revision committee to see if this verse was ever discussed. Present editions of the Lutherbibel still use “teach.”

[4] This paragraph is a summary of research from a WELS Committee study: “Matthew 28:19 and the Mission of the WELS,” (§. 50-51). That study provides references to the original sources. For more of their discussion read also §.43-49 of that study.

[5] We are thinking of the many controversies around the terms “make disciples,” “discipling,” etc. It does not seem necessary or edifying to catalog them here. Readers can easily gain access to them by searching terms like “discipling controversy” etc. You will quickly find more than you want to know, even a link to “discipling a dog.” I think it’s a typo for “disciplining a dog.”

[6] An additional search will show that the term “gathering disciples” is not at all uncommon in Christian writing.

[7] Other translations of course continue to use the terms “make disciples” and “teach” also in this verse.

Why is there so much confusion concerning the spelling of "Peniel" and "Penuel?" (Genesis 32:30-31)

2018-03-22T00:00:00+00:00

Genesis 32:30-31 refers to a place which some translations call Peniel in its first occurrence and Penuel in the second occurrence. The EHV calls it Peniel in both occurrences. Why?

This question is an excellent example of how a question that looks very simple at first really is not simple at all. There are a few complications involved in answering this question. (Make that a lot of complications!)

The main Hebrew manuscript that we use to translate the Old Testament calls this place Peniel the first time that it occurs (v 30) and Penuel the second time (v 31): “Jacob called the name of the place Peniel, saying, “For I have seen God face to face, and yet my life has been delivered.” The sun rose upon him as he passed Penuel, limping because of his hip” (ESV). (The name peniel means face of God.)

The first version of the EHV read: “Jacob named the place Peniel,¹ because he said, ‘I have seen God face to face, and my life has been spared.’ The sun rose as he crossed over at Peniel, and he was limping because of his thigh.” (^{Note 1}Peniel means face of God.)

How did we get this translation? A study of a concordance of place names in the Bible showed that some recent translations favored Peniel as the place name and used Penuel as a man’s name. Since many recent Bible atlases could be expected to reflect the spellings of the most popular translations, it seemed that EHV readers would have less trouble consulting Bible atlases if we used the same spelling that would likely appear in recent atlases, so we called the place Peniel. It seemed that to avoid confusing readers, we should use just one spelling of the name. Two different spellings of the same place name in such a short span would look like a typo to many readers. Since the spelling difference did not have any effect on the meaning we used just one spelling.

But another check of atlases shows that our assumption was wrong and that atlases, like translations, are a mixed bag in their spelling of this place. In fact, our cartographer for the EHV Study Bible used the spelling Penuel on our map for the patriarchs. So choosing the consistent spelling Peniel would not resolve the issue of finding this place in atlases.

(The inconsistent spelling of biblical place names is a very pervasive problem. Maps that we would like to refer to in EHV articles often use a different spelling of a name than the spelling in the EHV. Do we redraw all the maps, alter all the translations, or do we educate readers to the issue with appropriate footnotes at the right spots in the text? We are inclined toward the third option, because there is no solution in sight on the variety of spelling of place and personal names in the Bible. We have a longer discussion of this spelling problem, for which there is no resolution in sight, in our introduction to the EHV and in our FAQ 17.)

Is it possible to figure out how this spelling discrepancy arose in Genesis 32?

At first glance this might seem to a simple copying error, switching a Hebrew u for a Hebrew i. This variant between the Hebrew letter yod (i) and the Hebrew letter vav (u) is an extremely common variant in the Hebrew text. At some stages of the Hebrew script yod and vaw are virtually indistinguishable. In many cases, with common words, the reader can tell which letter is intended because he or she recognizes the word in context. But in the case of a proper name that occurs only once or rarely in the Bible, in reading handwritten manuscripts it is sometimes impossible to tell which letter was intended. This problem occurs very often in the lists of personal names in Chronicles, and the EHV often notes the variant spellings in the footnotes. EHV did not, however, footnote every vaw/yod variant in Chronicles so as not to bog down the reading of the text too much, but it lists enough examples to illustrate the problem.

But that simple explanation of a copying mistake is suspect here. Because the two versions of the name stand side-by-side, regardless of which spelling he chose, wouldn’t a scribe have written the word the same way both times? If this variant originated as a copying error, it could only have occurred fairly late in the history of the copying of the text (more than a thousand years after the writing of the text) because in the oldest forms of the Hebrew alphabet the two letters vav and yod look significantly different.

Furthermore, there are other interesting yod/waw interchanges in the Pentateuch. The yod/waw interchange here in Genesis 32 is parallel to another one in Genesis 4:18 where the variant spellings (Mehujael/Mehijael) are right next to each other. The same thing happens with the name Abigail in 1 Sam 25:14 and 18. Something may lie behind the way these letters were used at the time of the earliest written Hebrew which allowed them to be written interchangeably, and for which the explanation may never be recovered.

(It’s worth noting that the third person feminine pronoun in Genesis is often spelled with a waw in the middle like the third person masculine pronoun, and yet the Masoretes always pointed it to be pronounced as “hee” (הִוא) rather than “hu” in cases in which it clearly refers to a woman.[1] Does this strange situation indicate a spelling variant, a copying variant, or an updating of the grammatical form? It seems that perhaps the third option is most likely.)

In Judges 8:8, 9, 17, the other main story involving this place, Penuel is the regular Hebrew spelling of the name. So maybe the first spelling of Peniel in Genesis was just a mistake, and we should make them all Penuel?

Not so fast. It may be more complicated than that. In the Waltke O'Conner Hebrew syntax book, in paragraph 8.2, it is suggested that a possible explanation of the variant is a survival in Genesis 32 of two of the archaic case endings of old Hebrew: The theory is that the i in Peniel is accusative plural (the Hebrew word for face is plural) and the u in Penuel is nominative plural. (Or maybe one of them is an old construct ending.) If an archaic case ending was involved, this would help explain the confusion of later copyists, who no longer knew the ancient case endings. (There are some other possible archaic endings in the Pentateuch and Psalms.) But in the grammatical structure of these verses, this argument does not seem particularly convincing.

The new BHQ volume of Genesis provides information about how early versions handle this problem variant: The Old Greek translates the name in both 32:31 and 32:32 as Εἶδος θεοῦ face of God. Of the other Greek versions, Aquila also translates the name into Greek, but Symmachus does not. All other references to this place in the Old Greek (Judges 8:8, 9, 17; 1 Kings 12:25) do not translate the term but rather render it as Φανουηλ. The Targums Jonathan and Neofiti keep the spelling Peniel in Genesis 32:31. All the other versions (Samaritan Pentateuch, Vulgate, Syriac, Targum Onqelos) transliterate the occurrence in verse 31 as Penuel, evidently assimilating it with the spelling in v. 32. So it appears that most of the early versions want to harmonize the spelling of the two occurrences in these two successive verses, even though the copyists in the Masoretic tradition retained the two distinct spellings in their respective places. (In other words, these ancient versions did the very thing that EHV and NIV did, though they harmonized in the opposite direction). Or (and this seems most likely) the evidence may simply indicate that the translators of the ancient versions were as confused as we are by the whole situation. (A fairly good rule of thumb is that if the ancient versions are confused, our chance of becoming unconfused is not very good.)

Another approach for us would be to go by majority vote. In the Hebrew Old Testament, Penuel is the most common spelling. This would suggest changing all the occurrences to Penuel as some of the ancient versions did. Though the standard Hebrew text has the two different spellings in the two verses, other ancient versions have the spelling Penuel also in the first occurrence.

So what are the possibilities?

There may be a copying mistake here. But we have already said that this would be a surprising mistake to make with the two words so close to each other. But anyone who has been an editor knows that astounding mistakes happen, and typos sometime remain uncorrected for centuries. The Masoretes, in fact, deliberately did not correct obvious mistakes in the Hebrew text but only called attention to them in marginal notes.
The earliest copyists of Genesis, or perhaps the author of Genesis, had reason to spell the name two different ways. The most likely reason for this is that the spelling Peniel is intended to reflect the name and pronunciation of Jacob’s time and the spelling Penuel is intended to reflect the name and pronunciation at Moses’ time or a copyist’s time. There are in fact some other updatings of place names in Genesis.

It seems the best solution for the EHV in Genesis 32 is to spell the name Peniel the first time and to spell it Penuel the second time and add this footnote: "Penuel is an alternate spelling of Peniel," and to offer no explanation since any explanation would be a guess.

Oh, one more complication. In Genesis 32 the Hebrew verse numbers do not match the English verse numbers, so if you want to look this up in the Hebrew text, you have to look at Genesis 32:31-32, as you may have noticed in the textual evidence above.

The lessons to be drawn: Bible translation is tremendously complicated. A single letter can generate a lot of data and a lot of theories. There are features of the Hebrew text for which we do not have a clear explanation and which seemingly already stumped the ancient translators. However, these difficulties do not prevent us from conveying the meaning of the Hebrew text. The lesson to be learned from Jacob’s encounter with the LORD is the same whether the place is called Peniel or Penuel or both.

[1] This occurs very often in Genesis: 2:12; 3:12 & 20; 4:22; 7:2; 12:14, 18 &19; 14:7 & 8; 17:14; 19:20; 20:3 & 5 (2x); 21:22 & 24; 22:20; 23:2, 15 & 19; 24:44; 38:21

The Lord's Prayer in Five Versions

2018-03-15T00:00:00+00:00

Comparison of KJV, ESV, EHV, CSB, NIV.

Biblical Typos

2018-03-13T00:00:00+00:00

Variants, Typos, and Biblical Innerancy

Debate Concerning the Chronology of the New Testament

2018-03-13T00:00:00+00:00

Dr. Brug presents balanced arguments relating to New Testament chronology.

Gender Issues in Bible Translation

2018-03-13T00:00:00+00:00

Gender issues, marriage issues, and sexual issues in Bible translation.

Old Testament Biblical Chronology

2018-03-13T00:00:00+00:00

Putting dates on Old Testament history.

Psalm 23 in Five Translations

2018-03-13T00:00:00+00:00

KJV, ESV, EHV, CSB, NIV

Scientific Dating of History

2018-03-13T00:00:00+00:00

How dates are scientifically established and the problems with relying entirely on these methods.

To Sync or Not to Sync: That Is the Question

2018-03-13T00:00:00+00:00

If the Hebrew wording of parallel passages is identical or very close, should the English be made identical?

Translation Rubrics and Principles

2018-03-13T00:00:00+00:00

A lengthy summary of the guiding principles of our translation.

Wartburg Project Report 2018-02

2018-02-23T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2018-02

Do variants and typos affect the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy?

2018-02-22T00:00:00+00:00

How do we reconcile the presence of variants and typos in the biblical text with the teaching of Biblical inerrancy?

Updated August 14, 2019

Shortly after the first printing of the full EHV Bible appeared on July 1, 2019, a reader asked, “What is the iconic, signature typo that will make the first printing of the EHV a valuable collectors item in the future?” He was thinking of editions like the infamous “she Bible” of the 1611 edition of the King James Version, in which Ruth 3:15 reads she went into town instead of the supposedly correct he went into town. The press recently reported that a newly discovered copy of the notorious “she Bible” might be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars because of the rarity of this error. If you are lucky enough to get your hands on a copy of the “she Bible,” don’t tell anyone that it appears that she is actually the correct reading in Ruth 3:15, and it appears that the reading he, followed by most printings of the King James, was actually an ancient “typo” committed by an ancient Hebrew copyist. The word she in a 1611 printing of the KJV probably originated as a typo, but it turns out that the printer’s error accidentally restored the correct Hebrew text. So if you detect what you believe to be the iconic typo of the 2019 EHV, do not be too quick to jump to conclusions. “Errors” are not always what they seem to be.

After the EHV NT 2017 had been available for more than six months, readers had reported two to four typos.[1] We do not know how many more will be spotted, but one of the few things we can be sure of is that the EHV will have considerably fewer typos than the Hebrew text which was the foundation of our translation. The BHS Hebrew text is an attempt to reproduce a print version of the hand-written Leningrad Codex of the Hebrew Bible, but it is the practice of the editors not to correct “typos”[2] which they spot in the hand-written Leningrad Text but to preserve them in the printed edition and to label them with the tag sic L (which means “this is what the Leningrad Text reads”). There are well over 350 such footnotes in the BHS text and well over 200 of them are what we would call “typos” in the simplest sense of the term. In his Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible Emanuel Tov spends several pages discussing the many discrepancies between and within all of the hand-written and printed editions of the Hebrew Bible (see pages 3 and 4 for starters). He concludes that there are no completely identical versions of the biblical text unless they are photocopies or printed from the same electronic file. In fact, to a large degree, textual criticism is simply the practice of proofreading, the practice of finding and fixing typos.

Should this be a cause for concern? Not really—as a study of the following famous biblical typos will show. So that no one thinks we have an ax to grind with any particular Bible translation, we will largely limit the examples below to the venerable, venerated King James Version.

The Bible is generally read with more care than newspapers, which means that even relatively harmless blunders in Bible translations have been assured a place in typographical history.

We might as well start with the most notorious example of all—the so-called Wicked Bible or Adulterous Bible of 1631. In this printing of the King James, the sixth/seventh commandment in Exodus 20:14 came out, “Thou shalt commit adultery.” Authorities were outraged, and the offending printers were fined and imprisoned, but there is no evidence of a spike in adultery in 1632 England. There is also evidence that the omission of the word not was not a typo but an act of sabotage. (More on that later.)

Surprisingly, this type of error involving the omission of the crucial word not, which makes such a huge difference in the meaning of a verse, is in fact one of the most common copying variants in the Hebrew Bible. A variation between the Hebrew word לא (loa), which means not, and the Hebrew word לו (low), which means to him, is one of the most common textual variants in the Hebrew Bible.

Sometimes a passage can be understood as a true statement regardless of whether or not the word not is present. For example in Ezekiel 5:7 there are two readings: The reading, “You have acted according to the standards of justice followed by the nations around you,” is a strong condemnation of Israel. The other reading, “You have not [even] acted according to the standards of justice followed by the nations around you” is an even harsher condemnation. The same is true of very many of the לו לא variants. Unless both could somehow be understood as correct, they would not have been recorded as variants.

You ask, “How can such an error happen? How can several proofreaders miss such a glaring error as a missing not?” It happens because our eyes and minds are trained to read what should be in a text, not what is actually there.

Most proficient readers of English can read the following selection quite quickly.

I cnduo't bvleiee taht I culod aulaclty uesdtannrd waht I was rdnaieg. Unisg the icndeblire pweor of the hmuan mnid, aocdcrnig to rseecrah at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it dseno't mttaer in waht oderr the lterets in a wrod are, the olny irpoamtnt tihng is taht the frsit and lsat ltteer be in the rhgit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it whoutit a pboerlm. Tihs is bucseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey ltteer by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.

Actually there are several untruths and half-truths in this quotation, but it does demonstrate the basic point that interests us here: Because the mind of a reader does not focus on letters but on the meaning of words and whole groups of words, readers can without any great difficulty correctly read texts that have even a large number of typos. If you can read the text above, you can correctly read a biblical text with a couple of typos.

The amazing thing about the missing not in the Wicked Bible was not that the printers of the Wicked Bible got into trouble with the self-righteous royal authorities, but that it took a year for them to be caught and prosecuted. Purchasers of the Bible were apparently either buying the Bible and not reading it, or they were reading it and not noticing the error because they were autocorrecting it, as all competent readers do. (One of the chief challenges for a proofreader is to turn off his or her built-in autocorrect app.) Or perhaps the readers were just being kind and charitable. Or perhaps they liked the new printing.

The time lag of a year in the Wicked Bible case is not particularly surprising nor is it anywhere near a record for uncorrected errors. Once when editing an English translation of a German version of a Luther letter, both the translator and the editor ran across a sentence which absolutely required the presence of the word not, but in tracing the letter through all the printed editions back to the 1560s, there was no edition that included the necessary word not. Apparently these two editors were the first in more than 350 years to notice and to correct the missing not. (We later found out that the original Latin letter written by Luther was in a library in Latvia, and there at last was the missing not.) It is not unthinkable that our best Hebrew manuscripts somewhere have a “typo” that originated in the pre-Christian era.

We could easily chalk up this notorious scandal of the missing not in the Adulterous Bible to proofreader incompetence or to readers with built-in autocorrect turned on, if it were not for another extremely wicked error in the Wicked Bible, an error so bad that it would seal the lips and close the eyes of the genteel English ladies who were reading the Bible. In Deuteronomy 5:24, the doubly-wicked Wicked Bible said that “the LORD our God hath shewed us his glory and his greatasse.” (It was supposed to be greatnesse.) The error of the missing not in the commandment could very likely have been caused by operator error, but this second wicked reading reeks of sabotage, and it lends credibility to the rumor that the errors in the Wicked Bible were not mistakes but were the result of a wicked plot by a rival printer to ruin the publisher so that he would lose the license to print the King James Bible and the villainous rival printer could then get the license. Conspiracy theorists even name a likely suspect, a chap named Bonham Norton, who perhaps deserves the title “the first hacker.”

Besides the peril of hackers, modern producers of electronic Bibles face three other perils. Spell-checkers will sometimes change a fine word like pericope into periscope. Too close a pass of a finger near the touchpad can delete a word or even a line several pages away, without the operator even noticing it. A blip in the electronic data flow can introduce an error like the visual errors that regularly occur in your streaming programs.

Such a software/hardware error produced the glitch in the printed Owl Bible, a 1944 printing of the King James. “Wives, in the same way submit yourselves to your owl husbands,” This error was not a typo but the result of a damaged metal printing plate. The right side of the “n” in the word “own” was chipped off. Then the base of the letter appears bent to the left slightly. This results in the lower case letter “n” looking exactly like a capital “L.” Since both the “o” and “w” appear the same in lower case and capital letters, the word ends up looking exactly like “OWL.”

The EHV may have had one or two such a software-induced errors. In the first printing, in Matthew 5:16, the verse number is not superscripted as it should be but is regular size. The numeral is correctly superscripted in all the galleys and printouts, so this blip may be the result of a software error in the printing process. If your copy of EHV has this blip, you have a genuine first printing. Save it and pass it on to your grandchildren, though they may not be able to sell it for the high five-figure payout that you can collect by selling a really wicked Bible.[3]

A few more examples illustrate the point:

In a 1653 printing of the King James Bible, 1 Corinthians 6:9 reads: “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall inherit the kingdom of God?” Those pesky missing negatives are not that rare.

In a 1763 printing, Psalm 14:1 says: “The fool hath said in his heart there is a God.”

In a 1716 printing of the King James Version, Jeremiah 31:34 says “sin on more” instead of “sin no more.” This has recently been dubbed the Partyers’ Bible.

A glaring mistake can be found in an 1807 printing. Hebrews 9:14 declares, “How much more shall the blood of Christ …purge your conscience from good works to serve the living God.” Apparently the error was not quite glaring enough.

In a 1682 printing, Deuteronomy 24:3 was supposed to read, “If the latter husband hate her.” The unfortunate dropping of a single letter led to this edition being dubbed the Cannibals’ Bible. It apparently sold well in the South Pacific.

In the second edition of the Geneva Bible of 1562, Matthew 5:9 says “Blessed are the placemakers,” rather than “peacemakers.” I suppose the 21^st century edition would be “blessed are the pacemakers.” In the same edition, the chapter heading for Luke 21 says “Christ condemneth the poor widow,” rather than “Christ commendeth the poor widow.”

Bible typos don’t have to be old. In the 1966 first edition of the Jerusalem Bible, Psalm 122:6 read, “Pay for peace” instead of “Pray for peace.” In the 1970 first edition of the King James II, John 1:5 reads “And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness overcomes it.” This was corrected to “the darkness does not overcome it” in the second edition, in the following year after the error was brought to the attention of the publishers. That pesky missing not again!

The presence or absence of a comma is probably more an editorial glitch than a typo. In some editions of the King James version, Luke 23:32 says that there were also two other malefactors crucified with Jesus. The lack of an “s” at the end of “other” and the lack of a comma after “others” makes Jesus a malefactor. The text was supposed to read: “And there were also two others, malefactors…

In a 1612 printing of the King James Bible, Psalm 119:161 says, “Printers have persecuted me without a cause.” The text itself seems to be crying out here.

Typos can be costly. A missing hyphen in the programming of a Venus probe caused the rocket to blow up, costing the space program millions of dollars. We have all read stories about a missing or misplaced decimal point causing big problems at the bank. In 2007, a US car dealership came up with a brilliant plan to boost sluggish sales. They sent out 50,000 scratch cards, one of which would reveal a $1,000 cash prize. But the marketing firm messed up the printing, so that ALL the cards were grand-prize winners. Unable to honor the debt, the dealership offered a $5 Walmart gift voucher to every “winner.” At least it was not a Starbucks card.

But mostly typos are just an embarrassment to the publishers and a delight to the whistle blowers.

A recipe in an Australian publication advised seasoning the pasta with “salt and freshly ground black people.” We are confident no one followed this misguided recommendation.

A newspaper reported that after a storm a man was seriously injured by contact with a high-voltage wife.

There is an old editorial rule that any article containing the word public must be read at least four times to check for a missing letter. (This typo is known as the proofreader’s worst nightmare.)

A travel company sued the newspaper when their ad for exotic vacations became an ad for erotic vacations. It seems that they would have been hard-pressed to prove the ad hurt their business.

Was the prize winner rewarded with a plaque or a plague? Few readers would have any trouble correcting such mistakes, but editors are still eager to avoid them, more to avoid embarrassment than to prevent any significant damage. It is the same with Bible typos, even with those that are embarrassing. Besides the jailing of the unlucky printer of the Wicked Bible, very few biblical typos have ever done any serious harm. Nevertheless, it is highly desirable to avoid them to the degree it is possible for humans to do so. Electronic publishing should make it easier to gradually winnow out errors, but probably never completely because every opening of an electronic file creates the possibility of a new error being introduced by a wayward touch. The perfection of Scripture remains in God’s act of giving it, not in our act of transmitting it. But the minor flaws of transmission do not prevent the truth reaching the reader. Just as the rough or squeaky voice of the preacher does not remove the power of the gospel, flaws in the printing and writing of the text does not dim the message and meaning of the text.

It is important to take note of this, because, besides Bible collectors and British journalists, the biggest fans of biblical typos are unbelieving critics of the Bible, who claim that these typos take away from the inerrancy of the Bible. The grand total of all of the variants in the biblical texts do not bring into question any teaching of the Bible, much less the minor typos that characterize human writing.

What about the EHV?

There were two blips that appear to be computer glitches:

Besides the superscript number glitch in Matthew 5:16 mentioned above, 2 Peter 3:17 has a superscript “5” before “through” – It seems that this is a computer-induced mistake that was not in our final manuscript, so it is like the Matthew 5:16 blip.

The following three typos have been reported in the first printing of the EHV New Testament.

Luke 19:27 – Insert “of” before “me”
Ephesians 4:32 – “other” should be “another” as follows… ³²Instead, be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving one another, just as God in Christ has forgiven us.
1 Thessalonians 2:7 the footnote needs an “s” on “infants” to agree with the plural children in the main text,
⁷Some witnesses to the text read infants. This variant would change the translation to: we could have been a burden as Christ’s apostles, but we were infants among you. Like a nursing mother taking care of her own children, ⁸we yearned . . .

It is not always agreed among proofreaders and readers what is a typo.

Acts 10:25 – We added a “p” to “worshiped” so it is now “worshipped,” Many people regard “worshiped” as the correct American spelling, but computer studies show that “worshipped” is the standard spelling on both sides of the Atlantic, and this is the standard spelling elsewhere in the EHV.

Psalms has three additional fixes

Psalm 13:6: insert the verse #6 as follows:
⁵But I trust in your mercy.
My heart rejoices in your salvation.
⁶I will sing to the LORD
because he has accomplished his purpose for me.
Psalm 38:7 – A period is missing at the end of the first sentence in the verse (“Even my back burns with pain”). Perhaps the footnote masked the absence of the period.
Psalm 113:1 – should have a small “p” on “praise” at the beginning of the third line.
¹Praise the LORD.
Praise, you servants of the LORD,
praise the name of the LORD.
But is this correction really correct? See the next example.

What is a typo?

Psalm 29:1 gives another example that demonstrates that some situations do not fit neatly into pigeon holes:

The EHV text now reads:

¹Ascribe to the LORD, you sons of God,
Ascribe to the LORD glory and strength.
²Ascribe to the LORD the glory of his name.

This is a triple parallelism that is one thought-unit of the poem, and the punctuation and capitalization reflect that. Each of the three lines is a discreet independent musical unit of the song that together form one larger unit. Here, as often in Hebrew poetry, one of the members of a poetic unit is grammatically incomplete. In other words the grammar and the poetry do not neatly match. Going purely by English grammar the second line should begin with a small a (though even in English there is another competing rule that poetic lines can begin with caps independent of the grammar). From the poetic and musical perspective it would look odd to have the first and third lines with capital A but not the second line. This is what we call “a case of casuistry.” There are two or more rules that apply to the case, and it is not possible to follow all of them. In grammar as in practical theology this is not an uncommon occurrence, and the writer has to decide which rule to follow.

So which capitalization do you like best? The version above or this version:

¹Ascribe to the LORD, you sons of God,
ascribe to the LORD glory and strength.
²Ascribe to the LORD the glory of his name.

Both are correct, but they give priority to different rules.

This takes us back to the axiom: “Errors are not always what they seem.”

What about the first printing of EHV 2019?

So far, as of August 4, nobody has reported a truly exciting, iconic typo in the EHV. It will be just our luck if all the typos reported over the next months and years are just boring little blips that do not boost the value of your collectors-edition first printing of EHV. Pass it on to your children anyway.

We will update this FAQ to FAQ 40c with a report on any typos or mistakes found in the first printing of the whole Bible after the first printing has been in use for six months or a year.

[1] The variant number two to four will be explained at the end of the article.

[2] In the term typos we are including hand-written or printed mistakes.

[3] Incidentally, most of the information in this article comes from the websites of Bible-collecting societies. They are always on the lookout for good (or preferably really bad) typos which can earn big money. The other main sources are articles in British papers like the Guardian and Mirror. Fascination with Bible typos seems to be a British thing. Google Bible typos and you will get lots of examples.

Why do you include the long ending of Mark as part of the text?

2018-02-22T00:00:00+00:00

Why does the EHV include the long ending of Mark (Mark 16:9-20)? Other translations question whether these verses belong in the text.

It is helpful to begin with a statement of our general policy concerning textual variants. We follow an objective approach which considers all the witnesses to the text (Greek manuscripts, lectionaries, translations, and quotations in the Church Fathers) without showing favoritism for one or the other, since each of these has its own strengths and weaknesses as a witness to the text. We then report the textual evidence in this way:

The reading in a set of variants that has the earliest and most wide-spread support in the witnesses is the one included in the text. The other readings in a set of variants are dealt with in one of three ways:
A variant reading that has very little early or widespread support in the witnesses is not presented in a footnote in order to avoid an overabundance of textual notes.
A variant reading with significant early and/or wide-spread support but not as much early or widespread evidence as the reading in the main text of the translation is reflected in a footnote that says, “Some witnesses to the text read/add/omit: . . . .”
A familiar (e.g., KJV or NIV reading) or a notable reading (e.g., the addition or omission of a whole verse) with support that is not nearly as early or widespread as the other reading can be reflected in a footnote that says, “A few witnesses to the text read/add/omit: . . . .”

The handling of the end of Mark is simply an application of this objective principle. This is the EHV footnote on this textual question:

This translation includes verses 9-20 because they are included in the vast majority of Greek manuscripts that have been handed down to us. Evidence for the existence of this long ending extends back to the 2nd century. In the early centuries of the church, these verses were read in worship services on Easter and Ascension Day. However, a few early manuscripts and early translations omit verses 9-20, and a few manuscripts have a different ending.

We believe that this footnote states the textual evidence accurately and concisely. But there are many details behind it. A brief summary of the evidence can be found in an article that was published in Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly (Vol 102:1), which is posted at our WP website.

If someone wants make a more detailed study of the issue, there is a lot of evidence to examine. We encourage you to examine the evidence on both sides of the argument.

In doing this, it is important to understand that the UBS textual commentary by Bruce Metzger is not an attempt to present a comprehensive study of the textual evidence but a defense of the decisions the committee made in creating the UBS text. In its four-page discussion of the ending of Mark, this commentary concludes that it is obvious to its editors that the longer ending of Mark has no claim to be original, but it concludes, “out of deference to the evident antiquity of the longer reading and its importance in the textual tradition of the Gospel, the Committee decided to include verses 9-20 as part of the text but to enclose them with double square brackets to indicate that they are the work of an author other than the evangelist.” The UBS committee in this way acknowledges that there is significant and important ancient support for verses 9-20.

When comparing the UBS approach with the EHV approach, we encourage readers to ask which approach presents a more objective summary of the textual evidence and which includes more subjective opinion.

Then to complete your study, read a book that presents a fuller summary of the textual evidence and which argues that the UBS approach does not present a full and fair consideration of the evidence. An example of such a book would be Authentic: The Case for Mark 16:9-20 (2016 edition) by James Snapp Jr. Used copies can sometimes be purchased on Amazon for as low as 99 cents.

Study both points of view and evaluate the fullness of their presentation of the evidence and the degree to which they make an objective evaluation of the evidence.

As a bottom line, remember that the EHV approach to textual issues is to present an objective summary of the amount of early and widespread support which a reading has and to minimize subjective judgments.

For more detail on historical evidence for Mark 16:9-20, see our library article "Mark 16:9-20 - Textual Evidence." [LINK]

Wartburg Project Report 2018-01

2018-01-31T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2018-01

Wartburg Project Report 2017-12

2017-12-20T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2017-12

Wartburg Project Report 2017-11

2017-11-20T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2017-11

Why does the EHV translate the Greek term "dia" as "because of" in Romans 4:25 in the words “for our justification”?

2017-11-17T00:00:00+00:00

You’ve asked an important question. Here is the EHV translation of the verse with the key terms you are asking about underlined:

Romans 4:25 He was handed over to death because of our trespasses and was raised to life because of our justification.

In using because of in Romans 4:25, EHV is not going it alone. Other translations that use because of include NKJV, NASB, and GWN.

Many people are probably used to the NIV translation (again the key terms are italicized):

Romans 4:25 (NIV) “He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.”

By using the word for” the NIV (1984, 2011) and other Bible versions (ESV, HCSB, CSB) are not as helpful as they could be. Clearly, the common meaning of this Greek term (dia + accusative) is “because of.”[1] Some translations might intend to indicate the idea of “cause” by using the term “for.” Unfortunately, the causal meaning of “for” is not at all clear in our common use of the English language. It would be unlikely that an English reader would understand that “for” really means “because of” in this verse. Would you say at the end of the day, “I am going home, for I am done”? We usually don’t talk that way anymore. So, English readers might misunderstand and think that “for” here means something else, for example, purpose. (Dictionary.com lists “because” as the 34^th meaning of “for.”)

Another reason why this word here means “because of” is the clear parallelism in this verse:

He was handed over to death	because of	our trespasses
and was raised to life	because of	our justification.

This passage answers two questions:

Q. Why did Jesus die?	Jesus died “because of our trespasses.”
Q. Why did Jesus rise?	Jesus rose “because of our justification.”

Siegbert Becker explained this passage this way:

We could also translate, “He was delivered over to death because we had sinned and was raised to life because we had been justified.” Some Lutherans who deny universal justification insist that since the previous verse speaks of believers, therefore the truth expressed in this verse must be limited to believers, because only believers are justified. But surely there is no Lutheran who would hold that Christ was delivered over to death only for the sins of believers. He died for all. He paid the ransom price for all. He took away the sin of the world. He is the propitiation or the cover for our sins and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. His resurrection is the proof that the sins of the world are cancelled and forgiven.^[2]
When Paul says that Christ was delivered because of our transgressions the “because of” [διά] is without doubt retrospective. He was put to death because our sins had been imputed to him. And while it is true that “our” in this context refers to believers and only believers can say what Paul says here, yet it is crystal clear that what Paul asserts here of believers is true of all men… It is clear that “was delivered over because of our transgressions” [παρεδόθη διὰ τὰ παραπτώματα ἡμῶν] stands in exact parallelism to “was raised because of our justification” [ἠγέρθη διὰ τὴν δικαίωσιν ἡμῶν]. If “because of” [the διὰ] is retrospective in the first member of the parallelism it is very natural that we should understand the second “because of” [διὰ] as retrospective also.[3]

How many sins were laid on Jesus when he died?

Isaiah 53:6 (EHV)

We all have gone astray like sheep.
Each of us has turned to his own way,
but the LORD has charged all our guilt to him.

How many people did Jesus die for?

2 Corinthians 5:14-15 (EHV)

One died for all; therefore, all died. ¹⁵And he died for all….

Jesus died, because the LORD laid on him the sins of all of us (all people). Then on the third day, God the Father raised Jesus to life as a public verdict of justification for all of us (all people). The resurrection demonstrated that God the Father had accepted Jesus’ payment for all sin and that Jesus was absolved of all of our sin that had been charged to him.

In his classic commentary on Romans, Georg Stoeckhardt explained Romans 4:25:

Since God raised Jesus from the dead, he has in fact declared that the death of Jesus has fulfilled its goal, that sin has been atoned for, that he has accepted the atonement, and thus the glorious resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead—this glorious victory over death and sin—is also at the same time the actual, solemn, formal absolution which God has pronounced on sinful people. Just as the atonement for sin is, so this verdict of justification is universal and applies to the whole world of sinners.[4]

In the People’s Bible Commentary, Armin Panning explained Romans 4:25 this way:

Because we had sinned, we deserved to die. Instead of requiring our death, however, God sent his Son to earth to live the perfect life we could not live and die the death we should have died. By his life he earned righteousness for us, and by his death he paid for our sins. In Christ, God now views us as righteous; in him we have been justified. The sinner’s justification is an accomplished fact, punctuated by Christ’s cry on the cross, “It is finished” (John 19:30). And to show that he had accepted his Son’s sacrificial death for the justification of all sinners, God raised his Son from death on Easter morning. In doing so God made a statement to all the world…. We might paraphrase that in this way: Christ had to die because we had sinned, but he could be raised to life because we had been justified by his death.[5]

In his Romans commentary, David Kuske explained the “cause” relationships:

Paul is not saying Jesus’ resurrection was the cause of our acquittal. Just the opposite, our acquittal was the cause of Jesus’ resurrection. Our acquittal was established by Jesus’ paying the ransom price for us on the cross (3:24). Because this was an established fact, God brought Jesus back to life. Or to put it another way, by raising Jesus, God was assuring us that Jesus had indeed accomplished our salvation.”[6]

Franz Pieper reflected the teaching of C.F.W. Walther (the first president of the Missouri Synod), while explaining Romans 4:25:

Now, then, if the Father raised Christ from the dead, He, by this glorious resurrection act, declared that the sins of the whole world are fully expiated, or atoned for, and that all mankind is now regarded as righteous before His divine tribunal. This gracious reconciliation and justification is clearly taught in Rom. 4:25…. The term δικαίωσις [justification] here means the act of divine justification executed through God’s act of raising Christ from the dead, and it is for this reason called the objective justification of all mankind. This truth Dr. Walther stressed anew in America. He taught that the resurrection of Christ from the dead is the actual absolution pronounced upon all sinners. To refer the words: “Who was raised again for our justification,” to the so-called subjective justification, which takes place by faith, not only weakens the force of the words, but also violates the context. Calov, following Gerhard, rightly points out the relation of Christ’s resurrection to our justification as follows: “Christ’s resurrection took place as an actual absolution from sin…. As God punished our sins in Christ, upon whom He laid them and to whom He imputed them, as our Bondsman, so He also, by the very act of raising Him from the dead, absolved Him from our sins imputed to Him, and so He absolved also us in Him.”^[7]

Note on the terms objective justification and subjective justification: In this context, the term objective refers to something that happens outside of us, something that does not depend on our knowledge or feelings. Objective justification is the declaration of God that he has accepted Christ’s payment for all of the sins of the world. The key passage is 2 Corinthians 5:18-19: All these things are from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation. ¹⁹That is, God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them. And he has entrusted to us the message of reconciliation. ²⁰Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, inasmuch as God is making an appeal through us. We urge you, on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God. Objective justification is the act of God by which he has declared that the sins of the world are forgiven because Christ paid for them in full. When the gospel is preached to people, they appropriate this verdict to themselves by faith. This justification by faith is called subjective because it involves our minds and hearts. We are saved by grace through faith.

[1] Gk: διὰ + accusative = cause. BDAG, p. 225 (B 2); Daniel Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p. 368-369.

^[2] Siegbert Becker, “Universal Justification,” Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly, vol. 83:1, pp. 16 (Winter 1986).

[3] Siegbert Becker, “Objective Justification,” p. 10 (WLS Essay File). Translations were inserted for this audience.

[4] Translated especially for this paper by James L. Langebartels, from: Georg Stoeckhardt, Römerbrief: Commentar über den Brief Pauli an die Römer, p. 214 (CPH, 1907).

[5] Armin Panning, Romans, p. 78 (NPH, 1999).

[6] David P. Kuske, “A Commentary on Romans 1-8,” p. 237 (NPH, 2007).

^[7] F. Pieper, vol. 2, Christian Dogmatics, p. 321 (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1953).

Wartburg Project Report 2017-10

2017-10-30T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2017-10

Luther's Bible and the EHV on the 500th Anniversary of the Lutheran Reformation

2017-10-28T00:00:00+00:00

The EHV hopes to preserve the best from the long heritage that has gone before us.

Introduction to the First Version of the EHV

2017-09-22T00:00:00+00:00

This is the introduction printed in the first edition of the NT and Psalms.

Wartburg Project Report 2017-09

2017-09-21T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2017-09

Those Pesky Prepositions

2017-09-13T00:00:00+00:00

The challenges that come from translating Hebrew and Greek prepositions into English.

In Isaiah 55:1 the EHV says, “Hey, all of you who are thirsty, come to the water.” Isn’t "hey" too slangy?

2017-08-29T00:00:00+00:00

Here is the full EHV translation with its footnote:

The first Hebrew word in Isaiah 55 is not the Hebrew word for "come" which is used three times later in the verse. The Hebrew word here is hoi, which is not a verb but an exclamation that even sounds like the English exclamation hey, so the EHV rendering is following a literal understanding of the Hebrew word hoi and differentiating it from the three instances of come that follow later in the verse.

The Hebrew word hoi is often used in contexts of sorrow or grief (though the proper word for that is oi). Here hoi is simply trying to get attention, perhaps with a touch of sympathy.

The English word hey serves the same sort of functions: to attract attention, to express surprise, interest or annoyance, or to express agreement. It covers a wide range of moods: Hey, what’s going on? Hey, what’s up? Hey, that’s great! Hey, how are you doing? Hey, look at me now. All these have their own shade of meaning, often depending on the tone of voice. Hey is also regaining its old use as a synonym of hello, which is used across the Germanic languages. Here we are interested only in the first use of hey, to gain attention.

The imagery of the text is that of a street vendor, urging the crowd to buy his wares. Though we did not have this example in mind when we translated Isaiah, a recent visit to Miller Park in Milwaukee, demonstrated that hey is the right choice here. Almost universally, the vendors were shouting, “Hey, cotton candy,” “Hey, ice cold beer here,” “Hey, lemonade,” or whatever cry was appropriate to their wares. So it seems that hey catches the right tone here—the urgency of a vendor. The reason that we did not follow those translations that ignore the difference between hey and come is that they diminish the imagery and urgency of the text. We found only one other English translation that has the translation hey (the NET), but several British translations use the interjection ho, a Britishism that would not work here.

So the reason that the EHV uses hey is to preserve the imagery of a vendor’s cry. If anyone has a better word than hey to reflect that, we would be happy to consider it, but we could not think of one. An important goal of EHV is to reflect the tone of the text. The tone of this text is not the polite address of a student to a teacher, “Excuse me, Miss Smith,” rather than “Hey, Miss Smith,” but the aggressive shouting of a vendor.

There is an even bigger problem with the imagery of the text than the word hey. It is the word buy. The water, wine, milk, and bread here are the gospel of salvation. Can we buy salvation? Scripture makes it clear that we cannot. It is a gift. But here the word buy expresses the urgency of obtaining it. This imagery is not limited to the Old Testament. Jesus tells us, “I advise you to buy from me gold refined by fire, so that you may be rich” (Rev 3:18). The same idea is reflected in the parables of the pearl of great price and the treasure hid in a field. One thing is needful. Everything depends on getting it.

In every image we have to ask what is the point of comparison. The two imagery words in our text hey and buy both make the same point: nothing is more important than obtaining salvation. Perhaps the word buy also carries some of the connotation of the colloquial English “Hey, I’ll buy that,” which means “I agree with that.”

How Does the EHV Compare to Other Bible Translations?

2017-08-28T00:00:00+00:00

Examples of how the EHV is set apart from other translations.

Wartburg Project Report 2017-08

2017-08-25T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2017-08

Why does the EHV use “through” instead of “by” in John 1:3, 10, and 1 Corinthians 8:6?

2017-08-03T00:00:00+00:00

The first verses of the Gospel according to St. John clearly state that the Son of God is true God. He is the Second Person of the Triune God. He always “was God” (Jn 1:1). He was eternally “with God” (Jn 1:2). He participated in the work of creation. The EHV translates John 1:3 this way:

3Through him everything was made, and without him not one thing was made that has been made.

The second half of the sentence reinforces what the first half is saying: Nothing was made without him. He participated in all of the work of creation. The English word “through” is the usual translation for the Greek term “dia” when it is paired with the genitive case. The EHV consistently translates this term that way. This translation of “through” is not incorrect. Anyone who accuses this translation of being incorrect is actually accusing Dr. Martin Luther who translated it that way in his 1545 German Bible (“durch”). Many others have offered the same translation in the verses you mention in your question. One was the Lutheran commentator, R. C. H. Lenski.
The EHV offers the same translation [of dia + the genitive] when it refers to God the Father in Hebrews 2:10, “Certainly it was fitting for God (the one for whom and through whom everything exists), in leading many sons to glory, to bring the author of their salvation to his goal through sufferings.” So we are certainly not somehow downgrading the deity of Christ. There is nothing wrong or incorrect about this standard translation. Quite often, the translator needs to distinguish between different prepositions in the immediate context.
Most translations use the term “through” [for dia + the genitive] in Matthew 1:22. EHV translates it this way: “All this happened to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet:”… In this particular passage a translator must distinguish between two Greek prepositions. The phrase “by the Lord” is the Greek hypo + the genitive. Consistently, the EHV renders hypo + the genitive with “by…” Here are a few examples from the Gospel according to St. Matthew:

Matthew 2:15 (EHV) This happened to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet: “Out of Egypt I called my son.”
Matthew 2:16 (EHV) When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Wise Men, he was furious. He issued orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and in all the surrounding countryside, from two years old and under. This was in keeping with the exact time he had learned from the Wise Men.
Matthew 3:13 (EHV) Then Jesus came from Galilee to be baptized by John at the Jordan.
Matthew 4:1 (EHV) Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the Devil.

The translation of “through” in John 1:3, 10, and 1 Corinthians 8:6 is not incorrect. It’s actually correct. We simply need to grasp more clearly what the Bible is teaching in these passages. According to Scripture the work of creation is preeminently ascribed to God the Father, the First Person of the Trinity. Consider how this is taught in 1 Corinthians 8:6:

… nevertheless for us there is one God—the Father, from [ex + genitive] whom all things exist, and we exist for him—and one Lord—Jesus Christ, through [dia + genitive] whom all things exist, and we exist through him (EHV).

Scripture teaches that God the Son (Second Person of the Trinity) and God the Holy Spirit (Third Person of the Trinity) cooperated in this work of creation. The “external works” of the Triune God are indivisible. Consider the working of the Triune God according to Hebrews 1:2, “In these last days, he has spoken to us by [en + dative] his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through [dia + genitive] whom he made the universe” (EHV). Martin Chemnitz serves as a reliable guide in the matter of these prepositions. He wrote:

Now we must not engage in arguments motivated merely by curiosity as to the difference of the persons in the work of creation, but rest content with that revelation that all things have been created by the eternal Father through the Son with the help of the Holy Spirit. This is what Gregory of Nazianzus has concluded from Rom. 11:36, “There is one Father “from” whom are all things, and the Son “through” whom are all things, and the Holy Spirit “in” whom are all things.” These points are not to be drawn in to suggest the inequality of the persons, as the Arians blasphemously asserted when they said that the Son was an instrument of God in the creation, as a woodsman uses an axe. “For these prepositions, ‘ “from,” “through,” and “in” says Nazianzus, “do not divide the nature, but express the properties of the one and unconfused nature.” [Martin Chemnitz and Jacob A. O. Preus, Loci Theologici, (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1989), p. 157.]

Johann Gerhard sounds very similar:

Therefore we conclude that creation is an undivided act of the one true God alone, namely, of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit… We should not dispute too inquisitively about the distinction of persons in the work of creation, but let us be content with the simple truth that the eternal Father created all things through His Son in the Holy Spirit. The fathers gather this proposition from Rom. 11:26. However, Nazianzen is correct in adding that those short words “ ‘from,’ ‘through,’ and ‘in’ do not divide His nature but express the properties of the one, unconfused nature.” Observe also that in Col. 1:16 all things are said to have been created “in the Son.” Chrysostom (on Hebrews 1, homily 2): “It is not as a heretic foolishly suspects, that the Son is some instrument of the Father, nor is He said to have created through Him as though He Himself could not create. Rather, just as the Father is said to judge through the Son because He begot the judge, so also He is said to work through the Son because it is clear that He begot the workman.” [Theological Commonplaces: On Creation… (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2013), p. 14.]

These quotations clearly show that the fact that a heretic might misuse a proper translation does not lead us to remove the translation from Scripture but to explain that translation in a proper way.
A fuller study of the doctrinal implications of prepositions will be presented in our forthcoming article "Those Pesky Prepositions."

Blessing God

2017-08-02T00:00:00+00:00

I noticed that the EHV translation sometimes refers to believers blessing God. I thought that God blesses us. Can we bless God, who needs nothing from us?

The Hebrew and Greek words for “bless” express the general meaning “to speak something good.”

The subject of these verbs is most often God. When God blesses us, he does not merely speak or promise good things to us. He provides good things to us.

God’s blessing us consists of three main steps: 1) God promises blessings; 2) God produces blessings; 3) God provides those blessings to us. The first use of “blessing” in Scripture is that God gives good things to believers.

But there is a second common use of “blessing” in Scripture, especially in Psalms. Believers are encouraged to bless God.

In Psalm 103 we bless God especially for spiritual blessings. In Psalm 104 we bless him for the blessings he gives us through creation and providence.

This second sense of “blessing” is very closely related to “praising” and “thanking,” but it cannot simply be interchanged with them. Hebrew uses distinct verbs to express each concept: bless is barak; praise is halal; thank is yadah. The EHV tries to preserve the distinction of these terms, so that we do not water down the rich variety of terms that the Spirit has provided in Scripture.

In short, God blesses us by giving us gifts. We bless God by praising him.

Closing Doxology of Psalm 72:

Blessed be the LORD God, the God of Israel,
who alone does marvelous deeds.
Blessed be his glorious name forever.
May the whole earth be filled with his glory.

Isn’t the term “aliens” confusing or offensive?

2017-08-02T00:00:00+00:00

An inescapable feature of living languages is that words have particular (or we could even say peculiar) meaning and different emotional impact in different contexts. An essential part of being literate is that readers have to adjust to different meaning in different contexts.

Some people have misgivings about the translation “aliens” because they think of ET. A stronger argument against “aliens” is that it may become politically incorrect if “illegal aliens” become “undocumented workers.”

We will first comment on the words aliens and foreigners in the Bible as a whole. This is an important issue in the Old Testament, in which the distinction of these terms expresses an important legal concept. The terms foreigners and aliens and temporary residents are not synonymous or interchangeable. They are overlapping but distinct categories.

The key Old Testament term in question is ger. Here is the EHV’s Old Testament rubric: Ger should be “resident aliens” or “aliens residing among you” in its first occurrence in a context, and “aliens” thereafter, particularly in political and legal contexts. Gerim were aliens permanently living in a land other than their place of origin. The term “foreigners” is not precise enough, because it is too inclusive a term. Not all foreigners were gerim. “Temporary residents” and “sojourners” are not precise enough either, because many gerim intended to stay in Canaan permanently, but they could never become “citizens.” Take the case of Isaac—he was native-born to Israel and was not a temporary resident, but he was still a ger in the view of his neighbors.

Early in the translation process for the EHV, we were almost convinced by the ET argument to move away from the term “resident aliens,” but when we were filling out some legal documents for our project, we accidentally discovered that “resident aliens” is still the legal term used in contemporary U.S. government documents. Even as I am writing this, the dispute over President Trump’s restriction on visitors from certain countries is very heated. The relevant laws governing the dispute, which are being read in the news media, repeatedly mention “aliens.”[1] The term still describes a recognized legal category (for how long, who knows?).

In most cases, therefore, our translators should stick with “resident aliens” or “aliens” for gerim; and use “foreigner” for combinations with nakri; “strangers” for zar; and “settlers among you” or “temporary residents” for toshav. The importance of preserving these distinctions is illustrated in the last verses of Exodus 12:

Foreigners and temporary residents could not eat the Passover; circumcised resident aliens could. NIV, NRSV, and now CSB, are almost the only other translations observing this distinction in Exodus 12, but they do not follow it consistently elsewhere. In some contexts, foreigner is not as precise as alien, so both terms must be used.

The legal distinction is less important in New Testament passages like 1 Peter 2:11, which is making a comparison rather than a legal distinction: “I urge you, as aliens and strangers in the world, to abstain from sinful desires, which war against your soul.” [2] Even here, the terms “aliens” and “temporary residents” express a Christian’s relationship to the world more precisely than terms like “strangers” and “refugees.”

There are many terms that might initially be confusing to readers because of the use or misuse of those terms in other contexts, but when it is necessary to observe precise distinctions, a translation must use the proper term and, if necessary, use footnotes to help readers understand. Fuller explanation sometimes must be left for study Bibles.

[1] In this U.S. Law Code, the term “alien” is used 355 times: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182 For example, the President of the United States read this paragraph to the press: “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.” The term “alien” is a proper legal term, a technical term of law.

[2] This is the only place the term “alien” is used in the EHV New Testament.

In Philippians 2:6 should "morphe" be translated "form" or "nature"?

2017-08-02T00:00:00+00:00

Is there a reason why the Greek word morphe in Philippians 2:6 is not being translated "form" and instead is rendered "nature"?

Here is the EHV translation:

In the study of Christian doctrine, Philippians 2 is one of the most challenging passages to teach, not only because the related topics of Christ’s two natures and his two states of humiliation and exaltation are so challenging for our reason to grasp, but because, although ancient and Reformation-era church fathers agree on the doctrine of Christ’s humiliation and exaltation, they do not agree on the handling of certain terms in Philippians 2.

They agree that when Christ was on earth all the fullness of the deity (the divine nature) dwelt in him, but Jesus did not hang on to living like God, but gave up the full and constant use of his divine attributes. (Jesus said that he, the omniscient God, did not know the day of judgment. He did not use his power to come down from the cross.) While he was on earth, Jesus took on the appearance of an ordinary, human man, and he lived like an ordinary man, not displaying his divine glory (except for rare exceptions like the Transfiguration). When he returned to heaven, he did not lay aside his human nature, but now that nature appears in the glorious form we see in Revelation 1.

Putting it another way, since the incarnation, Jesus has always possessed a complete human nature and the complete divine nature united in one person. He always possessed all the divine attributes, but he did not always use or display them. How this can be is a mystery.

Where there is a difference of exegetical opinion among various commentators on Philippians 2 is in the handling of the Greek word morphe. Should it be translated form or nature?

The best book on the person of Christ is The Two Natures of Christ by Martin Chemnitz. This is what he says about the term morphe.

Damascenus tells us that according to the usage of the ancient church, the terms essence or substance (Greek ousia), nature (phusis) and form (morphe) are synonyms and designate the same thing (Two Natures, p 29).
The well-known passage in Phil. 2:6–9 is also pertinent here. It deals with “the form of God,” “the form of a servant,” “the likeness of men,” and “the high exaltation of Christ.” The “form of God” by the unanimous testimony of the ancients is the divine nature or essence itself, according to which Christ by nature is equal with God, but not by robbery, such as Satan and Adam attempted. Furthermore, the term “form” (morphe) is used to designate a nature or essence endowed with peculiar attributes and conditions, divine or human, which is covered and ornamented with them, so to speak, as Augustine says … ad Petrum, “You must understand the ‘form of God’ as the natural fullness of God.” (Two Natures, p 326).

It seems wise to follow that opinion of Chemnitz, which is based on the consensus of the ancient fathers, even though Luther and others sometimes explain the term in a different way in some of their writings. When some Lutheran writers say that the morphe of God is not the divine nature, they are assuming that the morphe of God is the object of the verb “he emptied himself,” and they are correct to say that we cannot say that Jesus emptied himself of the divine nature. But in the Greek text the term the morphe of God is not the object of the verb “he emptied himself.” The text supplies no object for the verb, so we must deduce it from Scripture. What Jesus emptied himself of was not the divine nature, but the full and constant use of the attributes of that nature. Putting it another way, if the term the morphe of God was the object of the verb “emptied himself,” the morphe of God could not mean “the divine nature,” but this term is not the object of the verb “emptied himself,” so this objection to understanding the morphe of God as a reference to the divine nature, which was the unanimous opinion or the orthodox Greek fathers, is not necessary.

At the heart of the problem is that the Greek word morphe is often translated by the Latin word forma, and forma in turn is often translated or glossed by the English word form. The problem is that Latin forma and English form are false cognates. In dogmatics forma almost never means form. It usually means essence. The statement that “the forma of Scripture is the divinely intended meaning” cannot properly be translated “the form of Scripture is the divinely intended meaning.” It must be translated “the essence of Scripture is the divinely intended meaning.” Form and essence here are contrasted. In English, the “form” of Scripture refers to the outward form, the letters, the words, the sounds of the words. Even when the form (the Latin word is materia not forma) of Scripture (the sounds, the shape of the letters, even the language) changes, the essence (the divinely intended meaning) remains the same. That is why accurate translations convey the Word of God.

Since Latin forma and English form are false cognates, English readers are apt to read the word “form” as something less than the full divine nature. The term nature (or even essence) is better for conveying the meaning of the passage. Since the common English usage is to speak of the two natures of Christ, the term nature commends itself here, and it has no doctrinal downside as form does.

The problem word in this passage from a doctrinal point of view is the verb “emptied himself.” False teachers called the kenoticists (the emptiers) taught that Jesus emptied himself of some of the divine attributes. “Emptied himself” is indeed the expression in the original text, so we keep it. The fact that some false teachers misuse the term does not lead us to remove the term from Scripture or from our translations. Instead, we retain the scriptural term, but we explain the correct scriptural sense and reject the false interpretation of the term by the heretics.

Why is “koinonia” translated “communion” in 1 Corinthians 10:16-17?

2017-08-02T00:00:00+00:00

How is the EHV going to handle the Greek word koinonia in 1 Corinthians 10:16-17?

After considerable discussion, the EHV chose to retain/return to the familiar heritage term “communion,” which was the translation of the King James Version and which has become an important part of our theological vocabulary.

The biggest reason to restore the traditional translation communion is that, on the basis of this passage, the term Communion has been a common English name for the Lord’s Supper for hundreds of years, and we regularly refer to the recipients of the sacrament as communicants. If the term communion is not used in this passage, the link between the use of the term communion in Scripture and in our worship life is broken.

This use of the term is still standard English usage. A standard dictionary definition of the term communion includes these elements:

the service of Christian worship at which bread and wine are consecrated and shared.
the consecrated bread and wine so administered and received.
common participation in a mental or emotional experience or in a thing.

Another reason to use the term communion is that this term is embedded in the creeds and hymns of the church in a variety of uses. We regularly confess that we believe in the “communion of saints,” and we sing, “Oh blessed communion, fellowship divine.” The term communion is at home in the worship life of the church.

The translation communion, nevertheless, is not an easy or automatic choice in this verse, because koinonia is a complex term that has a number of shades of meaning and a number of applications. Common glosses for the term koinonia are communion, association, fellowship, close relationship, sharing, participation, and joint participation.

The creedal term “the communion of saints,” more literally, “the koinonia of the holy,” is itself an ambiguous phrase. It may refer to the fellowship of holy people or to the sharing of holy things. In the translation, the fellowship of holy people, the term is a description of the church of all believers, who are holy through the complete forgiveness they have in Christ. In the second translation, the sharing of holy things, communion refers to joint participation in the means of grace, especially the sacraments, the holy things.

Even in the Lord’s Supper, there are at least three different but related communions. One is the fellowship expressed between all the communicants who participate in the sacrament together. “Because there is one bread, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.” The second communion expressed in the sacrament is the fellowship we have with the Triune God for and through the forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ. “We are proclaiming what we have seen and heard also to you, so that you may have fellowship with us. Our fellowship is with the Father and his Son Jesus Christ. … If we walk in the light, just as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ, his Son, cleanses us from all sin” (1 John 1:3, 7). The third communion in the sacrament is the close relationship (or we may even say, the union) between the bread and the body of Christ and between the wine and the blood of Christ. “Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the Lord’s body and blood (1 Corinthians 11:27). The passage we are discussing here, 1 Corinthians 10:16, is also relevant to this third communion. These three communions make Communion a fitting name for the Sacrament.

But before we take a further look at this, let’s see how some other translations have handled this verse.

1 Corinthians 10:16 is a key passage concerning the nature of the Lord’s Supper.

Literal: The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a koinonia of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a koinonia of the body of Christ.KJV     The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
NKJV The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
EHV    The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a communion^* of the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a communion^* of the body of Christ?
*Or joint partaking
Luther Gemeinschaft des Blutes; GW: sharing the blood; GWN: a communion with the blood
NIV     Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?
ESV     The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?
HCSB The cup of blessing that we give thanks for, is it not a sharing in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a sharing in the body of Christ?
CSB     The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a sharing in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a sharing in the body of Christ?
AB      The cup of blessing of wine at the Lord’s Supper upon which we ask God’s blessing, does it not mean that in drinking it we participate in and share a fellowship (a communion) in the blood of Christ (the Messiah)? The bread which we break, does it not mean that in eating it we participate in and share a fellowship (a communion) in the body of Christ?
MSG   When we drink the cup of blessing, aren’t we taking into ourselves the blood, the very life, of Christ? And isn’t it the same with the loaf of bread we break and eat? Don’t we take into ourselves the body, the very life, of Christ?
LB       When we ask the Lord’s blessing upon our drinking from the cup of wine at the Lord’s Table, this means, doesn’t it, that all who drink it are sharing together the blessings of Christ’s blood? And when we break off pieces of bread from the loaf to eat there together, this shows that we are sharing together in the benefits of his body.

Discuss:

Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the translations “communion,” “participation,” “joint participation,” “sharing,” and “fellowship.”
Do the terms “participation” and “sharing” tend to focus attention on the actions of the recipients rather than the relationship of the elements?
Does “communion” focus attention more on the relationship of the earthly elements with Christ’s body and blood?
Does “blessing” focus more clearly on the consecration of the elements than the term “thanksgiving” does?
Is there a difference between “sharing in the blood” and “sharing the blood” and between “communion with the blood” and “communion of the blood”?
Do some of the translations import extraneous interpretation into the text?

The Living Bible transfers the blessing from the cup and its contents to our act of drinking. It changes “sharing the blood” into “sharing in the blessings of the blood.” The Message interprets “the blood” as a figurative reference to “the life of Christ.”

The Amplified Bible recognizes some of the difficulty of coming up with just one word to express the full meaning, by its translation that collates or blends two (or even three) thoughts: participate in/ and share a fellowship (a communion) in/ the blood of Christ. The translation joint participation also may allude to two communions.

So what are some to the factors that favor the translation communion from among the options available to us?

It restores the connection between 1 Corinthians 10:16 and the name Communion, which is an important term in the church’s theological and liturgical heritage.
It does not import any denominational interpretation into the text. It was the accepted rendering in all parts of the Protestant church for more than 400 years. It seems to have been introduced by the Geneva Bible, a predecessor of the KJV.
It indicates more clearly that the text does not say that our action of partaking of the cup is a koinonia of the blood of Christ, but that the cup is a koinonia of the blood of Christ. It most clearly recognizes the close relationship between the contents of the cup and Christ’s blood. The two parties in the communion of the Lord’s Supper are, first of all, the cup and Christ’s blood, not the action of the communicants and Christ’s blood.
Translations like participation introduce three parties into the koinonia: the act of participating, the blood of Christ, and the cup as the means of koinonia. While this is not wrong, it is not the direct meaning of a literal reading of the text.
This translation is open to the understanding that this verse alludes to the sacramental union.

The translations participation and communion can both be understood correctly, and both have been understood incorrectly, but communion best points to the simplest meaning of the text and best connects it with the historical language of the church.

Resources for further study:

David Kuske, “Exegetical Brief: Koinonia in 1 Corinthians 10:16—Participation or Partnership?” Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly, Fall 2004, p 284-286.

C. P. Krauth, The Conservative Reformation and Its Theology, Philadelphia, PA: J. B. Lippincott & Co., 1871, especially p 635-641.

Some other opinions:

Concerning the word koinonia, the church father Chrysostum argues that communion is a stronger term than participation: Why did [Paul in 1 Co 10:16] not say “participation” (metalepsis or metoche)? Because he intended to express something more, and to point out how close the union (henosis) was. We communicate not only by participating and partaking, but also by being united. For as that body is united with Christ, so we are also united with him by this bread” (A Select Library of Nicene and Post–Nicene Fathers, Vol. XII, p 139. Also cited in Krauth, p 635.)

Some argue that communion was originally intended by the Geneva Bible to be a weaker term than participation, and that communication would be a stronger term. But if that was once the case, 400 years of use have strengthened the term communion.

In the Formula of Concord, Article VII in 1 Corinthians 10:16, the Latin text uses the term communicatio but the English text usually renders this communion (Triglotta, p 812-813). The term communication of the body also occurs on Triglotta, p 974-975. On page 990 both communicatio and participatio are used. So the statements, “the cup is a communication of Christ’s blood” or “there is a close relationship of the contents of the cup and Christ’s blood,” are both true, but the church has traditionally expressed this relationship with the term communion.

S. J. Baumgarten: The communion of the cup with the blood of Christ can here be taken in a two-fold mode: 1) The cup stands in communion with the blood of Christ—is a means of offering it and imparting it. 2) The cup is a means of uniting the participants with the blood of Christ—the means whereby they are made participants of it. The second presupposes the first (cited in Krauth, p 640).

Did Israelites eat cheese curds like ours? (Isaiah 7)

2017-08-02T00:00:00+00:00

Answering that question is partly easy, partly hard. The easy part: Did Israelites eat cheese curds? The answer: Yes. The hard part: like ours? The possible answers to that are: yes, no, we don’t know, very likely. (The last answer is probably the best.)

The reason for this dilemma is a principle that is extremely important for Bible translators and Bible readers to remember: Hundreds, more likely thousands, of our translations are not exact matches but only analogies or partial overlaps with the Hebrew terms. One English word almost never lines up as an exact match with one Hebrew word. The words merely overlap to a greater or lesser degree. It may take several English terms to cover the ground covered by one Hebrew word and vice versa. For example, when we lived in Israel, we saw for sale at least four or five different things which we called yogurt, but all of them had different names in Hebrew and Arabic.

When people look at the world that God made and attempt to describe it, they divide it up into categories that make sense to them, but different languages draw the boundaries between categories in different places. For example, we have a category called “blue.” We recognize that the exact boundaries of “blue” are blurry, but we would be quite surprised at the color chips which some people would include or omit from their category which we translate as “blue.” The Hebrew terms which we translate blue, purple, and red are not perfect matches for those terms, but they are the best we can do.

Many, or even most, of our translations for biblical objects like colors, trees, gems, musical instruments, and so on, are only approximations that place us in the right ball park. They do not provide us with a precise picture of the object.

Take musical instruments for example. The Israelites had an instrument called chatsotserah. We translate chatsotserah as trumpet, but without reading study Bibles or commentaries, an English Bible reader will not have the right picture of the priests’ trumpets in his or her mind, because the Israelites’ “trumpet” was a long, straight, metal tube with a small bell and no valves. Our most viable choices for a translation of chatsotserah are trumpet, chatsotserah, or a long straight metal tube with a small bell and no valves. Given these options, trumpet seems to be the best approximation, to give readers the right idea. For further clarification, readers will have to look at descriptions and pictures of the ancient instruments.

Similar issues exist with our translations of harps, lyres, ram’s horns, and drums. These items are discussed elsewhere in our rubrics and FAQs.

In the food category we can consider five items: beer, wine, bread, honey, and cheese.

The two categories of alcoholic beverages in the Bible seem to be grape-based and grain-based. The current archaeological term for the ancient grain-based beverages is beer, not strong drink, which tends to make a person think of distilled or fortified beverages like brandy or whisky. The archaeological and historical evidence suggests that producing distilled alcoholic beverages was not part of the Israelite culture. Some major differences between ancient beer and our beer are that theirs was made from loaves of bread; it did not have hops; it had debris in it, so it was often drunk through straws; and fruit or honey were thrown in to aid fermentation. Contemporary beer-drinkers who sample “beer” made with the ancient recipes and by the ancient processes might say “That is not beer” or “Ancient beer is an acquired taste.” But since beer is the standard archaeological term for these ancient grain-based beverages and beer is the closest approximation to the ancient beverage, beer is the term EHV will use.

Purists would say nothing can properly be called wine unless it is made from grapes, but we, of course, have a proliferation of all kinds of “wine” (cherry, blueberry, dandelion). Without pasteurization or refrigeration, grape juice rather quickly changes from sweet “new wine” to a sour variety of wine. In some translations this is called vinegar, but this term may confuse readers, because there are many kinds of vinegar, and we generally do not drink vinegar but use it for cooking and pickling. So we translate this over-fermented beverage as sour wine, rather than vinegar. Such sour wine was, of course, cheaper and was a basic beverage for the lower classes.

The Hebrew dvash refers to honey made by bees and to sweet fruit syrup, often made from dates. To make it explicit when bee honey is intended, the Hebrew text sometimes adds a term like honey from the comb. EHV usually translates dvash as honey, except in contexts in which it is necessary to specify the other possibility. This is often done by a footnote.

Hebrew has numerous terms for various shapes and thicknesses of baked goods. Sometimes the context or the description of the process enables us to choose a translation like pancakes or flatbread. Older translations often refer to Israelites making cakes, but since this might made readers think of birthday cakes or something similar, for small baked goods a translation like rolls is less likely to give a wrong impression.

Another issue with grain products is the term grits. Grits are grain that has been cut or crushed. Steel-cut oats are a form of grits. When Americans hear the word grits, most will think of Southern-style, cooked corn grits. The biblical grits were quite different—obviously they were not made from maize corn but made from other grains. They were often roasted. Nevertheless, we use the word grits when it is the appropriate word to describe an Israelite grain product. That doesn’t make EHV a Southern or American translation.

So what about dairy products, which precipitated the question? We tend to think of four major categories: milk, butter, cheese, and yogurt. It is very clear the Hebrews did not draw their boundaries in the same places that we do.

If we offered Israelites a drink of some of our so-called milk, they would likely say, “Milk? That is not milk. That is whey.” (Whey is the thinnish liquid that is left after all the “good stuff” is taken out of the whole milk.) For dairy advocates, the term milk raises the same question that wine does. Can a product made from cashews or almonds properly be called milk, or is that honored title reserved for products from cows, sheep, goats, and camels? Language and life are complicated.

It appears that none of the dairy products mentioned in the Bible is a very close approximation of our butter, which we generally do not eat but use as a spread or an ingredient, but the term butter does appear in many older translations. See the further comments below.

There are five biblical expressions that are approximations of the term cheese. Can we distinguish them?

In 1 Samuel 17:18 we find the term that turns out to be the best approximation of our term cheese: David takes ten blocks of cheese to the commander of his brothers’ unit in the army. The literal Hebrew expression is ten cuts of milk. So it appears that a cut of milk is the biblical Hebrew term for what we would call block or sliced cheese.

Another biblical term for cheese is gevinah. It probably refers to more solid forms. This is also the modern Hebrew term for cheese.

Job 10:10: “Aren’t you the one who poured me out like milk, who thickened me like a curd of cheese?”

The progression of the comparison in this verse is from the liquid of the semen to the solid mass of the embryo. Here the term curd of cheese works better than piece of cheese, because that could be understood as a slice.

The Hebrew word that most concerns us here is chemah and its variants.

In 2 Samuel 17:29, David receives a gift of honey, cheese curds, sheep, and cheese from cow’s milk. Here cheese curds is our translation of the word chemah, which traditionally has been translated butter.

This term chemah appears also in the following passages, which will give a fuller picture of the range of dairy products included in chemah. The second term translated cheese is shephoth, which quite possibly is a form of yogurt made from cow’s milk, but since we don’t know, for now we have kept the term cheese. (Incidentally, today the generic Hebrew term for yogurt is yogurt.) Did you notice the other cultural difference lurking here? We generally assume cheese is made from cow’s milk, and we must label it if it is not—for example, goat cheese. For Israelites it was the opposite—they would assume it was sheep or goat cheese unless it was labeled cow cheese. Life and language are complicated.

Proverbs 30:33 is a passage that might seem to support the translation of butter for chemah. It is sometimes translated: “churning milk (or cream) produces butter, and punching a nose brings forth blood,” but it could also be translated “pressing milk produces cheese curds.”

Chemah (or a related word) occurs in five other passages.

Genesis 18:8: Abraham took cheese curds, milk, and the calf that he had prepared and set it before the visitors.

There is no clear indication of the form of cheese here.

Job 20:17: “He will not see the streams, the rivers which flow with honey and cream.”

Here the chemah is as flowing as the honey, so cream is better than curds and more appetizing to most of us than curdled milk.

Psalm 55:21
His flattery is as smooth as butter…
His words are more soothing than oil.

Here the comparison requires that the chemah flows like oil, and our idioms of smoothness suggests the translation butter. (A variant form of the root chamah is used here. Perhaps this signifies a distinction from regular chemah.)

Judges 5:25
Sisera asked for water, but Jael gave him milk.
In a bowl fit for a nobleman she presented cheese curds.

The prose account mentions only milk to drink, so if this poetic couplet is synonymous parallelism, the chemah is liquid enough to be drunk. If that is the case, the translation should be changed to curdled milk. But many of our readers might find cheese curds more appealing than curdled milk, so this maybe is a toss-up.

Ezekiel 34:3: The bad shepherds eat the curds, wear the wool, and slaughter the fattened ones—but they do not shepherd the flock.

Here the word translated curds is literally fat. It is not the fat off the meat, but the fat in the milk. (With a slight change of the Hebrew vowels, this verse could be literally translated they eat the milk.) Since they are eating the milk, it must be in solid form, as the blocks of milk were in the passage cited above. If we elsewhere translate solid forms of chemah as cheese curds, using the simple term curds here will distinguish the two Hebrew terms. Some translations use the more literal rendering fat in this verse. This brings out another problem. In the Bible, fat is the best of foods, worthy of being offered to the LORD. Because of the feeling against fat food in some parts of our culture, EHV generally translates fat food with something like rich food or the best food.

Isaiah 7:15 Immanuel eats cheese curds and honey. This is the passage that raised the question.

So what do we conclude?

The Hebrew term that most closely matches our term cheese is cuts of milk.
We do not know the exact difference between gevinah and We generally translate gevinah as cheese since gevinah is the modern Hebrew term for cheese. Quite possibly gevinah is less liquid than chemah.
Chemah has soft, flowing forms and more solid forms. We translate the liquid forms as cream, curdled milk, or some such term. It includes forms we would call cottage cheese. We translate the solid forms as cheese curds or some such term. A factor is whether people are eating or drinking the chemah.
When the Hebrew term fat refers to a solid dairy product that is eaten, we call it curds.

So how does chemah compare to the cheese curds most familiar to us? Sometimes it is more liquid and more like yogurt. If it has been dried for a long time, it is probably harder and more crumbly, to the degree we might not call it cheese curds any more. We expect cheese curds to be fresh and squeaky.

Why do we sometimes use cheese curds as a translation for chemah instead of the short form curds? Curds would be fine in many contexts, since most (but not all) curds are curdled milk, but cheese curds may sometimes be clearer for some hearers for a number of reasons. It is more specific for hearers who are aware of other kinds of curds, such as bean curd tofu. (British curds, for example, are made with eggs and butter and flavored with fruit.) It is also clearer for people who are not familiar with curds as part of their food vocabulary (more people than Wisconsinites might think). The addition of cheese to the translation immediately signals the category to the person who is listening to a read text. Most important, cheese curds is a standard term on menus, packaging, and advertising from Quebec to California. The first time I searched the term buy cheese curds I got hundreds, even thousands of offers. When I searched buy curds, I got many offers to buy cards. But Google is a fast learner—from then on it could also find curds when I searched that term. We are confident EHV readers will quickly pick up new terms because they understand that words are used many ways, and we can’t confine them to our pigeon holes. They will understand that language is so horribly (or should we say so marvelously) complex, that every term has many nuances to different people in different places, but if readers pay attention they will pick these up.

Cheese curds, for example, may conjure up different pictures to different people. Quebec is second to Wisconsin in producing cheese curds, and there the term cheese curds is used in recipes for poutine, the popular way of serving cheese curds in French-speaking areas—a pile of French fries, topped by white cheese curds, drenched with gravy. No, cheese curds are not just breaded, fried, orange, cheddar cheese clumps. Fried cheese curds are kind of a Wisconsin thing (though catching on elsewhere)—cheese curds are not. In fact, since the terms cheese curds and fried cheese are sometimes distinguished, technically fried cheese curds are no longer cheese curds. Sorry, Culvers J. As long as readers know what cheese curds look like when they are the raw ingredient, the term will give readers the right picture whether they eat them battered and fried, or drenched in gravy. If they don’t know what curds look like, the added word cheese will help them understand. Life and language are complicated, and we have to be open-minded and alert to figure them out.

Cheese curds is a standard term in contemporary usage, and our practice is to use the best contemporary terms even when they are only analogous, not exact matches. Making more precise matches is the work for the study aids.

This principle of analogy also applies to terms of doctrinal significance. The LORD is a jealous God, but his jealousy is not identical to ours. The Bible often uses terms to describe God that are only analogous to the application of the same terms to humans. In these cases, explaining the points of similarity and difference in the analogy has doctrinal implications. The analogy between ancient dairy products and our dairy products does not, but we still try to get the closest match-up, leaving it to the thoughtfulness and good will of our readers and hearers and to the various study aids to elaborate on the points of comparison.

Who would have thought simple daily food could be so complicated!

The Astronomical Dating of Ancient History Before 700 B.C.

2017-07-23T00:00:00+00:00

Can we rely on historical dates determined by astronomy?

Wartburg Project Report 2017-07

2017-07-18T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2017-07

Wartburg Project Report 2017-06

2017-06-06T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2017-06

Wartburg Project Report 2017-05

2017-05-23T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2017-05

Principles of Bible Translation Applied to Prophecy

2017-05-01T00:00:00+00:00

Translating Messianic prophecies in the Old Testament with an emphasis on direct prophecies.

Wartburg Project Report 2017-04

2017-04-18T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2017-04

The Problem of Blunt Language in the Bible

2017-04-05T00:00:00+00:00

Should we be euphemistic or direct in translating sexual language in the Bible?

Wartburg Project Report 2017-03

2017-03-27T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2017-03

Wartburg Project Report 2017-02

2017-02-25T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2017-02

Wartburg Project Report 2017-01

2017-01-11T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2017-01

What were the greatest difficulties encountered in producing the EHV?

2016-12-21T00:00:00+00:00

It goes without saying that producing a Bible translation is a tremendous undertaking. What are the greatest difficulties you encountered in producing the EHV?

The first one obviously is the sheer volume of the project. A typical English translation of the Bible fills more than 1500 pages of text. The original text was written in three languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek). The books were written over a period of 1500 years with all the changes of alphabet, grammar, spelling, and style which that implies. The only solution to this problem is allowing enough time and exercising enough patience to keep working through the mountain of text.

Sometimes the original language of the text, especially in the Old Testament, is extremely difficult. Sometimes the difficulty is due, at least in part, to the subject matter, for example, in the difficult task of translating the description of Solomon’s Temple. Knowledge of ancient temples and of ancient and contemporary building techniques can help resolve some of the translation difficulties, but, at times, the translation remains uncertain. The same situation exists in the translation of the names of musical instruments and other musical terms. The growing amount of information about ancient music can help the translator, but here too there is a big cultural gap that must be bridged.

In some cases, the difficulty is due to the peculiar dialect of the language. The book of Job is written in a dialect that is not standard Judean Hebrew. There are many rare words and difficult passages. One blessing that helps the translator is that most of the book of Job is written in poetic parallelism, in which alternate lines echo each other. Something which is obscure in one line may be expressed more clearly in the corresponding line. In especially difficult cases, translators have to do the best they can, relying on the meaning of the parallel line as their best resource. Job provides a good illustration of the principle that a translator cannot allow a quest for “the perfect” to stand in the way of achieving “the possible.” When commentaries are laden with a half dozen or more options for a given expression in Job (some of which are very different from each other) since the EHV is a Bible intended for general use, it seems wisest for the translator to choose one meaning that fits the context well (and perhaps one other to be used in a footnote) and not to bog down the text and confuse the reader with too many options.

The texts of the Bible were written in a culture (or more accurately in cultures) very far removed from our cultures. This applies not only to material things but to the whole structure of society. Geographical, archaeological, and historical resources can help bridge the gap, especially in regard to material goods and historical events. Ancient documents, such as ancient law codes, can also provide some insights into law, family life, and the structures of society in biblical times, but in this situation there is no substitute for a careful study of the whole biblical text to gain a better understanding of issues such as the relationships of men and women, parents and children, slaves and masters, and so on.

Sometimes this difficulty involves different value systems and different values, but sometimes it simply involves very different ways of expressing the same basic values. The Song of Songs has many expressions of ideal feminine beauty. The lady is like a horse; her hair is like a flock of goats; her nose is like a tower. Many of these pictures do not resonate with contemporary urban Americans, but a translator’s job is not to re-write or update the Bible but to transmit it. Translators should not gut the ancient culture by eliminating its pictures and making its poetry prosaic. In many cases (maybe even in most cases) translators should keep the ancient pictures and leave it to modern readers and teachers to search out the right meaning, sometimes with the help of footnotes. Just as careful listening and thoughtful consideration of what people are saying is essential when we are trying to communicate with someone from a contemporary culture that is very different from our own, this is doubly true when we are trying to communicate with people from a distant time and place.

Sometimes the problem is that it is difficult to find one good translation for a verse (see the comments on Job above), but sometimes the problem is the opposite—there are a half dozen good translations for a given passage. Strange as it seems, this situation can be more time-consuming for translators and editors than the first situation. When translators are struggling to come up with even one really solid translation, all they can do is write it down and move on (at least for the time being). When there are many credible options, it is easy for translators to get bogged down in debating options and going round in circles. This is true, for example, when there are four reviewers for a given passage and each reviewer prefers a different option for the translation (a situation not as uncommon as you might think). Carefully considering which option will communicate most clearly is a valuable exercise and should not be cut short, but once again a quest for “perfection” cannot stand in the way of the “possible.” Even when there is no clear-cut basis for choosing one option over the other, a choice finally has to be made, and only one person will get his or her first choice. The rest have to say, “Well, I can live with that choice, even though mine was clearly better.” Such is the nature of a collaborative translation.

Sometimes difficulties arise due to different structures and practices of the two languages. The interplay of nouns and pronouns is probably the area in which translators most often must depart from a word-for-word rendering of the original text. English often requires a noun where Hebrew might use a pronoun and vice versa. English style does not permit use of a pronoun unless there is a clear antecedent in the near vicinity. In cases in which a Hebrew pronoun does not follow its antecedent closely enough to fit English style, translators often have to replace the pronoun with the appropriate noun to make it clear who is being referred to (for example, “Moses” rather than “he”). English style normally does not permit use of a pronoun before a noun has been mentioned as its antecedent. Hebrew does. On the other hand repeating the same noun over and over again, which is not uncommon in Hebrew, sounds strange in English. So for readability and to avoid a perception of grammatical and stylistic errors, pronoun usage in the EHV normally follows English usage. But if the biblical author is using pronouns to build suspense by withholding the identity of the referent, a translator should keep the suspense.

Sometimes the standard of politeness is different in the two cultures. Me and you is perfectly fine in Hebrew, but you and me is more polite in English. To avoid the impression of grammatical error, the EHV usually follows the proper English order, unless it seems that there is some special significance to the Hebrew order.

English quotation marks indicate a change of speakers in conversations. Because quotation marks are not part of the Hebrew text, they present a special problem for translators. Inserting quotation marks is always an act of interpretation. Sometimes this is quite easy because there are words like “Moses said” introducing the quotation or a word that signals a quotation such as the Hebrew lemor, which means saying. At other times, there are changes of speakers that are not marked in the Hebrew text. At still other times, it is uncertain whether there is a change of speakers.

In nested quotations, in which quotations lie within other quotations, the American English practice is to alternate sets of “ and ‘. Trying to follow this practice in translating the biblical text would lead to many cases that would look like this: “quote”’” or even an occasional “quote”’”’”. This is confusing and seldom useful. To minimize this the EHV treats long speeches, prophecies, etc., as documents in their own right. They are set off by special indentation and they do not begin and end with quotation marks. This greatly reduces instances of.”’”

Another problem is the sentence: “This is what the LORD says.” Many translations treat this as an introduction to a quotation and add another set of quotation marks at each occurrence. But this phrase usually does not function as the introduction of new speech or speaker. It is intended to be an assertion of the authority of the words that follow. It may, in fact, occur several times within one quotation. For this reason, EHV does not treat every “This is what the LORD says” as a signal which triggers another set of quotation marks. The EHV’s practice to reduce swarms of quotation marks will strike readers as different at first, but they will grow to appreciate the absence of the annoying swarms.

A somewhat similar issue is that Hebrew does not have the same structure and differentiation of direct and indirect questions that English does, so sometimes Hebrew direct questions have to be converted to English indirect questions.

Sometimes the simplest things can become time-consuming, for example, commas. It is very common that one reviewer is taking out commas that another reviewer put in and vice versa. In a translation like the EHV, which will be used frequently in public reading, the most important function of commas is to help the reader place pauses in the spots which help the listener grasp the flow of the sentence. This function is more important than conforming mechanically to abstract rules about punctuation. The purpose of punctuation is to help writers convey meaning. It is not the purpose of writers to serve rules of punctuation.

This is true also of other punctuation such as the question mark. These two sentences have the same form but not the same meaning: “What do you know?” and “What do you know!” (Actually, in conversation the second one is often pronounced, “Whadda ya know!” but it can’t be written that way.) Only the writer’s choice of punctuation directs the reader to the right inflection of the sentence. What inflection does the question mark suggest in this sentence: “Really?”

Sometimes the issues are matters of taste not principle, and there can be no disputing matters of taste. To use the theological term, these issues fall into the realm of adiaphora. But people sometimes have strong feelings about adiaphora. One illustration of this problem is the difference between formal textbook grammar and informal conversational grammar. If Jesus says, “Who are you looking for?” many readers will say “Jesus would not use bad grammar.” If Jesus says, “For whom are you looking?” or better yet, “Whom seekest thou?” another set of readers will say, “Nobody talks like that.”

A similar emotional issue arises in dealing with the strongly sexual language in some Bible passages. The Bible in most cases uses euphemistic terms for sexual matters, but some passages are very blunt. English readers are often unaware of these jarring statements because English translations often hide them behind euphemistic alterations of the language. But do translators have authority to censor the Holy Spirit? These two issues are dealt with in our online course and the article, “Between a Rock and a Hard Place,” in our library section, so specific examples will not be discussed here.

Sometimes grammatical conventions change so abruptly that the translator is caught in a whirlpool. For hundreds of years it was not the custom to capitalize pronouns that refer to God. During the 20th century this became common place, and many people think that this was always the practice. More recently, when there was a return to the practice of non-capitalization of such pronouns, this was interpreted by some people as diminishing God’s honor, but, in fact, it was simply a return to the traditional practice, which agrees with the practice of the original Hebrew and Greek texts. For further discussion of this issue read EHV FAQ #3.

Another emotional issue involves the text to be translated. Because some recent translations that are perceived to be liberal by some readers have shorter texts than the King James Version does, the whole topic of textual criticism is suspect for many Bible readers. But properly practiced, with presuppositions of faith, textual criticism strengthens our confidence in the text transmitted to us. The EHV follows a fuller text than most recent translations, except for those that follow the King James text almost exactly, but since some Bible readers have doubts about any textual criticism, careful explanation is necessary. EHV FAQ #10 discusses this, and other articles on the topic are forthcoming. The textbook Old Testament Textual Criticism by John Brug discusses this topic at great length, with an emphasis on Luther’s role as a pioneer of textual criticism.

Sometimes a situation is such a mess that no reasonable, consistent solution is anywhere in sight. An example of such a mess is the spelling of place names and personal names in the Bible. A tug-of-war is going on between preserving the traditional spellings, which are largely based on the Greek and Latin spellings rather than on the Hebrew text, and the desire to bring the English spelling closer to the Hebrew. All the systems in use, including ours, are riddled with inconsistencies. To compound the problem there is a lot of inconsistency of spelling within the original biblical text itself. This huge mess will receive its own article, but there is a preview in FAQ #17.

These are a few examples of the many ways in which translators find themselves between a rock and a hard place, knowing that no matter which option they choose some readers will think it is wrong. But these dilemmas do not discourage them because they know that there is one solution to all these dilemmas: a combination of study, patience, and cooperation. One of the great blessings of a project like the EHV (maybe as great or greater than the end product) is that it prompts Bible readers and translators to a more careful study of the original text and to a more careful study of the principles and practices of Bible translation. An even greater comfort to translators is expressed by a key principle set forth in Lutheran theology: “The essence of Scripture is not the shape of the letters or the sound of the words but the divinely intended meaning.” If a translation conveys that meaning, it is delivering the Word of God, regardless of what the letters look like or how the words are pronounced, whether the language is a bit stuffy or archaic or a bit too casual for the tastes of some. The external forms change (indeed they must if they are to keep communicating), but the meaning, the essence of the Word of God, must remain forever.

This article is just a sample of key issues, for many more examples see our 40 pages of rubrics and guidelines which can be downloaded from our Wartburg Project website.

What features of the EHV set it apart from other translations?

2016-12-21T00:00:00+00:00

Since popular contemporary translations cover a wide range of goals and styles, from the quite literal (NASB) to the very free (The Message), any specific comments we make about features of the EHV in order to contrast it to other translations will apply more directly to some translations than to others, but since we are aiming for a balanced, central position in the spectrum of Bible translations, most of the following comparisons will differentiate the EHV from both ends of the spectrum. Rather than comparing the EHV directly with specific translations, this article will address the more general question, “What are some features of the EHV that might strike first-time readers as different from what they are used to in their current Bible translation?”

Balance

A key word for the EHV in defining our goals is balance. The goal of our project is to produce a balanced translation, suitable for all-purpose use in the church.

We seek a balance between the old and the new. We respect and try to preserve traditional terms that are well established in the worship life of the church, but the EHV does introduce some new terms in those places where a traditional translation no longer communicates clearly. These new terms will be explained in the footnotes at the places where they are introduced.

We seek a balance between the poles of so-called literal and dynamic equivalent theories of translation. A translator should not adhere too closely to any one theory of translation because literalistic, word-for-word translations sometimes convey the wrong meaning, or they do not communicate clearly in the receiving language. Overly free translations deprive the reader of some of the expressions, imagery, and style of the original.

Translators will strive for a balance between preserving the original meaning of the text and producing English which sounds natural, but the preservation of meaning takes priority.

We seek a balance between formality and informality. The Bible contains many types of literature and different levels of language, from the very simple to the very difficult. For this reason, the translator should not be too committed to producing one level of language but should try to reproduce the tone or “flavor” of the original.

We place a priority on producing a fuller representation of the biblical text which has been transmitted to us than many recent translations do. The EHV includes readings which are supported by ancient manuscript evidence but which are omitted in many other recent translations, because those translations tend to focus on certain parts of the manuscript evidence rather on than the whole range.

We place a priority on prophecy, so our translation and notes strive to give clear indications of Messianic prophecy.

The EHV is committed to using archaeology, geography, and history to provide a clearer understanding of the original meaning of the biblical text, and this will be reflected both in the translation and the footnotes.

Let’s look at some specific examples that illustrate these principles.

Balancing Old and New

The EHV has a goal of preserving familiar expressions in well-known passages, but if the traditional reading or term is not very precise or clear, we give priority to expressing the meaning of the original text more clearly.

We make an effort to retain key terms that appear in the creeds, catechisms, liturgy, and hymnals. We preserve heritage terms like sanctify, justify, covenant, angels, and saints, but not to the exclusion of explanatory terms like make holy, declare righteous, holy people, etc. EHV keeps traditional names like the Ark, the Ark of the Covenant, the manger, etc. A translation that gets too far ahead of the worship life of the church does not serve well as an all-purpose translation.

We try to reflect common biblical expressions like “the flesh,” “walk with God,” “in God’s eyes,” “set one’s face against,” “burn with anger,” and “listen to the voice.” Our goal is not to preserve Hebrew or Greek grammatical idioms for their own sake, but to preserve important biblical expressions and imagery and, when possible, biblical word-play. We do not, however, slavishly preserve these expressions in contexts in which they sound strange in English.

That being the case, what are some examples of specific cases in which we feel clear communication and a closer reflection of the emphasis of the biblical text requires a change of the traditional terms.

Amen

The first EHV distinctive that caught readers’ attention was how often in the gospels Jesus says “Amen, Amen, I say to you.” Readers were used to reading, “Verily, verily or truly, truly, I say to you.” Why the change?

“Truly I say to you” or “I tell you the truth” both convey a clear meaning, but “truly” or “truth” are not the words Jesus uses in the Greek text. Jesus consistently is quoted as using the Hebrew word amen. Jesus was introducing a new word for the use of the church, and Jesus’ use of the term is the basis for the popularity of amen in the epistles and Revelation and in the life of the church.

One of our translation principles is that we try to follow not only the theological intent of the text but also the literary intent. That is why one of our rubrics says, “Hebrew/Aramaic words used in Greek text should remain Hebrew: Amen, halleluia, abba, maranatha, raca, talitha qum, etc.” When the inspired writers use a Hebrew word in a Greek text, they have a reason to do so, and translators should respect their intention.

Our FAQ #1 provides a more detailed discussion of this issue.

LORD of Armies

The Hebrew Adonai Sebaoth has traditionally been translated LORD of Hosts or LORD Sebaoth. In contemporary English the word host usually refers to a party host or a communion host, but the Hebrew term here refers to those engaged in military service. So EHV translates LORD of Armies. If the LORD rules the army of heaven (the angels) and the army of the heavens (the stars), he rules everything.

The Dwelling

The portable sanctuary built by Moses has traditionally been called the Tabernacle, but the only tabernacles around today are the Mormon one in Salt Lake City and the containers in which the host is reserved in Catholic churches. The Hebrew word mishkan means dwelling place, so EHV calls the movable sanctuary the Dwelling (mishkan) or the Tent (ohel) depending on which Hebrew word is used in the original. The term dwelling also helps the reader connect God’s presence in the Dwelling with the many New Testament references to God dwelling with us.

Festivals and Sacrifices

Israel’s autumn festival has traditionally been called the Feast of Tabernacles. The word tabernacle here is not the Hebrew word mishan, mentioned above, but a different Hebrew word, sukkot, which means temporary shelters. The EHV, therefore, calls the fall festival Festival of Shelters (with a footnote: Traditionally, Tabernacles). The older names for the festival, Tabernacles and Booths do not convey a clear meaning. Booths sounds like a commercial structure or a voting booth. The term shelters more clearly conveys the nature of the festival, in which the Israelites lived in temporary shelters, and it more clearly differentiates the two Hebrew words.

For the other festivals EHV uses whatever term most clearly reflects the Hebrew text. The Passover is Passover or Festival of Unleavened Bread, depending on what the original text has. Pentecost is Pentecost, Festival of Weeks, or Festival of Reaping, depending on what the original has.

For the prescribed offerings EHV uses a mixture of old and new terms—whatever term will most clearly indicate the nature of the offering. The four main offerings are the whole burnt offering, the fellowship offering (traditionally peace offering), the sin offering, and the restitution offering (traditionally guilt offering). Though the Hebrew word minchah literally means “gift,” because the minchah always consisted of grain products, we will call the minchah, grain offerings, even though this is not a very literal translation. For the offerings of wine and beer drink offerings is the term used rather than libations, since drink offerings is easier to understand. EHV uses Bread of the Presence for the showbread. Other recent translations also use this term.

Atonement Seat

Concerning the name of the lid over the Ark of the Covenant, there are two competing traditions. The most recent one is “atonement cover.” The traditional translation “mercy seat” is based on Luther’s Gnadenstuhl, “throne of grace.” Luther’s translation was theologically brilliant, because it recognized that this object was more than a lid or cover for a box—God was enthroned above it, and the blood of atonement was being presented there at the foot of his throne. But “mercy” is not a very precise rendering of the Hebrew kopher. “Atonement” is better. “Cover,” on the other hand, misses an important point. The atoning blood was being presented to the LORD at the foot of his throne. The EHV combines the best of the old and new traditions into “atonement seat, ”since this most clearly brings out the meaning of the text and gets the reader looking in the right direction—not down at the tablets of the law, but up to the throne of the gracious God.

Ephod

Our names for the high priest’s garments are special vest or vest (with the footnote ephod); chest pouch or pouch; robe; tunic; sash around the waist; band on the vest; turban for the priest; small pointed turban for the regular priests unless we can come up with something better that is also accurate (caps does not do it); and medallion (tzitz) and crest (netzer) on the turban.

Most translations despair of finding any translation for ephod, so they just keep the Hebrew word ephod. But this term communicates nothing. The description of the ephod in Exodus makes it clear this was a vest-like garment (actually sort of like a scrimmage vest), so the EHV calls it a special vest.

Serens

Most translations call the rulers of the five Philistine city states the lords of the Philistines, but the word used in the original is not a Hebrew word meaning lord. Seren is a special word used only of the rulers of the five Philistine city states. It seems to be a Philistine term. It may be related to the Greek word tyrant, an autocratic ruler of a city state. (One Philistine inscription, in fact, spells it trn.) Seren is a title like pharaoh or czar, which is applied to one specific class of rulers. Since this is a unique title, the EHV uses the transliteration seren rather than the traditional rendering lord. The Bible uses a unique word here, so we do too.

Children of Adam

The Hebrew BneAdam (sons of adam/Adam) often simply refers to mankind in general, but children of Adam may be appropriate in some contexts, such as those alluding to original sin. It is true that all sinners are properly called mankind or humans, but that is because they are children of Adam.

Measurements

In dealing with measurements some translations put the ancient measurement in the text and a modern equivalent in a footnote. The EHV, for the most part, uses modern measurements in the text and puts the ancient term in the footnote. This is much smoother for the reader.

Archaeology, Geography, and History

Archaeology

Brass or Bronze?

Older translations often say that the furnishings in the temple were made of brass, probably because the furnishing on the translators’ church altars were brass. But analysis of metal objects from the biblical period, including coins, shows that objects with a copper base were made from some form of bronze. Pure copper is too soft to be used for utilitarian objects such as tools. The EHV therefore there calls biblical coins and furnishings bronze, not brass or copper. Although Hebrew uses the same word for both copper and bronze, EHV calls the ore copper and the objects bronze.

Tambourines or Drums?

Older and even more recent translations often refer to tambourines in the Bible, but ancient pictures indicate that the instrument in question (Hebrew tof) was not a hollow circle with rattlers on it, which was meant to be shaken, but a small hand drum, meant to be struck. So EHV regularly refers to drums or hand drums. The Israelites did also have rattles, shaped somewhat like a baby rattle. This instrument is called a sistrum. It, of course, would be possible to combine both a drum and tambourine into one instrument.

In the same way, many translations are careless about distinguishing the stringed instruments kinnor and nebel. It is possible that both of these are four-sided lyres (harps have three sides), but the EHV tries to be consistent in distinguishing kinnors and nebels as lyres and harps respectively. In the same way the EHV tries to consistently distinguish three wind instruments: shofar=ram’s horn or horn, yobel=special ram’s horn, and hatsotserah=trumpet.

None of these issues affect doctrine, but observing distinctions shows respect for the text.

Beer, Liquor, or Strong Drink?

Many translations refer to the two categories of alcoholic beverages that appear in the Bible as wine and strong drink or some such term. Strong drink tends to make one think of distilled or fortified beverages like brandy or whisky. The archaeological and historical evidence is that producing this type of alcoholic beverages was not part of the Near Eastern culture (though some dispute this). The two categories of alcoholic beverages in the Bible appear to be grape-based and grain-based. The current archaeological term for these ancient grain-based beverages is beer. The similarities and differences between ancient beer and our beers that descend from it is a study in itself, perhaps a topic for another FAQ. Since beer is the standard archaeological term for these ancient grain-based beverages, it is the term EHV will use.

Horsemen or Charioteers?

The account in Exodus of Pharaoh’s army being overwhelmed by the Red Sea uses a word pair often translated chariots and horsemen. Archaeological and textual evidence indicates that mounted cavalry was not in general use in the Near East before the Assyrian period in the 8^th century BC, so this word pair in most cases probably refers to chariots and charioteers.

An interesting question in the translation of biblical battle scenes and military rosters is at what point of military history we can begin to refer to horseback riders and cavalry. All the way down through the times of Ahab, in both biblical and secular sources we have no evidence for any significant action by cavalry. The mobile strike forces are chariots not cavalry. At about this time, Assyrian reliefs picture soldiers shooting bows from horseback. At first horsemen functioned as mobile, mounted infantry, who served as scouts and perhaps as pursuit forces, but not as attack forces to win pitched battles. One reason is that before the invention of stirrups and treed saddles a horse is not a particularly good battle platform. It seems clear that battles were fought by chariots not cavalry, though some survivors may have fled on horseback. The first really significant use of cavalry as a major component of winning battles in the ancient Near East was by Alexander the Great. It is perhaps significant that in ancient pictures Alexander is pictured on horseback, but the Persian king fights from a chariot, which was already becoming obsolete except in parades and on race tracks.

The translation issue then is how we should translate the Hebrew word parosh. When is it charioteers and when is it horsemen? Since the battles recorded in the Old Testament involve chariots not cavalry, it seems that parosh should usually be translated charioteer rather than horseman. The term charioteers includes the drivers and the archers or spearmen who fought from the chariot.

1 Kings 20:20 may be the first clear reference to flight on horseback, but verse 21 makes it clear that this battle was a chariot battle rather than a cavalry battle. It seems clear that the four horsemen in Zechariah 1 are mounted riders, but they are scouts more than attackers. In most biblical texts the ratio of paroshim to chariots is appropriate for the paroshim to be chariot crews. So in the absence of any evidence for cavalry action and in the presence of clear evidence for the dominant role of chariots, EHV usually translates parosh as charioteer. This case illustrates the need for translators to look beyond the dictionary meaning listed for a word to the context both in the text and outside of the text.

Geography

In geographical references some translations use the ancient name of the place; others use the modern name. In general EHV uses modern names for well-known geographical features like the Dead Sea, the Mediterranean, etc., but provides footnotes to the ancient names. An exception is when one ancient name is explained in terms of another. Then the ancient names have to be in the text and the modern name in the note (Example: the Sea of the Arabah is the Salt Sea. ^FootnoteThat is, the Dead Sea). In some ancient stories such as the stories in Genesis, it might be more appropriate to use the old name in the text.

We will call Israel’s neighbors to the north Aram and Arameans rather than Syrians, because that is the name contemporary historians use. We will use Chaldeans as an ethnic name for the Neo-Babylonians where the text uses it. When chaldeans refers to a class of astronomers or astrologers, it should be translated with whichever term fits the context. We translate Mizraim as Egypt because this is the established translation in both testaments.

We try to introduce readers to terms like Negev, Shephelah, and Arabah because they are commonly used in modern discussions of the geography of Israel. Our rule is to do whatever seems best to help the reader understand the biblical text and to work comfortably in modern atlases and modern discussions of ancient geography.

History

A careful reading of the biblical text combined with ancient historical resources often helps clear up historical issues. In 2 Kings 23:29 Josiah tries to prevent Pharaoh Neco from going up to meet the Assyrian army at the Euphrates River. Translations disagree about whether he is going to the Assyrians or against the Assyrians. Even the Hebrew text has both readings.

The meeting of Hezekiah and the Babylonian king, Merodak Baladan, recorded in Isaiah and 2 Kings, makes it clear that Judah was allied with Babylon against Assyria, and the political and military implications of this move are further clarified by other historical sources from the period. The right translation, therefore, is “Pharaoh was going to help the Assyrians at the Euphrates.”

Our next example will be given a more detailed treatment because it is an example of how historians and Bible scholars make mistakes and then try to blame the Bible for their mistake.

The Bible calls a people who appear in the patriarchal accounts in Genesis Hittites or descendants of Heth. These Hittites are classified with the Canaanite peoples of the land. In the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries, newly discovered ancient texts revealed a new rival of the Egyptians at about the the time of the biblical judges. They were an Indo- European people from central Anatolia (Turkey), whom the historians named Hittites.

Much has been written about the Hittite-Egyptian rivalry, and these Hittites play a prominent role in ancient history books. These people moved into an area of Anatolia that had been called the land of Hatti, so the historians named them Hittites, on the basis of the apparently erroneous conclusion that these people were related to the Hittites in the Bible. They then pointed out that these Hittites rose to prominence in central Anatolia significantly later than the biblical dates for the patriarchal period. It was concluded that the biblical references to Hittites must be anachronisms based on confused memories of the Hittites that were introduced into biblical accounts, which these historians claimed were written long after the heyday of the Hittites.

But there is a major problem with this explanation. The problem is that these Indo-European rivals of the Egyptians did not call themselves Hittites. They called themselves Neshians. When they competed with the Egyptians, they were relatively new arrivals in the land of Hatti in central Anatolia, where they displaced an earlier non-Indo-European people called Hattians. The Neshians kept the geographic name, land of Hatti, but they did not call themselves Hattians or Hittites. The Neshians were given the name Hittites by scholars on the basis of the alleged similarity to the name Hatti to Hitti in the Bible. This error produced a discrepancy between the biblical and historical description of “Hittites.” This discrepancy was not produced by the Bible. It was produced by the historians who erroneously stuck the tag Hittites on the Neshians.

About the Hittites the University of Pennsylvania’s archaeological magazine Expedition (January 1974) says:

The first thing to realize about the Hittites is that they are not Hittites. The sad fact is that we are stuck with an incorrect terminology, but it is too late to do anything about it now. This unfortunate situation came about as a result of several deductions made by earlier scholars which, though entirely reasonable at the time, have proved to be false. …
We now know that these people we call Hittites were Indo-European. … It is now believed that the Hittites came into Anatolia sometime in the latter part of the third millennium B.C., though exactly when and from where are questions we still cannot answer. …
The Hittites were indeed a major world power in the period 1700-1200 B.C., but they were not Hittites. That is, they did not call themselves Hittites. They refer to themselves as Neshians, “inhabitants of the city Nesha,” and their language Neshian. But so much for that; the scholarly world had already labelled them Hittites and, like it or not, Hittites they shall forever remain. It is just as well, for the term Neshian only calls attention to our ignorance of this early period; we do not even know where Nesha is to be located….
There was the evidence all along: what we call Hittite should be called Neshian and the evidence for this had been available since 1887.

That is the simplified version of a complicated story. In the EHV we considered calling the biblical Hittites Hethians to avoid the confusion historians have created. But since the biblical Hittites are the real Hittites and the historical Hittites are the imposters, we decided to keep the term Hittites along with the term descendants of Heth and to explain the problem with a brief note.

Text

One of the more sensitive and emotional issues in Bible translation today is the issue of textual variants. Bible readers notice that many recent translations have a shorter text than the King James Bible, and they suspect that editors are subtracting from the Word of God. Especially noticeable are the omission or the bracketing of the conclusion of Mark and the pericope about the adulterous woman in John.

The EHV approach to the text of the New Testament is to avoid a bias toward any one textual tradition or group of manuscripts. An objective approach considers all the witnesses to the text (Greek manuscripts, lectionaries, translations, and quotations in the church fathers) without showing favoritism for one or the other. As we examine significant variants, the reading in a set of variants that has the earliest and widest support in the textual witnesses is the one included in the EHV text. The other readings in a set of variants may be included in a footnote that says: many, some, or a few witnesses to the text have this reading.

The net result is that readings and verses which are omitted from many recent versions of the New Testament, but which have textual support that is ancient and widespread, are included in the EHV translation. If there are readings where the evidence is not clear-cut, our “bias,” if it can be called that, is to include the longer reading along with a footnote that not all manuscripts have it. The result is that our New Testament is slightly longer than many recent translations of the New Testament.

For example, the last phrase of John 3:13 is included in the text of the EHV:

Most modern translations omit the last phrase, “who is in heaven,” but it was included in the King James Version and the New King James Version. EHV includes the phrase and notes that a few witnesses to the text omit “who is in heaven.” The longer reading is a striking testimony to the union of the two natures in Christ. It is easy to see why some scribes might have omitted it. It is hard to see why some would have added it.

The EHV also includes Mark 16:9-20 in the text without raising doubt on its place in Scripture. These verses are included in the vast majority of Greek manuscripts that have been handed down to us. Evidence for the existence of this long ending extends back to the 2^nd century. In the early centuries of the church, these verses were read in worship services on Easter and Ascension Day. That seems significant. Yet we also note that a few early manuscripts and early translations omit verses 9-20, and a few manuscripts have a different ending. Strong subjective arguments can be made against inclusion of the long ending, but our default setting is to go with the manuscript evidence rather than subjective opinions.

Sometimes the inclusions are just one word, as is the case in Acts 8:18, where the NIV and the ESV omit the word “Holy”:

Unlike the KJV and the NKJV, the EHV does not include the so-called comma Johanneum of 1 John 5:7-8, because the longer reading lacks early, widespread support. This is how those verses are translated, along with the footnote:

In the Old Testament the Masoretic Hebrew Text as exemplified by the BHS text is given preference unless there is good, objective evidence for another reading. We consider significant Hebrew variants as well as variants from other ancient versions, especially the Greek Old Testament (Septuagint), which was the Bible of the early Christian church.

When there is evidence that something which has been lost from the Hebrew text has been preserved in an ancient version or a parallel passage, the accidental omission may be restored to the EHV translation. A footnote reports the source. The most common type of evidence that would justify the inclusion of the longer reading is when the longer reading occurs between two occurrences of the same Hebrew word, and the shorter reading still makes good sense without the missing words (this would make the reader less likely to notice that words were missing. We will illustrate the problem with three examples.

In 1 Samuel 13 the Hebrew text tells us:

The Greek Old Testament reads:

It appears that the eye of the scribe of the Hebrew text skipped from one occurrence of “from Gilgal” to the next. It is Saul and the people who go to Gibeah in Benjamin in verse 15.

Two more examples:

From 1 Samuel 1: Hanna and Elkanah bring Samuel to the house of the LORD in Shiloh.

From 1 Samuel 14: Saul is trying to find the guilty party.

Spelling

Readers may notice that EHV spellings of personal and place names may not always agree with those of the NIV and other translations.

The problem of the spelling of personal and geographic names is a nightmare for translators, but many users of a translation might never notice it, unless they try to look a name up in an atlas or Bible dictionary. The problem arises because the letters of the Hebrew alphabet do not always make a good match with a letter of the English alphabet, so different people transliterate the names differently. A further complication is that many of the English names have not come directly from Hebrew but via Greek or Latin.

Today the spelling of place names and personal names in the Bible is in near total disarray with a tension between preserving traditional English spellings and bringing the spelling into closer alignment with Hebrew. An attempt is underway to get closer to a consistent transliteration of the Hebrew: k kaph=k, q qoph=q, j chet=ch, x tsade=ts, but in practice tsade is often written as z, and chet is often h. Chet really needs a special character which is not an English letter, an h with a dot under it.

A particular problem is soft kaph, which has also been rendered ch in many names. This is a problem because biblical ch is not pronounced like the ch in church. EHV generally uses k when we want to prevent a pronunciation like ch in church, but in some familiar names the traditional spelling with ch is retained.

Some English transliterations are so established that we simply must live with the inaccurate rendering. We cannot change the inaccurate Jerusalem to the correct Yerushalaim, or Tyre to Tsur, or Bethlehem to Bet Lechem.

Among the many spelling options are Beersheba/Beersheva, Beth Shean/Beth She’an/Bet Shan/ Beth Shan, Acco/Akko, Hebron/Chevron. There is no consistent system in common use. All of the systems are riddled with inconsistencies.

As a general rule EHV keeps spellings made familiar by recent translations since this is the spelling in many recent Bible helps such as Zondervan Bible Atlas, which may be consulted as a source for spellings, but this system too is inconsistent.

Consonantal y yod remains j not y in most cases (Joshua not Yehoshua) but there are some special cases like Yarkon, which is a familiar modern place name.

What a mess! The system is wildly inconsistent, and no solution is in sight. The best we can hope for is to make it as easy as possible for readers to find names in atlases and Bible dictionaries, but these books too are inconsistent, and some of them offer several options. The best readers can do if they do not find the term in a dictionary is to know the common alternates like k for c and try again. Looking up a name online will often produce a list of options.

The same chaos exists in personal names: Melchizedek but Adoni-Zedek even though it is the same type of formation. EHV spells names ending in melek (the Hebrew word for king) with a final k not a final ch: Abimelek, Elimelek, but inconsistently names like Lamech and Baruch. In general we preserve traditional spellings of well-known names.

In regard to the spelling of biblical names, there is a regression to a pre-Webster era, in which there is no king, and every speller does what is right in his own eyes.

There are a few bright spots in a cloudy sky: 1) the other common systems are even less consistent than the EHV’s, 2) computers make it much easier to achieve consistency of spelling across the translation, and 3) English speakers already know that English spelling is a really messed up discipline. The most notorious example is ghoti which is an alternate spelling for “fish”: gh as in enough, o as in women, and ti as in nation. Messed up spelling is no stranger to readers of English.

This is an example of a translation issue which many readers may never notice, but which requires thousands of decisions for translators and editors. This topic will receive an article of its own in the library section of our website.

The Important Question

How often do translation differences affect doctrine? As a percentage of the whole translation the number of passages in which the different translations have doctrinal implications will probably be relatively small, but they are nevertheless important.

In Genesis 2:24 many translations have something like “For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and be united with his wife, and they will become one flesh.” But the Hebrew verb means cling to, and the New Testament rendering reflects the same idea. So the EHV translation, ^“For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will remain united with his wife, and they will become one flesh” is better than the translation be united with his wife. It better reflects the permanent nature of marriage, which is Jesus’ point in quoting this passage in Matthew 19.

There are some interesting features in the EHV translation of 1 Peter 3:17-21:

This translation and the notes recognize that the flesh/spirit contrast at times refers to Christ’s humiliation and exaltation, and that baptism is God’s pledge to us, not our pledge to him.

Pastoral reviewers have expressed appreciation for the way the EHV handles texts involving the sacraments. Another example is 1 Corinthians 10:16-17 where the EHV chose the familiar “heritage” term “communion”:

Communion has been a common name for the Lord’s Supper for hundreds of years, and this translation helps explain the derivation of that name.

The EHV translation of the Great Commission is unique:

This translation recognizes that we gather disciples by using the means of grace through which the Holy Spirit makes them disciples.

Romans 4:25 – the meaning of Christ’s resurrection…

This translation agrees with other justification passages by showing that Easter is the declaration of an objective justification which had already occurred.

Conclusion

In Bible translations people can get caught up in their likes and dislikes concerning individual passages and lose sight of the big issues of translation: preservation of biblical imagery, clear reflections of prophecy, and clear communication of the theological, literary, and emotional intent of the text.

At the Wartburg Project our motto has always been “purely positive.” We do welcome differences of opinion and discussion concerning every point of translation, but only with a spirit that is based on careful study of the evidence, a spirit of cooperation and compromise on issues that are a matter of style and individual preferences, and the principle that makes upholding the integrity of the text our highest priority, outranking our likes and dislikes.

Luther once commented that he was very happy that he had undertaken the work of translating the Bible, because before he did this, he had been under the delusion that he was a learned fellow. We can paraphrase Ecclesiastes as saying, “Of the making of many translations there is no end, and much study wearies the body.” Part of this is because of the ever-changing nature of language and because of preferences for different styles of translation, but much of it is due simply to the nature of the art of translating, writing, and editing. No matter how many times translators, writers, or editors reread their work, they always will see something to change. They change A to B to C, and then decide A was better after all. It simply is the nature of the discipline.

Among all the manuscripts and resources that we have used in working on the EHV, including the Hebrew and Greeks manuscripts, we have never found any that had no mistakes. So try as we may, we do not expect to be exempt either. Though the inspired authors of Scripture were protected from error, translators and editors are not, so we will always be rechecking our work to make corrections or clarifications and updates.

Translating, writing, and editing have two common enemies. One is carelessness that does not try to produce a clean product. The other is perfectionism that can never bring anything to conclusion and say “I have to go with what I have.” In the Evangelical Heritage Version we are aware of both pitfalls, and we are working to try to produce a good product, but to do it as quickly as possible, so it can be of use to the church.

When the EHV departs from traditional renderings it is not novelty for the sake of novelty but an attempt to convey the meaning of the text more clearly or to get closer to the style and intent of the author.

This article provides a few examples of the many ways in which translators find themselves between a rock and a hard place, knowing that no matter which option they choose some readers will think it is wrong. But these dilemmas do not discourage them because they know that there is one solution to all these dilemmas: a combination of study, patience, and cooperation. One of the great blessings of a project like the EHV (maybe as great or greater than the end product) is that it prompts Bible readers and translators to a more careful study of the original text and a more careful study of the principles and practices of Bible translation. All participants grow from the process. An even greater comfort to translators is expressed by a key principle set forth in Lutheran theology: “The essence of Scripture is not the shape of the letters or the sound of the words but the divinely intended meaning.” If a translation conveys that divinely intended meaning, it is delivering the Word of God, regardless of what the letters look like or how the words are pronounced, whether the language is a bit stuffy or archaic or a bit too casual for the tastes of some. The external forms change (indeed they must if they are to keep communicating), but the meaning, the essence of the Word of God, must remain forever.

Wartburg Project Report 2016-12

2016-12-14T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2016-12

Why should I try the EHV?

2016-11-27T00:00:00+00:00

With the recent publication of the EHV lectionaries for evaluation and use, and with the forthcoming appearance of the preview edition of the EHV New Testament and Psalms in 2017, an obvious question is, “Why should I try the EHV?”

The simplest and most important answer to that question is that for dedicated readers of the Bible the opportunity to be a participant in the evaluation of a new Bible translation is likely to be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. Regardless of what you decide about a specific translation, the opportunity to take a closer look at the process of Bible translation and the exercise of evaluating some of the complex decisions that are involved in Bible translation will be its own reward.

As far as the EHV translation itself, here are a few reasons to give EHV a look.

A key word for the EHV in defining our goals is balance. The goal of our project is to produce a balanced translation, suitable for all-purpose use in the church.

We seek a balance between the old and the new. We respect and try to preserve traditional terms that are well established in the worship life of the church, but the EHV does introduce some new terms in those places where a traditional translation no longer communicates clearly. Such terms will be explained in the footnotes.

We seek a balance between the poles of so-called literal and dynamic equivalent theories of translation. A translator should not adhere too closely to any one theory of translation because literalistic, word-for-word translations sometimes convey the wrong meaning, or they do not communicate clearly in the receiving language. Overly free translations deprive the reader of some of the expressions, imagery, and style of the original.

Translators will strive for a balance between preserving the original meaning of the text and producing English which sounds natural, but the preservation of meaning takes priority.

We seek a balance between formality and informality. The Bible contains many types of literature and different levels of language, from the very simple to the very difficult. For this reason, the translator should not be too committed to producing one level of language but should try to reproduce the tone or “flavor” of the original.

We place a priority on producing a fuller representation of the biblical text that has been transmitted to us than many recent translations. The EHV includes readings which are supported by ancient manuscript evidence but which are omitted in many other recent translations, because they tend to focus on certain parts of the manuscript evidence rather than the whole range.

We place a priority on prophecy, so our translation and notes strive to give clear indications of Messianic prophecy.

The EHV is committed to using archaeology, geography, and history to provide a clearer understanding of the original meaning of the biblical text, and this will be reflected both in the translation and the footnotes.

We hope the Evangelical Heritage Version will prove to be very readable to a wide range of users, but the EHV is designed with learning and teaching in mind. We assume that our readers have the ability and the desire to learn new biblical words and to deepen their understanding of important biblical terms and concepts. Translators should not be condescending or patronizing toward their readers but should be dedicated to helping them grow. The Bible was written for ordinary people, but it is a literary work with many figures of speech and many rare words. The Bible is a book to be read, but it is also a book to be studied. Our footnotes are designed to assist in the process of learning and teaching. Our translation is in that sense a textbook. This concept will, of course, be much more fully implemented in our planned study Bible.

The EHV is a grass-roots translation, which makes extensive use of parish pastors and lay people in the editing and evaluation of the translation.

The EHV is a gift to the church. It is being produced at very low cost because of the abundance of volunteer labor. We have also promised that the EHV will not deny people who have obtained rights to use the EHV in derivative works like commentaries or study Bibles the right to continue to use the version of the EHV which they have adopted, even if new versions of the EHV appear someday.

Over the next year, as the EHV translation is being completed, this article will be expanded to at least booklet length by the addition of more reasons to use EHV and of many specific examples of those principles in practice. This “first edition” deliberately does not include any specific examples so that you can use it as a study guide for making your own discoveries.

In the meanwhile, the FAQs, our rubrics, and articles on our website provide many examples of these principles in practice.

Why does the EHV read “walk” where some other modern translations say “live”? What does it mean to “walk with God”?

2016-11-27T00:00:00+00:00

The EHV preserves common biblical expressions and images. One example is a believer’s “walk with God.” Scripture states that “Enoch walked with God” in Genesis 5:22. Then it is repeated in Genesis 5:24. Genesis 6:9 informs the reader that “Noah walked with God.” Enoch and Noah were exemplary believers who lived with God in intimate fellowship by faith.

In explaining these passages, Martin Luther consulted Jude 14-15 to learn more about Enoch. Then Luther said, “Enoch was so equipped by the Holy Spirit that he might be a prophet of prophets and a saint of saints in that first world” (LW 1:344). Later, Luther wrote in the case of Noah that walking with God meant, “to carry on God’s business before the world, to occupy oneself with His Word, and to teach His worship” (LW 2:56).

The biblical expression of “walking with God” refers to intimate fellowship with God as a believer walks through life on the path set out by God. The image of walking through life on a path can be seen in the famous passage, “Your words are a lamp for my feet and a light for my path” (Psalm 119:105). It is in the background of Jesus’ words in the Sermon on the Mount, “Enter through the narrow gate, for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many are those who enter through it. How narrow is the gate, and how difficult is the way that leads to life, and there are few who find it” (Matthew 7:13–14).

Quite often in Scripture the term “walk” or “walk around” is used for a Christian’s life of faith and sanctification. It sometimes refers to how you conduct your life. There is a rather common expression in American English that goes something like this: “if you are going to talk the talk, you have to walk the walk.” This idea of “walking” as a description for how you conduct yourself in life seems to have its origin in Scripture.

We often find the expression of “walking” in the epistles of the inspired apostle Paul. He was writing in tune with the Hebrew Scriptures of the Old Testament. The EHV sees importance in preserving this biblical expression which appears dozens of times throughout the Bible.

You can find it in Jesus’ words, “I am the Light of the World. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life” (John 8:12). Then in John 12:35, Jesus said, “The light will be with you just a little while longer. Keep on walking while you have the light, so that darkness does not overtake you. The one who walks in the darkness does not know where he is going.”

The apostle John was led by the Holy Spirit to continue this expression in his first epistle. “This is the message we heard from him and proclaim to you: God is light. In him there is no darkness at all. If we say we have fellowship with him but still walk in darkness, we are lying and do not put the truth into practice. But if we walk in the light, just as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ, his Son, cleanses us from all sin” (1 John 1:5–7).

The inspired apostle Paul used this biblical expression of “walking” as much as anyone. A few examples follow. . .

“For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light…” (Ephesians 5:8). Some translations might say “Live as children of light,” but the Greek language had a term for “live” (zao) and the Greek word here is “walk” (peripateo). The EHV seeks to reveal this information to the English reader. It is not wrong to say that this expression means “live” or “conduct yourselves.” But that would eliminate the picture of “walking.” The biblical writers chose to use the picture of “walking” here, and the EHV joins other English Bible translations in trying to preserve this biblical expression.

A similar example can be seen in 2 Corinthians 5:7, “we walk by faith, not by sight.” Do you sense a connection all the way back to Enoch, who “walked with God”? The Holy Spirit could have moved the inspired apostle Paul to write the Greek term for “live” (zao), but it is the Greek term for “walk” (peripateo). This is useful information to an English reader.

There are many examples of this biblical expression of “walk” in the Bible. When you read through the EHV, we hope that revealing this expression in the text might open up new windows of insight for the Bible reader. Perhaps you will sense a connection to Genesis 5:22,24 and Psalm 119:105 in the back of your mind when you read words like these:

“Walk by the spirit, and you will not carry out what the sinful flesh desires” (Galatians 5:16)
“You are walking in the truth. I have no greater joy than when I hear that my children are walking in the truth.” (3 John 3–4).

It is not surprising that this common biblical expression has made its way into English hymnody. The hymn “Chief of Sinners Though I Be” includes it in stanza three:

Only Jesus can impart
Comfort to a wounded heart:
Peace that flows from sin forgiv’n,
Joy that lifts the soul to heav’n,
Faith and hope to walk with God
In the way that Enoch trod.

— CW 385; also TLH 342

Why does the EHV use the term “only-begotten” in John 3:16 instead of “one and only”?

2016-11-27T00:00:00+00:00

John 3:16 might be the best known passage in the Bible. The EHV translation aims to sound very familiar in well-known passages that many people have memorized. Here is the EHV translation of John 3:16:

For God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

The EHV uses “only-begotten” five times in the New Testament. It is, of course, in John 3:16 (above) as well as in four other related passages: John 1:14,18; 3:18; and 1 John 4:9.

We did not base our decision to use “only-begotten” on etymology (whether it comes from the stem genn- or gen-). Instead we focused on how the New Testament uses the Greek term μονογενής (monogenes) in each context. We do not believe that “only-begotten” is the only option for translating μονογενής (monogenes). We are not criticizing other translations that don’t use “only-begotten.” Yet, in examining how this term is used in each context, we find “only-begotten” to be an appropriate translation in some cases, particularly in the inspired writings of John.

The Greek term μονογενής (monogenes) essentially means “only” in the sense of “unique” or “one of a kind.” The context must reveal what makes the person referred to unique. For example, in John 3:16, what is it that makes Jesus unique? It seems that the uniqueness here is in his being God’s only-begotten Son. No one else is God’s only-begotten Son. That is true only of Jesus. Consider Hebrews 1:5: “For to which of the angels did God ever say: ‘You are my Son. Today I have begotten you’?” (EHV; see Psalm 2:7).

Angels are, in fact, called “sons of God” in Job 1:6. They are sons by creation, but they are not begotten. We are all children of God by creation, but we lost the rights of heirs through the fall. We believers are now children of God and heirs again through faith in Christ Jesus. Galatians 3:26 says, “In fact, you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus” (EHV).

But Jesus is unique. The eternal begetting of the Son makes Jesus unique. He is the only one who is the Son of God on the basis of an eternal divine nature. In the Nicene Creed, we confess the truth that Jesus Christ is the only Son of God who is “eternally begotten of the Father” (Christian Worship) or “begotten of His Father before all worlds” (Concordia: The Lutheran Confessions). He is “begotten, not made.”

God’s Word to the Nations (a translation of the New Testament) consistently used “only” for μονογενής (monogenes) in the text of the translation. This 1988 book also offered a very balanced presentation of μονογενής (monogenes) in Appendix 6 in the back of the book (pages 542-544). This presentation concluded that “in John’s Gospel where it is used of Jesus… it could mean ‘the only-existing’ (‘the only-one-there-is’ or ‘one-of-a-kind’), or… it could have the special meaning of ‘only-begotten’” (p. 544).

Kittel’s ten volume Theological Dictionary of the New Testament states: “In Jn. μονογενής denotes the origin of Jesus. He is μονογενής as the only-begotten… μονογενής probably includes also begetting by God” (vol. 4, p. 741). Many other translations have used “only-begotten” as well, including KJV, NKJV, and NASB. So, we are not breaking any new ground here. We are making use of an old and familiar translation.

This familiar translation appears regularly in Christian worship. In the liturgical song called the Gloria of the Common Service, believers sing, “O Lord, the only begotten Son, Jesus Christ.” In Martin Luther’s hymn, “All Glory Be to God Alone” (translated by W. Gustave Polack), Jesus is praised with these words: “O Lord, the Sole-begotten One, Lord Jesus Christ, the Father’s Son.” As already mentioned, it appears in the Nicene Creed. At Christmas, many Christians sing, “Of the Father’s Love Begotten.”

If the word “begotten” is regularly used in worship, confessed in the Nicene Creed, and appears in hymns, it is a “heritage term” worth preserving. Many of us grew up memorizing John 3:16 using “only-begotten” too. At this point, we are not aware of a translation of monogenes that is better for this passage.

Yet, the Greek term μονογενής (monogenes) does not always mean “only-begotten” in the sense of referring to an eternal divine nature. Context reveals what is unique. There are different nuances in different contexts. The translation “one and only” is not necessarily the best fit for every context either. Consider, for example, Hebrews 11:17-18. The context is Isaac’s relation to Abraham. Was Isaac really Abraham’s “one and only” or “only-begotten” son? Since Ishmael was already born, that was not really the case. So, here it means that he was the “only” son through whom Abraham’s offspring (the promise of the Savior) would be traced.

Between a Rock and a Hard Place: The Dilemmas of Bible Translation

2016-11-26T00:00:00+00:00

Difficult choices faced in translating for the EHV.

Wartburg Project Report 2016-11

2016-11-11T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2016-11

Wartburg Project Report 2016-10

2016-10-21T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2016-10

Has anyone proposed the idea of having Lutherans work toward producing a Bible translation before the Wartburg Project?

2016-10-18T00:00:00+00:00

Yes, there have been many who proposed that idea. Of course, Martin Luther was the first one to propose having “Lutherans” work together to produce a Bible translation for German-speaking people. Martin Luther’s Bible translation served as the most used German translation for many years, even for many non-Lutherans. “His Bible has been read by countless generations of German-speaking peoples, and it has exerted its influence on the translations of the Bible into many other languages as well—to the inestimable benefit of the Lutheran Church in particular and of Christendom in general” (Armin Panning, “Luther as Bible Translator” in Luther Lives, NPH, 1983, p. 83).

Luther first translated the New Testament by himself. Then he sought the help of those with whom he was in church fellowship (Philip Melanchthon, for example). Luther did not translate the Old Testament alone. He formed a translation team that he called his “Sanhedrin.” These were all men who were in confessional agreement with him. According to Mathesius, this group consisted of his fellow professors at Wittenberg: Johann Bugenhagen, Justus Jonas, Caspar Creuziger, Philip Melanchthon, and Mattheus Aurogallus. Georg Roerer, the Korrektor, was also present. Frequently other friends, doctors, and learned men came to take part in this important work, such as Bernhard Ziegler and Johann Forster. (See E. G. Schwiebert, Luther and His Times, p. 649).

In essence, Luther’s entire team was comprised of what we would call “Lutherans” today.

Luther’s translation of the Bible was accepted by German speaking people for centuries as “the Bible” they went to first. There were other German translations before and after Luther’s. But, without controversy, Luther’s was the most used German Bible translation, and it was made entirely by Lutherans.

Luther also had significant influence on English Bible translators. William Tyndale was certainly influenced by Martin Luther. He even went to Wittenberg to learn and to translate. Tyndale’s influence on the King James Version leads some to say that Luther had significant influence on the KJV. Miles Coverdale was a Lutheran pastor from 1543-1547 and was an assistant to Tyndale. He also worked on several translations of the Bible into English.

Many Lutherans in the United States of America continued to read and hear the Bible in German until the time of World War I. In that time period, many American Lutherans were making the transition from German to English. There was some concern about the English Bible translation, which was the KJV.

Professor August Pieper plainly preferred Luther’s translation to the KJV [See “Our Transition Into English,” translated by John Jeske in Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly Vol. 100, #2, pp. 85-106. Pieper’s article was written in German and appeared in the year 1919 in Theologische Quartalschrift, Vol. 16.]. Many other Lutherans preferred Luther’s translation as well. There are many quotations of Luther’s Bible scattered over the years in the Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly and the journals of the LCMS and ELS. Perhaps more research might reveal what some were saying at that time. Here is just one example of a remembrance from that time period. Professor David Kuske wrote:
I recall a discussion in a pastors’ conference in the early 1960’s of a paper that addressed the subject of the use of contemporary English translations in the churches of our conference other than the KJV. One participant, the 85-year-old Pastor Weyland, reminisced that when our synod was moving to an English translation in the 1920’s, a couple leaders in our Synod suggested doing a translation of Luther’s Bible into English. It seems that Prof. A. Pieper’s article “Unser Uebergang ins Englische” [“Our Transition Into English” mentioned above] had led numerous pastors to translate their sermon texts from Luther’s Bible into English instead of using an English translation such as the KJV. Pastor Weyland recalled that apparently some leaders in Synod felt it would be better to have a uniform translation of Luther’s Bible rather than each pastor doing his own translation weekly. This elderly pastor also ventured the opinion that the only thing that stopped this from happening was the turmoil caused first by the Protestant Controversy and then by the Depression.”
In 1948, Dr. John Theodore Mueller (LCMS; Concordia Seminary, St. Louis) recommended that there be a translation produced by confessional Lutherans. In “Can We Trust Modern Versions?” in the April, 1948 Concordia Theological Monthly (page 300), he wrote:
Several years ago our Church was memorialized to consider bringing out a modern translation of the Bible by Lutheran scholars. So far the Lutheran Church has not had a translation made by its own members. It has patiently used the translations of the Reformed. Has not the time arrived that we follow in Luther’s footsteps and produce our own? … The objection that we Lutherans should not use a Bible translation different from that of others no longer holds, since the various churches are divided in the use of various translations. Would it, then, not make for unity, rather than disunity, to have a reliable Lutheran Bible translation? Meanwhile, considering the confusion caused by the various versions now on the market, the writer is convinced that it is a matter of wisdom for us in our public ministry to adhere to the King James Version until that new and better Lutheran translation has been produced.”
In January, 1953, Prof. F. Blume discussed the questions about the Revised Standard Version (RSV) in the Quartalschrift (WLQ Vol. 50, #1). He did not regard the RSV to be the answer to the desire for a translation of the New Testament into modern American speech. He concluded with these words:
This writer has become increasingly convinced that no answer to our people’s inquiries will be completely satisfactory to them or to us until we have given them a version of the New Testament that will do for our generation what Luther’s New Testament of 1522 did for the Germany of his day.”
The desire for such an English translation produced by Lutherans appears in the Wisconsin Synod Proceedings of that same year. Included in the report of the Committee on Bible Translation, adopted at the Watertown Convention, August 5–12, 1953, was the following suggestion:
Since the appearance of the Revised Standard Version has incited anew the study of Bible translations, also among us, and made us conscious anew of weaknesses in the Authorized Version, which has been in general use in our Synod; and since suggestions have again been made that we proceed with a revision of the Authorized Version: the Synodical Committee at its May meeting adopted the following resolution:
We suggest that the assignment of the Committee on the Revised Standard Version be extended to include a study of some book of the New Testament (e.g., Galatians), that the Committee be encouraged to solicit the cooperation and comment of the members of the Synod, and then to publish the book studied in the Quartalschrift, so that thereby the translation may be rather widely tested as to readability and theological correctness.
Your committee concurs in this recommendation, with the understanding that it be in the nature of a revision of the Authorized Version.” As implied in the above resolution the committee now contemplates undertaking a trial translation of Galatians in the manner indicated, “that it be in the nature of a revision of the Authorized Version,” and herewith invites the members of the Synod to contribute whatever might be of value and help to the committee in carrying out its assignment.
The reasons most frequently advanced for urging at least a trial translation of some book of the Bible are:
1. that existing translations contain archaic words or phrases;
2. that they reveal a Calvinistic influence or otherwise reflect the theological bias of the translators. As to language the Authorized Version, of which the contemplated translation is to be a revision, could undoubtedly be brought up to date with a minimum of change. It is especially in regard to changes involving doctrine that the committee invites comment, but asks that this be of a specific nature, both as to criticism of the translation to be changed as well as to a possible revision of the same. Contributions are kindly to be sent to the undersigned.
Gerald Hoenecke, secretary
Wisconsin Synod Committee on Bible Translation
Box 953, Thiensville, Wisconsin.¹
In the years 1955-1957, a Galatians “Trial Translation” was produced and published in WLQ (volumes 52, 53, & 54) as an attempt at a revision of the King James Version. There was a general feeling that the Galatians “Trial Translation” had moved a little too far away from the KJV at a time when there were many people who had grown up using the KJV and preferred to stay closer to its way of expressing biblical truths.
In the 1950’s and 1960’s, Dr. William F. Beck (LCMS) translated the Bible into simple “coffee and doughnuts” American English. His work, An American Translation (AAT), is still used by many Lutherans, but mainly as a devotional/reading Bible.
Again, in the early 1970’s, WELS considered this very same question … There was a Bible Translation Seminar that met at Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary January 2-4, 1974 [Cf. page 12 of “The New International Version Earns Admirers In The WELS,” by Tom Jeske in the WLS Essay file].
In that 1974 meeting, Professor Armin Schuetze listed four options available. The third option was “make our own translation” (page 13 in the paper by Tom Jeske cited above).
At that same 1974 meeting, Professor Wilbert Gawrisch listed a short-term and a long-term need. The long-term need: “we should begin to produce our own translation” (page 13 in the paper by Tom Jeske cited above).
The closing resolution had five points that emphasized requesting that the Seminary faculty study the NIV. But one often overlooked point that was also approved and passed at that Bible Translation Seminar (Jan. 2-4, 1974) was resolution #3:
We embark on our own translation and publication of portions of the Bible as a pilot project.
Professor Julian Anderson (ELS) translated the New Testament into simplified American English in the 1970’s. His translation is still used in many prison ministries. (Professor Carlton Toppe regularly referred to it in his 1 Corinthians class at Northwestern College.)
Dr. Siegbert Becker and Professor David Kuske worked for years on a revision of Beck’s translation with other confessional Lutherans. In 1988 this was called, God’s Word to the Nations (GWN). In 1992 it was revised and renamed the New Evangelical Translation (NET). Copies of this Bible were given to professors and students at Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary.
There was an attempt to produce a translation by an NPH Editor, WELS professors, and some WELS pastors around the year 2003. Galatians and 1 Peter were first produced as test translations. Apparently there was still some desire for a translation produced by confessional Lutherans. At the time, concern was expressed that the NIV could be changing.
In 2011 and 2013, the WELS spent considerable time considering the question. A committee considered if it was feasible to produce a translation. The WELS Translation Feasibility Committee (TFC) reported in 2013:
In the end, there is disagreement on whether it is feasible to produce a confessional Lutheran translation of the Bible… It would require a large amount of money at a time when funds for mission work and ministerial education are in short supply… In light of all this, perhaps the question should not be, “Can we do it?” but, “Must we do it?” (WELS Book of Reports & Memorials, p. 81).
President Mark Schroeder wrote a letter, “Thoughts on the Translation Issue” in May, 2013. Here are some quotations from his letter [bold is original].
I believe strongly that we should undertake a project to produce a new or revised translation as a long term solution.
If Option B is chosen, I believe we should also commit ourselves to the production of a Bible translation by confessional Lutherans.

Every translation is produced by someone. The NIV is produced primarily by Evangelicals. The HCSB was produced primarily by Baptists. The ESV was produced by mainline Protestants. None of those translations is considered sectarian. Why would a translation by Lutherans be seen as any more sectarian than those? Luther’s own translation is not viewed as sectarian.
A translation would be open to the accusation of being sectarian if its translation choices were consciously made to support or promote doctrines or terminology peculiar to the group that produces it. Our intent would not be to do that. Our intent would be to produce a translation that accurately and faithfully conveys the meaning of the original inspired languages. If a translation does that, it cannot by definition be sectarian.
We have an opportunity to give a gift to the church. Just as Luther’s translation opened the Scriptures to the masses, and just as the King James Version communicated the Word to English speakers for hundreds of years, so we have an opportunity not so much to solve an immediate problem, but to give a lasting gift to the church that will serve God’s people for a generation or more.
We can do this, with God’s help. I believe for the sake of the church and the message of Scriptures, we should and must do this.
It was mentioned in the 2013 convention that significant interest was expressed and support offered by Concordia Publishing House as well.
The 2013 WELS Convention defeated a motion to have the synod praesidium appoint a committee to study the matter further.
After the convention, the WELS Convention Update for August 1, 2013 reported:
“Some delegates noted that those who are interested in pursuing this project could continue it as a parasynodical project—one not supported by the synod budget.”
In September of 2013, the Wartburg Project began as a “parasynodical project.”

Has anyone proposed the idea of having Lutherans work toward producing a Bible translation before the Wartburg Project? Yes, of course. Over the years, there have been many who proposed such an idea. And some Lutherans have produced translations, the best known being Martin Luther and his team of Lutheran translators.

For balance in answering this question, please also see:
FAQ #8 Is the Wartburg Project sectarian? Will the Bible it produces be sectarian?

We thank God for the gift of his saving Word. We seek to offer it to all people for their eternal benefit. We pray for God’s blessings on our efforts to share his saving Word with as many people as possible all over the world.

Wartburg Project Report 2016-09 Autumn Extra

2016-09-29T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2016-09 Autumn Extra

How does EHV deal with so-called “gender inclusive” or “gender accurate” language?

2016-09-29T00:00:00+00:00

Our basis principle was stated before the project began: In the use of so-called “gender-accurate language” the translator will strive to be inclusive where the original is inclusive and exclusive where the original is exclusive. This means translators are to be guided by the intent of the inspired author as it is indicated by the immediate and wider context of the passage. It recognizes that translation is more of an art or a practical skill rather than mechanically following a rule book.

This principle can be illustrated by the range of usage for the Hebrew word ben, which is glossed by the English word son. Son is the default translation or starting point for a translation of ben, but the context may indicate that the term ben or its plural bnei includes a range of meanings and connotations covered by other English words than the word son.

If the text names the twelve sons of Jacob, it is clear that the translation is sons of Israel. The connotation is clearly exclusive. If the subject is the nation of people descended from Jacob, the traditional translation has been children of Israel. We were very happy with this for 400 years, and it is fine for experienced readers of the Bible. But some new readers of the Bible might be confused and think this refers to young children. So in contexts that refer to the nation the translations people of Israel or Israelites will be clear to all readers. If the text is a list of men being registered for military duty or priestly duty, male descendants would be a good translation.

Sometimes the phrase son of king x refers to a successor of that king who is not a descendant. In this case successor would be a good translation, probably with a footnote: literally son. If a king calls the king of another nation my son, he is claiming that he is the superior in the relationship. This is probably best handled by retaining the word son and explaining with a footnote: the word son here implies a subordinate relationship. The sons of a city may be the citizens of a city whether men or women.

All of these translations may be used by EHV translators to clearly reflect the intent of the author.

A good example of making an exclusive-sounding translation more inclusive is provided by 1 Timothy 2:4. In NIV 84 this was translated God wants all men to be saved. This was not intended to be exclusive, but today some people might hear it that way. The Greek word anthropos frequently refers to groups of people which include men and women. It also is clear from the context of Scripture that God wants all people to be saved, male and female. Since that is the case, the inclusive translation God wants all people to be saved is a better reflection of the Greek and of God’s message and is the direction EHV will go.

For application of the EHV principle (be inclusive where the original text is inclusive and exclusive where the original text is exclusive) to other gender-related terms see the section of the EHV rubrics on gender issues or search other gender-related terms like fathers and brothers in the rubrics.

Why does the EHV use the term “mammon”?

2016-09-29T00:00:00+00:00

This term appears only in Matthew 6:24 and Luke 16:9,11,13. So it is used only four times and in every case Jesus is the one speaking. He says in the Sermon on the Mount:

You cannot serve both God and mammon. (Matthew 6:24 EHV)

In Luke 16:13, Jesus says the same thing:

You cannot serve both God and mammon. (EHV)

Some translations use “money” or “wealth” to translate mammon. However, the Greek language had other Greek terms available for “money” or “wealth.” The term mammon is an Aramaic word used in the Greek text.

The EHV follows a rubric that says:

“Hebrew/Aramaic words used in Greek text should remain Hebrew/Aramaic.”

Here we find a foreign word (in this case Aramaic) in the divinely inspired text instead of a more usual Greek term. As with “Hallelujah” and “Amen,” the EHV chooses to pass that information along as we have received it.

The EHV is not alone in this. Luther, KJV, and NKJV also used mammon in their translations. Translations must make choices. Most translations transliterate the term “Hallelujah” in Revelation 19:1, instead of translating that word into “Praise the LORD” or something like that. Sometimes translations have “Amen,” and in other places it might say “Truly” or “I tell you the truth.” (See FAQ #1 on “Amen.”) These are all translation choices.

What does mammon mean? The EHV has a footnote on Luke 16:9 that says this:

Mammon is an Aramaic word that is transliterated in the Greek. It refers to worldly wealth (sometimes personified). It also appears in verses 11 and 13, and Matthew 6:24. It may also be translated “money,” but a different word for money is used in verse 14.

While it may commonly be translated “money,” it is not certain that “money” is the precise meaning of the term mammon. It often included everything that made up someone’s wealth, such as money, property, servants/slaves, etc. Sometimes it stands for worldly goods personified. The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament indicates that mammon appears “always with a derogatory sense of the materialistic, anti-godly and sinful,” and that the background of the term mammon involves a form of idolatry because, “it most likely comes from אמן = “that in which one trusts” (Kittel, Vol 4, pp. 388-389).

In general, mammon seems to refer to wealth with a strong negative connotation. Perhaps when considering the term in context it might means “filthy money” or “worldly wealth.” In any case, it does not seem to be precisely the same thing as the common term “money.” Notice that in Luke 16:13 there is the word mammon, [μαμωνᾷ] but in the very next verse there is a different Greek term for “lovers of money” [φιλάργυροι]. In other passages, there are other terms for money. The EHV tries to make a distinction here.

How is the EHV reviewed in order to receive suggestions for improvement?

2016-09-29T00:00:00+00:00

With the appearance of the complete print edition of the EHV, some people have suggested that there be an ongoing review and revision process. For that reason, it seems timely to review the extensive review process that has already taken place before the first printing, and outline how this will continue in the future.

The EHV has already undergone very extensive review. There were many steps of review, involving a large number of people. These were the standard procedures in the process of developing each book of the EHV.

A translator prepared a draft of the book based on the Hebrew or Greek text. There is already a lot of review built in to this first step. The translators consulted many resources from across the span of the Christian church, using the collective knowledge of the church that has been accumulated in translations, commentaries, and other resources. The translators sometimes invited further evaluation by leaving several options in the translation for editors and reviewers to consider. Translators marked these and other passages in which they were inviting critique with red print.
The editor reviewed the draft, checking it against the EHV rubrics. He corrected any typos, etc., which he noticed, and marked additional passages in red in order to draw reviewers’ attention to them, and in some cases he offered more options for certain translations.
Four technical reviewers evaluated the translation by comparing it with the Hebrew or Greek text. The reviewers worked independently, so we received four separate evaluations of the translation for each book. Reviewers were told: Red text means “consider all the options to see if this is the best we can do.”
1. If you think that what is in the red is fine, you can change it to black.
2. If you think the red should be improved, but you don’t have anything better, leave it red.
3. If you have a better translation to offer (either for something that was red or something that was not), substitute it into the text in blue. Briefly explain why your translation is better than what was there. What was weak about the old translation? What is better about yours?
4. If you correct typos or punctuation, etc., mark the changes in blue, so that they all get transferred to the master.
5. Please consider more carefully passages that are more well-known or more quoted than others.
Though the main duty of tech reviews is to check the accuracy of the translation against the original text, they also considered:
1. Would this be appropriate and clear for use in our regular worship services?
2. Would this be appropriate for use in Bible classes?
3. Would this be appropriate for quoting in the catechism?
4. Would this be appropriate for private devotions of lay people?
5. Last but certainly not least, are there any doctrinal considerations or concerns to be aware of?
The editor entered data from all the tech reviews into the master. Some suggested improvements were accepted immediately without further discussion. Where there were different options suggested or even contrasting opinions, options were left for further discussion with the reviewers.
When there was a marked difference of opinion (whether it involved substance or style), the specific issue in some cases was submitted to a panel of reactors in order to gather a wider cross-section of opinions.
We are always checking for the desired level of consistency of translation across books, but in the case of parallel books like Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles, there was special attention to a process of harmonization of translations across books.
When this process was completed, the translation was sent to a larger number of popular reviewers. They read the translation largely for clarity and readability, but they were free to raise questions about issues of substance.
Again, all the information was collated in the master and decisions were made.
An English professor critiqued the translation for correctness and clarity, including the clarity and helpfulness of the footnotes, and further changes were made to the text.
Proof-readers/popular reviewers (often ten or more per book) read the text for errors but also made comments on clarity. Some focused on professional-quality proofreading of the mechanics of the text. Others read the text as part of their devotions and focused on the clarity of the text.
The translation was submitted to the publisher for set up. It received additional proofreading, both by the staff of the publisher and by additional volunteer proofreaders from the EHV.
Our review process includes pastors, teachers, and laypeople, the future users of EHV.
More input was received from the pastors and congregations who were using the lectionary readings over a three-year period.
Two years of input has been received from users of the New Testament and Psalms.
The entire process has been repeated in preparation for the study Bible.

Many published reviews of Bible translations seem to be based on having one person or a few persons read and report on a portion of the text. Their suggestions are sifted by a small committee and evaluations and recommendations are issued. In our internal review of EHV, a minimum of ten people reviewed every section of every book. We have seen many review processes in which reviewers, and even translators, do not have a guide book that expresses a unified philosophy of translation or a set of guidelines to assist all reviewers. At every stage of the process EHV reviewers had available a 40+ pages set of rubrics to aid them in their review. The latest edition of the rubrics was always posted on our web site. (Our reviewers of course are welcome to challenge any guidelines or rubrics they disagree with.)

Our Wartburg Project website has many FAQs and articles that explain specific translation choices that have been made.

What about external review? We already have received helps and evaluations from outside our immediate circle. Now that the translation is complete, we will welcome suggestions from external reviewers. In fact, many review copies have already been sent out to scholars and periodicals.

We want to have a stable text, especially for educational purposes. We, of course, will fix any typos or errors as soon as we find them, but we will do a systematic revision only after three to five years of congregational use, so that a wide cross-section of input can be sifted and compared. We expect this revision to be modest in scope, keeping the text as stable as possible.

Does the EHV want to be the “official WELS Bible”?

2016-09-23T00:00:00+00:00

The short answer is No. Let us explain.

First of all, as a matter of historical fact, WELS has never had an “official Bible.” The 1977 Synod Proceedings of the WELS say this:

“The Synod never adopted any translation as the official Bible of the Synod” (p. 74).

In 1979, when the NIV was accepted for use in publications, the WELS in convention passed a resolution that quoted the statement above as a fact and then stated:

“We still concur with the 1977 resolution, ‘That this action should not be construed as the adoption of the NIV as the Synod’s official Bible’ (1977 Synod Proceedings, p. 74).”

The Wartburg Project views its work as an attempt to serve the church at large. Our work is an expression of faith and love and service. We are working to provide the church at large (not just WELS) with the best translation we can produce. It has never been our goal to be “the official WELS Bible.” And we will not seek to be “the official WELS Bible.” We do not encourage anyone to promote or describe our work in those terms.

We hope and pray that the EHV will be a blessing for many. We hope and pray that the EHV will be used by many people. We hope and pray that it will be used in worship, Bible study, home devotions, and Christian literature. We plan to make the EHV available to many churches, authors, and people on the most agreeable terms. We are hoping to share God’s Word widely. We are encouraging our publisher to get copies of the EHV into as many bookstores as possible. We are aiming way higher than just use within WELS.

While we do have many WELS members who are participants in the Wartburg Project, this project is a separate “parasynodical” organization. We are not funded by the WELS at all. (We also have many participants from the ELS. To our knowledge, we have never been asked if we are trying to be “the official ELS Bible.”)

Please look at our work and the EHV as an attempt to serve the Triune God with the gifts he has given us. We are trying to be faithful stewards with all of the abilities we have. We’ve been amazed at how many abilities our participants have as gifts from God. We’ve been encouraged by the progress of the translation work.

Please look at our work and the EHV as an attempt to provide a faithful translation of God’s inspired and inerrant Word to as many people as possible.

From the beginning, we have tried to steer clear of debates or negativity. Our motto has been and remains that we are striving to be: “Purely Positive.” We hope that you will see that in our translation work and the results.

Thank you for asking!

By the way, please also see FAQ #8, Is the Wartburg Project sectarian? Will the Bible it produces be sectarian?

Does Jesus use bad grammar?

2016-09-22T00:00:00+00:00

The short answer is “Yes, the Bible does use bad grammar” (at least what some grammarians would consider to be “bad grammar”).

The most dramatic example is Revelation 1:4-5: “Grace to you and peace from him who is, who was, and who is coming, and from the seven spirits that are before his throne, 5and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth.” χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν ἑπτὰ πνευμάτων ἃ ἐνώπιον τοῦ θρόνου αὐτοῦ 5 καὶ ἀπὸ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὁ μάρτυς, ὁ πιστός, ὁ πρωτότοκος τῶν νεκρῶν καὶ ὁ ἄρχων τῶν βασιλέων τῆς γῆς. The key phrase is “from him who is, who was, and who is coming.” In Greek the preposition from (apo) must be followed by the genitive case, but in our text apo is followed by the nominative case (ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος) in flagrant disregard for the rules of Greek grammar. Why do Jesus and his apostle John ignore the rules of Greek grammar? It is clear that they know correct Greek grammar. The following phrases, “from the seven spirits that are before his throne, 5and from Jesus Christ,” have the correct Greek case. So why does the first phrase, “from him who is, who was, and who is coming,” use bad grammar? It is because this phrase is a commentary on the LORD’s name I AM as it was revealed to Moses at the burning bush. This name teaches the unchanging nature of the LORD and of his grace. In Revelation Jesus expands that name I AM into the three dimensions of time. Past, present, and future, Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever. He does not change, and since Jesus does not change, his name “the one who is and who was and who is coming” does not change, in defiance of the rules of Greek grammar which require it to change. (In a less flagrant departure from grammar Jesus’ titles, “the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth,” remain in the nominative case even though they are in apposition to a genitive, Jesus Christ.)

The Greek version of Revelation 1:4-5 is bad grammar, but it is good theology and good literature. In this case dramatically expressing the unchanging nature of Christ takes priority over the rules of Greek grammar.
There are other cases in which biblical grammar does not meet the standards of classical grammar books, and some would label it “bad grammar.” Sometimes it violates the conventions of “good style.” Teachers tell us do not be redundant. A classic example of redundancy is “freely by grace.” “Freely” means “by grace” and “by grace” means “freely.” To say both is redundant. But here bad style is good theology. The truth of “freely by grace” is too important to say it just once. Paul has to say it twice “freely by grace.”
The point is not that we are free to ignore the conventions of grammar and style, but that good communicators realize that there are times when literary and theological impact over-ride the conventions of grammar and style.

Why do you sometimes say “John the Baptizer” and sometimes “John the Baptist”?

2016-09-22T00:00:00+00:00

Both versions are correct. The reason is that there are two different Greek words used here in the original Greek.

Why do you often translate the term which many other translations render “horsemen” as “charioteers”?

2016-09-22T00:00:00+00:00

An interesting issue in the translation of battle scenes and military rosters is at what point of military history we can begin to refer to horseback riders and cavalry.

Sample Chapter from Textual Criticism of the Old Testament

2016-09-11T00:00:00+00:00

This article is a sample chapter of the textbook Textual Criticism of the Old Testament: Principles and Practice by Professor John Brug

Wartburg Project Report 2016-09

2016-08-31T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2016-09

The Evangelical Heritage Version: What's in a Name?

2016-08-19T00:00:00+00:00

About the name of of our translation.

Wartburg Project Report 2016-07

2016-07-20T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2016-07

Wartburg Project Report 2016-06

2016-06-15T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2016-06

Wartburg Project Report 2016-03

2016-06-09T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2016-03

Translation and Geography

2016-05-31T00:00:00+00:00

How archaeology helps modern Christians understand the biblical accounts.

Wartburg Project Report 2016-05

2016-05-17T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2016-05

Excavating a Battle: The Intersection of Textual Criticism, Archaeology, and Geography

2016-05-14T00:00:00+00:00

The battle of Mikmash is used as an example of how these disciplines can clarify the understanding of a text.

The spelling of personal names and place names in various Bibles is very inconsistent. Is the EHV going to have a consistent system of spelling?

2016-04-04T00:00:00+00:00

The problem of the spelling of personal and geographic names is a nightmare for translators, and arises because some letters of the Hebrew alphabet do not always have a good correspondence with one specific letter of the English alphabet.

How does archaeology help in Bible translation?

2016-03-14T00:00:00+00:00

New archaeological information often helps correct or improve translations of terms that appear in the Bible. Here are a few examples.

Why is your translation called the Evangelical Heritage Version?

2016-02-12T00:00:00+00:00

Our translation is called Evangelical because its highest goal is to proclaim the good news of the gospel of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. It is called Heritage because this word looks to the past, the present, and the future.

Wartburg Project Report 2016-02

2016-02-10T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2016-02

Wartburg Project Report 2016-01

2016-02-08T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2016-01

Why do you use the terms “inn,” “manger” and “swaddling cloths” in Luke chapter 2? Aren’t these terms outdated?

2016-01-03T00:00:00+00:00

In some cases, terms that are allegedly outdated are really not outdated. Sometimes this can be rather surprising. We have learned more about each of these terms since we started working on this translation.

Wartburg Project Report 2015-12

2015-12-18T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2015-12

Christmas Message 2015

2015-12-07T00:00:00+00:00

Christmas Message 2015

Will the EHV be a study Bible?

2015-11-21T00:00:00+00:00

The initial publication was the “plain vanilla” Bible. For the most part the footnotes are limited to explanations of translation decisions and textual variants. But it was always our goal to produce a study bible based on our translation.

In Psalm 110:1 “The decree of the LORD to my lord,” why is the second occurrence of “lord” not capitalized? It refers to Christ, the Son of God.

2015-11-21T00:00:00+00:00

The second lord does indeed refer to Christ, but capitalization does not depend on whether or not a word refers to God, but on whether it is a title (then it is capitalized) or it is a common noun or adjective (it is not capitalized).

Wartburg Project Report 2015-11

2015-11-20T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2015-11

Luther's Bible Translation and the Wartburg Project

2015-10-22T00:00:00+00:00

How the Wartburg Project uses Luther's translation principles.

Wartburg Project Report 2015-10

2015-10-21T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2015-10

Wartburg Project Report 2015-09

2015-08-27T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2015-09

Is the EHV a literal translation of the Bible?

2015-07-28T00:00:00+00:00

The answer to your question is “no” “yes” or “sometimes” depending on what you mean by the word “literal.” There is a lot of confusion about the meaning of the word “literal” as it applies to Bible translations.

Wartburg Project Report 2015-07

2015-07-21T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2015-07

Wartburg Project Report 2015-06b

2015-06-16T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2015-06b

Your translation sometimes has more words and occasionally even more verses than other recent translations of the New Testament. Why is that?

2015-05-26T00:00:00+00:00

There are many small differences between the hundreds of handwritten manuscripts of the New Testament. Most of these variants are “typos”, but occasionally some manuscripts have entire words or even verses that are only in some copies.

In certain passages of the New Testament some translations have the term “Messiah” where your translation has “Christ.” Why the difference?

2015-05-13T00:00:00+00:00

Messiah is an English version of the Hebrew word that means anointed. Christ is an English version of the Greek work that means anointed or the Anointed One. In the Old Testament, prophets, priests, and kings were installed into their office by being anointed with oil, which seems to symbolize the Holy Spirit.

As the fulfillment of the offices of prophet, priest, and king, Jesus is the Prophet, Priest, and King. He was anointed, not with oil, but with the Holy Spirit and with power (Acts 10:38).

A Hebrew-speaking believer who wanted to refer to the coming Savior as the LORD’s Anointed would call him Messiah (meshiach). A Greek-speaking Christian who wanted to refer to the Savior as God’s Anointed would call him Christ (christos).

The New Testament consistently calls Jesus the Christ even when the speakers are Jews. Some translations retro-translate christos back to mashiah when the speakers are Jews. Our practice is that when the New Testament text has Jesus speak a Hebrew word (as in his frequent use of amen) we follow the text and keep the Hebrew word. If New Testament uses the word christos regardless of whether the speaker is Jew or Gentile, we use Christ. Neither practice gives a wrong meaning, but we prefer to follow the literary choice made by the writers, who were inspired by the Holy Spirit. If they use a Hebrew-based term, we do too, If they use a Greek-based term, we do too.

A special case is John 4:25. The Samaritan woman says, “I know that Messiah is coming.” The text includes the parenthetical comment that the Messiah is also called Christ. Following the lead of the text we include both Messiah and Christ in our translation. When the Greek text uses only christos, we translate Christ.

Why do you capitalize the Devil? Isn’t that honoring the devil?

2015-05-08T00:00:00+00:00

No, it simply recognizes that the Devil has become a title of Satan. All titles are capitalized even if they are evil figures like Satan, the Devil, Belial, Lucifer, Antichrist, etc.

Are you going to make a red letter edition of the gospels, which honors Jesus’ words by putting them in red?

2015-05-08T00:00:00+00:00

Christians have often made special decorated editions of the Bible, so we would have no objection to a red letter edition. However, right now our job is completing a translation that people will want to use in multiple formats.

Is the EHV Bible sectarian?

2015-05-08T00:00:00+00:00

Our translators are confessional Lutherans, but they all understand and observe the difference between presenting a Lutheran understanding of Scripture in a confessional statement and importing that interpretation into the words of a translation.

Why does the account of the Wise Men say that they saw the star “in its rising”?

2015-05-08T00:00:00+00:00

If the Wise Men were from the East, why would they have to tell us that they were “in the east” when they saw the star? Or why would they need to tell us they saw the star in the eastern part of the sky?

Did ancient Israel have toilets? (Mt 15:17)

2015-05-08T00:00:00+00:00

Latrine perhaps is the most technically correct word for what Jesus is talking about because it is the most comprehensive, although the readers of the gospels were familiar with large public toilet facilities with running water in the larger cities.

Wartburg Project Report 2015-04

2015-04-03T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2015-04

In the passion history Jesus twice says, “Who are you looking for?” Isn’t that bad grammar?

2015-03-18T00:00:00+00:00

In our project we will try to use language that is both correct and alive and to observe the distinction between written communication and conversation (even conversation recorded in writing).

Why don’t you capitalize the pronouns that refer to God? That seems to give more honor to God.

2015-03-18T00:00:00+00:00

It has been a recent convention of English usage to capitalize nouns and pronouns which refer to God. However, it was not the practice of early English translations such as the KJV and also was not the practice of Luther’s German Bible.

Why does Jesus say, “Amen, Amen, I tell you”?

2015-03-13T00:00:00+00:00

In most recent English translations of the Gospels Jesus frequently says, “Truly I say to you” or “I tell you the truth.” This conveys a clear meaning, but the problem is that in the Greek text Jesus does not use the Greek word for “truly” or “truth.”

Wartburg Project Report 2015-02

2015-02-18T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2015-02

Wartburg Project Report 2014-11

2014-11-15T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2014-11

Wartburg Project Report 2014-09 First Anniversary Report

2014-08-31T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2014-09 First Anniversary Report

Wartburg Project Report 2014-08

2014-08-28T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2014-08

Wartburg Project Report 2014-06

2014-07-02T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2014-06

Wartburg Project Summary 2014-05

2014-05-22T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Summary 2014-05

Wartburg Project Report 2014-05

2014-04-26T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2014-05

Wartburg Project Report 2014-04

2014-04-21T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2014-04

Wartburg Project Report 2014-03

2014-03-04T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2014-03

Wartburg Project Report 2014-02

2014-01-31T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2014-02

Wartburg Project Report 2014-01b

2014-01-19T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2014-01b

Report to the Conference of Presidents 2014-01

2014-01-12T00:00:00+00:00

Report to the Conference of Presidents 2014-01

Wartburg Project Report 2014-01a

2013-12-31T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Report 2014-01a

Wartburg Project Invitation 2013-11

2013-10-31T00:00:00+00:00

Wartburg Project Invitation 2013-11

The Reign of Hezekiah

2012-08-01T00:00:00+00:00

The reign of Hezekiah is one of the most complex problems of biblical chronology.

Biblical Acrostics and Other Ancient Near Eastern Acrostics

2012-08-01T00:00:00+00:00

One of the most distinctive features of biblical poetry.

Textual Criticism Brief: Mark 16:9-20

2012-07-31T00:00:00+00:00

Article by Rev. David Kuske on the ending of the Gospel of Mark.

A Mixture of Myrrh and Aloes - an Exegetical Brief on John 19:39

2012-01-08T00:00:00+00:00

What did Nicodemus use for Jesus' burial?