"Why I Prefer the NASB over the KJV": Review: Part 2: Readability

This is the second part in a series reviewing the brief online article by Daniel Stanfield titled “Why I Prefer the NASB over the KJV.”  In Part 1, I responded to the preface.  With this post we move on to the first of four paragraphs. Here is Stanfield’s first paragraph in full (in italic) followed by my response:

1. Readability - NASB The New American Standard Bible uses contemporary language and punctuation, the King James version does not, being written almost 400 years ago, and virtually unchanged for about 120 years. The crux of the matter of readability is the difficulty of the Elizabethan English of the KJV, which is laborious to read even for those who are well educated and familiar with the texts, when compared to reading the same texts in the clearly written NASB in it's [sic] familiar modern format and natural vocabulary. Other readability issues include the use of quotations and poetic stanzas, small caps for Old Testament quotes in the New Testament, and capitalization of pronouns referring to deity. The NASB also recognizes Greek translations of Hebrew names and translates the names consistently, as opposed to the KJV which gives us multiple names for the same person; for example, the KJV calls Judah, the son of Israel, "Judas" in Matthew 1:2, because that's how it is in Greek. The NASB simply calls him Judah in both the Old and New Testaments; this is simpler to understand and just as accurate.

JTR Response:  In the preface Stanfield states that his four paragraphs will be “in order of significance.”  We might begin the review by challenging whether or not the issue of “readability” should occupy first place in evaluating a translation.  Certainly, if one translation were completely indecipherable and another amazingly lucid, readability would be a first place consideration.  I do not think this is the case, however, in comparing the NASB and the KJV.  In my view the most important issue and the starting point for evaluating a translation should be the text which underlies the translation (which Stanfield addresses in paragraph 3).  We must begin with which underlying original language text is to be accepted as authoritative: the traditional text or the modern critical text. Does Mark end at 16:8 or 16:20?  Is John 7:53—8:11 part of the text or not?  This is particularly true if we hold to the doctrine of plenary verbal inspiration.  We first have to know which words to translate before we can determine how to translate them or how to make them readable.

That being said, let’s address the points here on readability.  Stanfield begins with a familiar complaint:  The KJV is too hard for the modern reader to comprehend.  He notes “the difficulty of the Elizabethan English” (note:  Technically, it should probably be called Jacobean English).  He further claims that the KJV is “laborious to read,” even for the well-educated, especially in comparison to a modern translation like the NASB with its “natural vocabulary” (note:  This did make me think of the NASB’s use of “peck-measure” in Matthew 5:15!).  In response, I would note three things:

First, the difficulty of reading the KJV is overstated.  It simply is not that difficult to understand.  As a personal anecdote, my family reads from the KJV in our family devotions and my children (the youngest is now eight) generally do not have problems comprehending the meaning.  Granted, it does push your vocabulary.  Having a good Study Bible to consult or a word list like that published by the Trinitarian Bible Society will prove helpful, as will aids in reading from any translation (e.g., having a good dictionary to look up the meaning of “peck-measure”).

Second, the main problem with comprehension might not have so much to do so much with “readability” as it does with illumination.  This is a serious flaw in the modern approach which often assumes that the reason unbelievers and immature believers do not read and understand the Bible is because the vocabulary and grammar are too hard to understand.  Paul had a different explanation (1 Corinthians 2:14).  Being a good Bible reader requires illumination and discipline.

Third, sidelining the KJV in favor of the NASB or any other modern translation also neglects the intellectual, literary, and pedagogical benefits that accrue from exposure to the beauty and grandeur of the KJV as a Western cultural achievement.  The “readability” of the KJV helps make one a more literate person in general.  This makes one a better reader of the Bible but also of other literature in general, both theological and secular.  Why is the KJV praised in the English department but bad-mouthed in the religion department?

The article next mentions several other issues which it claims aid in comprehension of the text’s meaning, including use of quotation marks, poetic stanza formatting, setting OT quotes in small caps, and capitalization of pronouns referring to the deity (which even the NASB does not do to the degree that the NKJV does).  Such devises are used in the NASB but not the KJV.  What is not recognized here is that each of these “improvements” requires an interpretation by the translator.  When the translator chooses one option he often shuts the reader off from the entertainment of alternative possibilities.  It is not always clear, for example, when a quotation is being made or who is making it (e.g., Is Paul making the statement in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 or is he quoting an opponent?).  Nor is it always clear if the text is to be taken as poetry or prose (e.g., Is Philippians 2:5-11 a hymn fragment or Paul’s original prose composition?). Likewise, it is not always clear whether a speaker is quoting directly from the OT, paraphrasing a passage from memory, or merely making an allusion (cf. Hebrews 10:5).  Finally, assigning pronoun references to God can also be confusing (cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:7 where the NKJV uses “He” and the NASB and KJV use “he”).  Again, such modern changes in translation often represent interpretations that might not necessarily improve the reader’s comprehension of the original.

Finally, Stanfield notes that the NASB is superior to the KJV because it consistently translates Biblical names using the same word in each place where the original name occurs.  He cites, in particular, the fact that the genealogy of Matthew 1:2 in the NASB reads “Judah” rather than “Judas” (KJV).  He is correct that the KJV does not follow the practice of rigidly or woodenly translating each original language word (much less name) by the same English word.  This decision is explained in KJV preface:  “The Translators to the Reader.”  I offer two responses:

First, the NASB does not, in fact, follow a rigid or “consistent” practice in translating names.  For example, though it does translate the Greek name Ioudas as “Judah” in Matthew 1:2, making it conform to its English translation of the Hebrew OT, it renders the exact same Greek name as “Judas” in reference to “Judas Iscariot” (Matthew 10:4); “Judas” Jesus’ half-brother (Matthew 13:55); and “Judas the son of James” (Acts 1:13) and not as “Judah.” Furthermore, it translates this same Greek name as “Jude” in the book of Jude (see 1:1).  Sometimes, in fact, it is the KJV that makes an internally “consistent” translation where the NASB demurs.  Example:  In Acts 7:45 the KJV translates the Greek name Iesous as “Jesus” while the NASB renders it as “Joshua” (though it obviously renders the same Greek name as “Jesus” elsewhere in the NT).

Second, I do not think that a rigid one-to-one correspondence translation method for names is particularly helpful in a translation.  It is good that we have various English names, for example, to distinguish “Judas Iscariot” from “Jude” the NT author and that Jesus is called "Jesus" in the NT and not "Joshua."  This is a fact that both the NASB and the KJV recognize, and it does not make one superior to another on this score.

JTR

"Why I Prefer the NASB over the KJV": Review.Part 1: Preface

A friend and regular reader of the blog recently sent me a link to this online article by Daniel Stanfield comparing the New American Standard Bible (NASB) and the King James Version (KJV).  Though complimentary of the KJV, the author, who describes himself on his website as “a life-long Christian worker and Bible student, and a careful expository Bible student” and also as “largely self-taught,” makes clear his preference for the NASB (as the title of the article obviously evidences:  “Why I prefer the NASB over the KJV”).  The friend asked for my evaluation of this brief comparison, so I am going to offer a series of responses.

The Stanfield article consists of a preface paragraph followed by four content paragraphs.  In this series, I will work my way through the article reproducing it in full (in italic), paragraph by paragraph, and offering a brief response.  Here is part one (the preface):

Both the NASB and the KJV Bibles are very accurate literal translations, of excellent scholarship, using the best copies of the original languages which were available to them. Both works clearly and accurately represent the Word of God. Literary quality is excellent for both works, and style is identical. In many places the NASB reads exactly or nearly the same as the KJV. When choosing between these two versions, there are various areas of contrast which I have listed in order of significance.

JTR Response:  I appreciate the fact that the author does not immediately dismiss the KJV as outdated and irrelevant.  I take exception, however, (1) to the general slant of the introduction and (2) to one factual matter.

First, as regards slant, he states that the KJV and NASB used “the best copies of the original languages which were available to them.” This implies that the text used by the KJV translators is inferior to the text used by the NASB translators, because we now have superior copies.  This begs the question as to whether or not the traditional Reformation text used by the KJV translators (the Hebrew MT for the OT and the Greek TR for the NT) are, in fact, necessarily inferior to the modern critical reconstructions of the OT and NT, which has become the basis for modern translations.  I and others do not believe that the modern critical text does, in fact, represent an improvement.  I know Stanfield’s article is brief and non-technical, but an argument for this perspective must at least be presented before it might be entertained and certainly before it might be accepted.  This argument also contains an inherent contradiction.  If the best translations are necessarily the ones that use the most recent version of the modern critical text, then one should abandon the NASB (1971, last updated in 1995) in favor of translations based on more recent editions of the modern critical texts (like the NRSV or ESV).

Second, as regards a fact, he states that “style is identical” for the KJV and the NASB.  Clearly, however, this is mistaken. In fact, in the paragraphs following the preface, the author himself points to several ways that the NASB is different in translation style from the KJV (e.g., the NASB sets off direct quotations with quotation marks, uses a stanza format for poetry, puts OT quotations in small caps,  and capitalizes pronouns referring to the deity).

Perhaps what the author means to imply is that both the NASB and the KJV follow in the venerable literary style of Tyndale (for the NT at least) and other English translations that predate them both (e.g., Matthew’s Bible, Bishops’ Bible, Geneva Bible, etc.).  This is a claim that is often made (I believe falsely) for English translations which derive from the Revised Version (NT-1881; OT-1885), which was the watershed English translation whose daughter versions eventually dethroned the KJV from its position of dominant English usage.  In fact, if you read the preface to any copy of the NASB, the editors will tell you that it comes from a revision of the American Standard Version (ASV) of 1901 which, in turn, came from the Revised Version of 1881/1885.  Its stylistic roots are not in Tyndale of the sixteenth century but in Wescott and Hort and the Revision Committee of the nineteenth century.

This point is readily illustrated if one compares passages in the various translations.  Let’s take one example (chosen at random) from the NT:  Matthew 5:14-15 in the Sermon on the Mount.  Compare three translations which come from what we might call the Tyndale “style stream”:

Tyndale (1525):     Matthew 5: 14 Ye are ye light of the worlde. A cite yt is set on an hill cannot be hid  15 nether do men lyght a cadell and put it vnder a busshell but on a candelstick and it lighteth all that are in the house

Geneva (1599 ed.):  Matthew 5:14 Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill, cannot be hid. 15 Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick, and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.

KJV (1611):  Matthew 5:14 Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. 15 Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.

And here are four that come from the what might be called the modern, Revised Version “style stream”:

ASV (1901):  Matthew 5:14:  Ye are the light of the world.  A city set on a hill cannot be hid.  15 Neither do men light a lamp, and put it under a bushel, but on the stand; and it shineth unto all that are in the house.

RSV (1946/1952):  Matthew 5:14 You are the light of the world.  A city set on a hill cannot be hid.  15 Nor do men light a lamp and put it under a bushel, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house.

NASB (1971, 1995) Matthew 5:14 You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. 15 Nor do men light a lamp, and put it under the peck-measure, but on the lampstand; and it gives light to all who are in the house.

ESV (2001) Matthew 5:14  You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden.  15 Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house.

Here are some ways that the NASB differs from the Tyndale/KJV style for Matthew 5:14-15:

1.  NASB uses “you” rather than “ye” in v. 14.

2.  NASB omits relative pronoun “that” in v. 14.

3.  NASB uses “hidden” rather than “hid” in v. 14.

4.  NASB uses “nor” rather than “neither” in v. 15.

4.  NASB italicizes “men” in v. 15.

5.  NASB uses “peck-measure” rather than “bushel” in v. 15.

6.  NASB uses “lampstand” rather than “candlestick” in v. 15.

7.  NASB uses “gives” rather than “giveth” in v. 15.

8.  NASB uses relative pronoun “who” rather than “that.”

Though on the surface one might say the two traditions are “exactly or nearly the same,”  a closer look makes plain that there are clear and consistent differences in vocabulary and syntax.  If one compares passages in Tyndale/Geneva/KJV with those in RSV/ASV/NASB/ESV throughout, he can discern two different and distinct “style streams.”  This difference is even more obvious in those passages also affected by textual issues. 

Such comparison sufficiently illustrates that the KJV NT is nearly similar in style to the Tyndale NT.  It clearly disproves, however, that the NASB is identical in style to the Tyndale/KJV tradition.  Here is a table showing the two major style traditions among English translations:

Tyndale English Style Tradition	Modern English Style Tradition
Tyndale NT (1525)	Revised Version (1881/1885)
Geneva Bible (1560; 1599)	American Standard Version (1901)
King James Version (1611)	Revised Standard Version (1946/1952)
	New American Standard Bible (1971, Updated 1995)
	New Revised Standard Version (1989)
	English Standard Version (2001)

The Vision (3.12.15): Spiritual Lessons from 2 Samuel 11

Image:  A field of hyssop herb plants.

The notes below are adapted from the application from last Sunday morning’s sermon on 2 Samuel 11:

The account in 2 Samuel 11 of David’s adultery with Bathsheba and his duplicitous plot to murder her husband could well be considered an almost clinical account or illustration of how sin operates.  Such an analysis might include the following:

Sin so often involves willfully being in the wrong places at the wrong times (“But David tarried still at Jerusalem” [v. 1]).

Sin so often involves the entertaining, the feeding, the calculations toward, the planning, and the orchestration of lustful pursuits (cf. “And David sent/said/wrote….” [vv. 3, 4, 6, 8, 12 , 14]).

Sin so often justifies itself by straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel.  The text says that David committed adultery with Bathsheba but adds that she wasn’t in a state of ritual impurity (v. 4).  This something like saying, “I am a bank robber, but I never commit heists on Sundays!”

Sin gets progressively worse in an attempt to hide other sins.

Sin is persistent.  It does not easily give up and go away.

Sin is social.  It involves others and drags them down with it.

Sin is selfish and only protects self-interests.

Sin sears the conscience and makes one numb and insensitive to its hurt and pain (cf. David’s disingenuous words to Joab at the death of Uriah:  “for the sword devoureth one as well as another” [v. 25]).”

But I think we might just as well say that this chapter is not so much about the sin of David as it is the uprightness of Uriah.

Uriah thought not of the satisfactions of his own lusts but of the honor of the Lord and the fellowship of his brethren in arms (v. 11).

Where David caved in to sin, Uriah said resolutely, “I will not do this thing” (v. 11).

Uriah, though he was not an Israelite according to the flesh, was a true Israelite.

Let me also return to the final words of this chapter.  The story is going to continue in chapter 12.  But for now, it seems that David has literally gotten away with murder.  Read through the chapter 11 and there are no moral judgments drawn along the way.  The facts and details are simply described.  But then we come to the final words:  “But the thing that David had done displeased the LORD [But evil was the thing which David did in the eyes (of the LORD)]” (v. 27b).

Dale Ralph Davis observes:  “the silence of God does not indicate the absence of God” (2 Samuel, p. 121).  Psalm 11:4 says, “The LORD is in his holy temple, the LORD'S throne is in heaven: his eyes behold, his eyelids try, the children of men.”  Dale Ralph Davis continues:  “Yahweh may be silent but he is not sightless….  David may have Bathsheba’s flesh and Uriah’s blood, but he will have to face Yahweh’s eyes.”

Finally, there are two more things this account tells us:

First, it is a warning.  If a man like David could fall into such sin, so might we.  The best of men are men at best.  Paul said:

1 Corinthians 10:12 Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.

Second, it is a reminder of our need for a sinless Savior.  What David could not do and what even an upright man like Uriah could not do—live a completely upright and godly and completely consistent life—Christ has done for us. Compare:

2 Corinthians 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle

The Vital Connection Between Text and Canon

Image:  I love the retro cover for the original 1967 edition of Hills' "Believing Bible Study."  Don't let the kitschy cover fool you.  There's gold inside. 

There is an important point that seems to be largely overlooked in modern discussions of both the text and canon of Scripture.  Namely, the point is that there is a vital connection between the two fields of text and canon.  The development of the canon of the New Testament, for example, did not just mean the “choosing” (better, “acknowledging”) of the proper books to include in the authoritative canon, but also the proper texts of those books.  This is the idea that I put forward to Jamin Hubner several years ago in our online debate which he then described in a podcast as novel and even “heretical” (listen to the sound bite intro to Word Magazines on text criticism).

Edward F. Hills, for one, makes this connection in his Believing Bible Study:

Thus the Holy Spirit guided the early Christians to gather the individual NT books into one NT canon and to reject all non-canonical books. In the same manner also the Holy Spirit guided the early Christians to preserve the NT text by receiving the true readings and rejecting the false.  Certainly, it would be strange if God had guided His people in regard to the NT canon but had withheld from them His divine assistance in the matter of the NT text.  This would mean that Bible-believing Christians today could have no certainty concerning the NT text but would be obliged to rely on the hypotheses of modern, naturalistic critics (p. 36).

Indeed, do we believe God assisted believers in acknowledging the inspired books of the NT canon but not the inspired texts of those books?

JTR   

The Vision (3.5.15): Play the Men (2 Samuel 10:12)

Note:  Here are some sermon notes from one of the applications drawn from last Sunday morning’s sermon on 2 Samuel 10:

We could meditate with profit on Joab’s charge to his brother Abishai as they were heading into battle against the Ammonites:

“Be of good courage, and let us play the men for our people, and for the cities of our God: and the LORD do that which seemeth him good” (2 Samuel 10:12).

The Christian life is indeed often described by the apostles in martial terms.  Compare:

Ephesians 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

2 Timothy 2:3 Thou therefore endure hardness, as a good soldier of Jesus Christ.

2 Timothy 4:7 I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith:

The question is:  What kind of soldier will you be for Christ?  When the enemy stands arrayed against you, when you are surrounded on all sides, when you are about to go into battle, how will you respond?

Listen to Joab:  Be courageous and let us be courageous!  Play the man!  Play the man for your people and for the cities of your God—for your family, for your children, for future generations, for your church!

I pray that we and our children will never have to suffer as some of the saints of old did, but if we do may we be found as faithful as they.  Two of the old martyrs who died under the Marian persecutions in England were Latimer and Ridley.  As they were being burned at the stake, Foxe’s Book of Martyrs famously records that Latimer encouraged his fellow martyr by saying, “Be of good comfort, Master Ridley, and play the man. We shall this day light such a candle, by God’s grace, in England, as I trust shall never be put out.”

Finally, we also need to mediate on Joab’s final words in v. 12:  “And the LORD do that which seemeth him good.”  Notice Joab does not say, And the Lord do that which seems good to us.  Or, the Lord must give the outcome that we think is best or we will walk away from him.  No, this is a serene confidence in the Lord.  It is a trust in the Lord to give the outcome that is good to him, that gives him the most glory and man the most blessing.  And it confesses that we do not know what this is, because we are not God.  This is complete submission to the will of God.  Compare the words of the three Hebrew youths to the pagan king who is about to toss them into the burning fiery furnace:

Daniel 3:17 If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine hand, O king. 18 But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up.

Or the prayer of the prophet Habakkuk:

Habakkuk 3:17 Although the fig tree shall not blossom, neither shall fruit be in the vines; the labour of the olive shall fail, and the fields shall yield no meat; the flock shall be cut off from the fold, and there shall be no herd in the stalls: 18 Yet I will rejoice in the LORD, I will joy in the God of my salvation. 19 The LORD God is my strength, and he will make my feet like hinds' feet, and he will make me to walk upon mine high places. To the chief singer on my stringed instruments.

Consider that the Lord allowed the greatest evil, the greatest injustice that the world has ever known in order to bring about the greatest good and the greatest mercy the world has ever known.  He permitted his beloved Son to be rejected, to be humiliated, to be brutally murdered.

When Jesus was arrested, Peter tried to intervene and fight off those who came to seize him.  Jesus replied:

Matthew 26:52 Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. 53 Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? 54 But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?

Jesus was in essence saying, “And the LORD do that which seemeth him good.”

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle

Three Christian Men who Remained Faithful to Unstable Wives

Image:  The "Arnolfini Portrait" (1434) by Jan van Eyck.  Among the many visual symbols in this classic portrait of a husband and his wife is the dog, a symbol of fidelity.

I recently preached on David’s keeping of his covenant to Jonathan by extending kindness to Mephibosheth in 2 Samuel 9.  In the applications, I noted that one thing this passage teaches is the importance of keeping one’s covenant commitments, whether the foundational covenant commitment to Christ, the commitment to covenant membership in a local church, or the covenant commitment to Christian marriage.

I then returned to give some specific examples of faithfulness to the covenant of marriage.  This was particularly on my mind as I had recently read the memoir of a liberal mainline theologian in which he recounted his separation, divorce, and remarriage after a difficult first marriage to a woman who suffered with mental illness.  In contrast to this man’s experience, I thought of the examples of at least three Christian men in church history who remained faithfully married to wives who suffered from mental illness:

Example 1:  The Scottish minister Thomas Boston (1676-1732) was married for thirty two years to Catherine Brown, whom one biographer described as falling “under a mysterious and racking disorder of the intellect” (Biographical Introduction, Human Nature in Its Fourfold State, p. 15).  She apparently became mentally unstable just weeks after their marriage, tried to take her life on several occasions, and spent ten years confined to her bed with apparent schizophrenia.  Nevertheless, Boston could describe his troubled wife as “a woman of great worth, whom I passionately loved, and inwardly honoured; a stately, beautiful, and comely personage, truly pious, and fearing the Lord … patient in our common tribulations, and under her personal distresses” (as quoted in Meet the Puritans, p. 657).

Example 2:  The Baptist minister Andrew Fuller (1754-1815) wrote in his diary on July 25, 1792, “O my God, my soul is cast down within me!  The affliction in my family seems too heavy for me!  O Lord, I am oppressed, undertake for me!  My thoughts are broken off, and all my prospects seem to be perished!” (Collected Works, Vol. 1, p. 59).  His lament was for his wife in particular.  While expecting a child, she began to suffer with bouts of mental distress.  Perhaps this was brought on by the hardship of having a few years earlier lost their oldest daughter to the measles at age six.    Fuller’s wife was seized with what he described as “hysterical affections” and a “deranged” mind (p. 55).  She went through some times when she was lucid but at other times she could not recognize Fuller as her husband (she called him an “imposter”) or her children and would try to escape from their home.  On August 23, 1792 she gave birth to a healthy daughter, but she died soon after the delivery.  Through it all Fuller had stood by his wife faithfully.

Example 3:  James Fraser (d. in 1769 in his 69th year of life after 44 years of ministry) was a minister in the Northern Scotland region of Ross-Shire.  His story is told in the book The Days of the Fathers in Ross-Shire (Northern Chronicle, 1927).  Fraser suffered with an unhappy marriage to a woman who likely had some form of mental or social disorder, no doubt compounded by her own sinfulness.  The account of Fraser's unfortunate marriage begins, “A cold, unfeeling, bold, unheeding worldly woman was his wife.” It continues, “Never did her godly husband sit down to a comfortable meal in his own house, and often would he have fainted for sheer want of needful sustenance but for the considerate kindness of some of his parishioners.” His friends would hide food near his home so that he would not starve to death!  On long and cold winter evenings his wife denied him a fire in his study.  "Compelled to walk in order to keep himself warm, and accustomed to do so when preparing for the pulpit, he always kept his hands before him as feelers in the dark, to warn him of his approaching the wall at either end of the room.  In this way he actually wore a hole through the plaster at each end of his accustomed beat...."

The story is also told how Fraser once went alone to a Presbytery dinner with his fellow ministers. One liberal minister suggested that they raise a toast to the health of their wives and winking at his companions he asked Fraser, “You, of course, will cordially join in drinking to this toast.” Fraser responded, “So I will and so I ought…for mine is a better wife to me than any of yours have been to you.” “How so?” they all exclaimed. “She has sent me," was the reply, “seven times a day to my knees when I would not otherwise have gone, and that is more than any of you can say of yours.”

JTR

On Finding a 20th Edition of Nestle's Novum Testamentum Graece

One of the nice things about living in Charlottesville is the access to good used bookstores.  I walked into Heartwood Books on UVA's Corner yesterday to peruse the religion section and found this copy of the 20th edition (1950) of Nestle's Novum Testamentum Graece.  I purchased it for $7.50. It is a nice, relatively clean copy.

Eberhard Nestle (1851-1913) first published his Novum Testamentum Graece in 1898. His original work was based on comparison of the three most significant printed editions of the modern critical Greek New Testament of the nineteenth century (Tichendorf; Westcott/Hort; and Weymouth).  The Weymouth was replaced by the edition of B. Weiss in 1901. Where any two of these agreed against a third, Nestle followed the majority. According to a pamphlet published by the German Bible Society: "Nestle's edition, due to its wide distribution, ultimately displaced the 'Textus Receptus', which among scholars had already long become obsolete, in churches and schools" (Textual Research on the Bible [2008]:  p. 19).

The editor's preface begins with a Latin quote from the preface to J. A. Bengel's 1734 Greek New Testament:  Te totam applica ad textum: rem totam applica ad te ("Apply your whole self to the text; apply the whole matter to yourself").  

After Eberhard Nestle's death, his son Erwin Nestle (1883-1972) continued editing his father's work.  With the 13th edition (1927), Erwin Nestle added to the work a critical apparatus, which increasingly expanded in future editions.  In 1952 Kurt Aland (1915-1994) became co-editor of the work and with the 25th edition (1963) it became known as the "Nestle-Aland" Greek New Testament.  Later editions were based not merely on printed editions (as the early editions had been) but on direct comparison to original Biblical manuscripts. The 26th edition of the N-A (1979) brought the text into agreement for the first time with the modern critical Greek text of the United Bible Societies (3rd edition).  The 28th edition of the N-A (2012) is now the standard modern-critical text of academic scholarship.

Image:  Here is the opening to Romans.  Notice the small printed text Biblical text (a hallmark of the Nestle-Aland NT) but also the wide surrounding margins.

Image:  I found it interesting that the table of contents lists Hebrews as the last of the "Epistolai Paulou (Pauline epistles)", though the line is inset, and not as part of the "Epistolai Katholikai (Catholic Epistles)."

JTR

The Vision (2.26.15): Compassion for a Lame Man (2 Samuel 9)

Note:  Here are some thoughts drawn from last Sunday’s message on 2 Samuel 9.

“And Ziba said unto the king, Jonathan hath yet a son, which is lame on his feet” (2 Samuel 9:3).

“And David said unto him, Fear not:  for I will surely shew thee kindness for Jonathan thy father’s sake” (2 Samuel 9:7).

In 2 Samuel 9 we learn that David kept his covenant bond to the house of Jonathan by extending mercy and compassion to Mephibosheth, the lame son of Jonathan (cf. 1 Samuel 20:14-15; 2 Samuel 4:4).  Though it was customary in David’s day for a new king to see all the descendents of the previous monarch as his enemies (cf. 2 Kings 10:1-9; 11:1), David unexpectedly extended kindess (hesed, covenant mercy) to Mephibosheth.

One things we can learn from 2 Samuel 9 is the importance of keeping one’s covenant promises, whether they be the foundational covenant commitment to Christ, the covenant commitment of marriage, or the covenant commitment of church membership.

On a deeper level, we learn something in 2 Samuel 9 about the Lord’s dealings with us.  We are spiritually lame men and women.  We, as a race, were once whole but in our infancy, through the fall, we lost all spiritually ability.  We even became the enemies of Christ.  But the Lord sought us; he then sent forth his son in the fullness of time for us; and he has supplied us through Christ with everything we need for salvation and true godliness.

Dale Ralph Davis closes his exposition of 2 Samuel 9 with these words:

The first principle for grappling with the marvel of God’s love is to realize that he has no business—in a sense—loving whom he loves.  What I’m saying is that we are the Lord’s Mephibosheths, and there is absolutely no reason why we should be eating continually at the king’s table. And if we have any sense, we won’t be able to understand it either (2 Samuel, p. 106).

Perhaps the best New Testament passage to place alongside 2 Samuel 9 is this one from Paul:

Romans 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. 10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle

The odd empty column at the ending of Mark in Codex Vaticanus

One of the oddities of codex Vaticanus is the textual layout for the ending of Mark.  The NT in Vaticanus is written in three columns.  Generally, if the text of a particular book ends in one column, the text of the next book begins in the very next column.  So, if the text of one book ends in column one, the text of the next book begins in column two.

The Gospel of Mark in Vaticanus famously ends, of course, at Mark 6:8.  It is one of only three extant ancient Greek mss. which end Mark at 16:8 (the others being codices Sinaiticus and 304).  The odd things is that Mark ends in the middle of column two but column three is left blank, and the text of Luke does not begin until column one of the next page.  This perhaps indicates that the scribe was confused or concerned about the abbreviated ending or even intended to add the Longer Ending, though it is questionable as to whether Mark 16:9-20 would fit within the remainder of column 2 and in the blank column three.  Perhaps, however, he intended to continue the text in column one of the next page, where Luke now begins.

Jakob Van Bruggen made this observation about the ending of Mark:

“There are only three known Greek manuscripts that end at 16:8, and one of them has a large open space after verse 8.  All the remaining Greek manuscripts contain verses 9-20 after Mark 16:1-8, and most of them do not have a single note or insertion of other data.  Mark 16:1-20 has both the authority of the Majority Text, as well as the authority of oldest text.  If it still remains uncertain whether Mark 16:9-20 is well attested textually, then very little of any of the text of the New Testament is well attested" (The Future of the Bible [Thomas Nelson, 1978]:  p. 131).

The pictures below, drawn from the online Vaticanus, allow us to compare the endings of the four Gospels in codex Vaticanus and note how the ending of Mark presents an anomalous pattern:

Image:  Ending of Matthew in column two; beginning of Mark in column three.

Image:  Ending of Mark in column two; column three blank.

Image:  Ending of Luke in column two; beginning of John in column three.

Image:  Ending of John in column one; beginning of Acts in column two.

The New Testament Books List for Codex Vaticanus

Image:  Screenshot of a closeup of 1 John 5:7-8, sans the CJ, in Vaticanus.

Image:  Whole view of page from I John in Vaticanus.  The preceding image above is a close-up of the bottom of the middle column which contains 1 John 5:7-8.

Image:  The last page of Hebrews in Vaticanus from the original copyist, ending at Hebrews 9:14a.

Image:  This is the first page of Hebrews in Vaticanus in the later hand, starting at Hebrews 9:14b.

Image:  Screenshot of close-up of beginning of Revelation in Vaticanus, written in later hand.  Compare and contrast with close-up of 1 John 5:7-8 in archaic hand above.

Note:  Here’s a follow up to the earlier post I did on the books in the Old Testament in Codex Vaticanus (now available online).  Here is the list of New Testament books in Vaticanus:

Matthew

Mark

Luke

John

Acts

James

1 Peter

2 Peter

1 John

2 John

3 John

Jude

Romans

1 Corinthians

2 Corinthians

Galatians

Ephesians

Philippians

Colossians

1 Thessalonians

2 Thessalonians

Hebrews

Revelation

Observations:

1.  The Gospels and Acts appear in what becomes the standard order.

2.  Next are the General Epistles, beginning with James.

3.  Next come the Pauline epistles, with the Pastoral epistles (1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus) and Philemon omitted (Did they appear after Hebrews in the original manuscript?  See below).

4.  Hebrews comes after 2 Thessalonians, which implies it is considered among the Pauline epistles.

5.  The original text of Vaticanus ends at Hebrews 9:14a.  The remainder of Hebrews (9:14b—13:25) and Revelation is written in a distinctly different hand (which apparently dates to c. fifteenth century) and was added at a later time.

JTR