Luke 10:1, 17 and the Traditional Text of Scripture

The Question: Did Jesus send out seventy (traditional text) or seventy-two (modern critical text) disciples in Luke 10:1, 17?

The traditional text, as reflected in translations like the AV and NKJV, reads "70." The modern critical text’s use of "72" is an example of an unnecessary change in the traditional text.

I. External Evidence:

The pivotal question is the inclusion or omission of one word, duo. Include the word, and it reads "72." Exclude the word, and it reads "70."

1. Greek manuscripts that include duo (Luke 10:1):

P75 B (Vaticanus) D (Bezae) 0181

In addition, this reading is supported by a few Old Latin manuscripts, the Sinaitic Syriac, the Curetonian Syriac, the Sahidic, and a single Bohairic manuscript. In the Church Fathers, it is found in some manuscripts of Origen (d. 254 AD) and in Adamantius (c. 300-350 AD).

2. Greek manuscripts that exclude duo (Luke 10:1):

Aleph (Sinaiticus) A C L W Theta Psi family 1 (1, 118, 131, 209, 1582) family 13 (13, 69, 124, 174, 230, 346, 543, 788, 826, 828, 983, 1689, 1709) and the Majority of extant manuscripts.

In addition, the traditional text is supported by the Syriac Peshitta, the Syriac Harclean, and the Bohairic. It is also supported by quotations in the Church Fathers including Irenaeus (2nd cen. AD); Clement (c. 95 AD); and Tertullian (c. 220 AD).

3. Evaluation:

One will notice that the two manuscripts most prized by modern critical scholars are divided in their reading. Vaticanus supports the non-traditional reading and Sinaiticus the traditional reading. There are only four Greek manuscripts that support the non-traditional reading.

The external evidence appears overwhelmingly to support the traditional text of Scripture. Metzger, however, can somehow say, "The external evidence is almost evenly divided" (this and all other quotes below are from Bruce Metzger, ed. A Textual Commentary on the New Testament [UBS, Corrected ed., 1975]: pp. 150-51). The attestation to the traditional text is ancient and widespread.

II. Internal Evidence:

Metzger notes that "The factors that bear on the evaluation of internal evidence are singularly elusive." He adds that although the majority of the six man UBS committee decided to include duo, they enclosed the word in square brackets "to indicate a certain doubt that it has a right to stand there."

A minority report is attached from Kurt Aland. He notes that the examples of "70" in the OT is "overwhelming; there are always 70 souls in the house of Jacob, 70 elders, sons, priests and 70 years that are mentioned in chronological references to important events." Meanwhile, the number "72" appears just once in Numbers 31:38 in reference to the number of cattle set apart for sacrifice. On Aland’s reading, however, this is what makes it all the more "astonishing" that the "72" reading occurs at all in Luke 10:1, 17. He attributes the "70" reading to "ecclesiastical normalizing." Thus, he argues that the number in question "should be printed without square brackets."

Aland accepts "72" as the more difficult, and thus the preferred, reading. There are, however, several very plausible explanations as to how this reading might have developed. One common solution that is offered concerns the listing of 70 nations in the Hebrew text of Genesis 10 and 72 nations in the LXX text of the same passage.

Another relates to Numbers 11. The sending out of the 70 in Luke 10:1 echoes Moses’ choice of "the seventy men of the elders of Israel" in Numbers 12:16. The spirit that had rested on Moses falls on these men, and they prophesy (v. 25). In Numbers 11:26, however, there is mention of two men, Eldad and Medad," who were "among those listed, but who had not gone out to the tabernacle." It is conceivable that some traditions had assumed there were "72" elders rather than "70" based on a misreading of Numbers 11. This interpretation then could have come to be applied to the company of those sent out by Jesus in Luke 10:1, 17.

The strong external evidence, along with a plausible explanation of the internal evidence, leads us to affirm the traditional reading. What Aland dismisses as "ecclesiastical normalizing" we see as divine preservation of the correct reading to maintain a reliable text for the church. The early believers eventually rejected the reading of "72" as spurious. There is no compelling reason to abandon the traditional reading of "70."

III. Survey of English translations:

What do the various English translations do with Luke 10:1, 17? As one would expect those that self-consciously follow the traditional text (AV, NKJV) read "70." It is surprising to find, however, that not all translations that follow the modern critical text read "72."

One translation that does follow the modern critical text is the NIV (1984). The NIV reads "seventy-two" in Luke 10:1 and adds in a footnote, "Some manuscripts seventy." Given the evidence, it would be more appropriate to have such a note read something like, "The vast majority of ancient Greek texts reads seventy, although four Greek texts read seventy-two."
Several modern versions choose to depart from the modern critical Greek text here and to retain the traditional reading. The NASB (1995), though generally following the modern critical text, here reads "seventy." Likewise, the Holman-Christian Standard Bible (2003) also reads "seventy" with a note stating, "Other mss read 72."

More curious are the translation choices in the RSV stream. The RSV (1952) retains the traditional reading of "seventy," adding in a footnote, "Other ancient authorities read seventy-two." The NRSV (1989) likewise preserves the traditional reading of "seventy" with the same footnote as the RSV. The ESV (2001), currently being promoted as a replacement for the NIV in the evangelical church, departs from the RSV and NRSV but duplicates the NIV by reading "seventy-two" with an identical accompanying note adding, "Some manuscripts seventy." The same critique applied to the NIV note above is appropriate to the ESV note here.

It is clear that even many scholars and translators who accept the modern eclectic text of the New Testament, realize that the weight of the evidence for departure from the traditional reading of Luke 10:1, 17 is suspect. The NIV and ESV, however, abandon the traditional reading headlong. Oddly enough, the "evangelical" translations are the ones that promote innovation, while the "liberal" ones (e.g., NRSV) perpetuate the traditional reading.

JTR

The text and translation of 1 Samuel 6:19: Part 1

In preaching through 1 Samuel, I have come across several significant textual issues. Through the meticulous efforts of the Masoretes, the traditional Old Testament text is less contested than the New Testament text. Still, even the traditional Masoretic text is being increasingly challenged by modern textual critics, interpreters, and translators. Issues in 1 Samuel often have to do with the fact that versions (most notably the LXX) sometimes depart from and expand the received text. The question raised by these readings is whether they might rest on what could be considered to be a superior Hebrew manuscript.

1 Samuel 6:19 provides two intriguing textual and translation issues:

I. 1 Samuel 6:19 provides an example of a Septuagintal expansion.

The LXX adds the phrase, “And the sons of Jechoniah were not pleased with the men of Beth-Shemesh, when they looked at the ark of the Lord [kai ouk esmenisan hoi huioi Iechoniou en tois andrasin Baithsamus hoti eidon kiboton kuriou].” There are several modern English translations that follow the LXX here. Compare:

JB (Jerusalem Bible): Of the people of Beth-shemesh the sons of Jechoniah had not rejoiced when they saw the ark of Yahweh, and he struck down seventy of them.

NEB (New English Bible): But the sons of Jechoniah did not rejoice with the rest of the men of Beth-shemesh when they welcomed the ark of the LORD, and he struck down seventy of them.

Most Bibles used by evangelicals, however, tend to stay with the Hebrew text (AV, NIV, RSV/ESV, NKJV, NASB). Dale Ralph Davis, however, is intrigued by the reference to the “sons of Jechoniah” appearing “out of the blue” and concludes, “There is something to be said for following the Sepuagint here” (1 Samuel [Christian Focus, 2000, p. 66]). He also claims to be baffled that some translations can follow the Hebrew without referencing the LXX, while others (e.g., JB and NEB) follow the LXX without reference to the Hebrew (Ibid., n. 13). Despite Davis’ enthusiasm for the LXX here, it seems wisest to stick with the traditional Hebrew text of 1 Samuel 6:19.

II. There is also a question about the record of the number of men killed in 1 Samuel 6:19.


This second difficulty does not have to do with the LXX. The question here relates to the interpretation of the Hebrew record of the number of men from Beth-Shemesh who were struck down by God after presumptuously looking “into the ark of the LORD.” The traditional text records the number as shuhbim ish chamishim elpeh ish (literally, “seventy men, fifty thousand men” or as the AV renders it, “fifty thousand and threescore and ten men”).

This figure, however, has long been under scrutiny in the history of interpretation. There have been two main objections lodged against this rendering. First, it is argued that the number of 50,070 is too great. How could that many men have been present at Beth-Shemesh? Second, it is argued that the scale of God’s wrath is too great. Would God have struck down this many men for this violation?

In addition, some have questioned the proper translation of the text. Could the writer have meant to say something like, the Lord struck down “seventy men out of 50,000 men”? Indeed, the much lower (reasonable?) number of “seventy” is preferred by many modern interpreters. In fact, several modern translations simply alter their rendering of this verse to reflect this figure though it has no textual basis in the Hebrew manuscripts. Compare (emphasis added):

NIV: But God struck down some of the men of Beth Shemesh, putting seventy of them to death because they had looked into the ark of the LORD. The people mourned because of the heavy blow the LORD had dealt them,

ESV: And he struck some of the men of Beth-shemesh, because they looked upon the ark of the LORD. He struck seventy men of them, and the people mourned because the LORD had struck the people with a great blow.

The ESV also includes in a footnote: “Hebrew of the people seventy men, fifty thousand men.” It is also worth noting that the JB and NEB cited above agree with the NIV and ESV in reading “seventy."

So which figure should we use? What is the Word of God? Were 50,070 men struck down or a “mere” seventy? First, the NIV and RSV/ESV decision to ignore translation of the phrase “fifty thousand men” in the Hebrew text and to go with “seventy” imposing an interpretation rather than offering a literal translation. Other modern translations that seek formal equivalence in translation follow the AV (so the NASB reads, “50,070 men” and the NKJV “fifty thousand and seventy men”).

It is helpful here to consult how some of the “old men” dealt with difficulties such as this. In the next post, we will look at how this difficulty was handled by some of the trusted “faithful men” of the past (Matthew Poole and Matthew Henry).

JTR

The text and translation of 1 Samuel 6:19: Part 2

In the previous post, I noted two textual and translational difficulties with 1 Samuel 6:19: (1) an expansion in the LXX concerning “the sons of Jechoniah”; and (2) the translation of the number of men struck down by God as 50,070 (as in translations that formally follow the traditional text, such as the AV, NKJV, and NASB) or as merely 70 (as in translations that depart from the Hebrew text without explanation, such as the JB, NEB, RSV/ESV, and NIV).

Now, we turn to look at how some of the faithful “old men” dealt with these issues in their commentaries. First, we look at Matthew Poole (1624-1679). Beeke and Pederson call Poole’s work “the best basic Puritan commentary for daily Bible study” (Meet the Puritans, p. 487). First, Poole does not address the LXX expansion at all, though he was surely aware of it. This reading is not part of the traditional Hebrew text, so it is not a valid option for consideration. As to the second issue, Poole offers an exceptionally extended reflection on this difficulty in which he provides a reasonable defense of the traditional reading (of both the text and translation) and an awareness of challenges that have been offered against it:

Fifty thousand and threescore and ten men: This may seem an incredible relation, both because that place could not afford so great a number, and because it seems an act of great rigour, that God should no severely punish those people who came with so much zeal and joy to congratulate the return of the ark, and that for so inconsiderable an error. For the latter branch of the objection, it may be said,

(1) That God always used to be most severe in punishing his own people, as sinning against more knowledge and warning than others; especially for such sins as immediately concern his own worship and service.

(2) That men are very incompetent judges of these matters, because they do not understand all the reasons and causes of God’s judgments. For although God took this just occasion to punish them for that crime which was so severely forbidden even to the common Levites under pain of death; of which see Numb iv.18-20; yet it is apparent that the people were at this time guilty of many other and greater miscarriages, for which God might justly inflict the present punishment upon them; and moreover, there are many secret sins which escape man’s observation, but are seen by God, before whom many persons may be deeply guilty, whom some men esteem innocent and virtuous. And therefore men should take heed of censuring the judgments of God, of which it is most truly said, that they are oft secret, but never unrighteous.

And for the former branch of the objection, many things are or may be said:

(1) That the land of Israel was strangely populous. See 2 Sam xxiv.9; 2 Chron xiii.3.

(2) That all these were not the settled inhabitants of this place, but most of them such as did, and in all probability would, resort thither in great numbers upon so illustrious an occasion.

(3) That all these were not struck dead in the very fact, and upon the place, which would have terrified others from following their example; but were secretly struck with some disease or plague, which killed them in a little time.

(4) That divers learned men translate and understand the placed otherwise, and make the number much smaller. Josephus the Jew and the Hebrew doctors, and many others, contend that only seventy persons were slain; which though it seem but a small number, yet might justly be called a great slaughter, either for the quality of the persons slain or for the greatness and extraordinariness of the stroke; or because it was a great number, considering the smallness of the place, and the sadness of the occasion. The words in the Hebrew are these, and thus placed, he smote of or among the people seventy men, fifty thousand men; whereas say they, the words should have been otherwise placed, and the greater number put before the less, if this had been meant, that he smote fifty thousand and seventy men. And one very learned man renders the words thus, He smote of the people seventy men, even fifty of a thousand, the particle mem, of, or out of, being understood, as it is very frequently. So the meaning is, that God smote every twentieth man of the transgressors, as the Romans used to cut off every tenth man in case of the general guilt of an army. Or the words may be rendered thus, He smote of or among the people seventy men out of fifty thousand men; the particle mem, of, or, out of, being understood before the word fifty, which Bochart puts before a thousand; and it may be thus expressed, to show that God did temper his severity with great clemency; and whereas there were thousands of transgressors (every one following his brother’s example, as is usual in such cases,) God only singled out seventy of the principle offenders, who either sinned most against their light or office, or were the ringleaders or chief encouragers of the rest. To which may be added, that the ancient translators, the Syriac and the Arabic, read the place five thousand and seventy men, being supposed to have read in their Hebrew copies chamesh, five, for chamishim, fifty, which is no great alteration in the word.

JTR

The text and translation of 1 Samuel 6:19: Part 3

Continuing our examination of how some of the faithful “old path” men view text and translation issues in 1 Samuel 6:19 (see part 1 and part 2), we turn to Matthew Henry (1662-1714). Henry, like Poole, does not deal with the LXX expansion, though he surely knew of it. He thereby expresses his confidence in the Masoretic text of the Hebrew. He does, however, address the issue of translating the number “70 men, 50,000 men” (literal Hebrew) in the verse.

Henry’s notes reveal his awareness that the Hebrew “is expressed in a very unusual manner” and lists various possibilities while sticking with the traditional rendering:

He smote 50,070 men. This account of the numbers smitten is expressed in a very unusual manner in the original, which, besides the improbability that there should be so many guilty and so many slain, occasions many learned men to question whether we take the matter aright. In the original it is, He smote in (or among) the people three score and ten men, fifty thousand men. The Syriac and Arabic read it, five thousand and seventy men. The Chaldee reads it, seventy men of the elders, and fifty thousand of the common people. Seventy men as valuable as 50,000, so some, because they were priests. Some think the seventy men were the Beth-shemites that were slain for looking into the ark, and the 50,000 were those that were slain by the ark, in the land of the Philistines. He smote seventy men, that is, fifty out of a thousand, which was one in twenty, a half decimation; so some understand it. The Septuagint read it much as we do, he smote seventy men, and fifty thousand men. Josephus says only seventy were smitten.

Some conclusions: Modern scholars have not really uncovered anything about the text of 1 Samuel 6:19 that was not known by men of old (including Reformation era translators of the Geneva Bible and AV). There is no reason to abandon the traditional Hebrew text to accommodate LXX readings or to depart from an attempt to take literally the number of 50,070 as the best translation of the Hebrew figure for the number struck down by the Lord for “looking into the ark.”

JTR

Rejoinder to Jamin Hubner: Part 8

Note to readers: I have added the label "Jamin Hubner"at the end of this and the other rejoinders in this series. If you click on the "Jamin Hubner" button, you can read all the rejoinders in this series.

This rejoinder is in reponse to Jamin Hubner’s post “Case Studies in King James Onlyism: Predictable Answers to Riddle’s Questions” (which is essentially part 8 in his series “The ESV Translation: A Response to Jeff Riddle” which he began in response to my bog article “Three Basic Challenges to the ESV”).

For those counting, Hubner has now written c. 17,500 words in 9 posts in response to my c. 1,600 word ESV blog post.

Here are some responses:

1. On the charge of KJV-Onlyism:

Do we believe what Riddle and Macgregor say about themselves or how Hubner chooses to define them?

Did it ever occur to Hubner that White’s categories in his “definitive” work might be inappropriate? Indeed, one of the chief criticisms of White’s KJV-Only Controversy is that he picks the low hanging fruit by attacking extremists like Riplinger and Ruckman rather than engage with reasonable and Reformed defenses of the traditional text and even of the KJV (as put forward, for example, by those in the Trinitarian Bible Society or by scholars like T. Letis). Is it really fair to lump orthodox defenders of the traditional text with heretical KJV-Onlyists? What would Hubner and White say if an atheist wrote a book about Christians and lumped Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Baptists into the same category? Would they not cry foul? It is similarly inappropriate and inaccurate to label all those with whom you disagree on textual matters as “KJV-Onlyists.”

I am thankful that Mr. Hubner finally acknowledged that he has not, in fact, read Macgregor’s book but has relied on extended quotes from my articles for his knowledge of this work. Mr. Hubner, is it responsible to critique a position with which you do not have first hand familiarity? Shouldn’t you actually read Macgregor in context before labeling him?

2. On Hubner’s changing the title to omit “The ESV Translation”:

Was this an innocent abbreviation, as Hubner now claims, or an effort to shift the focus of the discussion?

3. On Hubner’s error on Micah 5:2:

I am glad that Hubner acknowledges that the nature of his error was in misunderstanding of the Hebrew text but sorry he is unwilling to repost the error as it originally appeared in order to help readers evaluate his actual facility with Hebrew.

4. On previously ignored arguments:

a. ESV NCC copyright:

Maybe we just have to agree to disagree here. I see this as a separation issue. Hubner does not. Perhaps our discussion has at least let some folk become aware of this issue, and they can decide whether this is important or not.

b. Inconsistencies in the ESV:

Despite Hubner’s protestation, the ESV remains a mild revision of the RSV, the translation of choice among liberal Protestants until the New Revised Standard Version. I invite readers to compare passages in the ESV and RSV to see their wide agreement.

c. On Christological interpretation of passages like Micah 5:2 in the ESV:

Previously, Hubner wrote that the concerns raised were “irrelevant.” Glad to hear now that he affirms their relevance. If they are relevant does he see danger in the RSV/ESV rendering of Micah 5:2, particularly with regard to how groups like JWs might interpret this verse to justify their denial of the eternality of Christ?

d. On the traditional text predating the KJV:

Hubner does not respond here. I assume he is ceding that his comments regarding the traditional text only emerging in 1611 with the translation of the KJV were inaccurate. This is also reflected in his response in Part 7 when he nuanced this argument by saying that the underlying text of the KJV was somehow unique. In truth, the text of the KJV corresponds with the traditional text used in all other Reformation era translations.

e. On the ESV rendering of Psalm 145:13 based on single Hebrew manuscript:

First, Hubner challenges whether or not I ever raised this as an issue in my rejoinders.

To begin with, Psalm 145:13 is one of only four examples I cite in my brief blog article “Three Basic Challenges to the ESV.”

Second, I clearly did make reference to this verse in part four of my rejoinder. Here is the complete paragraph (underline added):

Hubner next throws out a specific reference to the text and translation of Revelation 16:5 in the KJV and NKJV. Again, this would make for an interesting discussion, and I believe there is, without doubt, a more credible case that can be made for the KJV/NKJV rendering of this verse than Hubner is aware, but, in the end, it is not germane to our discussion of the ESV. I might also add here that in my ESV article I cited the ESV’s decision to depart from the Masoretic text of Psalm 145:13 by adding a line supported by only one Hebrew manuscript. In his zeal to discuss the KJV, Hubner seems to have ignored the focus of my article, the ESV, including my specific reference to Psalm 145:13. Along these lines, I might cite similar issues in the ESV. The RSV/ESV rendering of 1 Samuel 7:19, for example, provides a reading (“seventy men”) that is not supported by any Hebrew manuscript (the MT here reads “seventy men, fifty thousand” and translations based on the traditional text typically render it as “fifty thousand and seventy men” (NKJV; cf. Geneva Bible, KJV; note: the NASB also reads, “50, 070”; see my posts on the text and translation of 1 Samuel 6:19: part one; part two; part three).

My point was that it would be inconsistent to criticize the KJV for its rendering of Revelation 16:5 or the TR for its inclusion of the Comma Johanneum when the ESV does something that is quite similar. Namely, it prefers a reading not strongly attested in the majority of manuscripts. BTW, the ESV does this on the basis of internal evidence since Psalm 145 is an acrostic poem, and the translators believed that it worked better with the line added. Personally, I trust the wisdom of the Masoretes here.

Hubner concludes that “none of this really matters.” He then oddly says something about the ESV being based on the “modern critical Greek text.” This is odd because the discussion of Psalm 145:13 has to do primarily with the Hebrew text of the OT, not the Greek of the NT. Perhaps he was thinking of the LXX, but still it is another odd misstatement.

f. On the ESV rendering of 1 Samuel 6:19 and the Hebrew manuscript:

Again, Hubner says he could not find this in my rejoinder. OK I am beginning to wonder how closely he is reading these rejoinders.

Here is the paragraph from part four of my rejoinder again (underline added):

Hubner next throws out a specific reference to the text and translation of Revelation 16:5 in the KJV and NKJV. Again, this would make for an interesting discussion, and I believe there is, without doubt, a more credible case that can be made for the KJV/NKJV rendering of this verse than Hubner is aware, but, in the end, it is not germane to our discussion of the ESV. I might also add here that in my ESV article I cited the ESV’s decision to depart from the Masoretic text of Psalm 145:13 by adding a line supported by only one Hebrew manuscript. In his zeal to discuss the KJV, Hubner seems to have ignored the focus of my article, the ESV, including my specific reference to Psalm 145:13. Along these lines, I might cite similar issues in the ESV. The RSV/ESV rendering of 1 Samuel 7:19, for example, provides a reading (“seventy men”) that is not supported by any Hebrew manuscript (the MT here reads “seventy men, fifty thousand” and translations based on the traditional text typically render it as “fifty thousand and seventy men” (NKJV; cf. Geneva Bible, KJV; note: the NASB also reads, “50, 070”; see my posts on the text and translation of 1 Samuel 6:19: part one; part two; part three).

The point: Again, it is inconsistent to criticize one translation (like the KJV) for isolated instances of conjecture and not acknowledge similar phenomena in other translations (like the ESV).

g. On textual stability:

Hubner again avoids the real point here. Commitment to the traditional text results in a stable, fixed, and reliable text (a closed canon). Commitment to the ongoing editions of the modern critical text results in an unstable, ever-changing text (what is essentially an “open canon”).

h. On inherent dangers in evangelical dependence upon the modern critical text:

Hubner claims that the concern I raise here is simply about inciting “fear.” I see it as a sober warning. I do not trust the academy with the text of Scripture. Hubner muses that it would likely be best if a group of Reformed Baptist Pastors were the stewards of the text, but he sees this as an impossibility. In truth, the great men of the Reformed era have already done the heavy lifting for us. They have given us a traditional text. White dismisses this as an inappropriate desire for certainty. I prefer certainty to the guaranteed uncertainty of hitching my wagon to the modern critical Greek text.

i. On the dangers of postmodern text criticism:

I am glad to hear that Hubner acknowledges that future editions of the modern critical text might well reflect the radical influence of men like Ehrman. How do we escape their machinations? We embrace the traditional text. We find in the preserved copies the authentic text of Scripture.

Now, here are some responses to Hubner’s first nine questions:

1. Will Riddle acknowledge that his claim #1 above fails to acknowledge (a) an immediate definition of the kind of King James Onlyism I believed myself to be dealing with, and (b) that there are" KJV Only advocate"s who defend the Greek text behind the KJV and not the KJV itself?

See my response above.

2. What is meant by "The fact that the ESV holds a NCC copyright is a potential separation issue for Biblical Christians"? Separation in what sense, and why is that significant?

The NCC is an apostate, liberal, social justice “church” group. I do not want to support a Bible that has paid or is paying royalties to it. Therefore, I choose not to make use of the ESV in my private devotions or public ministry.

3. Will Riddle acknowledge that he has not touched my counterargument regarding the above copyright-ESV issue? (that Riddle's principle cannot be held consistently?)

Nope. As I noted earlier, Hubner’s response was a reductio ad absurdam argument. We can take practical steps to separation (of the sort I cited in answer 3) without absurdity.

4. Will Riddle acknowledge that the RSV is a revision of the ASV and ERV, both of which are not "in the Protestant liberal tradition"?

Nope. The ERV was clearly in the Enlightenment influenced, liberal Protestant tradition. The ASV might be less liberal but clearly the RSV was. Do I have to bring up the whole copyright issue again? If the RSV was not liberal, why does it have an NCC copyright?

5. Will Riddle acknowledge that the ESV preface itself defines what it means in the first paragraph under "Translation Legacy" when it says "the words and phrases themselves grow out of the Tyndale-King James Legacy"?

There are two important issues when it comes to translation: translation philosophy and text. Though the ESV claims to take an “essentially literal” approach, it generally departs from KJV wording (cf. the NKJV which does this much more closely). It clearly abandons the traditional text. Thus, I dispute its claim to follow the Tyndale-KJV legacy, both in regard to translation and text.

6. Will Riddle acknowledge that the verses in E and F under his list of "ignored many of the arguments that I presented in my rejoinders" cannot be found in any of the rejoinders?

See my response above. Again, I find it hard to believe that Hubner asked this question without first doing the most basic fact checking (i.e., simply reading my part four rejoinder which explicitly addressed the issue of text!).

7. Will Riddle acknowledge that he was incorrect to say the ESV is based off of the 1952 RSV, but rather the 1971 RSV?

No, unless Hubner can cite significant differences between the 1952 and 1971 RSV.

8. Will Riddle acknowledge that the conjectural amendation made by Beza that now appears in Rev. 16:5 of the KJV is not the same kind of "conjecture" that occurs in I Sam. 6:19 in the ESV?

No. Conjecture is conjecture. Every jot and tittle is significant.

9. Does Riddle agree with Edward Hills when he says,"The texts of the several editions of the Textus Receptus were God-guided. They were set up under the leading of God's special providence. Hence the differences between them were kept down to a minimum." (The King James Version Defended, 222-223)?

I would prefer to say that I uphold the doctrine of the providential preservation of Scripture as stated in the 2LBCF 1689.

Now, responses to his three additional questions:

1. Will Riddle acknowledge that the issue between us is not whether the ESV departs from the traditional text, but why that matters?

The fact that the ESV departs from the traditional text is certainly not irrelevant. Of course, it is highly significant why this matters.

2. Will Riddle acknowledge that he has not really established why the traditional text is superior to modern critical editions?

See article one of the 2 LBCF 1689 and my rejoinder part six, especially the comments by Owen.

3. Will Riddle acknowledge that it is possible for non-Christians to state and present church-edifying truths about textual criticism and the text of the Bible, and have done so in their published editions of the NA27 and UBS4?

No, I do not think it is possible. However, I do believe that the Lord can sovereignly use whatever means he chooses (e.g., Balaam to bless Israel; Cyrus to restore the exiles; etc.). The question is what does the Bible teach are the ordinary means for stewardship of the Scriptures. The answer: Pastors, teachers, and elders. Why then are we trusting in unregenerate academics?

Eusebius, EH.1.12: The Seventy

Image: Icon of the "Seventy Apostles."

A new installment has been posted to the series on Eusebius of Caesarea’s The Ecclesiastical History: book 1, chapter 12 (Listen here).

Notes and Commentary:

Eusebius here discusses the “Seventy” who were sent out by Jesus, as recorded in Luke 10:1-20 (see vv. 1, 17).

Note: Eusebius is a witness for the traditional text reading of “seventy” (alongside Aleph, A, and W). Some modern translation, like the ESV and NIV, (following p75 and Vaticanus) read “seventy-two.” For my analysis of the text critical issues involved here, see this blog post.

Eusebius says there are no extant lists of the seventy, but suggests they included Barnabas, Sosthenes, “Cephas” (though according to Clement, not the Cephas [Peter] of Galatians 2:11), Matthias (who replaced Judas), and Thaddeus.

He then suggests Jesus has many other disciples, noting Paul’s reference to the more than five hundred brethren who saw the risen Jesus in 1 Corinthians 15:6.

Of 1 Corinthians 15:7: “After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.”, he takes James as a reference to “one of the alleged brethren of the Lord.” He also assumes there were “numberless apostles, on the model of the twelve.” Here he takes “apostle” broadly, as in Acts 14:4, 14 (Barnabas and Paul), 2 Corinthians 8:23 (Titus), and Philippians 2:25 (Epaphroditus).

Later church traditions did, in fact provide a more extensive list of these disciples or apostles (see the Wikipedia article on “The Seventy Disciples”).

JTR

Augustine, Harmony of the Evangelists.2.3-4: Genealogies

 

Image: Saint Augustine Basilica overlooking the ruins of Hippo Regius.

This is a series of readings from and notes and commentary upon Augustine of Hippo’s Harmony of the Evangelists.

In this episode we are looking at Book 2, chapter 3-4 where Augustine addresses both supposed conflicts between and among the genealogies of Matthew 1 and Luke 3.

2.3: A statement of the reason why Matthew enumerates one succession of ancestors for Christ, and Luke another.

Augustine begins by noting in particular a difference between Matthew and Luke in the line between David and Joseph in the two genealogies. They follow different directions with Matthew offering a series “beginning with David and traveling downwards to Joseph,” and Luke, on the other hand, having “a different succession, ”tracing it from Joseph upwards….” The main source of the difference, however, is in the order between Joseph and David and the fact that Joseph is listed as having two different fathers. Augustine explains that one of these was Joseph’s natural father by whom he was physically begotten (Jacob, in Matthew), and the other was his adopted father (Heli, in Luke). Both of these lines led to David.

Augustine further notes that adoption was an ancient custom. Though terms like “to beget” generally indicate natural fatherhood, Augustine notes that natural terms can also be used metaphorically, so Christians can speak of being begotten by God (e.g., cf. John 1:12-13: “to them he gave power to become the sons of God”). Augustine thus concludes, “It would be no departure from the truth, therefore, even had Luke said that Joseph was begotten by the person by whom he was really adopted.” Nevertheless, he sees significance in the fact that Matthew says “Jacob begat Joseph” (Matthew 1:16; indicating he was the natural father) and Luke says, “Joseph, which was the son of Heli” (Luke 3:23; indicating he was the adopted father of Joseph). Those unwilling to seek harmonizing explanations of such texts “prefer contention to consideration.”

2.4: Of the reason why forty generations (not including Christ Himself) are found in Matthew, although he divides them into three successions of fourteen each.

Augustine begins by noting that consideration of this matter requires a reader “of the greatest attention and carefulness.” Matthew who stresses the kingly character of Christ lists forty names in his genealogy. The number forty is of obvious spiritual significance in the Bible. Moses and Elijah each fasted for forty days, as did Christ himself in his temptation. After his resurrection, Christ also appeared to his disciples for forty days. He sees numerological significance in the fact that forty is four time ten. There are four directions (North, South, East, and West) and ten is the sum of the first four numbers.

Matthew intentionally desires to list forty generations, but he also suggests three successive eras (Abraham to David; David to Babylonian exile; Babylonian exile to Christ). This would be fourteen generations each for a total of forty-two, but Matthew, Augustine suggests, offers a double enumeration of Jechonias, making it “a kind of corner” and excluding it from the overall count, resulting then in the more spiritually significant number forty.

Augustine suggests that Matthew’s genealogy stresses Christ taking our sins upon himself, while Luke, who focuses on Christ as a Priest, stresses “the abolition of our sins.” He sees significance in Matthew’s line from David through Solomon by Bathsheba, acknowledging David’s sin, while Luke’s line flows from David through Nathan, whom Augustine erroneously ties to the prophet Nathan, by whose confrontation with David, God took away sin.

He also sees numerological significance in the fact that Luke’s genealogy includes seventy-seven persons (counting Christ and God himself). He sees the number seventy-seven as referring to “the purging of all sin.” Eleven breaks the perfect number ten, and it was the number of curtains of haircloth in the temple (Exodus 26:7). Seven is the number of days in the week. Seventy-seven is the product of eleven times seven, and so it is “the sign of sin in its totality.”

Conclusion:

The harmonization of the genealogies has been a perennial issue in Gospel studies from the earliest days of Christianity (see Eusebius’ citation of Africanus in his EH). Augustine maintains the continuity and unity of both Gospel genealogies while also noting the uniqueness of each individual Gospel account. In both genealogies Augustine offers pre-critical insight into the intentional use of spiritually significant numbers (forty in Matthew; seventy-seven in Luke) to heighten what he sees as the theological perspectives and intentions of the Evangelists.

JTR

Addendum:

Here's a chart showing Augustine's breakdown of the genealogy in Matt 1:1-17 which yields 40 names according to his calculation. He excludes in his scheme Jechonias as "a kind of corner" and Jesus Christ as "the kingly president" over the whole.

Rejoinder to Jamin Hubner: Part 4

Note to readers: I have added the label "Jamin Hubner"at the end of this and the other rejoinders in this series. If you click on the "Jamin Hubner" button, you can read all the rejoinders in this series.

This is the fourth part of a rejoinder to Jamin Hubner’s series of responses to my blog article, “Three Basic Challenges to the ESV.”

This part four rejoinder corresponds to and flows Hubner’s part four response.

The focus of this rejoinder is Hubner’s response to my third basic challenge to the ESV relating to the underlying original language texts from which it is translated.

Hubner begins by claiming he cannot understand why anyone would have concern with the modern critical Greek NT text as expressed in the NA 27th ed. and the UBS 4th ed. I will explain my concern in greater detail below.

Next, Hubner takes issue with my statement that the ESV abandons the traditional (received) text of Scripture as used by “the Protestant Reformers.”

He asks, “Which ‘received text’ is Riddle referring to?” In answer, let me say that by “received text” I am referring to the original language texts of Scripture that have been most widely accepted and used by the church throughout its history. From a confessional perspective, we can speak of these texts being providentially preserved (see the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith, I.VIII which affirms that the Scriptures are “by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages”). This includes the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible and the received text of the Greek New Testament, preserved in the vast majority of extant ancient manuscripts of the Bible. With the technological revolution of the printing press these texts were published and widely circulated for the first time during the Reformation era. In the NT, in particular, there were some slight modifications made in various editions of these printed editions, perhaps the most significant being the inclusion of the Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7-8) in the third edition of Erasmus’ Greek NT (1522), but, all in all, the variations among the printed versions of the received text are minor. Printed editions of the received text provided a stable text as the basis for Protestant Bible translations, teaching, and preaching.

The Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible can be found in modern editions of the Biblica Hebraica Stuttgartensia. The Trinitarian Bible Society also prints the Bomberg/Ginsberg edition of the Hebrew Bible (Masoretic text) first published by Daniel Bomberg in 1524-25 and edited by David Christian Ginsberg in 1894. As for the New Testament, the Trinitarian Bible Society publishes an edition of the received text that follows Beza’s 1598 Greek NT and was edited by F. H. A. Scrivener and published by Cambridge Press in 1894 and 1902. One can also consult Zane C. Hodges and Arthur Farstad, eds., The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text, second ed. (Thomas Nelson, 1985) and Maurice Robinson and William G. Pierpont, eds. The New Testament in the Original Greek: Byzantine Textform 2005 (Chilton 2005).

It is an uncontroverted fact that the ESV is based on modern critical texts, not the traditional texts (the Masoretic Hebrew Text of the Old Testament and the received text of the New Testament) from which the translations of the Reformation era were made in the various “vulgar” European languages (German, English, French, Spanish, Italian, Hungarian, etc.). With regard to English, in particular, all of the Reformation era translations were based on the traditional, received original language texts. These include Coverdale’s Bible (1535); Matthew’s Bible (1537); the Great Bible (1539); the Geneva Bible (1560); Bishop’s Bible (1568); and the KJV (1611). The ESV, however, follows in the tradition of the English Revised Version (1881) and the RSV (1952) by departing from the Reformation era texts and basing its translation on the most current modern critical text, which significantly depart from the received text.

At this point let me offer an important aside on the general method of Hubner’s argument which I (and likely others) find confusing. As I stated in my first rejoinder, it is sometimes hard to know whether Hubner is responding to my article on the ESV, to my review of Alan J. Macgregor’s book Three Modern Versions, or directly to the arguments made in Macgregor’s Three Modern Versions (which I believe he has encountered primarily in extended quotes in my article and review and not by reading Macgregor directly). Confusion comes when Hubner presents his posts as responses to my ESV article, but then he attacks positions and arguments I did not advocate in that article, but which he assumes I (or Macgregor) hold or make relating to the KJV. This confusion is particularly evident in Hubner’s part four response.

Here is an example. In my ESV article I state that, “the ESV is not based on the traditional texts of Scripture that were used by the Protestant Reformers in their vernacular translations….” Note: I am discussing the ESV. Hubner quotes this passage and responds: “and how is it that this text is used ‘by the Protestant Reformers,’ since neither Luther, Calvin, or Zwingli lived when it came into existence around 1611?” Hubner is discussing the KJV. Furthermore, he apparently mistakenly believes that the received text did not come into existence until the KJV translation. The traditional text, however, was around long before the KJV (Erasmus’ first edition of the Greek NT came out in 1516 and Bomberg’s Hebrew Bible in 1524-25, some 75-100 years before the KJV; see the list above of English Bibles prior to the KJV that relied on the traditional text). This point is even conceded by James White in the quote that Hubner cites to refute my position (!): “Everyone admits that the Greek text utilized by Luther in his preaching and by Calvin in his writings was what would become known as the TR.” My concern is that the ESV is not based on this text. It has followed in the path of translations that have abandoned this text in favor of the modern critical text.

Next, Hubner cites the examples I offered of places where the ESV’s divergence from the traditional text might be observed. Again, my article was very brief (just c. 1,600 words) and the four examples (Psalm 145:13; Mark 16:9-20; John 7:53-8:11; Acts 8:37) were meant to be illustrative and not exhaustive. Many, many more might be offered (a more extensive list of differences between the traditional text of the NT and the modern critical text can be found in the Trinitarian Bible Society tract “A Textual Key to the NT”).

Hubner begins by saying, “Clearly, the ESV engages in textual criticism. But, wouldn't we hope so?” My stated concern here, however, is with the text used by the ESV, not the discipline of textual study per se (though I have some thoughts on that subject too, as you might imagine).

Hubner next shares several presuppositions with which I would differ:

First, he assumes that the last 400 years have seen “the greatest discoveries of NT manuscripts” (presumably Codex Sinaiticus and various papyri) and that these justify the usurpation of the traditional text by the modern critical text. I believe that Hubner vastly overestimates the significance of these finds and underestimates the degree to which faithful reformation era scholars were familiar with nearly all the textual issues under discussion in our day. As E. F. Hills observed: “Indeed almost all the important variant readings known to scholars today were already known to Erasmus more than 460 years ago and discussed in the notes (previously prepared) which he placed after the text in his editions of the Greek New Testament” (The King James Version Defended, pp. 198-199). The Reformers knew about pertinent textual issues like the pericope adulterae and the ending of Mark, but they chose to follow the traditional text. One might also compare here Harry Sturz’s book The Byzantine Text-Type (Thomas Nelson, 1984) in which he examines the modern papyri finds and finds support for the traditional (Byzantine) text.

Second, Hubner assumes that no reasonable person could possibly believe that the pericopae adulterae (John 7:53-8:11) is part of the text of Scripture. He asks, “And, is Riddle really suggesting the pericope in John 7:53-8:11 was in the original?” My scandalous answer is, “Yes, I am suggesting this.” Calvin agreed when he stated in his commentary on this passage that “as it has always been received by the Latin Churches, and is found in many old Greek manuscripts, and contains nothing unworthy of an Apostolic Spirit, there is no reason why we should not apply it to our advantage.” Hubner adds, “It would be interesting to see the textual reasons for this conclusion, given that it isn't found in any the earliest manuscripts (2nd-4th century), or any of the 4th century codices, or in most of the early church fathers, etc.” The marginal note on John 7:53 in the NKJV states that the modern critical text “brackets 7:53 through 8:11 as not in the original text. They are present in over 900 mss of John.” For one cogent defense of the integrity of this passage in the NT, see Hills’ discussion, including his review of references to this passage in Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome, the Didascalia (Teaching) of the Apostles, the Apostolic Constitutions, Eusebius, and Pacian (pp. 150-159).

Next, Hubner raises four questions or statements:

“First of all, what does Riddle mean by ‘traditional text’?” For an answer, see my response above.

“Second, why does a departure from this ‘traditional text’ ought to raise considerable alarm?” (sic; I take him to be asking, “Why should a departure from this ‘traditional text’ raise considerable alarm?”). He claims I gave no reasons for this alarm and ends with a confusing accusation that I have offered this critique of the ESV “in an effort to uphold the superiority of one 400 year old Anglican translation.” Once again, my article addresses the ESV not the KJV. My argument is about the ESV’s departure from the traditional text of Scripture not from the KJV translation. To make matters worse, he then clearly attempts to disparage the KJV by misidentifying it as a “400 year old Anglican tradition.” First, the traditional text predates the KJV translation. Second, though its origin was in the Protestant Church of England, it became the Bible of choice in the English speaking world among men of all denominational and confessional perspectives (including those who could hardly be accused of being “Anglican,” from Bunyan to Spurgeon to Lloyd-Jones).

“Third, this entire paragraph [cited from my ESV article] is a bad argument.” Again, the whole ESV/KJV confusion arises, but we will proceed. Hubner here claims that those who oppose new translations based on the modern critical text (like the ESV) would also have opposed the KJV translation of 1611. He misses this key point: The KJV was a new translation, but it was not done on the basis of a new text! The KJV was based on the same text used to translate the Geneva Bible and all the other Reformation era English translations! The concern I raise in my article is not with new translations but with new texts! Am I worried about what new editions of the modern critical text might do with the Bible? Yes, I am. More on this in point four below.

Finally, Hubner asks, “Fourth, what is meant by ‘the secular academy,’ and is not this association argument just as invalid as the first regarding the copyright-holder of the ESV?” Let me be clearer than I could in my brief article. By “the secular academy” I mean those who teach in religion departments in public and private universities, who associate in professional academic societies (like the AAR and SBL), who influence liberal Bible societies across the world, and who are not confessional Christians and members of Biblical local churches. The text of the Bible has been taken out of the hands of the church and placed into the hands of the academy (and Bible Societies and publishers). I think it should gravely concern the church, for example, that Ehrman has taken over editorial work on Metzger’s influential The Text of the New Testament. Will he chair a new revision of the UBS Greek NT? Will he write or edit the next Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament? What about the Deutche Bibelgesellschaft which will produce the next edition of Nestle-Aland? Are Reformed and evangelical believers really going to look to liberal mainline European Protestant and, now, even Roman Catholic scholars in Germany to define for us the text of Scripture? If you submit to the modern critical text, this is, in effect, what you are doing.

Ronald Reagan once said that the most terrifying words in the English language are, “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.” I think we could paraphrase that and say the most terrifying words for the faithful church would be, “I’m from the academy, and I’m here to help.” Or especially, “I’m from the academy, and I’m here to fix your text of Scripture.”

After the four questions or statements above, Hubner cites another paragraph in my article in which I raise a specific danger about relying on modern critical texts. Namely, the result is guaranteed textual instability. Again, even though my point in the citation is about the text of the ESV (and I never even mention the KJV!), Hubner launches into another attack relating to the KJV, projecting arguments upon me again that I did not make in this article. His comments here once again also reflect misunderstanding about the fact that the KJV was a new translation, but it did not offer a new text. My point in challenge three is that the ESV is based on a new text.

He concludes this section by asking, “In sum, on what grounds does Riddle assert the KJV AV 1611 as the ultimate reference point in evaluating all other translations and editions of the NT?” I hate to be redundant, but to cite Reagan once more, I would have to say to Mr. Hubner, “There you go again.” We might well have a discussion on why one might choose the KJV as “the ultimate reference point” for English translations based on the merits of its text, translation, history, etc. (as Macgregor does in Three Modern Versions), but that is not the point I am making in this article. My article is about the ESV not the KJV.

Hubner next throws out a specific reference to the text and translation of Revelation 16:5 in the KJV and NKJV. Again, this would make for an interesting discussion, and I believe there is, without doubt, a more credible case that can be made for the KJV/NKJV rendering of this verse than Hubner is aware, but, in the end, it is not germane to our discussion of the ESV. I might also add here that in my ESV article I cited the ESV’s decision to depart from the Masoretic text of Psalm 145:13 by adding a line supported by only one Hebrew manuscript. In his zeal to discuss the KJV, Hubner seems to have ignored the focus of my article, the ESV, including my specific reference to Psalm 145:13. Along these lines, I might cite similar issues in the ESV. The RSV/ESV rendering of 1 Samuel 7:19, for example, provides a reading (“seventy men”) that is not supported by any Hebrew manuscript (the MT here reads “seventy men, fifty thousand” and translations based on the traditional text typically render it as “fifty thousand and seventy men” (NKJV; cf. Geneva Bible, KJV; note: the NASB also reads, “50, 070”; see my posts on the text and translation of 1 Samuel 6:19:  part one; part two; part three).

More KJV refutation comes when Hubner states that I am operating under two assumptions: “(1) we cannot improve upon the AV 1611, (2) we should not attempt to improve upon the AV 1611 (lest we be ‘unstable’). Both are false.” Again, Hubner foists these assumptions regarding the KJV upon me rather than addressing my stated concerns about the text of the ESV. Note that he confuses my point on instability as relating to the KJV translation and not to the text of Scripture.

He refutes the first supposed “assumption” by citing White’s “definitive work on the subject.” I guess the KJV can be improved upon but not White’s “definitive” The KJV Only Controversy! Clearly, not all see White’s work as “definitive” (for one critique, see, e.g., Theodore Letis’s review of White’s book in The Ecclesiastical Text, pp. 222-229). In truth, White’s work is either ignored or dismissed as irrelevant in the secular text critical academic guild. Evangelical text critics like Daniel Wallace (see my critique of Wallace here:  part one; part two; part three; part four; part five) and popular apologists like White are defending a vision of text criticism (the search for the original autographic text) that has been abandoned by the postmodern academy which now no longer searches for a fixed autograph but sees the “texts” (plural!) as a “moving stream” (J. N. Birdsall) or a “living text” (see David Parker, Living Texts of the Gospels [Cambridge, 1997]). The definitive current textbook on academic textual criticism, David Parker’s An Introduction to Manuscripts and Their Texts [NB: the plural] (Cambridge, 2008), does not include a single reference to Wallace or White in its index.

Hubner refutes the second supposed “assumption” by saying that the “clear attitude” of “any Christian” should be that we wish to “improve” both the text and translation of the Bible. The very modern idea that we need to “improve” the text of Scripture is, however, the very notion I would wish to challenge. Hubner begs the question.

Hubner concludes:

"As it has been demonstrated in this blog series, all three of the "challenges" of the ESV are based on bad arguments, half-truths, and the lack of facts. None of them stand. As such, the ESV should not be placed beneath the AV 1611 in terms of importance, accuracy, and edification for the church, nor should the ESV be dismissed in general as a liberal or untrustworthy translation - anymore than should the KJV."

I will leave it to the readers of this interchange to determine if my brief blog article “Three Basic Challenges to the ESV” is, in fact, “based on bad arguments, half-truth, and lack of facts.” I believe that the three challenges I originally articulated concerning the ESV remain unshaken:

1. The ESV has a National Council of Churches copyright.

2. The ESV is not, in fact, a new translation but an evangelical revision of a notoriously liberal one.

3. The ESV is based on the modern critical Greek text.

I believe that all three of these challenges should be seriously considered by believers and churches as they evaluate whether to make use of the ESV at the pulpit, lectern, or pew.

JTR

WM 169: Who Wrote the Epistle of James?

In WM 169 I explore the question of who wrote the epistle of James, in connection with my commencement of a new sermon series through James on Lord’s Day mornings at CRBC. Last Sunday I preached the first message in the series on James 1:1-4 (listen here).

In that introductory message I necessarily spent some time teaching on the question of authorship. In v. 1a the author is identified: “James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ….”

“James” is the anglicized form of the Hebrew name Jacob.

He describes himself as a “servant [doulos, slave] of God” and a servant/slave of “of the Lord Jesus Christ.”

But the problem is, Who is this James?

The Gospels tell us that that there were two disciples of the twelve apostles who were named James (see the lists of the twelve in Matt 10; Mark 3; and Luke 6; cf. Acts 1).

The first was James, the brother of John and the son of Zebedee. He was one of the closest friends and companions to the Lord Jesus, along with Peter and John. This James is sometimes called James the Major or Greater.

The second was a disciple named James the son of Alphaeus, who is mentioned much less frequently in the Gospels, and has sometimes been called James the Minor or Lesser.

In addition, however, there is mention made in the Gospels of one who was a brother of Jesus named James (see Matthew 13:53-58; Mark 6:3: “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.”).

It is sometimes suggested that this was a third James, the brother of the Lord. It was said of some early writers that he has been among the seventy sent out by Christ (Luke 10) and that he was sometimes called Oblias and “James the Just.” It was he, they suggest, who is the James became the leader of the early church in Jerusalem, who stood up to speak in the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:13).

I might add that there is what we could call a fourth James, the brother (or father?) of the apostle Judas (literally “Judas of James”) (Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13; this is the Judas “not Iscariot” of John 14:22). Note: For the view of this person as a "fourth" James see D. E. Hiebert, James, 27. The traditional Protestant orthodox view (reviewed below) would see this James as James the son of Alphaeus and the Judas (Jude) here as the author of Jude and the brother of James son of Alphaeus (Jude 1:1).

Which James wrote this epistle?

Here are some observations that help us make a judgement:

First, notice that the author does not identify himself as James the brother of John, or James the son of Alphaeus, or as James the brother of Jesus. He does not identify himself as an apostle but simply as a slave.

Second, we know it is not likely that the author was James the brother of John, because that James died very early on as a martyr, the first among the apostles to die for his faith, at the hands of Herod (Acts 12:2).

Third, it is possible that James the apostle, the son of Alphaeus, and James the brother of the Lord were the same person, so that there were not three prominent men among the early Christians but only two.

So, how can we say that James the son of Alphaeus was also the brother of the Lord?

The key here would be to understand the word “brother” not with the nearest sense as “sibling” but more broadly as a kinsman or “cousin.” Those who hold this view say that this James was the son of the sister of Jesus’s mother, also named Mary, the wife of Cleophas (another name for Alphaeus). See:

John 19:25: Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.

Matthew 27:56: Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee’s children.

Mark 15:40: There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome;

Mark 16:1: And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.

Luke 24:10: It was Mary Magdalene and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles.

This view that the author of James was the apostle James, the son of Alphaeus, who was also the brother (kinsman) of Christ, was held by many ancient men in the church, including Jerome (see his Lives of Illustrious Men, chapter 2) and of many of the early Protestant exegetes.

The Protestant men, in particular, pointed to Galatians 1:19 where Paul wrote of his early trip to Jerusalem, “But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.”

Then they look to Galatians 2:9 where Paul refers to James, Cephas, and John “who seemed to be the pillars” and conclude that this James must have been an apostle, otherwise, he would not have been accepted as a “pillar” alongside Peter and John.

Here is the conclusion reached in Matthew Poole’s commentary (1685):

“It is not certain that there were three Jameses, two of them apostles and the third (called Oblias and James the Just) one of the seventy disciples; the scripture mentioning but two, one the son of Zebedee, the other of Alphaeus, called the brother of the Lord (Gal 1:19), as being of kin to his family; and said to be a pillar (Gal 2:9), and joined with Peter and John. And though some have thought the James mentioned here to have been the third James, called Oblias, and one of the seventy; yet it is more probable that he was indeed no other than the son of Alphaeus, and one of the twelve; nor is it likely, that one of the disciples should be numbered as one of the three pillars, and therein preferred above so many apostles. This James, therefore, upon the whole, I take to be the penman of this Epistle….”

Thomas Manton in his commentary on James (1693):

“For indeed there were but two Jameses, this latter James being the same with him of  Alphaeus; for plainly the brother of the Lord is reckoned among the apostles (Gal 1:19); and called a pillar (Gal 2:9); and he is  called the brother of the Lord, because he was in that family to which Christ was numbered…. Well then, there being two, to which of these is the epistle ascribed? ….Well, then, James the Less is the person whom we have found to be the instrument which the Spirit of God made use of to convey this treasure to the church” (12-13).

And Matthew Henry’s commentary (expanded upon and published after his death in 1714):

“The writer of this epistle was not James the son of Zebedee; for he was put to death by Herod (Acts 12) before Christianity had gained so much ground among the Jews of the dispersion as is here implied. But it was the other James, the son of Alphaeus, who was cousin-german to Christ, and one of the twelve apostles (Matt 10:3). He is called a pillar (Gal 2:9), and this epistle of his cannot be disputed, without loosening a foundation stone.”

I must note, however, that in John Calvin’s commentary on James of 1551 he concluded that whether James was written by James the son of Alphaeus or another James who was “the rule of the church at Jerusalem,” “it is not for me to say.” He prefaced this conclusion by saying, “It is enough for men to receive this Epistle, that it contains nothing unworthy of an Apostle of Christ.”

Though Manton is much firmer in his convictions that James the son of Alphaeus and “brother of the Lord” is author, he nevertheless refers to the human author as “the subordinate author or instrument.” His point being that whoever wrote it, whether an apostle or not, the true author was the Lord himself by his Holy Spirit.

This consensus of the Protestant orthodox appears out of step with the view of most contemporary Protestant evangelicals who see the author of James as the “third” James, not James the son of Alphaeus, but James of Jerusalem.

Here, for example, is the discussion of authorship from the introduction to James in the MacArthur Study Bible: “Of the 4 men named James in the NT, only two are candidates for authorship of this epistle. No one has seriously considered James, the Less, the son of Alphaeus (Matt. 10:3; Acts 1:13), or James the father of Judas, not Iscariot (Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13). Some have suggested James the son of Zebedee and brother of John (Matt. 4:21), but he was martyred too early to have written it (Acts 12:2). That leaves only James, the oldest half-brother of Christ (Mark 6:3) and brother of Jude (Matt. 13:55), who also wrote the epistle that bears his name (Jude 1)” (1924).

The Introduction to the ESV Study Bible also makes this assumption and makes no mention of the possibility that the author was the apostle James, son of Alphaeus: “The title of this book derives from the name of its author, James the Just (as he was called), the brother of Jesus (Matt. 13:55) and leader of the Jerusalem church (Acts 15)” (2387).

The older Protestant men seemed more intent to settle James as an apostolic work (written by an apostle: James of Alphaeus). They were not apparently troubled by suggesting that James was not a sibling of Christ but a kinsman, nor did they attempt to defend the proposition that Mary had other children after the birth of Jesus.

Modern Protestants and evangelicals seem to rush past the idea of James as directly apostolic, in favor of the suggestion that the letter was written by one who was not an apostle (James the Just).

Though ultimately in agreement with Manton that the most important thing is the fact that God himself is the primary author and that the human author is only “subordinate,” at this point I am persuaded by Poole, Manton, and Henry that James the son of Alphaeus is the likely author.

Addendum: At the close I noted the commentaries I am reading as I preach through James: two older (pre-critical) works: Calvin and Manton, and one contemporary work by Edmund J. Hiebert. For Hiebert’s intriguing bio on theopedia, look here.

JTR