BillMounce.com

I am just back from three weeks locked away in Whistler, Canada, with the rest of the CBT (Committee on Bible Translation). Three weeks of discussing, agreeing, and sometimes disagreeing on the nuances of the meaning of words and the meaning of biblical passages. It doesn't get any better than that!

Well, perhaps a week in Switzerland would be better.

It was a really good time. Some of the committee members I had only known from a distance. Some I had known through my dad since his Bethel days. One I lived with in graduate school (Craig Blomberg). And others were brand new friends.

What was most educational was to see how dynamic translation works, first hand. From my years on the ESV I had gained an appreciation for formal equivalent translation, but to actually be part of a dynamic translation (okay, "functional equivalence") was a great teacher. I watched godly men and women struggle, sometimes agonize, over just the right wording so the NIV would faithfully convey the same meaning as intended by the biblical author. Whoever says dynamic translators have a lower view of Scripture needs to sit behind the veil and watch this group work.

What was amazing -- and I didn't realize this at first -- was that some of these translators defined "dynamic translation" for my generation, as the NIV is the quintessential and defining example of functional equivalence. I heard stories of the 1970's where these translators spent 10 weeks at a time creating the NIV. It was humbling to think that I get to sit and work with them.

Thank you for all your prayers for all the CBT. I am anxious to get blogging again in September. I have a whole new set of questions to ruminate on.

I am going to be taking the summer off from blogging. On July 27 I head to the NIV translation meeting for three weeks. We appreciate your prayers as we work toward the 2011 release. The sense of responsibility continues to grow as I think about my involvement in the Bible used by millions of people.

After that I will be finishing the Greek mini-grammar, and then my book for new believers. Somewhere in there I have to find time to golf!

Bill

Every once in a while I get a question that is so basic that it has never occurred to me to answer it. Someone asked me the other day, how do we know what Greek and Hebrew words mean?

The answers for Greek and Hebrew are somewhat different, so let me start with the Greek.

For a language like Greek, there has been a long tradition of lexicons and translations. From these, it is relatively easy to find the meaning of most Greek words. When a sentence is translated from, let’s say, Greek into Latin, since we know Latin, it is relatively easy to work back into Greek and see what the Greek word means. We can also look at the ancient lexicons and see how they define the Greek words.

2 Pet 1:20-21 are important verses for our doctrine of Scripture, and so it should come as no surprise that there are some differences of opinion on the meaning of the passage.

Peter begins in v 16 by saying, “For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty” (ESV). Peter is asserting his authority over the false teachers because of his direct experience with Jesus. One source of this first-hand knowledge is the Mount of Transfiguration experience (vv 17-19).

Peter continues by adding a second source of authority: the prophetic word (v 19), and then adds, “knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (ESV).

While there are a host of questions about the meaning of specific Greek words, the general meaning of the passage is clear. The audience of the letter should not listen to the false teachers but to Peter (and the other apostles). Their understanding of doctrinal truths are based on first hand information and on the direct work of the Holy Spirit, as was that of the original prophets. Sometimes, when looking at a passage with multiple questions, it is best to start with what we all agree on. So often what we believe in common in loss in the minutia of differences (as important as they may be) of a passage.

Last week's guest blog from Marc Cortez at Western Seminary was evidently interesting to many of you,so I thought I would post his followup blog this Monday. See you on Greek grammar next week.

Yesterday’s post, “The biblical languages in life and ministry,” sparked quite a bit of discussion. So, I thought it might be worth following up on that with a few more thoughts on the subject. Why bother with learning Greek and Hebrew? By the time you are done, you will have spent countless hours and probably a fair amount of money learning these languages. Was it worth it?

My friend Marc Cortez wrote this blog on the Western Seminary's blog site and I thought it is worth reporting. I look forward to your response.

Thanks to the NT Resources blog I ran across an interesting post on Original Languages and the Priesthood of All Believers. Since most of us have spent a fair amount of time with the original languages in our academic development, I thought his would be worth reflecting on.

The article begins with the following statement:

The original languages of scripture can be a blessing and they can be a curse. They can help or they can harm the priesthood of believers. I have seen both happen.

He goes on to express high appreciation for the value of studying the original languages, but also a significant concern that we be careful how we use our understanding of the languages – especially from the pulpit.

Some times it can be tricky to hook a preposition up to the word it is modifying. In the example of 2 Thess 2:13, in the commentaries I checked they did not even discuss it. This is one of the advantages of Phrasing, but I will get to that in a second.

The verse reads, “But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved (εις σωτηριαν) , through (εν) sanctification by the Spirit (αγιασμω πνευματος) and belief in the truth (πιστει αληθειας)” (ESV).

A couple general things first. The verse has a double accusative; God chose “you” as the “firstfruits.” There is a textual problem that explains the difference of the NIV when it reads “from the beginning” instead of “firstfruits.” And the single preposition εν governs both its objects, “sanctification” and “belief.”

This latter point is especially important in helping us determine the meaning of the passage. The realities described by these two objects are being closely connected and cannot be two unrelated truths. That much we know grammatically.

Language changes. It is one of the undeniable, universal truths of reality. Events can slow the development of a language down, like the King James version or Luther’s version of the Bible. But time marches on, and language changes.

Language changes for many reasons. Forms simplify. Influences come from other languages, immigration, war. I saw a statistic yesterday that there are 540,000 words in English today, and in Shakespeare’s day there were only 180,000. Apocryphal or not, it is certainly generally true as all of reality is speeding up to internet speed. (See YouTube for a fascinating look at the current pace of change.)

The problem comes when we assume that language doesn’t change, that vocabulary is stagnant, and that grammar is written in stone.

The other day I spoke briefly about textual criticism and why the Greek texts behind the King James Version (and the NKJV) and all modern translations are different. Here is an example of how that works out.

In 1 Cor 7:5 Paul is discussing the issue of sexual intimacy in marriage. He says, “Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control” (ESV).

The KJV reads, “that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer.” So is fasting a legitimate reason to withhold sexual intimacy, and what did Paul actually say?

Most of the requirements for church leadership are straight forward. Each person is to be above reproach, and among other things this means they are faithful in marriage, self-controlled, manage their household well, etc.

Perhaps the most difficult requirement to interpret is found in Titus 1:6, where Paul says that the children must be εχων πιστα, “having faithful.” πιστος can mean “faithful, reliable, trustworthy.”

As you can see, the Greek can’t come directly over into English. It is slightly idiomatic in the use of “having,” but the basic meaning is clear; the children must possess this quality. But what exactly is the quality?