Let me begin by sharing how these days I often prepare when wanting to produce something that I reckon will be profound and contentious. I begin by asking Meta AI some pertinent questions.
Because the answers given are typically rather long, and I don’t want readers to get lost in the woods but rather focus on what I have to say, I will include the questions I asked Meta AI in preparing this my latest entry into the blogosphere, and the answers I received, in an Appendix at the end. Some may want to ignore this, but I hope not as it is relevant. I don’t necessarily agree with everything Meta AI tells me, as was the case with Wikipedia which it is beginning to replace, but I enquire of it since it answers my questions quickly, without waffle, makes pertinent points, even if sometimes it is on the wrong side of neutral, siding with the official narrative (which ought to please my detractor audience btw). The point to bear in mind is the Appendix, which provides a lot of helpful, relevant stuff (yet nevertheless we do well to question as with anything), can be and has been used as a spur to help address the following subjects:
- Bible canon
- Bible versions
- Septuagint versus Masoretic texts
- Hebrew versus Greek mindsets
Bible canon
As far as most Christians are concerned, the term “canon” is applied to the authoritative collection of books or texts they recognize as scripture, which reveals God’s word and revelation to humankind, commonly referred to as the Holy Bible. It is sometimes said that Catholics add to the scriptures, Liberals take away from the scriptures and Evangelicals do neither. Not that I like labels, I see myself in that third category. Moreover, with most Christians who I have much involvement with and who take a view, the canon encompasses the 66 books that are included the Protestant Bible. How that canon was arrived at, makes fascinating reading, with much debate as to what should or should not be included. I found while how to interpret scripture can be a contentious matter, but to question the canon is even more so. Gladly, I go along with the Protestant canon; while recognising there is a lot of good stuff in the Apocrypha and the jury is out on the Book of Enoch, especially as its take on the Nephilim and fallen angels ties in with what I am now seeing. I remain sceptical though at the notion there are other canonical books to be revealed but, then again, it is right to question.
Bible versions
If asked what is my preferred version of the Bible, without hesitation my answer would be the King James Version (KJV), but I don’t go along with the KJV only brigade. Neither do I fall out with my own church that persists in its employment of the New International Version (NIV). No version is perfect! Moreover, it is impossible to precisely translate from the original language (Greek – NT; Hebrew 98% – OT) and still maintain readability. Since we no longer have the original text when the books that make up the Bible were written, the question is begged – which texts are the more reliable? While I’m inclined toward the texts that the KJV translators used (I squirm when I see bits missing in the NIV or a watering down in some modern translations) I don’t claim the authority to pontificate and wonder how much all this matters when coming to identify what is essential doctrine. I also recognise a lot of the Bible, especially the OT, is as much about how God feels rather than what He says – and some versions are better at demonstrating this than others. In the final analysis, I see it down to individual preference, as long as it is coupled with trying to understand what is originally meant – and that could require checking out more than one Bible version and even going back to the original Hebrew/Greek and finding context!
Septuagint versus Masoretic texts
For me, this subject has only more recently come to a head, and while I have long been aware of there being alternative Greek texts from which our New Testament can be derived, it did not occur to me that something similar could be claimed for Hebrew texts and the Old Testament. I had an epiphany moment when I figured out why New Testament writers and some of the people they refer to “misquote” the Old Testament. The major reason was that rather than misquoting the OT, they were quoting from Septuagint, and this was the version used during NT times and for some time after. After that, Christians and Jews alike relied mainly on the Masoretic text, and almost all modern Bible translations (KJV and non KJV) use that text. I am insufficiently knowledgeable to declare which of Septuagint and Masoretic is better, but am now aware there are differences and some of these are significant when it comes to arriving at a precise understanding. But just as the debate about which texts are best when it comes to the NT the same will no doubt continue with the OT. My instinct is that regardless of which is the right answer, I doubt it will much affect one’s Bible understanding.
Hebrew versus Greek mindsets
Again, it has only been more recently that I have cottoned onto the idea that there are different mindsets, not just in the cultural context in which I operate but also in the church, which has been affected untowardly as a result and which affects our way of thinking to this day in a wide variety of ways, often without our realising it. The significance of the different way of thinking became more apparent in my latest deep dive into the Old Testament, notably with the notion that certain prophecy can have more than one fulfilment, e.g. the messianic psalms. When we read: “Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel” Isaiah 7:14, it was correctly understood at that time the fulfilment would happen in the next few years – and it did! But we also read of this prophecy being applied to the birth of Jesus: “Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us” Matthew 1:23. There are many implications of what happens when we adopt one or other of Hebrew or Greek mindset, which are begun to be aired pertaining to the final two questions in the Appendix. I believe these to be significant in a multitude of ways (to be addressed in a future blog).
APPENDIX
Question:
“What is the Protestant Bible canon? What is the Catholic Bible canon? What are the justifications for Protestants deeming their 66 Books of the Bible as canonical and rejecting all other contenders?”
Answer:
Protestant Bible Canon (66 books):
– Old Testament (39 books):
– Law (5): Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy
– History (12): Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1-2 Samuel, 1-2 Kings, 1-2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther
– Poetry/Wise Books (5): Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon
– Prophets (17): Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi
– New Testament (27 books):
– Gospels (4): Matthew, Mark, Luke, John
– Acts (1): Acts of the Apostles
– Epistles (21): Romans, 1-2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1-2 Thessalonians, 1-2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews
– Revelation (1): Revelation
Catholic Bible Canon (73 books):
– Old Testament (46 books):
– Law (5): Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy
– History (16): Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1-2 Samuel, 1-2 Kings, 1-2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, 1-2 Maccabees
– Poetry/Wise Books (7): Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Wisdom, Sirach
– Prophets (18): Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Baruch, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi
– New Testament (27 books): (same as Protestant canon)
Justifications for Protestant canon:
1. Sola Scriptura: Scripture alone is authoritative.
2. Hebrew and Greek texts: Original languages determine canon.
3. Early Church Fathers: Patristic support for narrower canon.
4. Content and coherence: Protestant canon seen as self-authenticating.
5. Rejection of Apocrypha: Deemed non-canonical due to:
– Lack of Hebrew originals (for some books).
– Absence from Jewish canon.
– Theological discrepancies.
Rejected contenders:
– Apocrypha/Deuterocanonicals: Catholic OT books not in Protestant canon.
– Pseudepigrapha: Jewish texts (e.g., 1 Enoch) not considered canonical.
– Gnostic texts: e.g., Gospel of Thomas, rejected due to theology and late composition.
Protestants argue their canon reflects the Hebrew Bible’s scope and NT apostolic witness. Catholics see Tradition and Church authority as essential for determining canon. The debate continues, with implications for theology and authority.
Question:
How was the Bible canon, recognised by most Protestants, arrived at?
Answer:
The Protestant Bible canon, recognized by most Protestants, was arrived at through a process that spanned several centuries. Here’s a brief overview:
Early Church (100-300 CE):
– Apostolic writings (e.g., Gospels, Epistles) circulated among churches.
– Early Church Fathers (e.g., Ignatius, Irenaeus) quoted and referenced these texts.
– No formal canon, but a growing recognition of certain texts as authoritative.
Councils and Lists (300-400 CE):
– Council of Laodicea (c. 363 CE): First known list of NT books, excluding Revelation.
– Council of Hippo (393 CE) and Council of Carthage (397 CE): Affirmed most NT books, including Revelation.
– Early lists (e.g., Muratorian Fragment, c. 170 CE) show varying degrees of recognition.
Reformation and Protestantism (1500s CE):
– Martin Luther (1483-1546): Questioned certain books (e.g., James, Hebrews), but ultimately accepted them.
– Protestant Reformers (e.g., Calvin, Zwingli): Emphasized sola scriptura and the authority of Scripture.
– Council of Trent (1545-1563 CE): Catholic Church formally defined its canon, including Apocrypha.
Key factors influencing Protestant canon:
1. Apostolic origin: Texts written by apostles or their associates.
2. Theological coherence: Consistency with core Christian doctrine.
3. Widespread use: Texts widely recognized and used by early churches.
4. Inspiration: Believed to be God-breathed or Spirit-led.
Formalization (1600s-1900s CE):
– Westminster Confession (1647 CE): First formal Protestant confession to define canon.
– Various Protestant denominations and councils affirmed the 66-book canon.
The Protestant canon was shaped by historical, theological, and practical factors, with different traditions and individuals contributing to its development.
Question:
Summarize the differences between the KJV Bible and that of most modern translations? Which is better for regular use?
Answer:
The KJV (1611) and modern translations (e.g., NIV, NRSV) differ in:
– Language: KJV uses Early Modern English (archaic language), while modern translations use contemporary English.
– Textual basis: KJV relies on the Textus Receptus (limited manuscripts); modern translations use critical texts (older, diverse manuscripts).
– Translation approach: KJV is formal equivalence; modern translations often use dynamic or optimal equivalence.
For regular use, modern translations (e.g., NIV, NRSV) are often preferred due to:
– Clearer language
– More accurate textual basis
– Easier understanding
However, the KJV remains a revered translation with historical significance. Ultimately, choose a translation that resonates with you and aids your understanding of Scripture.
Question:
Which Bible translation best expresses the feelings of God rather than His words?
Answer:
The Living Bible (TLB) and The Message (MSG) are paraphrase translations that aim to convey the feelings and thoughts of the original text, rather than a literal word-for-word translation.
The Amplified Bible (AMP) and The Passion Translation (TPT) also seek to express the emotions and intentions behind the text, while still maintaining a level of formal accuracy.
These translations prioritize conveying the overall meaning and emotional resonance of the text, rather than a strict literal rendering. They’re often used for devotional reading, personal study, and understanding the emotional and cultural context of the original text.
Would you like more details on these translations or their approaches?
Question:
What is the history of the Septuagint?
Answer:
The Septuagint (LXX) is a Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, created in Alexandria, Egypt, around 250-150 BCE.
Key events:
– Ptolemaic Era: Greek ruler Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285-247 BCE) commissions the translation for the Library of Alexandria.
– Jewish Community: Greek-speaking Jews in Alexandria need a Greek translation for worship and study.
– Translation Process: Scholars translate Hebrew texts into Greek, possibly in stages.
– Legendary Origins: The Letter of Aristea (2nd century BCE) describes 72 translators working independently, producing identical texts (inspiration for the name “Septuagint”).
Significance:
– Earliest Translation: LXX is the oldest known Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible.
– Influence on Christianity: LXX was the primary Scripture for early Christians and influenced the New Testament.
– Textual Criticism: LXX provides valuable insights into pre-Masoretic Hebrew texts and textual variants.
Manuscripts and Editions:
– Codex Vaticanus (B): 4th-century CE manuscript containing most of LXX.
– Codex Sinaiticus (א): 4th-century CE manuscript with parts of LXX.
– Critical Editions: Riffault’s LXX (1935-1971) and the Göttingen LXX (1931-present) provide scholarly reconstructions.
The Septuagint remains a crucial part of biblical scholarship, offering insights into ancient Jewish interpretation and early Christian thought.
Question:
What is the history the Masoretic version of the Old Testament?
Answer:
The Masoretic Text (MT) is the authoritative Hebrew text of the Old Testament, compiled and edited by Jewish scholars (Masoretes) in Tiberias, Palestine, around 500-1000 CE.
Key events:
– Early Scribes: Soferim (scribes) carefully copied and transmitted Hebrew texts from around 500 BCE.
– Masoretic Period (6th-10th centuries CE): Masoretes developed a system of vowel points (niqqud) and cantillation marks to preserve pronunciation and meaning.
– Tiberian Masoretes (8th-10th centuries CE): Aaron ben Moses ben Asher and his family standardized the MT.
– Ben Asher Codex (10th century CE): The Leningrad Codex (B19A) is the oldest complete MT manuscript (c. 1008 CE).
Significance:
– Standardization: MT became the authoritative Hebrew text for Jewish communities.
– Preservation: Masoretes carefully copied and transmitted the text, ensuring its accuracy.
– Influence on Judaism: MT shapes Jewish liturgy, interpretation, and tradition.
– Influence on Christianity: MT is the basis for most modern Hebrew Bibles and Old Testament translations.
Characteristics:
– Consonantal Text: MT preserves the original consonantal text (with some variations).
– Vowel Points and Cantillation: Masoretic annotations aid pronunciation and interpretation.
– Marginal Notes (Masora): Comments and notes on textual variants and interpretations.
The Masoretic Text is a cornerstone of biblical scholarship, providing a reliable and authoritative text for understanding the Hebrew Old Testament.
Question:
What is better: the version of the Old Testament, used by early Christians, based on the Septuagint or that used by most Christians today based on the Masoretic text?
Answer:
The question of which version is “better” depends on the context and purpose.
Early Christian Usage (Septuagint):
– Widely used: LXX was the primary Scripture for early Christians, including Jesus and the apostles.
– Influence on NT: LXX influenced the New Testament authors’ quotations and allusions.
– Theological significance: LXX shaped early Christian theology and interpretation.
Modern Usage (Masoretic Text):
– Standardized text: MT provides a reliable, carefully preserved Hebrew text.
– Scholarly consensus: Most scholars agree MT is a more accurate representation of the original Hebrew.
– Widespread use: MT-based translations (e.g., NIV, NRSV) are widely used in Christian communities.
Comparison:
– Textual differences: LXX and MT differ in some passages, with implications for interpretation.
– Theological nuances: LXX’s Greek renderings can highlight different nuances in the Hebrew text.
– Historical significance: LXX reflects the textual tradition and interpretation of ancient Judaism.
Ultimately, both versions have value:
– LXX: Important for understanding early Christian interpretation and theology.
– MT: Provides a reliable, standardized Hebrew text for study and translation.
Most scholars and Christians today recognize the importance of both texts, using LXX for historical and interpretive insights, while relying on MT-based translations for everyday study and worship.
Question:
Summarize the differences between the Hebrew and Greek mindsets for when it comes to studying the Bible? Would you say, having a Hebrew mindset is better? Given the history of formulating Christian theology has been more influenced by Greek rather than Hebrew thinking, is this something that needs to be remedied?
Answer:
Hebrew and Greek mindsets approach reality and understanding differently, influencing biblical interpretation.
Hebrew Mindset:
– Concrete, relational, and dynamic: Focuses on stories, actions, and relationships.
– Holistic thinking: Integrates faith, life, and community.
– Emphasizes obedience and covenant: Prioritizes action and commitment.
– Uses metaphor and poetry: Employs rich, symbolic language.
Greek Mindset:
– Abstract, analytical, and philosophical: Seeks definitions, categories, and logical explanations.
– Dualistic thinking: Separates body and soul, faith and reason.
– Emphasizes knowledge and truth: Pursues intellectual understanding.
– Uses precise, literal language: Favors clarity and accuracy.
Having a Hebrew mindset isn’t inherently “better,” but it can:
– Enhance biblical understanding: Recover original context and emphases.
– Balance Western Christianity’s rationalism: Emphasize relational, experiential aspects.
Given Christianity’s Greek-influenced history, some argue for a:
– Hebrew “renaissance”: Reclaiming biblical roots and thought patterns.
– Bicultural approach: Integrating Hebrew and Greek insights for richer understanding.
However, both mindsets have strengths and limitations:
– Both-and approach: Embracing Hebrew and Greek perspectives can foster deeper understanding and application.
This isn’t about replacing Greek thinking with Hebrew, but rather:
– Contextualizing theology: Considering cultural and linguistic nuances.
– Embracing biblical diversity: Valuing multiple perspectives and emphases.
Question:
The late David Pawson spoke about “de-greecing” the church. What did he mean?
Answer:
David Pawson, a renowned Bible teacher, emphasized the need to “de-Greek” the church, highlighting the significant impact of Greek thinking on Christian beliefs. He argued that Greek philosophy has influenced Western Christianity, often leading to unbiblical thinking and behavior. Pawson believed that the church should return to its Hebrew roots, focusing on the original context and meaning of Scripture.
Key areas of concern:
– Dualistic thinking: Greek philosophy’s separation of body and soul, faith and reason, has led to an unbalanced approach to Christianity.
– Idealism: Greek emphasis on abstract ideals has overshadowed the biblical focus on relational, covenantal faith.
– Replacement theology: The church has mistakenly replaced Israel in God’s plan, ignoring the Jewish roots of Christianity.
Pawson advocated for a more holistic, Hebrew approach to faith, emphasizing the importance of understanding the original context and language of Scripture. He encouraged Christians to re-examine their beliefs and practices, shedding Greek influences to rediscover the authentic, biblical message.
JRB Publications 