What a Difference “And” Makes!

Word Studies constitutes one of the most popular Bible interpretation processes. By “word studies” one usually means evaluating the historical meaning of words as it changes through time or at a particular juncture in time or both. Obviously the interpreter cannot do this for every word in the text so a choice must be made about which words need in depth study. However, at some level every word needs to be studied. Every word plays a role in the author’s communication. No word can be ignored or interpretive error will arrive unannounced and often unknowingly. Ephesians 3:18-19 illustrates the importance of every word, even the words most commonly neglected for in-depth analysis.

The essential verse portions from the New American Standard Bible and the flow of thought can be outlined accordingly with the conjunction “and” (τέ) inserted appropriately:

“that you, . . . 18 may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, 19 and (τέ) to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge . . . .”

that you, . . . may be able
to comprehend [the dimensions of something]
and (τέ)
to know the love of Christ

The presence of “and” creates two parallel but separate infinitive complements for the verb translated “may be able” —parallel in that they both complete the meaning of the verb but separate in that each has a different direct object. The first infinitive, “to comprehend,” has as its object “what is the breadth and length and height and depth;” the second, “to know,” has “the love of Christ” as its object. If “and” were absent, the second infinitive could be understood as epexegetical or appositional, that is, further explaining or restating the first infinitive idea. This occurs in some English translations and popular theology.

Consider the International Standard Version, “you will be able to understand, along with all the saints, what is wide, long, high, and deep — 19 that is, you will know the love of Christ . . . .” By translating the conjunction τέ as an appositional conjunction and rendering it “that is,” verse 19a effectively restates verse 18.

The New International Version reads like this, “that you, . . . 18 may have power, together with all the saints, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ, 19 and to know this love . . . .” Without translating “and” as appositional, the NIV openly and periphrastically accomplishes the same transfer of meaning.

Notice the New King James Version, “that you . . . 18 may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the width and length and depth and height— 19 to know the love of Christ which passes knowledge . . . .” Here a different method of creating an English appositional interpretation occurs—by not translating the conjunction at all! As such it departs from the time-honored King James Version that does contain the conjunction “and.”

At this point two interpretation questions need to be asked. First, can τέ function appositionally and be translated “that is” or exhibit some other form of apposition? Second, what contextual data explains the measurement language serving as the object for the first infinitive if the “love of Christ” cannot represent that object?

With regards to the first question, neither Robertson (The Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, 1179), nor Danker (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, 3rd edition, 993) include an appositional function for τέ (“and”). This appositional use, however, does exist for the most frequent Greek conjunction regularly used by Paul and commonly translated “and” (καί, see Robertson, 1181; Danker, 495). Consequently, if no other meaningful rational for the presence of τέ in the text can be established, the appositional use must be viewed as a last resort, and then only with serious reservations.

Concerning the second question, the measurement language of verse 18 may be referring to: (1) the dimensions of love, or (2) the measureable concept or concepts in the earlier portions of Paul’s prayer.

Regarding view (1), “love” occurs before and after the infinitive “to comprehend.” However, the mention of “love” in verse 17 clearly serves to set the spiritual basis for one’s ability “to comprehend” whatever verse 18 references. It does not serve as its object or explain the measureable concept. Also, and most importantly, the presence and use of the conjunction “and” (τέ) at verse 19 effectively separates “the love of Christ” as the sole measureable object of comprehension in verse 18. As Robertson further states, τέ (“and”) introduces “something additional, but in intimate relation with the preceding” (page 1179, italics mine)

This leaves view (2) to be developed. What constitutes “the breadth and length and height and depth” of which Paul speaks? A forthcoming posting will examine this phenomenal aspect of Paul’s prayer. Stay tuned!

What Does “That” Mean?

Ephesians 3:14-19 records a prayer of Paul for the Ephesian Christians. In translating this prayer the English uses the ambiguous word that for the Greek conjunction ἵνα. This conjunction is ambiguous because it could introduce an object clause, a purpose clause, or a result clause. The interpretation of the overall prayer changes with the function of the conjunction. The issue at hand, therefore, is important.

Clearly the first that clause in verse 16 is an object clause of an implied verb for praying. Less clear the New International Version (NIV) adds the conjunction “and” and a verb of praying at verse 17. It also transposes the conjunction that from the beginning of verse 18 in the Greek text to the middle of verse 17. These changes make the second that clause also an object clause and a second prayer request. The use of that in the NIV at verse 19, however, remains ambiguous.

The New American Standard Bible (NASB) maintains the same sequence of clauses as the NIV by adding “and” at verse 17 and transposing that from verse 18 into verse 17. The outcome of both the NIV and NASB translations creates two parallel object clauses and two petitions from verses 16-19a.

The final that clause at verse 19b remains ambiguous in the NIV where the translators inserted a dash, but the NASB appears to introduce a purpose clause at this point. The King James Version (KJV) translates ἵνα simply by that in all three occurrences.

For the knowledgeable Bible student, one indicator that a translator’s interpretation may be suspect is the felt need to supplement the translation by adding words or phrases that are not in the original text. In both the NIV and the NASB this has been the case here. A key interpretation question must be asked: Can the text be understood as is apart from adding words not found in the original text? If so, that translation must be given first interpretive priority.

The text as it stands makes good sense when all three that clauses are seen as object clauses. In addition, the second and third that clauses are not separate requests but can be understood as expansions or clarifications of the initial request of verse 16 by adding details. The asyndeton, that is, the absence of conjunctions in the Greek text such as “and,” supports this interpretation. Bullinger (Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, 138) calls this “Explanatory, when [clauses] explain each other.” This can also be called epexegesis “where what is added is a working out and developing what has been said” (Bullinger, 398).

An interpretive paraphrase reads like this: “. . . that [God] would grant you to be strengthened with power according to the wealth of His glory . . . ; that is, that you may be able to comprehend . . . [the immensity of God] and to experience the love of Christ . . . ; that is, that you may be filled with the fullness of the divine being.” In this paraphrase the insertions of “that is” reflects one way in which English communicates appositional or explanatory statements. Of the above-mentioned translations, the KJV is preferred in this passage.

To be sure, this interpretation of the sometimes ambiguous that (ἵνα) clauses is only one available option, but it does have the important advantages for the interpreter of (1) acknowledging the principle of authorial clarity—the writer wrote to be understood, (2) coherence—all elements fit together as is without requiring supplementation, and (3) implementation of the logical principle of “Occam’s Razor”—The translation/interpretation that requires the least number of hypotheses for a view to become viable is most likely to be correct. Ephesians 3:14-19 develops Paul’s prayer using three interrelated object clauses, and the driving focus of the prayer is that the Ephesian Christians would be filled “to all the fullness of God.”

Big Ideas in Small Words

The Greek grammarian A.T. Robertson wrote, “All language was originally pictographic. The picture was first seen and then the effort was made to describe it . . . . Prepositions are essentially words of location employed to help out the meaning of the oblique cases . . . . One cannot afford to slur over the prepositions in the sentence if he wishes to understand the Greek New Testament” (The Minister and His Greek New Testament, page 43).

1 Timothy 1:19 suggests an intriguing picture using a preposition translated in the New American Standard Bible (NASB) as in regard to (περί). Grammatically, this preposition used with the objective (accusative) case primarily has spatial reference and is translated around. Although historically it began to take on a more general reference notion (i.e., NASB), in the New Testament period the spatial concept was still the most prominent function with the accusative. See Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, 3rd edition, pages 797-98. Since usage determines function the question needs to be asked, “Is a spatial idea possible here?”

The NASB translation of 1 Timothy 1:19 reads, “keeping faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and suffered shipwreck in regard to their faith.” The interpretation takes a dramatic twist when the spatial concept is applied to the prepositional phrase and translated “around the faith” (περὶ τὴν πίστιν). In this instance the phrase expands the pictorial visualization of the maritime picture imbedded in the verb translated “shipwreck” (ἐναυάγησαν). “Faith” can represent a harbor into which the ship sails, but for safe passage the pilot must navigate around the obstacles that could sink the vessel. In the context of 1 Timothy, rejecting a good conscience is one of those obstacles.

The relative pronoun “which” (ἣν) grammatically identifies the conscience (συνείδησιν) as its antecedent. English translations frequently demonstrate difficulty in clearly defining the referent of pronouns. The New International Version is a case in point as Guthrie points out, “In the next clause, NIV has rejected these, but the Greek relative is singular and refers directly to conscience” (The Pastoral Epistles, 78, bold mine to point out the issue at hand).

Adding further data to strengthen this point, the chiastic development of the verse points to the same conclusion. Lund offers this definition, “Chiasmus (or chiasm) is a term based on the Greek letter chi (χ) which refers to an inverted parallelism or sequence of words or ideas in a phrase, sentence, or any larger literary unit” (Chiasmus in the New Testament, vii). Bullinger quotes Bengel who says that “its employment is never without some use: viz., in perceiving the ornament and in observing the force of the language; in understanding the true and full sense; in making clear the sound interpretation; in demonstrating the true and neat analysis of the sacred text” (Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, page 374). In 1 Timothy 1:19 the chiastic arrangement of words are: A = faith, B = conscience, B' = which (conscience), A' = faith. The composition adds emphasis to the central position the conscience plays in regards to the faith.

The pictorial representation in this verse stands out in bold relief when the preposition is given a spatial translation/interpretation. Those who reject a good conscience may founder in the harbor of faith. Guthrie comments again, “Since a nautical image is introduced it is possible that Paul is thinking of conscience as a stabilizing factor which when rejected renders the ship unstable” (Ibid.).

In this instance, the spatial concept not only makes good sense but adds drama to the imagery suggested by Paul’s expressive term “shipwreck.” Not infrequently in the Bible there are “Big Ideas in Small Words.”

“Why Study Biblical Languages?” Redux!

A primary goal for studying the biblical Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek languages is to demonstrate their necessity for understanding and appreciating the Bible in all of its original glory. For some, this will not be needed; for others, definitive proof will be required. These postings, that began on December 4, 2008, prove that a working knowledge of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek enhances one’s ability to “rightly divide the Word of truth.” Logic alone, however, can serve the same purpose. The following quotation is taken from The Expository Times:

“If the Bible is what we profess to believe it to be, it is worth the effort to read it in the original. One who made it his life’s work to interpret French literature, but who could only read it in English translation, would not be taken seriously; yet it is remarkable how many ministers of religion week by week expound a literature that they are unable to read save in translation!”

One essential and often-ignored fact must begin this discussion: The Bible is Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek literature; English is the means whereby the English-speaking world accesses it, and is, thereby, a secondary source for the Bible. Another undeniable truth is that every translation of the Bible is interpretation, and interpretations may be good or bad. Furthermore, it is impossible for any translation to transmit all that the original languages say because languages do not communicate in the same manner. Consequently, in evaluating translations one can only speak of varying degrees of loss, and no translation consistently maintains its degree of loss. Some passages are excellent; others less so.

These postings, at the very least, show how a working knowledge of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek can: (1) reveal truths unrecoverable by any translation, (2) clarify obscure passages of the English Bible, (3) open up new interpretive possibilities for understanding the text beyond those that the English translations offer, and (4) aid in evaluating between competing English translations/interpretations. Welcome again to the educational and exciting world of Biblical Languages and Bible Translations!

“Why Should I Study Hebrew?” Answered!

The Scenario

Consider one example of why the study of Hebrew can save your image as a Bible teacher and possibly your Bible study group. Imagine yourself leading the home Bible study with members of your church and you ask someone to read Hosea 7:13:

“Woe unto them! for they have fled from me: destruction unto them! because they have transgressed against me: though I have redeemed them, yet they have spoken lies against me” (King James Version, KJV).

All is well until someone else notes that instead of reading though I have redeemed them (KJV), his New International Version (NIV) reads I long to redeem them. Then another member adds to the developing confusion, “Why does my version say ‘I would redeem them’” (New American Standard Bible, NASB)? It becomes instantly clear that you, the study leader, are asked to arbitrate between these different readings since the interpretation of this verse affects (1) the temporal context for the passage, (2) the interpretations attached to the differing times communicated by the versions, and (3) a practical application of the passage to those present.

The Solution

If you have a working grasp of Hebrew grammar and syntax you realize that the first issue involves the grammatical form and the meaning of the imperfect aspect of the word translated “redeem” (אֶפְדֵּם). The English past tense reading of the KJV reflects a Hebrew preterite, the imperfect verb form with the conjunction attached (technically called the waw consecutive) that focuses the time on the past. However, The Hebrew text does not contain this conjunction and therefore a modal aspect expressing the mood of the verb agrees better with the grammar, whether a mood of a desire as seen in the NIV or of a condition as found in the NASB. (For a brief review of the syntax and other options see Ronald J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax: An Outline, 2nd edition, 33-34.)

The interpretation issue flows from the grammar and syntax analysis. The preterite reading of the text (KJV) refers the verse to the past salvation experience of Israel at the Red Sea. On the other hand, a modal translation reflects Israel’s present and future opportunity for God’s deliverance if they meet His requirements (NIV or NASB). In this latter sense, the verb פדה backs away from the soteriological (salvation-oriented) idea of “redeem” to the more general idea of “deliverance” (see Holladay, A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, 289).

Finally, a practical application you could present your group relates to the existing life situations instead of the past. God’s desire and ability to save from distressful circumstances should motivate one to be obedient to His requirements. You thus justify the NIV and NASB in this passage.

Of course, all of this depends upon your ability to read and interpret the Bible from the standpoint of the Hebrew text. Without this ability, you and your Bible study members float aimlessly on a sea of speculation and confusion. Unfortunately, you will not be alone!

The Case of the “Hanging Nominative”

Designation defines the basic function of the nominative case in the Greek New Testament. It is most commonly thought of as the case of the subject. One rarely looks to the nominative to discover some important exegetical point. However, John 1:12 contains one such exegetical nuance discoverable in some translations but hidden in others.

John 1:12 in the New American Standard Bible (NASB) reads, “But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name.” The relative clause translated “as many as received Him” represents a nominative plural clause that should function as the subject of an independent clause. But another subject “He” is inserted in the following independent clause. The initial nominative clause is left hanging without a connection to the main clause.

The New International Version of this passage says, “Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God.” It changes the initial subject nominative to an indirect object dative,” to all who received him.” This has the effect of eliminating the hanging nominative subject of the NASB and the Greek text.

Although it may be advantageous for readers of the English Bible not to encounter a hanging nominative, there are reasons why writers used them. One possible use is for emphasis or focus. Stanley E. Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament, 86, writes

Since the independent nominative [hanging nominative] is in sense, though not in grammar, linked to an element in another clause, this construction quite possibly is used to draw attention to an item in the main clause which would be otherwise overlooked. The independent nominative may also serve as a topic marker or shifter which does not become grammatically entangled in the main construction.

See also Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 52.

In John 1:12, the writer emphasizes that, although Jesus’ own people did not receive him, those who did could become children of God. The hanging nominative appears to have the rhetorical effect of focusing the readers on those who did believe. A translation that captures this is, “But as for those who did receive Him . . . .”

The interpreter must be careful when translating not to ignore or distort the emphasis in the original text since emphasis is a powerful medium of communication and interpretation. If it is possible to transfer such emphasis into the English translation, the translator is duty-bound to do so.

Job and His English Interpreters

Every now and then I come across a Bible verse where translations of English Bibles display remarkable and confusing contradictions. Job 13:15 represents a dramatic example. Notice the following:

“Behold, he will slay me; I have no hope” (Revised Standard Version, RSV)
“Though he slay me, I will hope in him.” (New American Standard Bible, NASB)
“God might kill me, but I cannot wait.” (New Living Translation, NLT)
“Though He slay me, yet will I trust Him.” (New King James Version, NKJV)

Is Job’s statement a declaration of certain death, possible death, no hope, hope, impatience, unbelief? A variety of interpretation issues are involved in unraveling this apparently contradictory and confusing array of translation options. Syntax, word study, textual criticism, and context are necessary elements in deciphering Job’s exclamation.

The first issue to resolve is the textual problem to establish the most likely wording of the verse. The Hebrew text presents two options, one in the text itself and the other in the margin. The different choices create very different translations. The RSV and NLT translate the second clause in negative terms whereas the NASB and NKJV give positive readings. Obviously a textual decision needs to be made.

This textual problem involves similar sounds of the two readings, a common problem in the transmission of ancient manuscripts. The text contains the negative “not” (לא) while the margin substitutes a preposition with an appended personal pronoun (לוֹ). The Jewish editors of the Masoretic text, the preferred Old Testament manuscript used by scholars, placed in the margin what they considered to be the original reading. This reading is also found in the text of numerous other Old Testament manuscripts. The NASB and NKJV followed this ancient textual critical decision. The RSV and NLT chose to stay with the reading in the text. The present discussion accepts the marginal reading as original and the one that appears to accord best with the context.

Syntax refers to the relationships between words in a sentence and includes a variety of meanings for the different parts of speech (see Ronald J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax: An Outline, for a review). In the above translations the verb in the initial clause communicates either a simple future idea (RSV), a concession (NASB, NKJV), or a possibility (NLT). In the second clause, the verbal idea is viewed as either an ongoing but uncompleted mental activity (RSV, NLT) or a simple future declaration (NASB, NKJV). Each of these interpretations is possible, but each cannot be correct.

The first word study issues involved the initial particle seen in the Hebrew text (הן). This could be a demonstrative interjection, “behold” (RSV), or a conjunction used in combination with a Hebrew verb (יקטל) to communicate a concession or a condition (Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, 243; John E. Hartley, The Book of Job, 221). The NASB and NKJV translators apparently chose this latter option. In contrast Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, p. 497, says that “the meaning see is no doubt preferable” in apparent agreement with the RSV. Again, both possibilities cannot be right.

The second word study matter concerns the Hebrew verb יחל translated as waiting (NLT), hoping (RSV, NASB) and trusting (NKJV). When this verb is followed by the preposition ל, “for,” as in this verse, the resultant meanings are “to wait for” or “to hope for” (see William L. Holladay, A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, p. 133, and Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, 403-04). In this instance, since there is a close semantic connection between “waiting” and “hoping,” the choice will depend upon how the context affects the sentence. The “trusting” terminology of the NKJV, though close in meaning to waiting or hoping, has a different perspective. The major dictionaries do not include this sense for the word used (see also Harris, Archer, Waltke, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, I, 373-74).

As in any interpretation, the context of the passage in question plays a determinate role in sifting through various options. Often one enters the realm of probabilities instead of certainties. The interpreter must now examine the context of Job 13:15 as a guide through the maze of syntax and word study differences.

Does the context suggest that Job expects God to kill him? It does not appear so. Job wants an opportunity to present his case before God and is convinced that he will be vindicated (verses 15 and 18). He may lose his case and be killed, but he firmly believes that he will be exonerated. Therefore, the probability appears greater that the NASB and NKJV with their “concession” statements should be given priority in interpretation.

Regarding the second syntax issue, the ongoing mental state of waiting/hoping or a future expectation, the broader context of verse 15 would point to a future idea. Job wants to present his case and wait for the verdict from God. The verdict will follow his defense; therefore, the future idea is more probable and so translated in the NASB and NKJV. (See Hartley, The Book of Job, 221-23, for a different interpretation of the context.)

The difference between “waiting” and “hoping” relates to the above tentative conclusion. If the resolution of Job’s contention with God follows his defense, “waiting” for the condemnation or vindication becomes the point at hand with “hoping” coming in as a weak second. Therefore, the NLT seems to “carry the day” in this matter.

In an attempt to capture all of the interpretive conclusions, the following translation is tentatively offered: "Though He may kill me, I will wait for Him." The English translation that most closely approximates this rendering is the New American Bible, “Slay me though he might, I will wait for him.”

Here is my paraphrased interpretation of the verse: “Although God might find me guilty and kill me after I make my defense, I will wait for His verdict, but I am confident that He will find me not guilty.” Such an interpretation coordinates well with the preceding desire on Job’s part to argue his case before God (verses 3 and 13) and with the following context where he knows that he will be vindicated (verse 18).