These essays are my notes. This one will serve as a record of what has been happening around me as I studied for the previous essay.

A visiting pastor preached Matthew 5:13-16 (ESV):

“You are the salt of the earth, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under people’s feet [Table].

“You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.

It hit me extremely hard. I feel very responsible for my ex-wife’s faith (or lack thereof). Before she married me, her faith was a bruised reed…and a smoldering wick.¹ After divorcing me, her faith is broken and all but quenched. And I didn’t do it on purpose, quite the opposite.

The Greek of Matthew 5:16 is: οὕτως, In the same way, λαμψάτω, let shine (or “must shine”), τὸ φῶς ὑμῶν, your light (e.g., “your light must shine”), ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων, before others, ὅπως, so that, ἴδωσιν, they may see, ὑμῶν τὰ καλὰ ἔργα, your good works (or “your beautiful works”), καὶ δοξάσωσιν, and give glory (or “and praise, glorify, honor”), τὸν πατέρα ὑμῶν, to your Father (or “your Father”), τὸν, who is, ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, in heaven (literally, “in the heavens”).

The Lord does not heal the sick or raise the dead through me. More and more his love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control [Table], the fruit of the Spirit² shines through me. My ex-wife is more than willing to praise me for his good works. (And, yes, that is gratifying to a wounded male ego.) She is willing to confess many of her own sins. But nothing that has been said or done through me has resulted in the slightest recognition that No one is good except God alone³ and You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires.⁴

These truths are probably not where faith begins: the latter was spoken by Jesus to the Jews who had believed [and continued to believe⁵] him.⁶ But these truths received cultivate the soil (the pulverized rock and decaying organic material) out of which the Lord grows faith and the righteousness that is by faith. Rejecting these truths is essentially the rocky ground of which Jesus spoke (Matthew 13:1-23), artificially propping up the old human (τὸν παλαιὸν ἄνθρωπον) which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires,⁷ the lost son of perdition.⁸

As I stare at the Greek of Matthew 5:16, though I’m not completely sure that ὅπως, (ESV: so that) functions here like ἵνα would, the sentence construction sounds enough like a purpose clause that I take some courage in Jesus’ words rather than despairing at my own assessment of my own experience with her. The Greek verb ἴδωσιν (ESV: they may see), a form of εἴδω in the subjunctive mood, is definitely in the aorist tense. And the verb δοξάσωσιν (ESV: give glory), a form of δοξάζω in the subjunctive mood, might be understood in the present tense, by which I stand condemned in my own eyes, a failure to be salt or light. But δοξάσωσιν might also be understood in the aorist tense, an as yet unspecified time, indicating that there is yet hope in (e.g., by means of) the Lord. The emotional effect that sermon had on me is no reason to restrain the good (beautiful) works the Lord accomplishes through me.

That Sunday, however, hearing an English only sermon hit me like a gut punch. As I doubled over, the preacher smashed my face into his knee, and I was down for the count. I’ve known him as a very kind and gentle man. But the word of God is…sharper than any two-edged sword.⁹ The preacher’s emphasis on the church, as the salt and light through which the Lord works, dashed all my hope for the moment.

I heard, “there is no salvation outside the Church,”¹⁰ not because he quoted Cyprian. I probably heard his emphasis this way because I have a friend whose conversation is salted with that dictum as he patiently and persistently endeavors to convert me. But it did attach itself in those moments as a credible limitation (Matthew 12:30-32; Luke 11:23) to the Lord’s judgment:

Now is the judgment of this world; now will the ruler of this world be cast out. And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself”¹¹ [by means of the church].

It is evident that the only credible limitation to the judgment of the One to whom All authority in heaven and on earth has been given¹² would be self-imposed.

The following Sunday I was careful not to hear an English only sermon. The interlinear English/Greek New Testament keyed to the Greek text of the KJV, NA²⁸ and the Koine Greek Lexicon were all open on my phone. Actually, they were available the Sunday the visiting preacher spoke, but my own Pastor is aware, and even approves, of why my face is buried in my phone rather than looking up, smiling at him.

He preached on temptation and the works done by us [or not done by us] in righteousness,¹³ with reference to being judged for what [we have] done in the body, whether good or evil,¹⁴ from 1 John 3. His interpretation was based on the translation of ποιῶν and ποιεῖ with the relative terms “makes a practice of” and “practices”: Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness.¹⁵ That was interesting in a congregation where a favorite saying of one of the more prominent elders is: “I never need to practice to sin; I already do that very well all on my own.”

With access to the definitions of the Greek root ποιέω, however, I could hear: Everyone who [does sin] also [does] lawlessness; sin is lawlessness. Translated in absolute terms—Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God¹⁶—it becomes clearer that John and the Holy Spirit described factual information in the 3^rd chapter of 1 John regarding the old human (τὸν παλαιὸν ἄνθρωπον) which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires¹⁷ and the new human (τὸν καινὸν ἄνθρωπον) created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.¹⁸ So, I heard a sermon of encouragement to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, and to put on¹⁹ the new human by the Spirit through faith in Jesus Christ, rather than puzzling whether the sin that dwells within me qualifies as practice and should be addressed by some other stratagem, being perfected by the flesh.²⁰

During this same period of time I watched some of Mark Ward’s YouTube videos titled, “Ward on Words.” This led me to the “Textual Confidence Collective,” a group of young PhDs arguing primarily against the King James Only Movement. In their introductory video Mr. Ward asked Peter Montoro to explain the working framework of the textual confidence perspective:

So, there’s basically three positions that we’ve used to put together a spectrum—of a map as it were—of positions on the text: you have textual skepticism, textual absolutism and textual confidence:

So, a textual skeptic would be someone like Bart Ehrman. Ehrman would say, well, if God really gave us the Bible, then He would have given it to us on golden tablets or written it in the sky, so we would know if He inspired it. He would give us every word exactly the way He wanted us to have it. We would not have to do textual criticism. We’d not have to compare manuscripts. And Ehrman would say, because we have to do this work, because we have to toil on the text, therefore we can’t trust the text because—if we have any uncertainty at all, then we just don’t know what God said, and so, therefore—it can’t be God who’s speaking. It has to be men who are speaking. That would be roughly a summary (it would be a lot more nuanced than that), but that’s basically his position.

And then there are many people (this is the way I was brought up to believe), their position is, well, if we can—we have to know the words exactly, we have to have absolute confidence in every single word to be able to trust the text. But we believe the Bible is the word of God and so, therefore, we must not have to do any work on the manuscripts. We must have every Greek word (or every English word even in the King James) exactly right, and because we do trust the text, and because we believe this is necessary to trust the text, therefore, we’re going to say that this is actually what took place. That would be a textual absolutist perspective, which we’re going to spend a lot of time talking about.

And then, a position of textual confidence would say that toil and trust can go together, so that because of what we believe in the providence of God, and because we believe that God can use ordinary human beings to transmit his word (and I’ll be talking more about this later on). But God uses ordinary human beings to preach his word. He also has used ordinary human beings to copy and to translate and to edit it, and to do all the other things that are done with the word of God, and yet God is still at work through human beings, just as He is in the church and in all the other acts of God’s providence. And so we want to say to Bart Ehrman, no, we don’t want to be skeptical. But you don’t have to become the mirror image of Ehrman in order to trust in the text.

And really, one of the things that I think a lot about is this idea: it’s called horseshoe theory, that the more you focus on your opponents, the more you become like them. And so, the two extremes tend to bend towards each other.

(I recommend viewing Mr. Montoro’s explanation for yourself. By transcribing his words I’ve exerted a considerable editorial influence over them through punctuation and by dropping words I deemed unnecessary to intelligibility, the speech-like sounds a mind makes searching for appropriate words.)

Generally, I shy away from academic arguments. Amidst a few potentially interesting but ultimately inconclusive points, one is drawn inexorably to the inherent conclusion of two or more mutually exclusive proponents’ arguments; namely, “I am good; I am wise; trust me.” I distrust academics. The job itself forms them a certain way. They make much of you, but for no good purpose. They want to shut you out, that you may make much of them.²¹ No, Paul wasn’t necessarily describing academics with these words, but his words seem appropriate.

The opening line of the introduction to my sermon²² on 3 John reads:

If I’d finished my education to become an historian—a secularist with a materialist bias and an agnostic, if not atheist, prejudice—I would have assumed that 3^rd John was the personal correspondence of some old man, possibly of some note in 1^st century Christian circles (at least he thought he was noteworthy) written to someone (probably another old man), lamenting their loss of influence and relevance as Christianity evolved.

Still, I found the young academics of the textural confidence collective tolerable. Describing it to my Pastor, I said, “I don’t really have a dog in this hunt.” I grew up around people who read the King James Bible. I read the King James Bible, but I don’t recall it being a “thing.” Maybe it was a matter of ego: we thought we were smart enough to understand old English. I, as it turned out, was not that smart. I became an atheist.

This is not to say that I was a card carrying member in good standing of a faith called Atheism. I thought I had figured out that God was not, and that was the end of that. I wasn’t nurturing or defending a relatively fragile (all things considered) faith. I was doing hallucinogens,²³ completely oblivious to Jesus’ promise to draw all to Himself.

If I fit into Mr. Montoro’s schema in any way it would probably be as an equal opportunity textural skeptic:

Too many years of hallucinogenic drugs had made me functionally illiterate. At least I thought that term described me accurately the first time I heard it. (As it turned out functionally illiterate is just a redundancy for illiterate.) If I had read aloud one would have assumed I understood what I read. I read easily, fluently and coherently with an actor’s flair for inflection. My problem was a lack of faith. I had no confidence that strings of words meant anything beyond the beauty of their sounds, except in the most mundane cases: I’m hungry, I’m horny, I have to pee.²⁴

If my family or friends were concerned when I began to read the New American Standard Bible (NASB) instead of the KJV,²⁵ they kept it to themselves. There are advantages, it seems, to having declared oneself an atheist and indulging in hallucinogens for “enlightenment.” Reading the NASB seems decidedly “less sinful” by comparison. Truthfully, my first awareness of King James Only-ism came from Jim Searcy.

Addendum (6/19/2015): Jim Searcy has published that the Septuagint is a hoax written by Origen and Eusebius 200 hundred²⁶ years or so after Christ. “In fact, the Septuagint ‘quotes’ from the New Testament and not vice versa…” His contention is that the “King James Version is the infallible Word of God.”²⁷

And that came subsequent to the Lord leading me to the Septuagint²⁸ as an answer to a question why the Old Testament was misquoted in the New Testament so often.²⁹ Mr. Searcy quoted an article³⁰ by John Ogwyn (though Mr. Searcy disputed its conclusion slightly³¹):

Gleason Archer and G. C. Chirichigno in their comprehensive work, Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A Complete Survey, make the following points about New Testament quotations: 1) in 268 New Testament citations both the Septuagint and Masoretic Text are in complete harmony; 2) in 50 citations the New Testament agrees with the Septuagint, even though it differs slightly from the Masoretic Text (although not seriously enough to distort the meaning); 3) in 33 citations the New Testament adheres more closely to the Masoretic Text than to the Septuagint; 4) in 22 citations the New Testament adheres closely to the Septuagint even when it deviates somewhat from the Masoretic Text. The New Testament writers only made use of Septuagint quotations if those passages properly conveyed the inspired meaning of the Hebrew text” (Ogwyn J. How Did We Get The Bible. Tomorrow’s World, LCG Magazine. January-February 2002).

Mr. Ward seemed to imply that the Septuagint was translated by Christians (and I definitely regret now that I didn’t keep track of which video that was) without mentioning Origen, Eusebius or any specific calumny against them. An assertion that New Testament writers quoted 72 times (50 + 22) from a Greek text of the Old Testament which didn’t exist until 200 (“the third century A.D.”)³² effectively eliminates the possibility that any of those writers were the apostles of Jesus, or it confirms that those who translated the Old Testament into Greek quoted the New Testament writers all but 33 times, or it indicates that scribes (e.g., academics) were meddling with the text at a very early date.

The first thing I notice here are the differences in the English translations. The Lord redirects my attention to the similarities. The meaning of the first sentence is identical in Hebrew, Greek and four English translations. I didn’t even bother to present the Hebrew or Greek because the four English translations are almost word-for-word identical. Only the second sentence was problematic for translators/editors. In other words, they didn’t understand what the Hebrew text says or they didn’t like it for reasons unknown. (Another possibility is that a written language without vowels requires more interpretive skill than a language with vowels.)

Approaching the next sentence, I want to sputter and fume about the differences in English, while the Lord focuses my attention on the Hebrew and Greek. No, I can’t read either language. I can look up Hebrew words in a concordance and Greek words in a lexicon and rules for Greek grammar online. And the Lord gives me the patience and energy to do that. No matter what anyone thinks about the Septuagint, it is a translation from Hebrew rather than from English.

Our working hypothesis (the Lord’s and mine) is that the Septuagint was translated by Jews before Jesus was born, and most likely preserved by Christian scribes. Yes, of course, the Lord knows exactly what the Septuagint is; I know He has led me to it in answer to questions I’ve asked Him. I also know I’m quite capable of misunderstanding Him, so I call this knowledge a working hypothesis. I call it our working hypothesis because apart from Him I wouldn’t have the interest, patience or energy to even pursue it. I wouldn’t care.

Spending my days studying the Bible with God the Father, God the Son through God the indwelling Holy Spirit feels a lot like being a child again, watching The Red Skelton Show with my Dad. I didn’t understand most of the comedy, but my Dad laughed, so I laughed, too. It was fun hanging out with my Dad when he was in a good mood.

In the second sentence of Jeremiah 8:8 neither אָכֵן֙ (āḵēn) nor הִנֵּ֣ה (hinnê)—Lo, certainly (Tanakh, KJV), The truth is (NET)—was translated into Greek in the Septuagint. Though I tend to question the potential meanings of that fact, the Lord focuses my attention on the fact that the remainder of the Hebrew words in the Masoretic text were translated into Greek in the Septuagint, almost word-for-word and in exactly the same word order. In other words, five of the seven Hebrew words in the second sentence were translated into Greek, which gives me four English translations and two Greek translations to compare/contrast to the Hebrew of the Masoretic text.

The first occurrence of לַשֶּׁ֣קֶר—in vain (Tanakh, KJV)—a form of שֶׁקֶר (šeqer), was translated εἰς μάτην in the Septuagint (two Greek words for one Hebrew word)—In vain (English Elpenor). I’m setting aside the NET and NETS translations for the moment as less literal.³³ The first step is to become confident that εἰς μάτην is the intended translation of לַשֶּׁ֣קֶר, a form ofשֶׁקֶר (šeqer). Three English translations (Tanakh, KJV, English Elpenor) witness that fact. And the word order of the Hebrew and Greek texts match; these words (one Hebrew word, two Greek words) are first in their respective word strings (after the two Hebrew words which weren’t translated into Greek).

The next word עָשָׂ֔ה (ʿāśâ)—made he it (Tanakh, KJV)—was translated ἐγενήθη in the Septuagint—have…used (English Elpenor). Here, the English translation of the Elpenor Septuagint expresses a verb, but not quite the same verb as the Hebrew: made he it (e.g., “he made it”) expresses a singular 3^rd person verb while have…used is plural. A closer look at ἐγενήθη, however, reveals that it is a 3^rd person singular form of γίνομαι. The plural form have…used rather than the singular (“has used”) reflects the English translators’ choice to specify he (the 3^rd person singular) as the plural scribes: in vain have the scribes used (English Elpenor).

Now I can consider that translation relative to the English translation of the Tanakh and KJV: in vain made he it (or, “in vain he made it”). Two questions come to mind: who is he and what is it? In ordinary English usage he would be the Lord and it would be the law: Lo, certainly in vain “the Lord made the law.” Wow! I mean, this is essentially what Paul wrote in many kinder, gentler words (Romans 8:1-9 ESV):

There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death [Table]. For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him [Table].

The interlinear KJV/Hebrew version of Jeremiah 8:8 on Blue Letter Bible online indicates that it was added by the translators: Lo, certainly in vain “the Lord made.” Contrast this even stronger statement to the first occurrence of this particular form—עָשָׂ֔ה (ʿāśâ)—in Genesis.

While these interpretations of the second sentence in Jeremiah 8:8 seem to make some extraordinarily sorrowful sense in isolation in English, in context the Lord was speaking through Jeremiah:

Rather than assuming that the Lord suddenly referred to Himself in the 3^rd person, or that Jeremiah dropped out of the prophetic voice to make an editorial comment in his own voice, the singular verb in Jeremiah 8:8 might refer back to the singular he mentioned in verse 4: shall he turn away, and not return? But I’ll admit I’m uncertain, then, what in vain he made or what “he made in vain.”

The next word in the Hebrew word string is עֵ֖ט (ʿēṭ)—the pen (Tanakh, KJV)—translated σχοῖνος in the Septuagint—a…pen (English Elpenor). This is followed by שֶׁ֥קֶר—is in vain (Tanakh, KJV)—another form of שֶׁקֶר (šeqer), and ψευδὴς in the Septuagint—false (English Elpenor): a false pen. The final word in the Hebrew word string is סֹֽפְרִֽים (sāp̄ar)—of the scribes (Tanakh, KJV). The final word in the Greek word string is γραμματεῦσιν—the scribes (English Elpenor).

A note (24) in the NET reads:

Heb “The lying pen of the scribes has made [it] into a lie.” The translation [The truth is, those who teach it have used their writings to make it say what it does not really mean (Jeremiah 8:8b NET)] is an attempt to make the most common interpretation of this passage understandable for the average reader. This is, however, a difficult passage whose interpretation is greatly debated and whose syntax is capable of other interpretations. The interpretation of the NJPS, “Assuredly, for naught has the pen labored, for naught the scribes,” surely deserves consideration within the context; i.e., it hasn’t done any good for the scribes to produce a reliable copy of the law, which the people have refused to follow. That interpretation has the advantage of explaining the absence of an object for the verb “make” or “labored” but creates a very unbalanced poetic couplet.

The Complete Jewish Bible on Chabad.org and Rashi’s commentary read:

How do you say, “We are wise, and the Law of the Lord is with us”? Verily, behold it is in vain, he made a false scribes’ pen.

Verily, behold it is in vain. Behold your wisdom is in vain within you to heal you lightly.
he made a false scribes’ pen. i.e., your prophet.

And finally (Jeremiah 8:8 ESV):

“How can you say, ‘We are wise, and the law of the Lord is with us’? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes has made it into a lie.

Here, while translating the Hebrew of the Masoretic text ostensibly, the translators of the ESV have arrived (with the exception of But behold) at a better translation of the Greek of the Septuagint than the English Elpenor. The noun σχοῖνος is in the nominative case rather than the accusative, the subject of the verb rather than its object. Though I would tend to indulge my current kick of translating γραμματεῦσιν, a form of γραμματεύς in the dative case, instrumentally—the lying pen by means of the scribes has made it into a lie—I understand it here (added by the translators) as a clear reference to the claim: ‘We are wise, and the law of the Lord is with us’.

So, is it time to fight for my understanding as the only sure word of God in Jeremiah 8:8b? Or is it time to concede to the Lord, “point taken”?

Searching again for the Mark Ward video I failed to catalog, I found another titled, The KJV vs. the Masoretic Text, in which a guest, Peter Goeman, discussing Psalm 22:16 said:

…if you look at other evidences from the ancient world like the Septuagint, which some of your viewers will know, that’s the Greek translation of the Old Testament, which dates even before the time of Christ…

Mr. Ward chimed in: “before Jesus, right?” Mr. Goeman continued:

Yeah, exactly. So, it’s very, very well established, in fact, some of the Jewish Diaspora would read the Septuagint scrolls in synagogue. So, it’s not as if they were very much against that. Although it should be said that after Christianity started to really become popular, the Jewish populace turned their back on the Greek translation because they were afraid that it was becoming too Christianized, and the Christians were using it too much. And, in fact, this was a big part of the debate between like Justin Martyr [c. AD 100 – c. AD 165] and some of the Jews of that day, is that he was arguing from the Septuagint that Jesus was Lord and that we need to follow Him.

Did Mr. Ward agree with Mr. Goeman’s point about the Septuagint, or did he simply clarify that point for his viewers? I favor the latter because I sense some discomfort in his demeanor because of a comment that “seemed to imply that the Septuagint was translated by Christians” in a video I failed to catalog and can no longer find. I suggest you check it out for yourself if you have the interest or the time. Apart from the Lord there is nothing good in me; apart from the Lord there is nothing wise about me; trusting me is kind of stupid, if not evil. Trust the Lord instead.

“But, but, but,” my soul sputters and fumes, “what about all those people who don’t know You the way I DO?”

“Trust Me,” God the Father, God the Son through God the indwelling Holy Spirit calms my sputtering, fuming soul as Paul’s words echo in my ears: in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code,³⁴ not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.³⁵

“But the letter is so much fun,” my soul argues, “when we study together.” And God the Father, God the Son through God the indwelling Holy Spirit laughs at me as He draws me near. And I laugh at myself along with Him—eventually.

Tables comparing Jeremiah 8:4 in the Tanakh, KJV and NET, and the Greek of Jeremiah 8:4 in the Septuagint (BLB and Elpenor), and a table comparing 2 Corinthians 5:10 in the KJV and NET follow.