Hebrews
Hebrews 4:8 in the KJV
09/24/2006 16:20 Filed in: Faith & Reason
Our Sunday School lesson this morning covered Hebrews 3:16-4:13. I've been very pleased with the Lifeway coverage of Hebrews because we've hit almost every verse--no jumping around as is often the case. However, in our lesson today, one verse was conspicuously missing: Hebrews 4:8.
The Lifeway Explore the Bible curriculum uses two translations as its base, the HCSB and the KJV and normally reproduces the verses side by side. Any quick look at Heb 4:8 in these two translations immediately demonstrates a problem:
Obviously, there's going to be a big difference in the meaning of the passage based on whether the writer is speaking of Joshua or Jesus. What?! You don't remember the Old Testament story about Jesus leading the Israelites into the Promised Land?
For sake of comparison, here are a few other translations of the verse:
"For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken later about another day." (NIV/TNIV)
"Now if Joshua had succeeded in giving them this rest, God would not have spoken about another day of rest still to come." (NLT)
"For if Joshua had given them rest, He would not have spoken of another day after that." (NASB)
"For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not speak later about another day." (NRSV)
"For if Joshua had given them rest, God* would not have spoken of another day later on." (ESV)
Obviously, the majority consensus is for Joshua, not Jesus. And it certainly makes sense because the context of the writer's argument is an analogy that he's drawing from the Israelite's entrance into the Promised Land. So why the difference in the KJV?
Well, part of the problem with the King James Version is that in the New Testament the translators chose to transliterate the Greek versions of the names of Old Testament characters rather than matching up the spellings with what was used in the KJV Old Testament. So in Matt 24:37, Noah is represented as "Noe," Elijah becomes "Elias" in Matt 11:14, Isaiah becomes "Esaias" in Matt 3:3 and so on. Some of these the reader will catch, but such inconsistency between the testaments can and certainly has created confusion and even misinterpretation in the past. [Consider for example, the blunder made by Mormon "prophet" Joseph Smith in Doctrine & Covenants 76:100, where he writes, "These are they who say they are some of one and some of another—some of Christ and some of John, and some of Moses, and some of Elias, and some of Esaias, and some of Isaiah, and some of Enoch...." It hardly seems fitting for a so-called "prophet" to make such an error that would become part of their sacred and "inspired" writings, wouldn't you think?]
That brings us to Jesus and Joshua. The two have the same name. Jesus is the Greek form (Ἰησοῦς/Iesous) and Joshua is the Hebrew form (יהושע/Yehoshua) of the same name. So, technically, the KJV translators were being consistent in their method of keeping the Greek form of the names of the Old Testament characters when it came to Heb 4:8. But surely anyone can see the confusion that such a practice causes. The same kind of misreading is caused in Acts 7:45 which again reads "Jesus," when the context is obviously referring to Joshua.
Every major modern translation today has gone to keeping the names consistent between the testaments. And the TNIV has gone a step further in that the translators have chosen to update the spellings of certain names to bring them closer to their Hebrew originals. A chart of such spelling changes is in the back of every TNIV Bible.
Hebrews 4:8 is a perfect example of why I never recommend the KJV as a primary translation for serious study. Even the student who can plow through the Elizabethan English fairly well has a strong possibility of misinterpreting a verse like Heb 4:8 or Acts 7:45. Further, I've noted since beginning our study in Hebrews, as I've been translating some of it, that the Greek is more difficult in this book than most other places in the New Testament. And that is reflected in the KJV rendering of many of the passages in Hebrews which come across as nearly unintelligible (see, for instance Heb 3:16-18 in the KJV).
I suppose it would be controversial for some to hear that the KJV can lead to misunderstandings and misinterpretations of the text in a verse like Heb 4:13 or Acts 7:45. Maybe that's why the editors at Lifeway decided to simply leave that verse out of the study. But v. 8 is an essential part of the writer's argument. Plus, for the one or two KJV users in my class, bringing up the issue was a way to gently encourage them to use a newer translation. Therefore, we covered v. 8, and everyone understood that the reference was to Joshua.
The Lifeway Explore the Bible curriculum uses two translations as its base, the HCSB and the KJV and normally reproduces the verses side by side. Any quick look at Heb 4:8 in these two translations immediately demonstrates a problem:
| HEBREWS 4:8 | |
|---|---|
HCSB |
KJV |
| For if Joshua had given them rest, He would not have spoken later about another day. | For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day. |
Obviously, there's going to be a big difference in the meaning of the passage based on whether the writer is speaking of Joshua or Jesus. What?! You don't remember the Old Testament story about Jesus leading the Israelites into the Promised Land?
For sake of comparison, here are a few other translations of the verse:
"For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken later about another day." (NIV/TNIV)
"Now if Joshua had succeeded in giving them this rest, God would not have spoken about another day of rest still to come." (NLT)
"For if Joshua had given them rest, He would not have spoken of another day after that." (NASB)
"For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not speak later about another day." (NRSV)
"For if Joshua had given them rest, God* would not have spoken of another day later on." (ESV)
Obviously, the majority consensus is for Joshua, not Jesus. And it certainly makes sense because the context of the writer's argument is an analogy that he's drawing from the Israelite's entrance into the Promised Land. So why the difference in the KJV?
Well, part of the problem with the King James Version is that in the New Testament the translators chose to transliterate the Greek versions of the names of Old Testament characters rather than matching up the spellings with what was used in the KJV Old Testament. So in Matt 24:37, Noah is represented as "Noe," Elijah becomes "Elias" in Matt 11:14, Isaiah becomes "Esaias" in Matt 3:3 and so on. Some of these the reader will catch, but such inconsistency between the testaments can and certainly has created confusion and even misinterpretation in the past. [Consider for example, the blunder made by Mormon "prophet" Joseph Smith in Doctrine & Covenants 76:100, where he writes, "These are they who say they are some of one and some of another—some of Christ and some of John, and some of Moses, and some of Elias, and some of Esaias, and some of Isaiah, and some of Enoch...." It hardly seems fitting for a so-called "prophet" to make such an error that would become part of their sacred and "inspired" writings, wouldn't you think?]
That brings us to Jesus and Joshua. The two have the same name. Jesus is the Greek form (Ἰησοῦς/Iesous) and Joshua is the Hebrew form (יהושע/Yehoshua) of the same name. So, technically, the KJV translators were being consistent in their method of keeping the Greek form of the names of the Old Testament characters when it came to Heb 4:8. But surely anyone can see the confusion that such a practice causes. The same kind of misreading is caused in Acts 7:45 which again reads "Jesus," when the context is obviously referring to Joshua.
Every major modern translation today has gone to keeping the names consistent between the testaments. And the TNIV has gone a step further in that the translators have chosen to update the spellings of certain names to bring them closer to their Hebrew originals. A chart of such spelling changes is in the back of every TNIV Bible.
Hebrews 4:8 is a perfect example of why I never recommend the KJV as a primary translation for serious study. Even the student who can plow through the Elizabethan English fairly well has a strong possibility of misinterpreting a verse like Heb 4:8 or Acts 7:45. Further, I've noted since beginning our study in Hebrews, as I've been translating some of it, that the Greek is more difficult in this book than most other places in the New Testament. And that is reflected in the KJV rendering of many of the passages in Hebrews which come across as nearly unintelligible (see, for instance Heb 3:16-18 in the KJV).
I suppose it would be controversial for some to hear that the KJV can lead to misunderstandings and misinterpretations of the text in a verse like Heb 4:13 or Acts 7:45. Maybe that's why the editors at Lifeway decided to simply leave that verse out of the study. But v. 8 is an essential part of the writer's argument. Plus, for the one or two KJV users in my class, bringing up the issue was a way to gently encourage them to use a newer translation. Therefore, we covered v. 8, and everyone understood that the reference was to Joshua.
|
Hebrews: A Neglected Letter No More
09/01/2006 01:07 Filed in: Faith & Reason
If you're a Southern Baptist like me, and you use the Explore the Bible Sunday School curriculum, you may be as elated as I am that this coming Sunday we begin a 13-week study of Hebrews.
Now, I'll make a couple of confessions here. First, speaking for our entire denomination, I have to admit that we don't emphasize the book of Hebrews that often. I was shocked to discover that the New American Commentary on Hebrews has not yet been published! How long have we been working on this series now? And the only time Hebrews gets much attention in our churches is when we are defending eternal security in light of chs. 4, 6, and 10; and when we are preaching from ch. 11, "the faith chapter."
Second, on a personal level, I realized by looking at the mostly blank wide margins in my Bible when I turned to Hebrews and the sparse commentary representation on my shelves, that I've been neglecting Hebrews, myself! In fact, I realized that I had never taught a study systematically through Hebrews from beginning to end.
But as I said, I'm pretty excited about teaching this book. I had also never done much translating in Hebrews; so a couple of weeks ago, I began translating my way through it. I knew this already, but I got a quick reminder that the Greek is a bit more difficult here, and if there was ever any doubt, I believe I could safely say that this is not Paul's style. Maybe the writer is Barnabas or Apollos, but it's certainly not Paul.
And I have to hand it to the powers-that-be at Lifeway who decided to give us a week for each chapter in the curriculum. Often I feel so rushed (like last week when we had one session for ALL of Song of Solomon). The curriculum doesn't actually devote space to every verse in Hebrews, but I've promised my class that we'll cover every verse on Sunday mornings
As I mentioned earlier, my commentary selection for Hebrews is sparse, so I'm taking recommendations. Here's who I have:
• William Lane (Word Biblical Commentary )--I have both volumes.
• Thomas Lea (Holman New Testament Commentary)
• Leon Morris in the original Expositor's Bible Commentary
What do you suggest? What're your favorite commentaries or other sources on Hebrews?
Now, I'll make a couple of confessions here. First, speaking for our entire denomination, I have to admit that we don't emphasize the book of Hebrews that often. I was shocked to discover that the New American Commentary on Hebrews has not yet been published! How long have we been working on this series now? And the only time Hebrews gets much attention in our churches is when we are defending eternal security in light of chs. 4, 6, and 10; and when we are preaching from ch. 11, "the faith chapter."
Second, on a personal level, I realized by looking at the mostly blank wide margins in my Bible when I turned to Hebrews and the sparse commentary representation on my shelves, that I've been neglecting Hebrews, myself! In fact, I realized that I had never taught a study systematically through Hebrews from beginning to end.
But as I said, I'm pretty excited about teaching this book. I had also never done much translating in Hebrews; so a couple of weeks ago, I began translating my way through it. I knew this already, but I got a quick reminder that the Greek is a bit more difficult here, and if there was ever any doubt, I believe I could safely say that this is not Paul's style. Maybe the writer is Barnabas or Apollos, but it's certainly not Paul.
And I have to hand it to the powers-that-be at Lifeway who decided to give us a week for each chapter in the curriculum. Often I feel so rushed (like last week when we had one session for ALL of Song of Solomon). The curriculum doesn't actually devote space to every verse in Hebrews, but I've promised my class that we'll cover every verse on Sunday mornings
As I mentioned earlier, my commentary selection for Hebrews is sparse, so I'm taking recommendations. Here's who I have:
• William Lane (Word Biblical Commentary )--I have both volumes.
• Thomas Lea (Holman New Testament Commentary)
• Leon Morris in the original Expositor's Bible Commentary
What do you suggest? What're your favorite commentaries or other sources on Hebrews?