A Re’em Resource

The Hebrew word re’em (רְאֵם) is used nine times (in slightly different forms: kir·’êm, 1; rə·’êm, 3; rə·’ê·mîm, 2; rêm, 2; rê·mîm, 1) in the Hebrew Old Testament: Numbers 23:22, 24:8; Deuteronomy 33:17; Job 39:9–10; Psalm 22:21, 29:6 and 92:10; Isaiah 34:7. The re’em is an animal, whose proper identification and translation is sometimes disputed. Below I have collected the verses in 5 translations. The first line is an excerpt of the Hebrew showing the word re’em, based on the Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon. The second is the Greek Septuagint translation (LXX) from the Septuagint Bible placed online by the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America. The third (VUL) is based on the Clementine Vulgate at Bible Gateway.. The fourth (LTR) is based on 1545 Luther German Bible at Bible Gateway. at Bible Gateway. The fifth line (KJV) is the King James English translation. The sixth (YLT) is based on the 1898 Robert Young Literal Translation at Bible Gateway.

The version choices may be somewhat obvious – the Septuagint and Vulgate for their longstanding influence (for good or ill) on Bible translation. The Luther Bible is the first important Reformation-era Bible translated from the Hebrew (OT) and Greek (NT) rather than from the LXX or Vulgate. The King James Version has held sway among English speakers for 400 years. The Young’s Literal Translation, though perhaps not so important in the grand scheme of things, nevertheless demonstrates a choice to bring over the word re’em from the Hebrew rather than translate it to an English word. The majority of modern translations show a preference for “wild ox.”

The words in brackets [] in the Latin translation of Psalm 22:21 and Psalm 92:10 are from Jerome’s “iuxta Hebraeos” translation of the Psalms. It is my understanding that this translation is supposed to be a close translation of the Hebrew, and that the Old Testament book of Psalms generally found in the Vulgate is based on the Greek LXX. Also note that the Psalm number and verse number can vary in the LXX and Vulgate from what we are used to with the King James numbering. The number in parentheses () is the number they use.

The Hebrew word and the word translated from re’em is bolded. In the LXX and Luther’s Bible, re’em is not translated as a noun in Job 39:10, but a pronoun is substituted. The LXX does not translate re’em as “monoceros” in Isaiah 34:7. Young does not translate re’em in Psalm 22:21. The Vulgate uses both “rhinoceros” and “unicorn.” The KJV translates re’em as unicorn in all nine verses.

Numbers 23:22

מִמִּצְרָ֑יִם כְּתוֹעֲפֹ֥ת רְאֵ֖ם לֽוֹ׃

LXX: Θεὸς ὁ ἐξαγαγὼν αὐτοὺς ἐξ Αἰγύπτου· ὡς δόξα μονοκέρωτος αὐτῷ.

VUL: Deus eduxit illum de AEgypto, cujus fortitudo similis est rhinocerotis.

LTR: Gott hat sie aus Ägypten geführt; seine Freudigkeit ist wie eines Einhorns.

KJV: God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn.

YLT: God is bringing them out from Egypt, As the swiftness of a Reem is to him;

Numbers 24:8

מִמִּצְרַ֔יִם כְּתוֹעֲפֹ֥ת רְאֵ֖ם ל֑וֹ יֹאכַ֞ל

LXX: Θεὸς ὡδήγησεν αὐτὸν ἐξ Αἰγύπτου, ὡς δόξα μονοκέρωτος αὐτῷ· ἔδεται ἔθνη ἐχθρῶν αὐτοῦ καὶ τὰ πάχη αὐτῶν ἐκμυελιεῖ καὶ ταῖς βολίσιν αὐτοῦ κατατοξεύσει ἐχθρόν·

VUL: Deus eduxit illum de AEgypto, cujus fortitudo similis est rhinocerotis. Devorabunt gentes hostes illius, ossaque eorum confringent, et perforabunt sagittis.

LTR: Gott hat ihn aus Ägypten geführt; seine Freudigkeit ist wie eines Einhorns. Er wird die Heiden, seine Verfolger, fressen und ihre Gebeine zermalmen und mit seinen Pfeilen zerschmettern.

KJV: God brought him forth out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn: he shall eat up the nations his enemies, and shall break their bones, and pierce them through with his arrows.

YLT: God is bringing him out of Egypt; As the swiftness of a Reem is to him, He eateth up nations his adversaries, And their bones he breaketh, And [with] his arrows he smiteth,

Deuteronomy 33:17

ל֗וֹ וְקַרְנֵ֤י רְאֵם֙ קַרְנָ֔יו בָּהֶ֗ם

LXX: πρωτότοκος ταύρου τὸ κάλλος αὐτοῦ, κέρατα μονοκέρωτος τὰ κέρατα αὐτοῦ· ἐν αὐτοῖς ἔθνη κερατιεῖ ἅμα ἕως ἀπ᾿ ἄκρου γῆς. αὗται μυριάδες ᾿Εφραΐμ, καὶ αὗται χιλιάδες Μανασσῆ.

VUL: Quasi primogeniti tauri pulchritudo ejus, cornua rhinocerotis cornua illius: in ipsis ventilabit gentes usque ad terminos terrae. Hae sunt multitudines Ephraim: et haec millia Manasse.

LTR: Seine Herrlichkeit ist wie eines erstgeborenen Stieres, und seine Hörner sind wie Einhornshörner; mit denselben wird er die Völker stoßen zuhauf bis an des Landes Enden. Das sind die Zehntausende Ephraims und die Tausende Manasses.

KJV: His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh.

YLT: His honour [is] a firstling of his ox, And his horns [are] horns of a reem; By them peoples he doth push together To the ends of earth; And they [are] the myriads of Ephraim, And they [are] the thousands of Manasseh.

Job 39:9

הֲיֹ֣אבֶה רֵּ֣ים עָבְדֶ֑ךָ אִם־

LXX: βουλήσεται δέ σοι μονόκερως δουλεῦσαι ἢ κοιμηθῆναι ἐπὶ φάτνης σου;

VUL: Numquid volet rhinoceros servire tibi, aut morabitur ad praesepe tuum?

LTR: Meinst du das Einhorn werde dir dienen und werde bleiben an deiner Krippe?

KJV: Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?

YLT: Is a Reem willing to serve thee? Doth he lodge by thy crib?

Job 39:10

הֲ‍ֽתִקְשָׁר־ רֵ֭ים בְּתֶ֣לֶם עֲבֹת֑וֹ

LXX: δήσεις δὲ ἐν ἱμᾶσι ζυγὸν αὐτοῦ ἢ ἑλκύσει σου αὔλακας ἐν πεδίῳ;

VUL: Numquid alligabis rhinocerota ad arandum loro tuo, aut confringet glebas vallium post te?

LTR: Kannst du ihm dein Seil anknüpfen, die Furchen zu machen, daß es hinter dir brache in Tälern?

KJV: Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?

YLT: Dost thou bind a Reem in a furrow [with] his thick band? Doth he harrow valleys after thee?

Psalm 22:21

אַרְיֵ֑ה וּמִקַּרְנֵ֖י רֵמִ֣ים עֲנִיתָֽנִי׃

LXX: (21:22) σῶσόν με ἐκ στόματος λέοντος καὶ ἀπὸ κεράτων μονοκερώτων τὴν ταπείνωσίν μου.

VUL: (21:22) Salva me ex ore leonis, et a cornibus unicornium humilitatem meam.

LTR: Hilf mir aus dem Rachen des Löwen und errette mich von den Einhörnern!

KJV: Save me from the lion’s mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns.

YLT: Save me from the mouth of a lion: -- And -- from the horns of the high places Thou hast answered me!

Psalm 29:6

כְּמ֣וֹ בֶן־ רְאֵמִֽים׃

LXX: (28:6) καὶ λεπτυνεῖ αὐτὰς ὡς τὸν μόσχον τὸν Λίβανον, καὶ ὁ ἠγαπημένος ὡς υἱὸς μονοκερώτων.

VUL: (28:6) et comminuet eas, tamquam vitulum Libani, et dilectus quemadmodum filius unicornium [rinocerotis].

LTR: Und macht sie hüpfen wie ein Kalb, den Libanon und Sirjon wie ein junges Einhorn.

KJV: He maketh them also to skip like a calf; Lebanon and Sirion like a young unicorn.

YLT: And He causeth them to skip as a calf, Lebanon and Sirion as a son of Reems,

Psalm 92:10

וַתָּ֣רֶם כִּרְאֵ֣ים קַרְנִ֑י בַּ֝לֹּתִ֗י

LXX: (91:11) καὶ ὑψωθήσεται ὡς μονοκέρωτος τὸ κέρας μου καὶ τὸ γῆράς μου ἐν ἐλαίῳ πίονι·

VUL: (91:11) Et exaltabitur sicut unicornis [monocerotis] cornu meum, et senectus mea in misericordia uberi.

LTR: Und macht sie hüpfen wie ein Kalb, den Libanon und Sirjon wie ein junges Einhorn.

KJV: But my horn shalt thou exalt like the horn of an unicorn: I shall be anointed with fresh oil.

YLT: And Thou exaltest as a reem my horn, I have been anointed with fresh oil.

Isaiah 34:7

וְיָרְד֤וּ רְאֵמִים֙ עִמָּ֔ם וּפָרִ֖ים

LXX: καὶ συμπεσοῦνται οἱ ἁδροὶ μετ᾿ αὐτῶν καὶ οἱ κριοὶ καὶ οἱ ταῦροι, καὶ μεθυσθήσεται ἡ γῆ ἀπὸ τοῦ αἵματος καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ στέατος αὐτῶν ἐμπλησθήσεται.

VUL: Et descendent unicornes cum eis, et tauri cum potentibus; inebriabitur terra eorum sanguine, et humus eorum adipe pinguium.

LTR: Da werden die Einhörner samt ihnen herunter müssen und die Farren samt den gemästeten Ochsen. Denn ihr Land wird trunken werden von Blut und ihre Erde dick werden von Fett.

KJV: And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness.

YLT: And come down have reems with them, And bullocks with bulls, And soaked hath been their land from blood, And their dust from fatness is made fat.

In addition to these verses (above), the Greek Septuagint and Latin Vulgate use “monoceros/unicorn” to translate the Hebrew word rā·mîm. Luther, King James, and Young’s do not follow.

Psalm 78:69

רָ֭מִים rā·mîm (heights?, high, uplifted)

LXX: (77:69) καὶ ᾠκοδόμησεν ὡς μονοκέρωτος τὸ ἁγίασμα αὐτοῦ, ἐν τῇ γῇ ἐθεμελίωσεν αὐτὴν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα.

VUL: (77:69) Et aedificavit sicut unicornium [monoceroton] sanctificium suum, in terra quam fundavit in saecula.

LTR: Und baute sein Heiligtum hoch, wie die Erde, die ewiglich fest stehen soll.

KJV: And he built his sanctuary like high palaces, like the earth which he hath established for ever.

YLT: And buildeth His sanctuary as a high place, Like the earth, He founded it to the age.

The authenticity of Scripture

“To him [Uncle John Vassar] Scripture was the one standard of Christian truth. To its teachings nothing was to be added; from its decisions there could be no appeal. In dealing with errorists, the only question he would allow himself to look at was, What has God said? The moment anything like quibbling or cavilling was heard, out would come his well-worn Testament, and text after text would be turned till captious lips were closed. The inspired Word was the book he studied most. It was to him exactly what it claims to be—‘the sword of the Spirit;’ and what was the hilt, and what was the haft, and what the blade, and how to get hold of the one and smite with the other, was what he sought to know. The authenticity of Scripture he never stopped to argue. He boldly assumed that, and then by its utterances every opinion must be hewed and squared.”

Uncle John Vassar: Or, The Fight of Faith, by Edwin Thomas Vassar, London: R. D. Dickinson, 1879, pp. 168-169

Thou hidden source of calm repose

Charles Wesley (1707–1788) wrote the hymn with the first line beginning “Thou hidden source of calm repose.” He published it in Hymns and Sacred Poems: In Two Volumes, Vol. I (Bristol: Felix Farley, 1749), as Hymn XXXI. It has four stanzas of poetry, six lines in each stanza, in 8s. meter (i.e., L.P.M.). Situated between Hymn XXX with the heading “For the Morning” and Hymn XXXII with the heading “Before Work,” this hymn (though without a heading) was apparently intended as a morning hymn. It certainly makes a fine morning meditation.

One early setting of this hymn is with Stafford in Harmonia Sacra: a Compilation of Psalm and Hymn Tunes, Thomas Butts (Andover, MA: Flagg & Gould, 1816, p. 122). However, its most common setting seems to be with St. Petersburg by Dimitri Stepanovitch Bortniansky (1751-1825). He was born in Ukraine and died in St. Petersburg, Russia. He was a conductor and a prolific composer who influenced Rachmaninoff and Tchaikovsky. According to John Perry, Bortniansky “composed in different musical styles, including choral works in French, Italian, Latin, German, and Church Slavonic.”

Charles Wesley is, of course, one of the two Wesley brothers who led the Methodist movement in the Church of England. He wrote over 6,000 hymns, and stands with Isaac Watts at the top of English hymnody. While Watts is called “the father of English hymnody,” Wesley is often called “the prince of hymn writers.” If has been repeated often that Charles Wesley said that he would give up all his hymns to have written Watts’s “When I survey the wondrous cross.”[i] In my opinion, many of Wesley’s hymns sound less “Arminian” than the theology of Methodism.

1. Thou hidden source of calm repose,
Thou all-sufficient love divine,
My help, and refuge from my foes,
Secure I am, if thou art mine;
And lo! from sin and grief and shame
I hide me, Jesus, in thy Name.

2. Thy mighty Name salvation is,
And keeps my happy soul above;
Comfort it brings, and power, and peace,
And joy and everlasting love;
To me with thy dear Name are given
Pardon and holiness and Heaven.

3. Jesu, my all in all thou art,
My rest in toil, my ease in pain,
The medicine* of my broken heart,
In war my peace, in loss my gain,
My smile beneath the tyrant’s frown,
In shame my glory, and my crown.

4. In want my plentiful supply,
In weakness my almighty power,
In bonds my perfect liberty,
My light in Satan’s darkest hour,
In grief my joy unspeakable,
My life in death, my Heaven in hell.

* Many hymnals substitute “healing” for “medicine” in this line.

---

[i] This is oft repeated, and usually written “reportedly said” – which apparently means this is a passed down story that cannot be decisively proven.

In other (Geological) words

• cuesta, noun. A long, low ridge with a relatively steep face or escarpment on one side and a long, gentle slope on the other.
• escarpment, noun. A long, precipitous, clifflike ridge of land, rock, or the like, commonly formed by faulting or fracturing of the earth’s crust.
• gorge, noun. A narrow cleft with steep, rocky walls, especially one through which a stream runs; a small canyon.
• mesa, noun. A land formation, less extensive than a plateau, having steep walls and a relatively flat top and common in arid and semiarid parts of the southwestern U.S. and Mexico.
• salient, noun. Something (such as a promontory) that projects outward or upward from its surroundings.
• scarp, noun. A line of cliffs formed by the faulting or fracturing of the earth’s crust.
• wold, noun. (chiefly British) A piece of high, open, uncultivated land or moor; an area of high open land.

A Foolproof Discipling Program, and other links

The posting of links does not constitute an endorsement of the sites linked, and not necessarily even agreement with the specific posts linked.

• A Foolproof Discipling Program: Corporate Worship -- “Does your church make disciples when it gathers or only when its members scatter?”
• AI can now write like a human. Some teachers are worried. -- “An unexpected insidious academic threat is on the scene: a revolution in artificial intelligence has created powerful new automatic writing tools.”
• Amazing piece of reporting that details how Big Eva shamed Christians for asking pandemic questions at the behest of former NIH director Francis Collins -- “These are the supposed big wigs – the intelligentsia of the evangelical world...yet when a virus with a lethality rate that’s a fraction of a fraction came to our shores, they became the puppets of a government health leader who wanted everyone to believe his own way of truth and salvation.”
• AOC Raked Over Coals by Actual Doctor After Saying Gas Stoves Are Linked to Brain Damage -- “As a medical doctor, I can tell you this: what’s wrong with your head IS NOT caused by stoves. Something WAY BIGGER is causing your decreased cognitive function!”
• Does the Apocrypha belong in the Bible? -- “So if we prove the limits of the canon of the Old Testament, we have also proved which books are outside of it.”
• Don’t Lose Your Church Website! -- “Did you know that when a church lets their domain registration lapse, that it often gets bought up by an adult video site, a gambling site, or some other entity looking to make use of the domain’s Google search ranking?”
• Gilbert Tennet, 1744 on the Qualities of Scripture’s Canonicity -- “A Rule ought to be constant and immovable, evermore and everywhere like to itself, otherwise how can any certain measure be ruled by it, and such is the Holy Scripture, 2 Pet. l:19.”
• Marginal Notes in The 1611 King James Bible -- “All the marginal notes in the 1611 King James translation, from Genesis to Revelation.”
• My Journey from Evidential to Presuppositional Apologetics -- “If the Bible is true, God (and His Word) is the ultimate authority on ALL matters in everyone’s life.”
• Oh! Possum! -- “The first time our resident opossum and I met in the dark on a tiny, enclosed back porch was traumatic for both of us. We made hasty retreats in opposite directions.”
• Reformed Leaders Hypnotized by Catholic Teachings of Thomas Aquinas -- “Let us consider the testimony of a man who actually studied and lived out the teachings of Aquinas – in the Vatican and in the Roman Catholic priesthood. His direct experience will shed more light than mere romantic sentiment speculated by academics with third hand exposure to Aquinas.”
• Suzerain-Vassal Treaties & the Books of Moses: Joshua Berman -- “Jehovah, the God of Israel, is the suzerain or great King, and Israel is the vassal, the subordinate dependent on the suzerain.”
• The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy = just more Evangelical mumbo jumbo signifying nothing -- “The Statement was produced at the Hyatt Regency O’Hare in Chicago in the fall of 1978, during an international summit conference of concerned evangelical leaders. It was signed by nearly 300 noted evangelical scholars...”
• The Real Santa Claus -- “On April 4, 1888, William and Henrietta Claus of Saline County, Missouri, gave birth to a baby boy. They named him Santa.”
• The Received Text & Biblical Christology - Text and Translation -- “It is my desire in this article is to defend the traditional text of John 1:18 as the authentic wording, and make a case that abandoning the Greek Received Text of the New Testament affects doctrine, as in this case, the doctrine of Christ.”
• The Sovereignty of God -- “...God has supremacy of authority or rule. There is no authority above Him.”
• Should True Churches Ascribe Perfection to the Apographa of Scripture? -- “Who does not believe that God kept pure what He inspired? Modern textual critics. Multiple versionists. Peter Ruckman. Bart Ehrman. Daniel Wallace.”
• When God Became Man -- “There is Someone out there, and He is undisturbed by the little storms blowing across this planet, unchanged by our atomic age and space age and the shifting philosophy of men’s minds.”
• Why Most Churches Are Businesses -- “Many churches require new pastoral staff members to sign non-compete clauses to prohibit those pastors from starting a ‘competing’ church across the street. But, hey ... that’s business.”
• 5 Myths about Porn -- “This world breaks our hearts. But Jesus has come, and his kingdom heals our hearts.”

Southern Baptist problems and their seminaries

In It Is Not Just the Southern Baptist Convention That’s At Stake. Here’s What You Can Do, Rod Martin makes a plea for his fellow Southern Baptists to “show up” for the annual convention. He says, “In an average year, only 7.2% of SBC churches are represented.” He wants conservatives to come make a difference.

This probably will fall on many deaf ears in the SBC. Moreover, it certainly does not mean much to those of us who are not in the Convention, who cannot, will not, and have no interest in sending messengers. However, there is one little bit that caught my eye, and is interesting in its effect (or possible effect) on preachers and churches outside the SBC.

“Southern Baptists make up 11% of America’s churches. But what you probably don’t realize is that the six SBC seminaries educate roughly one-third of America’s seminary students. That’s a lot more than just Southern Baptists.

“If those six seminaries go bad, all of evangelical Christendom is infected…”

Many students who are not Southern Baptist attend Southern Baptist seminaries. Therefore, these institutions, who they hire, what they teach, what they stand for, etc., can have a profound effect on others. Not sure what we outsiders can do about it, but we can be aware.

Stop calling it “mistranslation”

Among proponents of new translations and opponents of using the King James translation, a goodly number of them (some of whom could not translate their way out of a paper sack) make a lot of hay on claiming the KJV has mistranslated this or that – sometimes that it is “full of” mistranslations. Opponents of modern translations gladly return the favor, pointing out various failures of translation in the ESV, NASB, and possible all-time favorite, the NIV.

Mene many mistranslations

“This is a list of translational errors that are found in the King James Version (KJV), a mediocre, even very sloppy, translation of Scripture… Boy, are there a lot of them.” – Charlie Garrett [i]

“You couldn’t have translated ‘μεγαλειότητι’ any worse than the NKJV (and Gary Hudson) did in Luke 9:43 if you tried. ‘Majesty’ is never connected with Christ’s humiliation state in thirty-two references.” – Peter Ruckman [ii]

“The KJV certainly has some outright errors in translation.”

“There are other mistakes in the KJV which persist to this day, even though this translation has gone through several editions.”

“The KJV mistranslated ‘Easter’ in Acts 12:4.”

“‘Only begotten’ is a mistranslation.”

“‘Ekklesia’ has been mistranslated ‘church.’”

“[The NIV] is also one of the worst translations for anyone who is seriously interested in what the Bible says.”

A scholarly example

In one place Daniel B. Wallace wrote, “the KJV includes one very definite error in translation, which even KJV advocates would admit. In Matthew 23:24 the KJV has ‘strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.’” But the Greek has ‘strain out a gnat and swallow a camel.’”

First, I deny that KJV advocates commonly admit this is an error. No doubt there are some who do, but not the KJV advocates with whom I am familiar. Second, I dispute that “strain at” is a mistranslation of diulitzo (διυλιζοντες, to strain, filter). It is clear that the King James translators choose a translation distinct from most translators before and after them. If we were to weigh translators and their Bibles, “strain out” would certainly be correct! However, diulitzo is a hapax legomenon (a word found only once in the New Testament). There is room to disagree on its translation, plus there is disagreement over the usage of the two words “strain at.” At and out are function words. “At” is a preposition indicating the goal of an action or motion, whereas “out” is a preposition to indicate movement away from. Does diulitzo suggest the act of straining or the result of straining? Intelligent translators and intelligent commentators have not found themselves bound by Wallace’s idea that this is a “very definite error.”

John Gill, in his commentary on Matthew (using “strain at”) writes:

“To this practice Christ alluded here; and so very strict and careful were they in this matter, that to strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel, became at length a proverb, to signify much solicitude about little things, and none about greater.”

Note, in contrast, some writers have instead claimed this was a printer’s error. Contrary to that suggestion, we find the phrase “strain at a gnat” used by writers in England in this same time period. These are not all printer’s errors! No, it is a turn of phrase.

For example, one of the King James translators, George Abbot, who actually worked on the translation of the Gospel of Matthew, used it. (Abbot was a member of the Second Oxford Company, which translated the four Gospels, Acts, and Revelation.) In An Exposition Upon the Prophet Jonah, he wrote:

“This is a fault too common among the sons of men, to dread that which is little, and to pass by that which is more; to make a straining at a gnat, and to swallow up a whole camel.” (An Exposition Upon the Prophet Jonah, Lecture 12, London: Richard Field, 1613, p. 254)

Finally, the copy of the 1602 Bishops’ Bible at the Bodleian Library used by the King James translators shows that the change from “out” to “at” was intentional, and apparently made in the General Meeting (if I read the notes of Ward & Allen properly. See The Coming of the King James Gospels: a Collation of the Translators’ Work-in-Progress, Ward S. Allen and Edward C. Jacobs, Fayetteville, AR: University of Arkansas Press, 1995, p. 150).

Both the meaning of the Greek word diulitzo and the English usage of “strain at” should give naysayers pause. Whether you think “strain at” or “strain out” best, “strain at” is neither a mistranslation nor a printer’s error.

Just stop

To begin to end, let me say that I believe there can be and are mistranslations.[iii] However, I apparently define a mistranslation more narrowly than many popular writers and scholars (some, falsely so-called). A mistranslation is a mistake in translating, an incorrect translation from the source language into the target language – the use of a word or words in the target language that the original language will not bear. Therefore, for example, the Greek ekklesia (a called-out assembly) can be translated “church” in English, for the English word carries that meaning. One can argue that congregation is also an accurate translation, or that it is a better translation since it does not have as many varying meanings, or even that the King James translators only chose church because of the translation rules they were given. Notwithstanding, if one is both knowledgeable and honest, he cannot (will not?) argue that “church” is a mistranslation of ekklesia.[iv]

Obviously, for many people “mistranslation” is shorthand for “I do not like that translation.” The dislike of a word choice does not automatically create a mistranslation.

Here I revise a specific statement by translator Bill Mounce to a general statement:

“The only way you could show a deliberate mistranslation is to find a passage where there simply is no debate on the meaning of the passage, especially as reflected by the different translations, and then show the translators taking an interpretive position that the original language could not bear.”

Many things claimed to be mistranslations are rather different translation choices. Throwing that down as a gauntlet may make us sound intelligent, and even impress our peers. Unfortunately, this often seems to be the well-played means of winning an argument. It is a “show stopper” to those who have no answer. Both sides would do well to modify their usage of “mistranslation” in place of “I don’t like it.” Rise to a higher plane. Just stop.

---

[i] I do not know Charlie Garrett. Online info about his church at FaithStreet.com states that he graduated from Southern Evangelical Seminary and Bible College in Charlotte, North Carolina in 2009. It is a legitimate TRACS accredited school. Nevertheless, when he calls the KJV’s failure to use quotation marks “a translational problem,” I wonder what he knows about the original languages and the quotation marks in the source documents.
[ii] Most students of Bible version debates know of Peter S. Ruckman. As to his education, he received a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Alabama, and then the Master of Arts and Doctor of Philosophy degrees at Bob Jones University (all accredited institutions).
[iii] There are also paraphrases, which are sort of translations (more of general ideas rather than words). For example, see the Good News Translation of 1 Timothy 5:10 . It has “performed humble duties” instead of “washed the saints’ feet.” The Greek clearly has wash (ενιψεν) and saints (αγιων) and feet (ποδας). The GNT substitutes their interpretation of the meaning of the verse rather than translating it.
[iv] I find a bit of humor in certain Baptist acquaintances who grind on about “baptize” and “church” being mistranslated, who boldly (or blindly) continue to name or call their churches “Baptist Church.” Concerning honesty, I knew a teacher who put verses from the UBS-3 on the overhead projector, translated them, and then would show where the KJV mistranslated those verses. He had to know better (that the King James translators were not using the United Bible Society’s Greek text), but at least some of his hearers did not. Apparently, he must have justified this deceitful practice because he believed the UBS-3 represented the original and that the KJV translators “mistranslated” because they were not translating from a text that represented the original.

Stop calling it “transliteration”

Transliteration, transferring a word from the alphabet of one language to another

“In 1611, the word unicorn was translated (actually transliterated) straight into English since we have no equivalent,” says the “Dust Off the Bible” dude, who likes to try to find some nit to pick on the King James Bible. No matter that an etymological search on the word “unicorn” reveals it is in Middle English back to the 13th century. Or the fact that if they had transliterated ראם it would have come out more like reem or re’em than unicorn![i] I can transliterate a word from another language. I cannot claim to transliterate a word from another language when someone else has already transliterated that word hundreds of years ago and it has become an English word!

If I had a dime for every time I have heard someone claim the King James Bible transliterated this or that word, I would be much better off when I retire at the end of this month. When I was young, usually players dealt the “baptize” card most often. Some Baptist preacher writing a Sunday School lesson or trying to making a point in a sermon thought it was smart to tell us the King James translators transliterated the word “baptidzo” so folks wouldn’t know it means “immerse.” If so, it did not work very well! Additionally, the form of The Book of Common Prayer in vogue at the time the KJV was translated prescribed immersion.[ii] And even “immerse” was initially a transliteration from the Latin immersus. Bible-researcher.com hosts The Greatest English Classic: A Study of the King James Version of the Bible and Its Influence on Life and Literature, by Cleland Boyd McAfee. In it, McAfee (a Presbyterian) writes:

“The King James translators follow that same practice of transliteration rather than translation with another word which is full of controversial possibility. I mean the word ‘baptism.’ There was dispute then as now about the method of that ordinance in early Christian history.”

Dictionary.com shows baptize entering the English language between AD 1250-1300, from Late Latin baptīzāre, from Greek baptizein immerse, from baptein to bathe, dip.[iii] The third King James translation rule that the “Old Ecclesiastical Words” were to be kept indicates these words had long since become part of regular usage. An inspection of English Bible translations made before 1611 will support that fact. They did not transliterate the word baptize. For whatever reason, they kept the word they already had.

Our double-tongued vocabulary

According to Dictionary.com, “Over 60 percent of all English words have Greek or Latin roots. In the vocabulary of the sciences and technology, the figure rises to over 90 percent [I suspect there is true for theological terminology as well, rlv]. About 10 percent of the Latin vocabulary has found its way directly into English without an intermediary (usually French).” Historyhit.com quotes novelist and playwright Dorothy Sayers saying the English language had a “wide, flexible, and double-tongued vocabulary.” They go on to explain that she meant was “English has two tones” – often there is a word rooted in the Anglo-Saxon tongue, and then a word from the Latin for the same thing.

In addition to unicorn and baptize, other words that get sucked in to the transliteration vortex include Christ and Messiah,[iv] Lucifer and Day Star,[v] and others. There may be some words actually transliterated by the translators in 1611, but I am not aware of any. One might make a case for something like Anathema Maranatha in 1 Corinthians 16:22, since they might not be thought of as English words – but even that goes back to William Tyndale in 1526.

“Turnabout is fair play” – some say – and if transliteration is bad, then we can mention that some newer English Bible translations use transliterated words. There is “Sheol” and “Hades” in the Revised Version, where older translation formerly had hell, the grave, etc. Do not misunderstand. There is room for discussion and disagreement on whether Sheol, Hades, Hell and other words are the better word choices. One can make an argument to prefer Christ over Messiah, baptize over immerse, Hell over Sheol (or vice versa), and so on. However, these should proceed on their own merits rather than from fantasies about translators transliterating words (for nefarious purposes, usually) when the words were already long since part of the English language. When we discuss the “egg” (other than for pedantic purposes), we do not describe it as a transliteration of the Old Norse word egg (though it is). When we eat a bagel we do not worry about it being a transliteration of the Yiddish word beygl or the German word böugel (though it is). Rather, we “just stop,” eat them, and understand the words are now English words.

Just stop

When wrestling over certain “transliterated” words like “Lucifer,” “baptize,” and “unicorn,” often (in my opinion) both sides end up looking silly. A little knowledge of the development of the English language and the history of English translations apprises us that there is nothing sinister, secret, or stupid going on with the translation/transliteration. The answer is quite simple.

It is best to reserve “the translators transliterated” polemic technique to words that the translators themselves actually transliterated at the time they were translating their Bible. After words transliterated in the past have been in a language hundreds or thousands of years and have gained status and meaning, we no long need to keep referring to those words as if something new is going on. If we are discussing the origin or etymology of the word, or something technical about it, fine. But, if we have grasped on to “transliteration” as a tool to lash out at translations we do not like. Just stop.

---

[i] As can be seen in Young’s Literal Translation. Compare Psalm 92:10, for example.
[ii] The Book of Common Prayer of the Anglican Church, which I checked from 1549 to 1604, speaks of baptism as dipping. They did allow for pouring water on “weak” babies, but that was the exception and not the rule.
[iii] Some of my good Baptist friends flip on the issue when it comes to the word “church,” complaining of the KJV translators using the English word church instead of transliterating the Greek “ekklesia.”
[iv] Both of these words were brought into the English language as transliterations. Christ was a transliteration of the word most commonly used in the Greek manuscripts, Christos, χριστός. Messiah is a transliteration of a word used twice in the Greek manuscripts, Messiah, μεσσίας.
[v] Illustrating the background of our double-tongued vocabulary, some foreign language translations of Isaiah 14:12 have a Latin-based word (Spanish, Lucero; Italian, Lucifero; Romanian, Luceafăr; Albanian, Lucifer) and some will have a Germanic-based word (Danish, Morgenstjerne; German, Morgenstern; Icelandic, morgunstjarna; Swedish, morgonstjärna). It seems to me that all these mean the same thing. (Perhaps the RV 1885 translators did not think so. They changed it but, at least in the edition I accessed, did not even provide an explanatory footnote. The 1611 translation has “day star” in the margin.)

Stop saying “the meaning has changed”

Transmutation, the meaning has “changed”

An oft-repeated Bible discussion “throw-away” line is that this or that word has “changed meaning” over time. “X word” no longer means what it meant in 1611. I have found no examples of that being strictly true. We should stop stressing “the meaning has changed” and calculate how to state this reasonably, succinctly, and more precisely.

Bloggers, Facebook fiends, self-styled theologians, and ranking academics direct this diatribe against the King James translation.[i] The statement “the meaning has changed” implies or even charges that a word once meant one thing, but now means something different. That oversimplification ignores language, history, and reality. Words have what is called “semantic range” (that is, every word has a variety of senses/meanings and connotations/significations). Within that range, the context of usage determines the meaning. Few words have a sole – one literal and only – meaning. The semantic range of a word is a breadth of meaning. For example, “cleave” might mean anything from split, divide, hew, part, and penetrate, to abide, adhere, agree, stick, and remain faithful.[ii]

Yes, our language, including the definition of words, changes. We call this “semantic shift.” “Gay” is an English word used in the Bible and culture, of which many of us have lived to see an expansion of its semantic range. Its meaning includes joyous, having or showing a merry or lively mood, bright or showy (as in colors, clothes). “Gay” meaning “homosexual” was not a usage in our area when I was young – though it probably was used that way as slang at least by the early 20th century. In grade school we sang lustily (another word you may need to use carefully), “And we’ll all feel gay, When Johnny comes marching home!” Today the most common use of “gay” references male homosexuals. However, it still means “joyous, having or showing a merry or lively mood, bright or showy.”[iii]

Not so fast

Daniel B. Wallace claims “300 words found in the KJV no longer bear the same meaning.” This is something of a misnomer. Rather than the word no longer bearing the meaning used in the KJV, it is that its most common use is no longer the same as the meaning most commonly used in the KJV. Wallace gives as examples “suffer” (permit) and “study” (be diligent). The meaning in the KJV may not be the first meaning contemporary English speakers think of when they hear these words, but my Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary supports the so-called “changed” meanings. Suffer means “to allow” (# 4) and study means “endeavor/try” (# 3) – substantially the same definitions given by Wallace that he claims have “changed.” My modern dictionary even tells me that “prevent” means to “arrive before” or “go before” (Cf. 1 Thessalonians 4:15).

A quick survey of the word “suffer” in the Bible shows it did not “change meanings.” It meant BOTH permit and endure (hurt, bad things) in 1611. For example, compare Matthew 3:15 (permit, “Suffer it to be so now”) and 1 Peter 3:14 (endure, “if ye suffer for righteousness’ sake”).

Notice “let” in the Bible. It did not transmute from having one meaning in 1611 to having another meaning in the 21st century. Compare 2 Thessalonians 2:3 and 2 Thessalonians 2:7. The “let” that means “to allow” and the “let” that means “to hinder” are homonyms – two different English words that are spelled the same but mean something different. The words each have a different origin or entrance into the English language.

Some words may have fallen completely out of use in our language. However, even such a word as that has a sense in its historical context that still means what it meant. On the other hand, the words of the King James translation have been in constant use since 1611. We (at least some of us) still use them. Yes, they may not be common in day-to-day speak, but they are still in use in English speaking churches around the world. English Bible readers still read them, have been reading them for 400 years. They still mean what they meant in 1611!

Just stop

If you do not use the King James Bible, please modify your rhetoric. Be more precise. Recognize that you often give a false impression (whether or not you intend to). If you use the King James Bible, admit that some words are obsolete “in common use.” Take up your “cross” and learn what the words mean – what they meant when they were translated, even if others use them in some other way today. Bible study includes word study. Go, and do thou likewise.

---

[i] Rarely, but sometimes against any (especially) “old” translation.
[ii] Both senses are still in modern parlance, and both are used in the KJV. Compare Psalm 137:6 and Psalm 141:7, for example. Like let and let, cleave and cleave in the strict sense are homonyms – two different English words that are spelled the same but mean something different. They each have a different source of entrance into the English language.
[iii] It is nevertheless a matter of fact that because of the predominance of the use of “gay” for homosexual orientation, most people hesitate to use it in its other senses.

Just stop

In my opinion there are three things that, if we would just stop, could improve the clarity of discussion of Bible versions – and maybe extract a little heat. 

Just stop:

• Saying this or that word is a mistranslation
• Saying that some thousand year old word is a transliteration
• Saying that this or that word has changed meaning (transmutation)

These charges can make one seem intelligent. They allow one to impress his or her peers. At least when their peers do not know any better. Sometimes they make us look silly.

Instead of adding more fuel for more fires, let us just stop saying those things. Or, at least, improve the clarity of and context in which we are saying these things. Over the course of the next three days, I will expand on this theme, and try to explain what I mean – with individual posts on translation, transliteration, and transmutation (in reverse of that order).

Tolerating artificial musical performances

“If the Apostle justly prohibits the use of unknown tongues in the church, much less would he have tolerated these artificial musical performances, which are addressed to the ear only, and seldom strike the understanding, even of the performers themselves.” 

Theodore Beza, as quoted in Instrumental Music in the Public Worship of the Church, by John L. Girardeau, Professor in Columbia Theological Seminary, South Carolina, Richmond: Whittet & Shepperson, 1888, p. 166.

Go, Study the Bible

Eliza Edmunds Hewitt (1851–1920) wrote the hymn “Go, Study the Bible,” at least by or before 1906, when it appeared in two hymnals accompanied with a tune written by William James Kirkpatrick (1838-1921).[i] Eliza Hewitt was born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, June 28, 1851, a daughter of Captain James S. Hewitt and Zeruiah Edmunds. She died April 24, 1920, and is buried in the Woodlands Cemetery in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Miss Hewitt was a profilic hymn writer, whose output numbers in the thousands. This hymn consists of four 4-line stanzas and a repeating chorus. It extols the Bible and encourages the study of it. The Bible is God’s word, a light, a sword, a storehouse, daily bread, and the mariner’s chart. Study it prayerfully, sincerely, with a trusting and searching heart.

1. Go, study the Bible; God’s Word is a light
That brightly will shine in your way;
’Twill warn you of dangers, ’twill lead you aright,
From time to eternity’s day.

2. Go, study the Bible; sweet moments employ
In hearing the voice of the Lord;
In sorrow, a comfort; in service, a joy;
In battle, a conquering sword.

3. Go, study the Bible; a storehouse complete,
A table our Father hath spread,
Where wisdom, and mercy and love ever meet;
There gather the soul’s daily bread.

4. Go, study the Bible; the mariner’s chart
Will guide him across the dark wave;
But precious, more precious this Book to the heart,
It tells us that Jesus will save.

Chorus:
Go, study the Bible! Go, read it with prayer;
And look for the treasures of love hidden there;
Search well thro’ its pages for Heaven’s bright ore,
As years hasten onward, we’ll prize it still more.

Picture from Showalter’s The Best Gospel Songs and Their Composers, 1904

---

[i] The Redeemer’s Praise: for Sunday Schools and Devotional Meetings, No. 123. The Young People’s Hymnal No. 3: adapted to the Use of Sunday Schools, Epworth Leagues, Prayer Meetings and Revivals, No. 45.

The Spirit of God speaking in the Scriptures, and other quotes

The posting of quotes by human authors does not constitute agreement with either the quotes or their sources. (I try to confirm the sources that I give, but may miss on occasion; please verify if possible.)

“The Spirit of God speaking in the Scriptures, certifieth the conscience of the unlearned, that the Scriptures in the English tongue are the Scriptures.” -- Francis Dillingham

“Shame on the learning which comes abroad only to perplex the weak, and to unsettle the doubting, and to mislead the blind!” -- John William Burgon

“Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.” -- George Orwell, in 1984

“If Paul saw the church in America, we’d be getting a letter.” -- Chad Bailey

“The most dangerous place a Christian lives is when the Christian is right.” -- Steve Brown

“The Infinite One became an infant one” or, “The Infinite became an infant.” -- common statement, especially around Christmas

“The price of love is grief.” -- Queen Elizabeth II

 

“American youth are growing up amid a crisis of truth, a crisis of identity, and an absence of context.” -- Alex McFarland

“The Christian does not think God will love us because we are good, but that God will make us good because He loves us.” -- C. S. Lewis

“No man is a failure who has friends.” -- Clarence, from It’s A Wonderful Life

“My friend, to say that God is dead is greatly exaggerated and actually is only wishful thinking. Those who are saying it are like little boys whistling in the dark, trying to say how brave they are.” -- J. Vernon McGee

Epp and Fee on the Textus Receptus

Eldon Epp and Gordon Fee use “military imagery” to describe the assault leveled against the Greek Textus Receptus over a course of about 100 hundred year, from Griesbach to Westcott & Hott. (Epp, Eldon Jay; Fee, Gordon D. Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism. Studies and Documents, Vol. 45. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1993.)

“…J. J. Griesbach’s Greek NT of 1775-77, which – along with its subsequent editions and his influential canons of criticism – constituted the first daring though measured departure at numerous points from the TR. Thus, it was with Griesbach that a decisive break with the TR had arrived in theory – but only in theory…” page 20

“The decisive departure from the TR in actual accomplishment and practice arrived with the next fifty-year landmark, now 150 years ago: Karl Lachmann’s Greek NT of 1831.” page 21

“…one of the leading ‘generals,’ soon on the scene, was Constantin Tischendorf, whose eight editions of the Greek NT between 1841 and 1872 and whose nearly two dozen volumes publishing new MSS were major factors in the occupation of the newly won territory.” page 21

“Tregelles’s aim was ‘to form a text on the authority of the ancient copies without allowing the ‘received text’ any prescriptive rights.’” page 22

“…V-Day – fifty years later at our next landmark – belonged to the undisputed ‘general of the army,’ F. J. A. Hort, and his ‘first officer,’ B. F. Westcott. The Westcott-Hort text (WH) of 1881 – just about one hundred years ago – resulted from a skillful plan of attack and a sophisticated strategy for undermining the validity of the TR.” page 22

“The vast majority of the errors in the NT MSS occurred during the period that is also the most difficult to reconstruct – the first four Christian centuries.” page 9

And from F. J. A. Hort, against the TR: 

“I had no idea till the last few weeks of the importance of texts, having read so little Greek Testament, and dragged on with the villainous Textus Receptus…Think of that vile Textus Receptus leaning entirely on late MSS.; it is a blessing there are such early ones.” (“To the Rev. John Ellerton, December 29-30, 1851,” Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol. I, Arthur Fenton Hort, editor. London: MacMillan and Co., Ltd, 1896, p. 211)

“Our object is to supply clergymen generally, schools, etc., with a portable Gk. Test., which shall not be disfigured with Byzantine corruptions.” (“To the Rev. John Ellerton, April 19th, 1853,” Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol. I, Arthur Fenton Hort, editor. London: MacMillan and Co., Ltd, 1896, p. 250)

Not one word is mistaken

Comments on Psalm 12:6-7 by Carl McIntire, from the sermon “Help, Lord” November 1, 1992. (Comments on these verses start about 10:54)

Now we come to verse 6—“The words of the Lord are pure words.” Not a one of them is mistaken. “As silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.” All the dregs are out. Here is a marvelous affirmation and vindication that God’s word is perfect. “The words of the Lord are pure words” and that’s the big issue that you and I have in the Christian world today, it’s everywhere—it has to be the line, that you and I have strongest belief that can possibly be, that this book is from God. There is no greater thing that a church can have, than to have the word of God presented to them, held up before them, as it is. …

Then Verse 7—how I love this. “Thou shalt keep them, O Lord;” that is keep his words. “Thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.” No matter what happens, one generation comes and another passes away, God is going to preserve these words and they are going to carry their power that he attends with them when they come. From one generation to another the words of God will be preserved throughout all the generations. Now I am very happy that in the great Confessions of the Christian world, our Confession—the Westminster Confession—has its Chapter One on the Word of God. … Now the Lord says here, I am going to keep my word—it is like silver that has been tried. I am going to keep that to all generations—all generations. That means that no matter what the conditions are, God is going to have on this earth some churches and some pastors until the last generation and we’re taken away, who will maintain this word like we are doing here, and like we’re seeking to do throughout the whole Christian world...

Charles Curtis “Carl” McIntire, Jr. (May 17, 1906–March 19, 2002), founding member and minister in the Bible Presbyterian Church. He followed J. Gresham Machen from Princeton and attended the Westminster Theological Seminary. McIntire was also founder and long-time president of both the International Council of Christian Churches and the American Council of Christian Churches – bodies organized because of and in distinction from the liberalism in the Federal Council of Churches.

You Again

Quoting two authors.

“It is true that Elizabethan English is more precise than modern English in its use of pronouns. Nevertheless I confess that, as a preacher, I would rather specify the exact meaning of the odd ambiguous pronoun now and then, than explain all the archaisms in the text of the KJV.” (Donald A. Carson, The King James Version Debate, p. 98)

On the one hand, men like Carson insist that a Bible must be translated so that the reader can understand without the assistance of a preacher. On the other hand, here Carson admits he is willing that the readers be left out of understanding certain places. He picks and chooses what he desires to explain and what he does not.

“How often does your inability to distinguish singular ‘you’ and plural ‘you’ trip you up in your daily English reading or conversation? Almost never. Context almost always distinguishes the two sufficiently...” (Mark Ward, Authorized, p. 100)

Carson calls this problem “the odd ambiguous pronoun now and then,” and Mark Ward tells us the indistinct “you” trips you up “almost never.” However, this is not the whole truth, and our experiences with modern English tell us otherwise.

Two brief points.

For a Bible study in 2021, I quickly put together a list of two dozen verses to illustrate how significant the ye/thee distinction can be. (See some of them Here.) Did Jesus tell Nicodemus you must be born again, or did he tell him you must be born again? Which is it? Rather than the “the odd ambiguous pronoun now and then,” there are hundreds of places in the Bible where the use of “you” for either second person singular or second person plural can make it difficult to understand the passage.

Our own practices belie the claim that the number of “you” is not a problem. We know instinctively that we need to make the distinction between singular and plural “you,” even though our modern language has betrayed us! We modern – yea, even educated – English speakers, despite what they teach otherwise in schools, have devised numerous ways to let our hearers know we mean “you plural” – y’all, you’uns, youse, and you lot, for examples.

These difficulties should not be brushed aside. They, like other interpretational difficulties, should be met and overcome through prayer and Bible study. Additionally, we who use the King James Bible have an interpretational tool built right into the text, when it comes to you and you.