In other (German) words

• angst, noun. A feeling of dread, anxiety, fear, or anguish.
• ausgangstext, noun. Initial text, that is, the earliest recoverable version of a text that can be considered the direct predecessor to the surviving manuscript traditions.
• blitz, noun. A swift, intensive attack or effort.
• dachshund, noun. One of a German breed of dogs having short legs, a long body and ears, literally “badger dog.”
• delicatessen, noun. A store selling foods already prepared or requiring little preparation for serving, as cooked meats, cheese, salads, and the like.
• doppelgänger, noun. A double or counterpart of a living person; someone who looks like someone else.
• fest, noun. A festival, celebration, or party.
• gesundheit, interjection. Good health, used for good wishes to a person who has just sneezed.
• hinterland, noun. Wilderness, backwoods, “the land behind.”
• kaput, adjective. Ruined; broken; not working.
• kindergarten, noun. In the U.S. a school or class for young children between the ages of four and six years (from German kinder, “children” + garten, “garden”).
• kitsch, noun. Art or design considered tasteless or overly sentimental
• leitmotif, noun. A unifying or dominant motif; a recurrent theme; recurring theme in a work.
• poltergeist, noun. A noisy ghost; mischievous spirit.
• rucksack, noun. A backpack, often for hiking or traveling.
• sauerkraut, noun. Cabbage cut fine, salted, and allowed to ferment until sour (from German sauer, “sour” + kraut, “cabbage,” “greens”).
• schadenfreude, noun. A feeling of pleasure or satisfaction when something bad happens to someone else.
• sitz im leben, noun phrase. The context in which a text, or object, has been created, and its function and purpose at that time.
• sosein, noun. The qualities or properties something has; being, essence.
• weltanschauung, noun. A worldview (from German welt, “world” + anschauung, “vision”).
• weltschmerz, noun. A feeling of sadness and lack of hope about the state of the world.
• zeitgeist, noun. The spirit of the time; the general trend of thought, etc., characteristic of a particular period of time.

Proper pronunciation

How important to biblical scholarship is the proper pronunciation of Greek words?

In the linked video, Mark Ward, John Meade, and Will Ross give a “response” to the sessions of the first meeting Reformation Bible Society. In a complaint about the scholarship, Will Ross (starting at about 13:51) says there were problems with “even basic things like mispronounced words that would be common to people who work in more detail with Septuagint scholarship.” Is this a legitimate complaint, or more a closing of ranks, “You’re not a scholar if you don’t pronounce Greek words like I do”? How well do we really know that everyone across the Roman empire pronounced Koine Greek the same way? I notice that Englishmen, even those in the same country, have a wide range of pronunciations which does not amount to ignorance, but may properly be ascribed to accent. I notice even Mark, John, and Will do not have the same accent. Starting about 47:01 Mark and Will refer to Peter Van Kleeck’s paper on Augustine. Mark calls him “uh-guhs-tin” which I perceive to be popular in academic circles. Will calls him “aw-guh-steen” (for which he gets high points for speaking a little drawl-like, as we talk here in East Texas!). Maybe one or both of them are not well-schooled in their historical scholarship. Or, more likely, they just speak differently. But is not this the pots calling kettles black? Physicians, heal yourselves before you scold others.

I hear and read in the Bible version debates a lot of things from both sides that I believe are petty and lacking in substance. They distract from the substance of the arguments. I see such pettiness in their pronunciation complaint. The more I hear British English on TV, in lectures, videos, and such like, the less I believe there is one proper pronunciation of most English words. Even the Brits do not have one pronunciation shared among themselves. And neither do we.

Mark likes to say that others in the Bible version debates are offensive, but I find their raising themselves up on the backs of others to be offensive.

• Also interesting, the rejoinder by Jeff Riddle to Meade, Ross, and Ward.

Abbreviations

In a previous post comment, Alex A. Hanna suggested another good resource would be a list of common abbreviations found in papers, research, books, and scholarly papers. The list below gives first an abbreviation, then its Latin language background, and what it means. If someone thinks of others to add to the list, let me know.

Abbreviations often used in writing and footnotes:

• ca. (circa, around)
• Cap. (capitulus, chapter)
• cf. (confer, compare)
• d.v. (Deo volente, God willing)
• e.g. (exempli gratia, for example)
• et al. (et alii, and others)
• et seq. (et sequens, and the words, pages, etc. that follow)
• etc. or &c. (et cetera, and the other)
• f. (sing. folio, and following )
• ff. (pl. foliis, and following)
• i.a. (inter alia, among other things)
• i.e. (id est, that is or in other words)
• ibid. (ibidem, in the same place)
• loc. cit. (loco citato, in the place cited)
• op. cit. (opere citato, in the work cited)
• q.v. (quod vide, which see)
• re (in re, in the matter of or concerning)
• s.v. (sub verbo, under the word or heading)
• sic (sic, thus)
• v. or vs. (versus, against)
• viz. (videlicet, namely)
• v.i. (vide infra, see below)
• v.s. (vide supra, see above)

---

Note: Two on the list technically are not abbreviations, but are used to “abbreviate” one’s writing.

The value of studying Greek and Hebrew

From The Berean Call:

Question: You seem to discount the value of studying Greek and Hebrew in order to be able to understand the Bible better. A friend of mine is trying to persuade me to go to seminary in order to learn the original biblical languages. Why shouldn’t I?

Answer: If the Lord leads you to seminary, by all means go. But let’s be practical. How many years of study and experience do you think the translators of the King James Bible had in order to qualify them for that job? How long would it take a beginner to learn Greek and Hebrew well enough to discover where these men made a poor translation (if they did) and to improve it? Does your friend, or do you, intend to reach that level of expertise? Is that remote possibility worth the time and effort?

If you say that Greek is a richer language than English, and that knowing it would give you a deeper understanding, I won’t argue. But wouldn’t the time you’d have to spend learning Greek to any beneficial level be better spent in studying the Bible itself on your knees, seeking understanding from the Holy Spirit, and getting to know Him and His Word? Comparing scripture with scripture, and using a good concordance, you can see how the same Greek or Hebrew words and expressions are used in different passages. The Bible interprets itself.

I have been told lately by several Calvinists that I can’t understand the Bible—not even John:3:16—because I don’t know the original languages. If so, then neither does the average Christian, but must look to experts to interpret it for him—experts who therefore stand between him and God. Far from biblical, this is elitism similar to Roman Catholicism, which discourages ordinary members from studying the Bible because only the magisterium (bishops in concert with the Pope) can interpret it.

Saying this doesn’t make me popular and offends some of my dearest friends. But a knowledge of Greek and Hebrew has been elevated so highly that one must conclude that the Wycliffe Bible translators have wasted their time all these years. Why translate the Bible into native languages if these people still couldn’t understand it because they don’t know Greek and Hebrew? Wouldn’t it be more efficient and less time consuming to teach Greek and Hebrew to native peoples so they could read the Bible in those languages instead of translating it into their native tongues? May the Lord give you wisdom in coming to your own conclusions.

The Berean Call Staff (Dave Hunt, T. A. McMahon, et. al), September 1, 2003 [Note: I have some minor disagreements with the quote—for example, rather than “go” to seminary, I advocate the church taking back the education of its ministers—but I agree with the general tenor of it regarding the use, misuse, and abuse of language studies to create an elite class among (above) our churches.]

The Acts 21:37 Test: ἑλληνιστὶ γινώσκεις

“And as Paul was to be led into the castle, he said unto the chief captain, May I speak unto thee? Who said, Canst thou speak Greek?”

The Acts 21:37 Test. Do you know Greek?

We often, in Christian circles, banter around the words “know Greek” or “read Greek.” Most often that only means we have had some Greek courses and can “read” Greek in a minor sense – that we know the letters (alphabet), how they make words, know some of the words (vocabulary), some things about mood, tense, voice (conjugation), and so on. With the help of good tools, we can figure out what sentences in the Greek New Testament say. This is not really reading Greek. It is a good skill and a good tool, but honesty calls us to admit that we are doing a lot of studying with helps (in itself, not a bad thing) and not much reading. I have had a little study in five different languages, and I can only read and speak one – English (and not always well, at that).

Without looking at or using any helps, write the Greek words or phrases that correspond with the following common English words or phrases:

1. Maybe                  ______________
2. Table                     ______________
3. Wolf                       ______________
4. Eight                      ______________
5. Chicken                ______________
6. Yellow                   ______________
7. Hot                         ______________
8. Elbow                    ______________
9. To shout               ______________
10. To swim                ______________
11. Bonus: “Goodbye, God bless you.” _______________________________

(With acknowledgement to Daniel Streett for the idea)

Without looking at or using any helps, read, understand, and translate the following sentence:

Πᾶς δὲ ὁ ἐρχόμενος ἐν ὀνόματι κυρίου δεχθήτω· ἔπειτα δὲ δοκιμάσαντες αὐτὸν γνώσεσθε, σύνεσιν γὰρ ἕξετε δεξιὰν καὶ ἀριστεράν.

Don’t post your results. There is no way we can know whether you worked from what was in your head, or used tools to cheat (from lexicons to online translators), or some combination of both. Just be honest with yourself and maybe benefit from the exercise. This is for personal growth; only in a live setting would we know for sure of the results.

The results for most of us should make us aware of at least two things.

• We should not represent ourselves as seeming to know more than we really know.
• If we have a limited knowledge of a language we cannot read or speak, we may lead ourselves or others astray with what we think we know.

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.

Jesus, Aramaic, and Hebrew

Q. What language or languages did Jesus Christ and other Jews commonly speak during the time Jesus lived upon the earth? Was it Aramaic?

A. My initial thought is that God in the New Testament did not intend give us enough information to be overly concerned about the question. Yet, as we study, there is some such information there.

It is generally accepted that Greek and Aramaic (also known as Syriac) were common languages of that time. Hebrew (which is not the same as Aramaic) was known by the Jewish people and may have been especially their “religious” tongue. Official Roman business was probably conducted in Latin. Greek was the international language of trade and business, through which many different language groups communicated with one another. The New Testament manuscripts we have are written in Greek.

Jesus, as God, knows all things – which includes knowing all languages. In his sojourn on Earth, he would have spoken to individual people in a language or languages they could understand, which likely means he at times spoke in Aramaic, Greek, Hebrew, and Latin. “…the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has revealed that Hebrew was still used quite extensively in certain circles [in the first century]” (Jesus the Messiah, Robert H. Stein, Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996, p. 86).

Jesus could read and speak Hebrew. In Luke 4:16-21, he read from the book of Isaiah the prophet in the synagogue. Jesus often asked the scribes and Pharisees, “Have ye not read?” (See Matthew 12:3, 5; 19:4: 22:31; Mark 12:10, 26; Luke 6:3). The Bible records Jesus speaking Hebrew words (and then translates them to Greek) on some occasions. That a Gospel writer quotes him and then gives the meaning/interpretation in Greek, indicates that on those occasions he must have said the words in Hebrew. For example, Jesus spoke to a dead girl, “Talitha cumi; which is, being interpreted, Damsel, I say unto thee, arise” (Mark 5:41). Cf. also Matthew 1:23; 27:46; Mark 15:22, 34; John 1:38, 41; 19:17; Acts 4:36.

Conventional modern scholastic wisdom suggests that when the New Testament writers wrote Hebrew that they meant Aramaic. However, the New Testament authors would have known Aramaic (Syriac). They also would have known the difference between Hebrew and Aramaic. The Great Inspirer of the New Testament knew the difference. God inspired the word εβραιστι (Hebrew), not συριστι (Aramaic). Hear E. A. Knapp, a Messianic Jew, who writes:

Upon closer inspection of the ancient Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, however, every supposed reference to “Aramaic” above actually has some form of the word Εβραιστι which unequivocally means “Hebrew.” Not Συριστι “Aramaic,” which we find in other places in the Bible such as Dan 2:4 (in the Greek OT). In fact, the word Συριστι never appears in the New Testament. This is a case where our translators tried to “help us out” because they were swept along in the wave of conventional wisdom which for many years took for granted that Hebrew couldn’t possibly have been a living language at the time of Jesus.

Open your Bible and notice the following verses in the King James translation that mentions Hebrew/the Hebrew tongue (i.e., language):

• Luke 23:38
• John 5:2
• John 19:13
• John 19:17
• John 19:20
• Acts 21:40
• Acts 22:2
• Acts 26:14
• Revelation 9:11
• Revelation 16:16

Notice John 5:2 as an example. This verse has εβραιστι (Hebrew) in all five Greek texts at Bible Gateway (as well as the Greek TBS and UBS print editions that I have). They do not have συριστι (Aramaic)! Compare also, for example, the Greek LXX with where the New International Version translates an Old Testament word as “Aramaic.” It does not have εβραιστι (Hebrew), but rather συριστι (Aramaic). (The New International Version translation may be compared as representative of most modern translations.) The NIV and other translations in these places in the New Testament interpret rather than translate. Rather than translate εβραιστι as “Hebrew” and then give a footnote that they believe it in such instances means “Aramaic,” they simply give the reader what they think should be there. This is true except in the book of Revelation, where they translate εβραιστι as “Hebrew” rather than “Aramaic.”

NIV in Revelation

• Rev 9:11 They had as king over them the angel of the Abyss, whose name in Hebrew/εβραιστι is Abaddon, and in Greek, Apollyon.
• Rev 16:16 Then they gathered the kings together to the place that in Hebrew/εβραιστι is called Armageddon.

Josephus in his writings (in the Greek language) uses both the word for “Hebrew” (Εβραιστι) and the word for “Syriac/Aramaic” (Συριστι). This shows both words (languages) were in use and understood to be distinct from each other.

In Jerusalem Paul stood before a crowd and spoke to them in Hebrew (Acts 21:40 and Acts 22:2). He expected to be understood, at the least by the Jews present. I will take it on the authority of the Bible rather than the authority of the scholars. Since the New Testament authors said Hebrew was being used, I accept that it was.

Below are some verses I copied from the NIV, the KJV, and the TR, that you might wish to look at for further study and comparison of the words Hebrew and Aramaic.

NIV OT

• 2 Kings 18:26 Then Eliakim son of Hilkiah, and Shebna and Joah said to the field commander, “Please speak to your servants in Aramaic (Συριστι), since we understand it. Don’t speak to us in Hebrew in the hearing of the people on the wall.”
• Ezra 4:7 And in the days of Artaxerxes king of Persia, Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel and the rest of his associates wrote a letter to Artaxerxes. The letter was written in Aramaic (Συριστι) script and in the Aramaic (Συριστι) language.
• Isaiah 36:11 Then Eliakim, Shebna and Joah said to the field commander, “Please speak to your servants in Aramaic...”
• Cf. also Daniel 2:4 in the KJV and LXX (συριστί). The NIV does not here use the word Aramaic (or Hebrew, for that matter). Some other modern translation do have Aramaic in that place.

NIV NT

• John 5:2 Now there is in Jerusalem near the Sheep Gate a pool, which in Aramaic is called Bethesda and which is surrounded by five covered colonnades.
• John 19:13 When Pilate heard this, he brought Jesus out and sat down on the judge’s seat at a place known as the Stone Pavement (which in Aramaic is Gabbatha).
• John 19:17 Carrying his own cross, he went out to the place of the Skull (which in Aramaic is called Golgotha).
• John 19:20 Many of the Jews read this sign, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and the sign was written in Aramaic, Latin and Greek.
• John 20:16 Jesus said to her, “Mary.” She turned toward him and cried out in Aramaic, “Rabboni!” (which means “Teacher”).
• Acts 21:40 After receiving the commander’s permission, Paul stood on the steps and motioned to the crowd. When they were all silent, he said to them in Aramaic:
• Acts 22:2 When they heard him speak to them in Aramaic/εβραιδι, they became very quiet. Then Paul said...
• Acts 26:14 We all fell to the ground, and I heard a voice saying to me in Aramaic...

Textus Receptus

• ΚΑΤΑ ΙΩΑΝΝΗΝ 5:2
• εστιν δε εν τοις ιεροσολυμοις επι τη προβατικη κολυμβηθρα η επιλεγομενη εβραιστι βηθεσδα πεντε στοας εχουσα
• ΚΑΤΑ ΙΩΑΝΝΗΝ 19:13
• ο ουν πιλατος ακουσας τουτον τον λογον ηγαγεν εξω τον ιησουν και εκαθισεν επι του βηματος εις τοπον λεγομενον λιθοστρωτον εβραιστι δε γαββαθα
• ΚΑΤΑ ΙΩΑΝΝΗΝ 19:17
• και βασταζων τον σταυρον αυτου εξηλθεν εις τον λεγομενον κρανιου τοπον ος λεγεται εβραιστι γολγοθα
• ΚΑΤΑ ΙΩΑΝΝΗΝ 19:20
• τουτον ουν τον τιτλον πολλοι ανεγνωσαν των ιουδαιων οτι εγγυς ην της πολεως ο τοπος οπου εσταυρωθη ο ιησους και ην γεγραμμενον εβραιστι ελληνιστι ρωμαιστι
• ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ 9:11
• και εχουσιν επ αυτων βασιλεα τον αγγελον της αβυσσου ονομα αυτω εβραιστι αβαδδων και εν τη ελληνικη ονομα εχει απολλυων
• IΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ 16:16
• και συνηγαγεν αυτους εις τον τοπον τον καλουμενον εβραιστι αρμαγεδδων

King James Version

• Luke 23:38 And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew/εβραικοις, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.
• John 19:20 This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin.
• John 20:16 Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master.

Examples of people using Hebrew words or phrases are found in Mark 7:34 (Ephphatha/Be opened), Mark 14:36 (Abba/Father), Mark 15:34 (Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani/My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me), Matthew 5:22 (Raca), Matthew 27:46 (Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani/My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me), and John 20:16 (Rabboni/Master).

See also:

• https://torahclass.com/did-the-messiah-speak-aramaic-or-hebrew-part-1-by-eaknapp/
• https://torahclass.com/did-the-messiah-speak-aramaic-or-hebrew-part-2-by-eaknapp/
• https://torahclass.com/did-the-messiah-speak-aramaic-or-hebrew-part-3-by-e-a-knapp/
• https://torahclass.com/did-the-messiah-speak-aramaic-or-hebrew-part-4-by-e-a-knapp/

Old Testament verses in Syriac/Aramaic

Q. Are there verses in the Old Testament that are written in a language other than Hebrew?

A. Yes. Some texts in the Old Testament are in Syriac, more commonly called Aramaic today.

According to language experts, the earliest inscriptions in the Syriac or Aramaic language use the Phoenician alphabet. Over time it developed into the square style we know as the Hebrew alphabet. I would illustrate the biblical Syriac as somewhat like our reading something in English, then running across a portion in Latin, Spanish, or such like – using the same alphabetical letters but with different vocabulary.

There are four undisputed passages of the Old Testament written in Syriac/Aramaic:

• Ezra 4:8–6:18. This passage begins with a letter written to King Artaxerxes (“Rehum the chancellor and Shimshai the scribe wrote a letter against Jerusalem to Artaxerxes the king”), followed by other letters and official documents. Ezra includes some of the narrative in this language as well. 
• Ezra 7:12-26. This writing in Syriac is a copy of the letter that King Artaxerxes gave unto Ezra, which Ezra inserted into the record.
• Jeremiah 10:11. This is the only verse in Syriac in the book of Jeremiah. This warning is one sentence that occurs in the midst of Hebrew text. This certainly would have grabbed their attention.
• Daniel 2:4b–7:28. This section includes five stories about Daniel and his friends, as well as a prophetic vision (chapter 7).

In addition, these words are considered Syriac/Aramaic words, and some researchers might suggest and include a few others.

• Genesis 31:47 – translation of a Hebrew place name, Jegar-sahadutha (Syriac) versus Galeed (Hebrew).
• Proverbs 31:2 – the Syriac word “bar” is used instead of the Hebrew word “ben”, both of which mean “son”.

It is correct that some of the Old Testament is written in Syriac/Aramaic rather than Hebrew – though this constitutes only a small portion of the total. Though no passages (sentences, paragraphs, chapters) of the New Testament are written in Syriac/Aramaic, it does include some words and phrases – including Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani (Matthew 27:46), Talitha cumi (Mark 5:41), and Maranatha (1 Corinthians 16:22). This creates an appealing affinity of Syriac as a “second language” of both the Old and New Testaments.

Thou Thee You Ye in Dialects

A few facts about the “King James English.” The language of the King James Bible is Early Modern English, the stage of the English language from roughly 1500-1800. Therefore, those who call King James English “Old English” do not know their terminology. This Bible has been and is a major influence on the English language.

The impact of the King James Bible, which was published 400 years ago, is still being felt in the way we speak and write, says Stephen Tomkins.

No other book, or indeed any piece of culture, seems to have influenced the English language as much as the King James Bible. Its turns of phrase have permeated the everyday language of English speakers, whether or not they’ve ever opened a copy.[i]

Another interesting thing about “King James English” is that statements such as “we don’t speak that way anymore” are not completely correct. There are dialects that maintain some of this structure.[ii]

There are two major Traditional Dialect areas of England which have preserved this distinction [between “thou” and “you”] – one northern area and one western area – although even here most Modern Dialects have lost or are losing it. The northern area consists of the Lower North (Cumbria, Durham, North Yorkshire and East Yorkshire) plus the Lancashire and Staffordshire areas, including the Potteries of the Central region. Parts of the South Yorkshire area have also kept the thou forms. The western area consists of the Northern Southwest, and the Western Southwest (Cornwall, Devon, Somerset, Dorset, Wiltshire, Hampshire), including the city of Bristol...Traditional Dialects which preserve thou/thee normally also have distinctive verb forms of the type familiar from the King James version of the Bible... [iii]

I am not claiming these uses are exactly comparative to the KJV usage – for example, Trudgill notes that some speakers maintain the familiar/formal distinction. Often the pronunciation may not be that expected by modern readers of the KJV (for example, in spelling thy but in pronunciation tha).

I have read general statements that some English dialects in America and Australia still use thee and thou, but as yet have not found any specific people or region identified. However, I would not be surprised that it exists in certain pockets, among older people. In addition, it is said by some that ye is still used in Ireland.

“For the most part, at least in normal linguistic use, thou has been largely supplanted in modern times by you, although it does exist still in certain dialects in Northern England and Scotland, as well as in the community of the Religious Society of Friends (commonly referred to as Quakers).” (From Merriam-Webster)

Interesting also is that some (many?) regional dialects “fix” the second person pronoun problem of “Standard English” by creating/using a distinct form for second person plural, such as y’all, you guys, all y’all, you’uns, and such like.

---

[i] King James Bible: How it changed the way we speak.
[ii] “It seems that in virtually every instance where thee/thou is still being used – whether in dialects, liturgy, or Quakerism – it is most often used by the elders in that setting. My own hypothesis is that thee/thou will continue its progression toward obsolescence, though it will probably survive longest in liturgical environments.” – “Thou, Thee, and Archaic Grammar” and “Introducing Archaic English” by A. Davies, R. Lipton, D. Richoux, et al., p. 19.
[iii] Peter Trudgill. The Dialects of England (Second Edition), Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, Ltd. 1999, p. 92.

Biblical singular and plural you

In his book Authorized: the Use and Misuse of the King James Bible;, Mark Ward wrote a good deal about “false friends.” In this context, a “false friend,” loosely, is a word that you expect to mean something that it doesn’t.

I have never noticed any supporters of modern Bibles or detractors of the King James Version call out their own very false friend – the English second person pronoun “you.” Unlike some of the so-called false friends that appear randomly in the King James Bible, the false friend “you,” is repeatedly strewn throughout modern translations from front to back, from Genesis to Revelation.

As our English language “progressed,” where it once distinguished between second person singulars and plurals,[i] it devolved into a morass of “yous” which are indistinguishable. On the one hand some dismiss this as an irrelevant concern. As one man recently told me, “You can tell by the context.” While that may be true on occasion, in fact very often we cannot tell by context. Perhaps we can tell better in face-to-face conversations than when reading – but even then our own practices belie that claim. We modern English speakers, despite what they may teach us in school, have created numerous ways to let our hearers know we mean “you plural” – y’all, you’uns, youse, and you lot, for examples. We know instinctively that we need to make the distinction, even though our modern language has betrayed us.

So, when modern translations are made, they extend that betrayal to us once again. You, you, you, you, and we don’t know which you! Unlike my friend who brushed it off nonchalantly, Greek scholar Bill Mounce admits the problem. Writing about “You” and “You” - Singular or Plural he says, “I wish modern English had a different form for ‘you’ plural. It would solve some sticky translation problems.”[ii] In portraying this problem, Mounce provides an example from John 1:50-51 in the New International Version:

Jesus said, “You believe because I told you I saw you under the fig tree. You will see greater things than that.” He then added, “Very truly I tell you, you will see ‘heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending on’ the Son of Man.” 

Speaking of a shift from second person singular to second person plural, he explains “There is no way you would pick that up from the English.”[iii]

Examples of verses

Below are some examples of verses where we lose the singular-plural second person distinction in modern language, but are noticeable in the King James translation. Take a look at these and see whether you have caught the distinctions before.[iv]

Exodus 3:12 And he said, Certainly I will be with thee; and this shall be a token unto thee, that I have sent thee: When thou hast brought forth the people out of Egypt, ye shall serve God upon this mountain.

Exodus 4:15 And thou shalt speak unto him, and put words in his mouth: and I will be with thy mouth, and with his mouth, and will teach you what ye shall do.

Exodus 29:42 This shall be a continual burnt offering throughout your generations at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the Lord: where I will meet you, to speak there unto thee.

2 Samuel 7:23 And what one nation in the earth is like thy people, even like Israel, whom God went to redeem for a people to himself, and to make him a name, and to do for you great things and terrible, for thy land, before thy people, which thou redeemedst to thee from Egypt, from the nations and their gods?

Deuteronomy 6:14-15 Ye shall not go after other gods, of the gods of the people which are round about you; (for the Lord thy God is a jealous God among you) lest the anger of the Lord thy God be kindled against thee, and destroy thee from off the face of the earth.

Job 42:7 And it was so, that after the Lord had spoken these words unto Job, the Lord said to Eliphaz the Temanite, My wrath is kindled against thee, and against thy two friends: for ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my servant Job hath.

Psalm 27:8 When thou saidst, Seek ye my face; my heart said unto thee, Thy face, Lord, will I seek.

Isaiah 7:11,14 Ask thee a sign of the Lord thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above…Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Malachi 1:8 And if ye offer the blind for sacrifice, is it not evil? and if ye offer the lame and sick, is it not evil? offer it now unto thy governor; will he be pleased with thee, or accept thy person? saith the Lord of hosts.

Matthew 26:40 And he cometh unto the disciples, and findeth them asleep, and saith unto Peter, What, could ye not watch with me one hour?

Matthew 26:64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

Luke 22:31-32 And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.

John 1:50-51 Jesus answered and said unto him, Because I said unto thee, I saw thee under the fig tree, believest thou? thou shalt see greater things than these. And he saith unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.

John 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

1 Corinthians 3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

1 Corinthians 6:19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

1 Corinthians 8:9-12 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak. For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol’s temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols; and through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ.

2 Timothy 4:22 The Lord Jesus Christ be with thy spirit. Grace be with you. Amen.

Titus 3:15 All that are with me salute thee. Greet them that love us in the faith. Grace be with you all. Amen.

Philemon 1:21-25 Having confidence in thy obedience I wrote unto thee, knowing that thou wilt also do more than I say. But withal prepare me also a lodging: for I trust that through your prayers I shall be given unto you. There salute thee Epaphras, my fellowprisoner in Christ Jesus; Marcus, Aristarchus, Demas, Lucas, my fellowlabourers. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. Amen.

A quick explanation of the “ye’s” and “thee’s”

There are ten second person pronouns used in the Early Modern English of the King James Version of the Bible.

The words beginning with “T” are second person singular:

• Thou = Nominative case (as in “Thou art”)
• Thee = Objective case (as in “to thee,” “of thee”)
• Thy = Possessive (usually used before a noun that begins with a consonant, as in “thy brother”)
• Thine = Possessive (usually used before a noun that begins with a vowel or vowel sound, as in “thine eyes”; or in place of a noun, as in “this is thine”)
• Thyself = Reflexive singular pronoun (used as the direct or indirect object of a verb or the object of a preposition)[v]

The words beginning with “Y” are second person plural:

• Ye = Nominative case (as in “Ye are”)
• You = Objective case (as in “to you,” “of you”)
• Your = Possessive determiner (used in front of a noun, as in “your generations”)
• Yours = Possessive pronoun (used in place of nouns, as in “all things are yours”)
• Yourselves = Reflexive plural pronoun (used as the direct or indirect object of a verb or the object of a preposition; or as an emphatic appositive, see Luke 13:28)[v]

---

[i] As do the Hebrew of the Old Testament and the Greek of the New Testament, and even many modern languages. 

[ii] Like many who dismiss the possibility of English-speakers learning a bit about Early Modern English, Mounce quips, “I guess we all have to learn some Greek.” 

[iii] That is, the English of the NIV. The English of the KJV makes it clear (for those who understand the “thee” and “you” pronouns). “Jesus answered and said unto him [Nathanael], Because I said unto thee [singular], I saw thee [singular] under the fig tree, believest thou [singular]? Thou [singular] shalt see greater things than these. And he [Jesus] saith unto him [Nathanael], Verily, verily, I say unto you [plural], Hereafter ye [plural] shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.” 

[iv] Some examples have both “ye” and “thee” in them, while a few are examples of only one – but in a place where the number matters to the interpretation. What some decry as archaic (or obsolete) is really a great boon to Bible study.

[v] In modern English, this form is distinguished by “yourself” and “yourselves.”

Hebraisms in the King James Bible

The KJV preserves lexicographical and syntactical Hebraisms (William Rosenau, Hebraisms in the Authorized Version of the Bible).[i]  Many contemporary translations, in an attempt to make the Bible sound more familiar to readers, dilute the Hebrew feel of the Bible. Much of the peculiarity of the language of the KJV is due to its faithful mimicry of the Hebrew language. Some Hebraic expressions such as the Hebraic anticipatorial accusative (“God saw the light, that it was good” Genesis 1:4) and Hebraic double prepositions (“Abram went up out of Egypt” Genesis 13:1) are completely removed even in translations that are purported to be essentially literal, such as the NASB and the ESV.  Acclaimed Greek teacher John Dobson, author of Learn New Testament Greek, 3rd ed., invites his students to pay close attention to the Hebraic influence in the Greek New Testament. Due to his apparent preference for dynamic translations, he does not seem to prefer the KJV. However, he acknowledges that the KJV “follows Hebrew style more closely than a modern translator would normally do” (305).[ii]

From Why read the Bible in the King James Version?, with footnotes added.

---

[i] A Hebraism is a Hebrew idiom or expression; an expression or construction distinctive of the Hebrew language; a linguistic element borrowed from Hebrew by another language, including words, phrases, and language traits.
[ii] Dobson gives an example of translating εγενετο in Luke 1:5 as “it came to pass,” which he notes “is English of the style of the Authorized Version, which itself follows Hebrew style more closely than a modern translator would normally do.” (Oddly, considering his comment, the King James does not translate εγενετο as it came to pass in that verse.)

Their proper tongue

Acts 1:19 And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.

Proponents of “Luke the Gentile” put forward this text to prove that Luke was a Gentile. In other words, Luke writes about Jews and speaks of “their proper tongue” – therefore he must not be a Jew, but rather a Gentile.

First, is Luke explaining or Peter speaking? If Peter is speaking, the question is settled. We know this does not prove Peter was not a Jew. However, if this is a parenthetical explanation by Luke, the question remains open.

Second, by tongue (διαλεκτω) here does Luke mean the bigger language of all the Jews (Hebrews) or a dialect of the inhabitants of Jerusalem? For example, Luke uses “the Hebrew tongue” to describe Paul speaking in Acts 21:40.

Third, by “their tongue” does he mean that of the dwellers at Jerusalem, thereby only distinguishing himself as not from Jerusalem (as opposed to him meaning he was not a Jew)? The language spoken by the Jews in Jerusalem was Aramaic. It is plain that the Galilean dialect used by Peter and the other apostles was different from the Jerusalem dialect (Matthew 26:73; Mark 14:70, Luke 22:59, Acts 2:7).

Even if Luke means the Hebrew language, it is simple to understand “their” distinguishing between Jews and the recipient of the letter (Theophilus) rather than Jews and the author of the letter (Luke). This verse does not lend strong support to the idea of Luke being a Gentile rather than a Jew.

The Bible in Spanish

Q. Which Spanish Bible is the best?

A. As a limited Spanish speaker I am not really qualified to answer the question, but will refer you to answers given by others. Those of us who are supporters of the MT/TR/KJV tradition will naturally look in Spanish to the Reina-Valera. The Reina-Valera edition is translated from the Masoretic Hebrew Old Testament text and Greek Textus Receptus New Testament, as is the King James Bible. All do not agree on which edition is best.

“The original 1602 Valera is the standard Spanish text, just as the AV1611 is the standard English text. The outstanding representative of the original 1602 Valera is the Valera1865, just as the 1769 Cambridge is the outstanding representative of the AV1611.” – (Jeff McArdle, La Sociedad Biblica Valera)

According to Bible Gateway, Reina Valera 1960 has been the basic text most used by the evangelical Spanish-speaking church. Two Spanish-speaking preachers I know in South America, who are solid “TR-MT-KJV” men, use and recommend the RV1960.

The Trinitarian Bible Society has produced the Nuevo Testamento RV-SBT, which they say  is “a detailed revision of the 1909 Spanish Reina-Valera Bible, with reference to the underlying Biblical Hebrew and Greek texts, the original 1602 Reina-Valera Bible and other Reformation-era Bibles.”

Humberto Gómez Caballero has produced the Reina Valera Gómez Bible, which seems to have a wide variety of detractors and sycophants. It is a clear attempt to bring the Reina Valera into “complete agreement” with the King James Bible. There is a widespread perception of Elder Gómez making unwarranted changes just to make things appear to coincide with English KJV words – and especially to pacify Ruckman-type KJVOs. One instance includes changing in 1 Corinthians chapter 13 the Spanish word for “love” to the Spanish word for “charity” – which is not equivalent (e.g. 13:4 La caridad es sufrida, es benigna; La caridad no tiene envidia, la caridad no es jactanciosa, no se envanece).

Based on my research, the Reina-Valera editions of the 1602, 1909 and 1960 seem to be the closest to the Majority text tradition. Nevertheless, I find a good bit of the available information contradictory. If you are purchasing a Spanish Bible for serious use, I recommend further consultation with a Spanish-speaking Bible believer in whom you have confidence.

Sample of Juan1:1 (John) in four Reina Valera editions

RVR 1960:       En el principio era el Verbo, y el Verbo era con Dios, y el Verbo era Dios.

RVG (Gómez): En el principio era el Verbo, y el Verbo era con Dios, y el Verbo era Dios.

RVA-2015        En el principio era la Palabra, y la Palabra era con Dios, y la Palabra era Dios.

RV-SBT:          En el principio era el Verbo, y el Verbo era con Dios, y el Verbo era Dios.

Links you may find interesting

• The Spanish Fountain: A History and Review of the Reina-Valera Version “The earliest Scriptures translated into Spanish appeared in 1490 consisting of the Gospels and were translated from the Latin Vulgate…Casidoro de Reina (1520-1594) was the first to translate the entire Bible into Spanish.”
• Comparación de versos de biblia-Verse Comparisons of the Reina Valera and KJV Bibles – “A 12 page, 40 verse comparison of the 1865, 1909, 1960 and 2010 Spanish bibles as compared to the KJV bible.” 
• Verse Comparisons of the Reina Valera Bibles –  “An eight page, 220 verse comparison of eight different Spanish New Testaments by Rex Cobb, director of the Baptist Bible Translators Institute.”

The 2011 NIV Bible

Q. Is the 2011 New International Version of the Bible a “politically correct” translation?

A. Yes and no.

The question, as asked, usually relates to the subject of gender inclusive language. The answer is “yes and no” because the NIV is inconsistent in this regard. One area where gender inclusiveness is seen is in the use of “singular they” – that is, “they” used as a pronoun answering to a singular subject rather than a plural one. This usage is found in the 2011 NIV, but generic “he” (used generically for all people rather than as masculine) is also used.[i]

Revelation 3:20 reveals what seems to me an awkward example of pandering to singular they:

Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me.

Contrast the KJV and RSV:

Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if any one hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me.

The use of they as singular – regardless of whether it is correct or incorrect – has long standing use in the English language. Dennis Baron, author and professor at University of Illinois, indicates its use has been documented back over 650 years.

Although frequently classified by purists as ungrammatical, its use seems undiminished, and it may even be on the rise because it fills an important linguistic niche. In recent years, more and more English speakers have sought a gender-neutral alternative to pronouns that express the traditional male/female binary, turning either to invented pronouns like xe and zie, or to that old stand-by, singular they.

Both English experts and the NIV translators recognize/recognized that the use of singular they has been embraced and has expanded in modern times. In The language of gender at Oxford English Dictionaries, we find:

Some people object to this use on the grounds that it’s ungrammatical. In fact, the use of plural pronouns to refer back to a singular subject isn’t new: it represents a revival of a practice dating from the 16th century. It’s increasingly common in current English and is now gaining wider acceptance in both writing and speech. (emphasis mine)

The translators say as much in their preface to the NIV:

This generic use of the “indefinite” or “singular” “they/them/their” has a venerable place in English idiom and has quickly become established as standard English, spoken and written, all over the world. (emphasis mine)

We, in our speech and writing, are affected by the changes in gender language. It is important to realize that the political correctness was mediated to us through the NIV translational philosophy of using modern updated language. The committee studied “the contemporary use of gender language.” They explain:

Working with some of the world’s leading experts in computational linguistics and using cutting-edge techniques developed specifically for this project, the committee gained an authoritative, and hitherto unavailable, perspective on the contemporary use of gender language—including terms for the human race and subgroups of the human race, pronoun selections following various words and phrases, the use of ‟man” as a singular generic and the use of ‟father(s)” and ‟forefather(s)” as compared to ancestor(s). The project tracked usage and acceptability for each word and phrase over a twenty-year period and also analyzed similarities and differences across different forms of English: for example, UK English, US English, written English, spoken English, and even the English used in a wide variety of evangelical books, sermons and internet sites. – Notes from the Committee on Bible Translation

The primary reason that the use of singular they has been widely embraced and accepted is because of the gender language wars.[ii]

It’s very important to make sure that you don’t offend people by inadvertently using language that might be considered sexist. In recent decades, some previously established words and expressions have come to be seen as discriminating against women – either because they are based on male terminology or because they appear to give women a status that is less important than the male equivalent...Nowadays, it’s often very important to use language which implicitly or explicitly includes both men and women, making no distinction between the two different genders...You can use the plural pronouns they, them, their, etc., despite the fact that they are referring back to a singular noun... – The language of gender

To speak of political correctness in the gender language choices of the NIV is not to charge that the committee came together aiming to deliberately insert a feminist-transgender-queer ideology into the Bible. Rather, they decided to translate (in some cases, not always consistently) into English uses where the language has already adopted gender inclusive views (which have come to the forefront for mostly politically correct reasons). Speaking for himself, NIV committee member Craig Blomberg wrote, “After over a decade since the NIVI Britain’s first stab at an evangelical, inclusive language translation was produced, I am convinced more than ever that it is the right way to go.”

Yes there is “political correctness” that bled into the 2011 NIV.  I see no reason for its supporters to deny it. If one agrees with the translational philosophy of the 2011 NIV, they should embrace it.

---

[i] “Using plurals instead of singulars to deal with generic forms was avoided. Except for

some instances where all alternatives proved awkward or potentially misleading, singular

nouns or substantive participles in the biblical languages were translated with singular

nouns or noun equivalents in English.” – Notes from the Committee on Bible Translation

[ii] The use of invented gender-neutral pronouns seems to be a failure up to this point.