Two takeaways from Acts Two

Going backward before moving forward. Two takeaways from Acts 2:4-8.

And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilæans? And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?

1. Some confusion about tongues in non-charismatic circles is created by misunderstanding the purpose. Tongues were not an evangelistic tool. The tongues of Acts 2 (and tongues in general) are for a sign. Consider 1 Corinthians 14:22 “Wherefore tongues are for a sign…” Speaking is tongues was not necessary for communicating to the people gathered on the first Pentecost after Christ’s resurrection. The people could all speak to one another a common language — Acts 2:7 “And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another…”
2. The folks gathered in this crowd were at the least bilingual — they could speak at least two languages. They knew a common language in which they could converse (v. 7), and they knew the language of the land of their nativity (v. 8, “hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born”). They could have known more than two tongues, but they knew at least two.

Kuyper on predestined Scripture

Psalm 119:89 For ever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven.

Dutch original: 

De Schrift is gepraedestineerd. Die Schrift heeft bestaan in Gods raad, voor zij op aarde komen zou. Wat de inhoud zou zijn, door wie de stukken zouden geschreven worden, hoe de samenstelling zou zijn, hoe zij zou vertaald en uitgelegd worden, hoe zij werken zou – en nog veel meer; dat alles lage in den raad Gods besloten, voordat er not een letter van de Schrift geschreven was. Kortelijk dus: zij is gepraedestineerd; ook al gebruikt men he woord praedestinatie anders alleen van organisch levende wezens.

Maar behalve in dezen algemeenen zin (waarin he waar is van alle boeken) geldt het ook van de Schrift bij God bestaan heeft voor de Schrift er was, het geheel en de deelen omvattende; en date God de Heere zelf het geweest is, die naar dat bestek en plan de Schrift heeft gerealiseerd. Voor het eerste zie Hand. 15:18 : Gode zijn al zijne werken van eeuwigheif bekend. De Schrift is een werk Gods. Voor het tweede Num. 8:4, waar gezegd wordt, dat God de מַּרְאֶה van den kandelaar aan Mozes getoond heeft. Als het nu niet strijdt met den eerbied voor de Majesteit van het Goddelijke, een model van een kandelaar te geven, dan kan men ons nooit tegenwerpen, dat het strijdig zou zijn met de eere Gods, dat er een מַּרְאֶהֹ van de H. Schrift in den hemel geweest is.

 English translation:

Scripture is predestined. The Scripture existed in God’s counsel before it came to earth. What the content would be, by whom the pieces would be written, what the composition would be like, how it would be translated and explained, how it would work – and much more. All this was decided in the counsel of God, ere not a letter of the Scripture was written. In short: it is predestined; even if the word predestination is otherwise used only of organic living beings.

Not only in the general sense which it is true of all books, but it is also true that Scripture existed with God before Scripture existed, comprising the whole and the parts; and that it was the Lord God himself who, according to that plan and design, has realized his plan of the Scriptures. For the first, see Acts 15:18 Known unto God are all his works from eternity. Scripture is a work of God. For the second, see Numbers 8:4, where it is said that God showed the מַּרְאֶה (pattern) of the lampstand to Moses. Now, if it is not contrary to the reverence for the Majesty of the Divine to give a model of a lampstand, then it can never be objected that it would be contrary to the honor of God that there should be a מַּרְאֶהֹ (pattern) of the Holy Scriptures in heaven always.

Locus de Sacra Scriptura, Volume I, Dictaten dogmatiek, 1891, p. 92

--

It was not mistakenly, therefore, that a predestined Bible was spoken of in Reformed circles, by which was understood that the preconceived form of the Holy Scripture had been given already from eternity in the counsel of God, in which at the same time all events, means and persons, by which that preconceived form would be realized in our actual life, were predestined. Hence in the course of ages all sorts of events take place, and persons appear who do not know of each other, and in the midst of these events these several persons are induced, without the knowledge of a higher purpose. to commit to writing certain facts, thoughts and perceptions. These persons also write other documents, and other persons among their contemporaries write as well as they. But, nevertheless, all those other writings are lost, or are put aside, while those special documents, which were destined and ordered of God to compose His Holy Scripture, are not merely saved, but are made honorable, are compiled, and gradually attain that authority which He had ordained for these Scriptures. Thus, according to a plan, known to God alone, a structure is gradually raised on which in the course of many ages different persons have labored without agreement, and without ever having seen the whole. No one of the children of men had conceived the plan, to compile such a Scripture; not one had added his contribution with premeditation, nor exhorted others to supplement his contribution with theirs. Thus the plan of the Holy Scripture was hidden, back of human consciousness, in the consciousness of God, and He it is, who in His time has so created each of these writers, so endowed, led and impelled them, that they have contributed what He wanted, and what after His plan and direction was to constitute His Scripture. The conception, therefore, has not gone out of men, but out of God; and it was in connection with this conception, that in every document and by every writer in the course of the ages there should be contributed that very thing, of such a content and in such a form, as had been aimed at and willed by God. There is no chance, and hence this composition and compilation of human writings are not accidental, but predetermined. And this whole has thus been ordained, and in virtue of this fore-ordination has thus been executed, as it had to be, in order to respond to the spiritual needs and wants of the Church of God in every age and among every nation. For, of course, in the strict sense it may be said that every writing is predestined, and this we readily grant; but when our Reformed circles spoke of a “predestined Bible” they intended to convey thereby the idea of a medium of grace, which was taken up as a link in the counsel of God for the salvation of His elect. In the accomplishment of this purpose lay the justification of the Scripture, and the result has fully shown that this wondrous book contains within itself the mystery of being suited to every nation, new to every age, profound for the scholar and rich in comforts for the meek. pp. 474-476

Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920), Principles of Sacred Theology, (translated from the Dutch by J. Hendrik De Vries), Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1898/1954 [Also available HERE.]

Do evangelical scholars believe in the orthodox corruption of Scripture?

In his book The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, Bart D. Ehrman asserts as an historical fact that orthodox Christian scribes altered the New Testament texts in order to conform them to orthodox Christian beliefs. Or, put another way, because of various unorthodox views in early Christianity (such as teaching that Jesus was a man and not God), the scribes might alter original passages in order to strengthen the orthodox teaching against heretical teachings. Boiled to its essence, the idea of “Orthodox Corruption of Scripture” claims that early Christian scribes made changes, that the changes were deliberate, and that these changes were in favor of orthodoxy against heterodoxy (i.e., heresy).

Consider the New English Translation Bible (NET) footnotes concerning some passages of Scripture.[i]

John 7:8-10 in the NET

You go up to the feast yourselves. I am not going up to this feast[s] because my time has not yet fully arrived.” When he had said this, he remained in Galilee. But when his brothers had gone up to the feast, then Jesus himself also went up, not openly but in secret.

NET footnote “s.”

Most MSS (P^66,75 B L T W Θ Ψ 070 0105 0250 ƒ^1,13 M sa), including most of the better witnesses, have “not yet” (οὔπω, oupō) here. Those with the reading οὐκ are not as impressive (א D K 1241 al lat), but οὐκ is the more difficult reading here, especially because it stands in tension with v. 10. On the one hand, it is possible that οὐκ arose because of homoioarcton: A copyist who saw oupw wrote ouk. However, it is more likely that οὔπω was introduced early on to harmonize with what is said two verses later. As for Jesus’ refusal to go up to the feast in v. 8, the statement does not preclude action of a different kind at a later point. Jesus may simply have been refusing to accompany his brothers with the rest of the group of pilgrims, preferring to travel separately and “in secret” (v. 10) with his disciples.

In contrast to “not go up” in modern translations from the critical text, the King James Bible and Textus Receptus says “not yet” – “Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast…” How does the NET footnote explain the variant? By charging most manuscripts with being the victim of “orthodox corruption of Scripture.” Their thought is that οὐκ/not go is correct, and that the most likely explanation of what happened is “that οὔπω was introduced early on to harmonize with what is said two verses later.”

So, they say, copyists saw a problem in the meaning of the text. They fixed it. Is that not, in effect, Bart Ehrman’s principle of “the orthodox corruption of Scripture”?

Below see two other examples where the notes in the NET Bible indicate that they think that the Byzantine text tradition was infiltrated by “the orthodox corruption of Scripture.”[ii] 

Mark 1:2 in the NET

As it is written in the prophet Isaiah,[d] “Look, I am sending my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way,

NET footnote “d.”

“…the reading of the later MSS [“in the prophets”] seems motivated by a desire to resolve this difficulty [i.e. ‘written in the prophet Isaiah’ immediately followed by a reference to the prophet Malachi]”

1 Timothy 3:16 in the NET

And we all agree, our religion contains amazing revelation: He[x] was revealed in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among Gentiles, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.

NET footnote “x.”

“It appears that sometime after the 2nd century the θεός [God] reading came into existence, either via confusion with ὅς [who] or as an intentional alteration to magnify Christ and clear up the syntax at the same time.”

In both the second and third examples, the NET Bible footnote suggests, at the least, a possible intentional change (“motivated by a desire,” “an intentional alteration”) from the original reading to one that is more “orthodox.” 

Do evangelical scholars believe in the orthodox corruption of Scripture? Yes. I would say so, that some of them do, based on these representative examples from the footnotes in the NET Bible.

---

[i] Matthew 19:17 is another example of the charge of intentional alteration by scribes: “There is only one who is good…” (NET). They believe that copyists added “God” to the text (although they generally ascribe it to clarification rather than specifically doctrinal reasons). Many other evangelicals make these same kinds of claims. I am using the NET Bible because their notes are online and handy. Positionally, the NET editors are representative of other evangelical scholars. 

[ii] These editors and others are careful how they state their opinions. They are evangelicals who claim to hold the inerrancy of Scripture. Bart Ehrman is an agnostic and does not need to appear to support the inerrancy of Scripture. This admits a difference in degree between such evangelicals and Ehrman, but not a difference in kind. Saying scribes deliberately altered some places in Scripture for “orthodox” purposes is saying scribes deliberately altered some places in Scripture for “orthodox” purposes – regardless of who says it and what explanation give for it after saying it.

The happy confidence of the tens of thousands

We shall rid ourselves of the suspicion of designing to occupy any middle ground, by proclaiming, in limine, our sincere and unchanged attachment to the good old English version made by the order of king James I. It is our heart’s desire and prayer to God, that this venerable monument of learning, of truth, of piety and of unequalled purity of style and diction, may be perpetuated to the end of time, just as we now have it. Let no daring genius meditate either change or amendment in its structure and composition; neither let any learned impertinence presume to disturb the happy confidence of the tens of thousands, who now regard it as,—next to the original languages,—the purest vehicle through which the mind of the Holy Spirit was ever conveyed to mortals. Under God, and with God, we feel prepared to stand or fall with this consecrated instrument, known, and quoted, and familiarized, as the common standard version.

“Baptist Version of the New Testament,” The Christian Review, James D. Knowles, editor. March 1837, Vol. II, No. V, pp. 21-22

in limine: at the start.

Appletons’ Cyclopedia of American Biography, Vol. III, p. 564

Under His Wings

William Orcutt Cushing wrote “Under His Wings” in 1896. He was born in Massachusetts in 1823, a son of Jacob Cushing and Martha Orcutt. He married Hena Jane Proper in 1854. He died October 19, 1902. He and Hena are buried at the Jones Cemetery at Hector, Schuyler County, New York. He served as pastor at the Christian Church in Searsburg, New York, as well as other locations in New York (some sources say he was a Unitarian minister). He lost his voice and retired from pastoring after 27 years. He is author of about 300 hymns. Three scripture verses that influenced this hymn of gratefulness and assurance are:

• Keep me as the apple of the eye, hide me under the shadow of thy wings. (Psalm 17:8) 
• I will abide in thy tabernacle for ever: I will trust in the covert of thy wings. Selah. (Psalm 61:4)
• He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust: his truth shall be thy shield and buckler. (Psalm 91:4) 

Ira David Sankey, a music evangelist who worked with D. L. Moody, wrote the music, which combined with the hymn was published in Sacred Songs in 1896. It is said that it was once so popular the Bible school in Northfield, Massachusetts that students sang it every day in chapel. The tune is called Hingham, after Cushing’s place of birth.

1. Under his wings I am safely abiding;
Though the night deepens and tempests are wild,
Still I can trust him; I know he will keep me;
He has redeemed me, and I am his child.

Refrain:
Under his wings, under his wings,
Who from his love can sever?
Under his wings my soul shall abide,
Safely abide forever.

2. Under his wings, what a refuge in sorrow!
How the heart yearningly turns to its rest!
Often when earth has no balm for my healing,
There I find comfort, and there I am blest.

 3. Under his wings, O what precious enjoyment!
There will I hide till life’s trials are o’er;
Sheltered, protected, no evil can harm me;
Resting in Jesus I’m safe ever more.

3rd Annual Sacred Harp Singing, and other music links

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

• 3rd Annual Sacred Harp Singing -- “Following is a report of 3rd Annual Sacred Harp Singing, held at Campbell’s Cross Roads, Clay county, Ala., July 18th, 1926.”
• All Hail the Power of Jesus’ Name! - Edward Perronet -- “This hymn’s popularity is evident because it appears in many hymnals with three different tunes.”
• Benson Collection of Hymnals and Hymnology -- “A list of links to books in the Benson Collection.”
• Hebrew Shema / Deuteronomy 6:4-6 Chant / Trope / Cantillated -- “So what does the Shema and the following two verses sound like when sung or chanted following the Hebrew accent marks?”
• Kardia Music -- “Kardia Music Theory Resources and Courses.”
• Little Is Much When God Is in It - Kittie Suffield -- “The place of service may seem insignificant, but ‘it is great if God is in it.’”
• McGough Family Documents -- “Shown below are two portions of John McGough’s son-in-law’s (Perry Nelson) 1818 song book.”
  
• Praise, My Soul, the King of Heaven, by Henry Francis Lyte -- “Published in 1834, ‘Praise, My Soul, the King of Heaven’ was inspired by Psalm 103. The opening stanza reflects on the first five verses of the Psalm.”
• Reformation Hymns -- “‘Bar form’ was a common musical form that was nurtured in the Church. It is a form consisting of two identical musical lines followed by a contrasting section: AAB. Many of Luther’s hymns, like ‘A Might Fortress,’ are written in this form, which has nothing to do with taverns.”
• Sacred Harp Sing Returns to Baylor University Joining Voices in Four-Part Harmony -- “Human voices come together without instruments or rehearsal...is returning to Baylor University after a two-year hiatus.”
• Silent Night! Holy Night! - Josef Mohr -- “Just before Christmas in 1818, in the small village of Oberndorf, Austria, it was discovered the church’s organ was broken.”
• Singing the Psalms -- “Since the largest book in the Bible is a songbook, we see the importance of sacred music before God.”
• Strings Attached -- “David Getman was working in a music store in Brooklyn, New York, in 1997 when a friend gave him a box of banjo parts. The friend suggested that he see what he could make with the pieces.”
• The Christian’s song, written by a young lady: together with a hymn called Love to Christ -- “The claim on the broadside that the song was ‘written by a young lady’ applies to the second song on this sheet, ‘Love to Christ.’”

LXX or Septuagint: New Testament Comparison

On Tuesday and Wednesday, I posted LXX or Septuagint: Scattered Thoughts and LXX or Septuagint: Thoughts of John Owen. Today I follow up with a further consideration about comparing New Testament references to the LXX (Septuagint). How should we consider and determine whether New Testament authors were quoting or referring to statements in the Greek LXX rather than the Hebrew Old Testament?

A fairly common tact from representatives on “my side” (defenders of the Traditional Texts and the King James Version) is to claim that no Greek Old Testament yet existed, and therefore the New Testament authors could not have quoted from it. While it may be true that no official complete Greek Old Testament existed, it seems that there nevertheless were Greek translations of parts of the Old Testament.[i] Even someone as radical as Peter Ruckman acknowledged the existence of two papyrus fragments that predated the New Testament times. It seems to me, from what I have been to find, that the general LXX scholarship recognizes about ten extant manuscripts (papyrus fragments) that are from BC (Before Christ).

For the sake of argument, I will accept the dating of these extant manuscripts as reliable. However, most of the opposition are “matching” New Testament readings to the LXX by inspecting LXX manuscripts (Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus) that postdate the New Testament by several hundred years. This is chronologically challenged and raises the question whether these texts accurately represent Greek translations of the Old Testament that existed before the New Testament. The case can be made that portions of these manuscripts were edited to match the New Testament. The Vaticanus text of Psalm 13/14 is one of the more egregious examples. I posit that the most reliable way to test this is to compare New Testament quotations with Greek LXX readings believed to exist before the New Testament was written. A full inspection, I believe, should consider these four questions.

1. What level of agreement must a NT quote/reference have with the LXX to be considered a quote from the LXX? (Thanks to Dwayne Green)
2. Can quotes/references be found in the NT with this level of agreement with the LXX?
3. Can any quotes/references with this level of agreement be found in manuscripts that predate the writing of the NT, or only in manuscripts that postdate the writing of the NT (or both)?
4. Is there more than one explanation in regard to the quote/reference, and, if so, which explanation best answers the facts?

For this post, I have sort of skipped forward just to see whether this can be tested. This is done as an experiment and needs more intense and careful work to be the most useful. However, perhaps I can at least demonstrate what I think should be done. The list of pre-BC manuscripts I compiled are these (using Rahlfs numbering):

• 801-805 are fragments of, respectively, Leviticus 26:2–16; Leviticus 1:11, 2:3–6:5; Numbers 3:39–4:16; Baruch 6:43–44; Exodus 28:4–7.
• 819 is a fragment of Deuteronomy 11:4. 
• 847 is fragments of Deuteronomy 10:22; 11:1, 10,11, 16; 31:26–19; 32:2,4; 33:14–19, 22–23, 26–27.
• 848 is fragments of Deuteronomy 17:14 to 33:29. (847, 848, and 942 = Fouad 266)
• 942 is fragments of Genesis 3:10–12; 4:5–7, 23; 7:17–20; 37:34–38:1; 38:10–12. 
• 957 is fragments of Deuteronomy 23:24–24:3; 25:1–3; 26:12; 26:17–19; 28:31–33; 27:15; 28:2.

For the NT quotes/references to the LXX, I used a list of about 70 verses that I found HERE.[ii] Again, this needs to be more fully and carefully investigated. As I went through their list and the list of extant LXX manuscripts, I found only one verse on both lists – Deuteronomy 10:22. Their argument is that Stephen says 75 people went down to Egypt (based on the LXX) and the Hebrew says 70 people. That Stephen said this, in itself, is correct. Whether he did so based on the LXX is the question. In Acts 7:14 Stephen “Then sent Joseph, and called his father Jacob to him, and all his kindred, threescore and fifteen souls.” Based on the Hebrew Masoretic text, Genesis 46:27 has “threescore and ten” and Deuteronomy 10:22 has “threescore and ten persons.” The modern LXX has “seventy-five souls” (ἑβδομηκονταπέντε, Genesis) and “seventy souls” (ἑβδομήκοντα, Deuteronomy). Some debaters assert that the statement made by Stephen in Acts 7:14 about “75 souls” is based on the LXX reading.

I had hoped to inspect the Fouad 266 reading (supposed to be 1st century BC) of Deuteronomy 10:22. This papyrus is housed at the Societé Royale de Papyrologie in Cairo, Egypt.[iii] However, I have yet to discover a scan of it online. References to and discussion of this manuscript that I have found online focus on the use of the tetragrammaton and show no interest in “75 souls.”

This “test case” turned out to not be a very good one – especially because I could not find the fragment to compare whether it mentions 75 or 70, but also:

• The LXX texts of Genesis 46:27 and Deuteronomy 10:22, at least as we now know them, disagree on the number.
• It is not clear that Stephen is even quoting or referencing a specific Old Testament text.
• There are other explanations for the statement in Acts 7:14 other than Stephen quoting the LXX.[iv] 

Even though this test case turned out to be deficient in needed areas, I hope that this illustrates how we could compare the NT to LXX in a manner of what actually existed that they might have referenced, rather than just looking at LXX manuscripts that postdate the New Testament, whose text could have been edited to conform to the NT reading. Is this a legitimate way to proceed? Are there other New Testament quotes/references that can be found in the manuscripts that are supposed to date BC?

---

[i] Paul Kahle is one Semitic scholar who distrusts the common view of a complete and official Greek Old Testament commonly accepted by Greek-speaking Jews. A overview of the opinions of Kahle can be seen HERE.

[ii] I do not claim this list is the best or most complete available. Their comparison of John 12:38 to Isaiah 53:1 falls flat. For example, the KJV translation based on the Masoretic Hebrew text and the TR yields the same reading, report. Though many modern translations do use “message,” this seems to merely be a translation choice rather than a difference in the base text. Nevertheless, for the time being, it is the best and most complete list that I have found via Google search.
[iii] Apparently, it can be viewed at the Trismegistos portal from institutions with a subscription. I am unsure whether it might be accessed elsewhere on the World Wide Web. Also being a fragment, it might not even contain the relevant number (70 or 75).
[iv] 75 Souls - Acts 7:14.

LXX or Septuagint: Paul E. Kahle

Since I mentioned him in a post on Tuesday, and will again in a post later today, I thought I would give this excerpt from Matthew Black on Paul E. Kahle and the LXX. He was a scholar of high reputation who held a minority view on the origin of the LXX. (I am not saying his view syncs with mine, but that his viewpoint represents a strong and important minority voice on the subject.)

“…according to Kahle’s theory the LXX had its origins in the synagogues of the Diaspora as a kind of Greek Targum. He was later to defend this theory in a number of publications and in controversy with many scholars.” p. 488

“Kahle’s contribution to our understanding of the origins and history of the ancient versions has been an equally significant one. The most widely controverted of his theories in this connexion is his account of the origin and development of the Greek Old Testament. He remained to the end a resolute defender of his original theory and an opponent of the Lagardian hypothesis of an original Urtext of the LXX, on which, for instance, the Rahlf’s edition is based. The Aristeas legend was, according to Kahle, a piece of first-century Jewish propaganda in favour of an authorized Alexandrian revision of existing Greek versions of the Torah. The history of the LXX did not differ fundamentally from that of the Aramaic Targums: Greek translations were made in different areas to accompany the reading of the Hebrew text, and the various geographical areas (Egypt, Syria, Asia Minor) had each their own officially authorized version. The standard LXX text, covering the entire Bible, was the outcome of the Church’s need for an official, uniform Greek text of the Old Testament. The New Testament quotations, many of which differ substantially from the LXX, reflected, in Kahle’s opinion, differences in Greek versions associated with different geographical areas.” p. 491

From “Paul Ernest Kahle 1875-1965,” by Matthew Black, Proceedings of the British Academy, Volume LI, London: Oxford University Press, 1966. Or see a PDF HERE.

Disquiet regarding the Gentile reception of the word of God, Acts 11

Contending against Gentile conversion, 1-3

Verse 1: The word “that the Gentiles had also received the word of God” traveled faster to “the apostles and brethren that were in Judæa” than Peter traveled to Jerusalem. Some saw in the Gentiles receiving the word a bypassing of circumcision and the law.[i]

 

Verse 2: Upon Peter’s arrival “they that were of the circumcision” disputed with Peter concerning his going in to the Gentiles and preaching to them. “They that were of the circumcision” here in Jerusalem are not the same as the six “they of the circumcision” of 10:45, who traveled with Peter from Joppa to Cæsarea.[ii] Those six were astonished and agreed with Peter. These in Jerusalem complained and contended against Peter. If Peter were “Pope,” they would not have aggressively questioned his actions.

 

Verse 3: The chief concern expressed by the naysayers is that Peter “wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them.” Interestingly, Peter “wentest in” and “didst eat” with the Gentiles before the confirmatory gift of the Holy Ghost – based on the explanatory vision from God.

 

Verse 1 shows the occasion for Peter’s defense, verse 2 the charge against him, and verse 3 the rebuttal of the charge made in his defense.

 

Peter defends the decision of preaching to the Gentiles, 4-17

 

Verse 4: Peter goes over the incident thoroughly, from beginning to end, from his standpoint. He is gentle, patient, and humble (cf. II Timothy 2:24ff.). Luke began with the vision of Cornelius. Peter, not there in Cæsarea when Cornelius received a vision, begins with the vision he received. Acts chapters 10 and 11 tells the story thrice – (1) from God’s point of view, 10:1-23; (2) Cornelius’s point of view, 10:30-33; and (3) Peter’s point of view, 11:5-16.

 

Verses 5-10: These verses restate the vision of Peter, first recorded in Acts 10:9-16. For verse 6 “fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air” compare Acts 10:12 and Psalm 148:10. The record and retelling of the vision represent two levels of meaning in it: (1) physical/food, and (2) spiritual/fellowship.

 

Verses 11-12b: These verses summarize Acts 10:19-23, with the added detail of the number of men who accompanied him to Cæsarea – six. In 10:23, they are identified as “certain brethren from Joppa” without a number given. “these six brethren accompanied me” suggests that they are also present as witnesses at this meeting in Jerusalem.[iii]

 

Verses 12c-14: These verses relate to Acts 10:24-33, Peter entering into “the man’s house” and conversing with him. Peter interprets his mission as telling these Gentiles “words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.” Salvation is here connected to the word of God. Compare Ephesians 1:13 “in whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise.” John Gill insists these words “would be a means of instructing him and his family in the right and true way of salvation.”[iv]

 

In the retelling of the story, Peter does not mention Cornelius’s name. He is a representative Gentile in a principle that God establishes. Bock writes, “It makes the story one of principle. The issue is not Cornelius, but what Cornelius represents: a Gentile saved directly by the act of God.”[v]

 

This event in Cæsarea at the house of Cornelius is often referred to as “the Pentecost of the Gentiles.”[vi]

 

Verses 15-16: Peter only briefly mentions his own speaking, and focuses on the confirmation worked by God. God initiated the fall of the Holy Ghost on them, and he did it before Peter has finished speaking. “And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.” Peter’s defense indicates the Pentecost event was historical and unique, not an ongoing event. If what happened on Pentecost had been a common daily, weekly, or monthly occurrence, Peter would not have had to go all the way back to Pentecost – possibly 8 to 10 years past – to find a referent in common with what happened at Cornelius’s house. Peter does not say, “the Holy Ghost fell on them, as has been happening to us all along through these past eight or so years.” As Israel was baptized unto Moses as a once for all event, so was Christ’s church baptized once for all. “Israel did not take each generation back to the Red Sea to be baptized. Neither has any true New Testament Church had to wait for a Pentecost from on high, and ever afterwards the power has been available to true churches which are commissioned to go and not to wait again for a Pentecostal enduement.”[vii]

 

Verse 17: Peter places the “blame” squarely where it belongs – on God! “what was I, that I could withstand God?” If any brethren wish to contend with Peter, the preaching to, salvation of, and fellowship with the Gentiles – then they must contend with God.

 

The Jerusalem church accepts and acknowledges the work of God, 18

Verse 18: For the time, they no longer dispute. They hear and acquiesce to the testimony of Peter – glorifying God. The church recognized that “God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.”

---

[i] “…it was more than likely this full membership aspect that caused the greatest offense to the Jews. Cornelius was accepted into the visible church by baptism and confession of faith and not by becoming a Jew outwardly (Romans 2:28-29).” Derek Carlsen, Faith and Courage, pp. 271-272.
[ii] “They that were of the circumcision. This phrase marks the beginning of evil and separation in the Apostolic Church. The words had previously been used to denote all Jewish Christians, but now they seem to refer to one party among the Jewish believers, to the Judaizers who were unable to believe that Gentiles could enter the church save through Judaism.” Lindsay, The Acts of the Apostles, p. 123.
[iii] If he is pointing to six men present with him, this opens the possibility that more than six went.
[iv] John Gill’s Exposition, online. https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/acts-11-14.html  “…though Cornelius was really a pious man, and therefore in the way of salvation, yet he had not been instructed in the peculiar principles on which God bestows pardon and eternal life.” Ripley, The Acts of the Apostles, p. 157.
[v] Bock, Acts, p. 408.
[vi] This phrase goes back at least before the 1700s in the French theologian Pasquier Quesnel, circa 1692. “This is, as it were the Pentecost of the Gentiles, the beginning of the accomplishment of the promises in respect of us, and our first entrance into the body of Jesus Christ.” See The New Testament, with Moral Reflections Upon Every Verse, Translated from the French of P. Quesnel, by Richard Russell, Volume 3, London: R. and J. Bonwicke, 1725, p. 132.
[vii] Roy Culley, The Holy Spirit, pp. 96-97.

LXX or Septuagint: Thoughts of John Owen

Some extremists, perhaps due to their angry wailing, bitter spirit, and sometimes unfounded animadversions, have made any hint of uncertainty concerning the LXX to be anathema to the “scholars” – especially the wanna-be (think-they-are) scholars. This should not be. All who think there is likelihood of versions of the Greek Old Testament created in early church history do not belong on the quack list. Consider the words of John Owen (1616-1683), who is generally respected in Reformed and Western evangelical circles (at least when he is not writing too dogmatically about the Bible).

“Hence some, not understanding whence this testimony was cited by the apostle, have inserted his words into the Greek Bible…” p. 107

“14. First, it is evident that they are exceedingly mistaken who affirm that the apostle cites all his testimonies out of the translation of the LXX, as we intimated is by some pleaded, in the close of the preceding discourse. The words he useth, in very few of them agree exactly with the Greek version of the Old Testament that is now extant,—though apparently, since the writing of this Epistle, it hath grown in its verbal conformity unto the allegations as reported in the New; and in most of them he varieth from it, either in the use of his own liberty, or in a more exact rendering of the original text. Should he have had any respect unto that translation, it were impossible to give any tolerable account whence he should so much differ from it almost in every quotation, as is plain that he doth. 

“15. It is also undeniably manifest, from this view of his words, that the apostle did not scrupulously confine himself unto the precise words either of the original or any translation whatever,—if any other translation, or targum, were then extant besides that of the LXX. Observing and expressing the sense of the testimonies which he thought meet to produce and make use of, he used with great liberty, as did other holy writers of the New Testament, according to the guidance of the Holy Ghost, by who inspiration he wrote, in expressing them by words of his own. And who shall blame him for so doing? Who should bind him to the rules of quotations, which sometimes necessity, sometimes curiosity, sometimes the cavils of other men, impose upon us in our writings? Herein the apostle used that liberty which the Holy Ghost gave unto him, without the least prejudice unto truth of the faith of the church... pp. 113-114

“19. I say, then, it is highly probable that the apostle, according to his wonted manner, which appears in almost all the citations used by him in this Epistle, reporting the sense and importance of the places in words of his own, the Christian transcribers of the Greek Bible inserted his expressions into the text; either as judging them a more proper version of the original, whereof they were ignorant, than that of the LXX., or out of a preposterous zeal to take away the appearance of a diversity between the text and the apostle’s citation of it. And thus, in those testimonies where there is a real variation from the Hebrew original, the apostle took not his words from the translation of the LXX., but his words were afterward inserted into that translation. And this, as we have partly made to appear already in sundry instances, so it shall now briefly be further confirmed; for,—

“20. First, Whereas the reasons of the apostle for his application of the testimonies used by him in his words and expressions are evident, as shall in particular be made to appear; so no reason can be assigned why the LXX (if any such LXX. there were) who translated the Old Testament, or any other translators of it, should so render the words of the Hebrew text.” 

“Exercitation V. Testimonies Cited By the Apostle Out of the Old Testament,” An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, Volume I, John Owen (W. H. Gould, editor), Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1980, pp. 113-115.

Commenting on “I regarded them not” in Hebrews 8:9, Owen writes:

“But expositors do find or make great difficulties herein. It is generally supposed that the apostle followed the translation of the LXX. in the present copy whereof the words are so expressed; but how they came to render בָּעַ֥לְתִּי by ἠμέλησα, they are not agreed. Some say the original copies might differ in some letters from those we now enjoy. Therefore it is thought they might read, as some think, ָּבָּחֱלְתִּי, ‘neglexi,’ or נְעַ֥לְתִּי, ‘fastidivi,’—‘I neglected,’ or ‘loathed them.’ And those who speak most modestly, suppose that the copy which the LXX. made use of, had one of these words instead of בָּעַ֥לְתִּי, which yet is the truer reading; but because this did not belong to the substance of the argument which he had in hand, the apostle would not depart from that translation which was then in use amongst the Hellenistical Jews.

“But the best of these conjectures are uncertain, and some of them by no means to be admitted. Uncertain it is that the apostle made any of his quotations out of the translation of the LXX.; yea, the contrary is certain enough, and easy to be demonstrated. Neither did he write this epistle unto the Hellenistical Jews, or those who lived in or belonged unto their dispersions, wherein they made use of the Greek tongue; but unto the inhabitants of Jerusalem and Judea principally and in the first place, who made no use of that translation. He expressed the mind of the Scripture, as he was directed by the Holy Ghost, in words of his own. And the coincidence of these words with those in the present copies of the LXX. hath been accounted for in our Exercitations.

Dangerous it is, as well as untrue, to allow of alterations in the original text, and then upon our conjectures to supply other words into it than what are contained in it. That is not to explain, but to corrupt the Scripture.

An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, Volume VI, John Owen (1616-1683), (W. H. Gould, editor),Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1980, p. 130.

John Owen was no dufus. If I am reading him correctly, he believed the extant LXX words of the 4th & 5th century manuscripts did not necessarily predate the writing of the New Testament (therefore could have been conformed to match the New Testament).

LXX or Septuagint: Scattered thoughts

The LXX and Septuagint are names for Greek versions (translations) of the Hebrew Old Testament. Ryan Reeves offers what might be considered a “typical” Western Evangelical view of the LXX: 

“The Septuagint is quite possibly the most important translation of the Bible. It is the oldest translation of the OT into another language...most of the direct citations of the OT in the NT match the Septuagint, not the Hebrew Bible (or Masoretic Text [MT]).”

Many, if not most, Western evangelicals believe that a somewhat “official” Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament harks back to the 3rd-century B.C. Reeves recognizes, however, that there is no such thing as the Septuagint, but that what is available are rather eclectic critical texts (e.g. Brenton, Rahlfs) that attempt to reconstruct what they believe was the original Greek Old Testament, using the extant Greek manuscripts of the Old Testament.

On the other extreme are those who believe that the LXX or Septuagint is a Christian-era development – that is, no LXX (Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament) existed before perhaps the 1st-century A.D. 

Frank Welte, a writer at Hope for Israel Ministries, a radical and heretical (denying the deity of Jesus) Hebrew Roots movement, says:

“So the only LXX we have today stands exposed as a corrupt forgery!”[i]

Several “King James Onlyists” agree with this view of the LXX, without holding the other odd and heretical views of Hope for Israel Ministries – which ministries is not a KJVO group. Welte also states that, “A translation from the original text CANNOT possibly be better than the original.”

Samuel C. Gipp represents a view held by some King James Onlyists. In “Was There a BC Septuagint,” he asks and answers:

“QUESTION: What is the LXX?

“ANSWER: A figment of someone’s imagination.”

Doubtless many KJVOs are influenced on this point by Peter Ruckman. In 1996, he published The Mythological Septuagint. In it he rails against an early LXX, but also admits to two B.C. fragments, writing:

“Ryland Papyrus 458 and Fouad 266 are the only ‘B.C.’ fragments found in 2,400 years of babbling about a B.C. LXX which ‘the apostles quoted’: none of them quoted Rylands 458 or Fouad 266. (The Mythological Septuagint, Peter S. Ruckman. Pensacola, FL: BB Bookstore, 1996, p. 55.)

Earlier in The Christian’s Handbook of Manuscript Evidence (Peter S. Ruckman, Pensacola, FL: BB Bookstore, 1970, pp. 48-51), he only mentioned the Ryland fragment as early. I think that Ruckman is correct that there are no New Testament quotes from anything in the Rylands fragment (but there might be one to consider in the Fouad fragment).

As best I can find, in general scholars seem to think there are about 10 fragments of part of Greek Old Testament translation that predate the time of Christ. LXX scholar Alfred Rahlfs (1865-1935) system identifies and numbers 10 manuscripts that are believed to be from the centuries before Christ. In his numbering system these are older manuscripts: 801, 802, 803, 804, 805, 819 (4Q LXXDeut), 847, 848, 942 (Fouad 266), and 957 (Rylands 458). 801-805 are fragments of, respectively, Leviticus 26:2–16; Leviticus 1:11, 2:3–6:5; Numbers 3:39–4:16; Baruch 6:43–44; Exodus 28:4–7. 819 is a fragment of Deuteronomy 11:4. 847 is fragments of Deuteronomy 10:22; 11:1, 10,11, 16; 31:26–19; 32:2,4; 33:14–19, 22–23, 26–27. 848 is fragments of Deuteronomy 17:14 to 33:29. 942 is fragments of Genesis 3:10–12; 4:5–7, 23; 7:17–20; 37:34–38:1; 38:10–12. 957 is fragments of Deuteronomy 23:24–24:3; 25:1–3; 26:12; 26:17–19; 28:31–33; 27:15; 28:2. The manuscripts are paleographically dated (i.e., by analysis of the writing), the oldest being Rylands 458 (2nd century BC) and Fouad 266 (1st century BC).[ii] I have not checked to see whether anything that can be read on these scraps of papyri varies from the Hebrew Old Testament and have been quoted in the New Testament, though I do not expect it.

The complete and almost complete manuscripts of the Greek translation of the Old Testament are from the 4th and 5th centuries (Codices Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and Alexandrinus).[iii] They did not exist as such at the time the New Testament books were written. I have shown in an earlier post that the Vaticanus LXX corrupts Psalm 14 by adding into it verses that Paul quoted in Romans 3 from various books of the Bible.[iv]

In between the extremes stands those who suspect that some books of the Old Testament (especially that Pentateuch) were translated before the time of Jesus Christ, while recognizing that the current full manuscripts are at best edited versions of earlier translations. I will look at the comments of one important Reformed scholar tomorrow (John Owen). Today I conclude with some comments about the view of Paul Ernst Kahle (1875-1964). Paul Kahle was certainly no King James Bible man, and likely not even conservative. He was a German scholar of Semitic philology, Near Eastern and Far Eastern cultures and languages (an “orientalist”) who edited later editions (1937, et al.) of Rudolf Kittel’s Biblia Hebraica. He was a high-class scholar whose view on the LXX is out of step with other high-class scholars and many wanna-be scholars. I could not find his original, but take these comments from John Reumann:

“One of the most intriguing theories is that of the late Professor Paul Kahle, a renowned Semitics scholar (1875-1964), who argued that there never was any LXX, at least until Christian times, and that our Letter of Aristeas is propaganda for a revision of the Greek Bible which was made in Alexandria. Kahle claimed that there were no ‘official’ translation undertakings in Judaism such as Aristeas suggests, but rather a number of local attempts—in Alexandria, in Ephesus, in any town with a sizable group of Greek-speaking Jews. These translations naturally differed in quality, and there was no standardization. But about 130 B. C., the theory continues, Jews in Alexandria revised the competing ragged renderings which were circulating in their area of Egypt, and put out a sort of ‘Revised Standard Version,’ intended to be the norm thereafter. The Letter of Aristeas was an attempt to give this revision authority by cloaking it with antiquity. Hence also the curse on anyone who would change a word of it. But even this attempt at standardization, Kahle thought, did not bring order from the chaos. Different Greek renderings continued to circulate. And so, when Christians (who increasingly after the year A.D. 50 were Greeks who knew little or no Hebrew) employed the Old Testament, they inevitably borrowed from the varied Jewish Greek translations—the Pentateuch as it had been revised at Alexandria, the book of Daniel as it had been translated at Ephesus, and so forth, until they put together an Old Testament in Greek, complete now, which they called the ‘Septuagint,’ after the title from the Aristeas legend. On this reading of the evidence, the LXX is a Christian compilation, and The Letter of Aristeas is a fiction designed to further the use of a revision in Alexandria about 130 B.C.” (The Romance of Bible Scripts and Scholars: Chapters in the History of Bible Transmission and Translation, John H. P. Reumann. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1965, pp. 15-16.)

Kahle’s view is interesting, and could account for some of the early fragments, while recognizing that the LXX as it currently stands is a revision from early Christian times. Whether any LXX existed before Christ or not, or whether any New Testament writer quoted from such (if he did), is of no great consequence to me. If God chose to inspire a writer to quote (or say the same way) as some previous translator, that is God’s prerogative to do, and mine to accept. However, I think most claims of NT quotes from the LXX relate to what is found in the 4th-century manuscripts, which could have been edited to match the New Testament (Psalm 14:3 certainly was). Let’s see what John Owen has to say on the morrow.

---

[i] The Septuagint – Is It a Fraud or Forgery? by Frank W. Nelte.
[ii] For the sake of discussion, I accept the papyri dating as likely reasonably accurate.
[iii] I realize there is a vocal, and perhaps large, element within King James Onlyism who believe Sinaiticus is a late forgery. I leave this for others to argue about. It is a bad manuscript, whether it is from the 4th century or was forged by Constantine Simonides.
[iv] This is one of the more egregious examples of meddling with the Old Testament translation. In commenting on Psalm 14:3, John Gill writes, “Here follows in the Septuagint version, according to the Vatican copy, all those passages quoted by the apostle, Romans 3:13-18; which have been generally supposed to have been taken from different parts of Scripture; so the Syriac scholiast says, in some ancient Greek copies are found eight more verses, and these are they, ‘Their throat,’ &c.” When he comments on Romans 3:13-18, Gill takes no notice of the LXX, but rather shows where the verses are quoted from in the Old Testament (Psalm 5:9; Psalm 140:3; Psalm 10:7; Isaiah 59:7-8; Psalm 36:1).

The Crystalline Fountain

“The sacred Scriptures are the Crystalline Fountaine, from whence all the lucid streams, and Rivulets of pure Religion are derived and conducted into the Cisterns and Receptacles of the hearts and understandings of Christians; whereby they may be directed, and instructed to lead a gracious and holy life here, and prepared for, and assured of a glorious and eternal life hereafter.”

William Kilbourne, in Dangerous Errors in Several Late Printed Bibles, 1660

Room for Rebels

The English dissenter and hymnist Isaac Watts (1674-1748) wrote “None excluded from hope,” which appeared in The Psalms and Hymns of Isaac Watts (1719) as “Hymn 34 Part 2.” It has 6 stanzas in common meter. Watts tied these hymn thoughts especially to two texts of scripture, Romans 1:16 and 1 Corinthians 1:24. Salvation is to all them that are called, to everyone who believes, whether Jew or Greek.

For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. Romans 1:16

but unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. 1 Corinthians 1:24

Though reprinted in a number of words-only hymn books, it seems to have not been that popular of a choice in tune books. In fact, the Hymnary.org has only one printing of “None excluded from hope” paired with music on their site. It is No. 307 in the Hymn and Tune Book of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South placed under the tune Sawley by James Walch (1837-1901).

Since the hymn is not “emotionally attached” to any particular tune, I would suggest choosing some fine old tune such as Detroit, Mear, or Ortonville. Pisgah is a great serviceable tune for almost any common meter hymn. Find a tune and sing it!

None excluded from hope. Rom. 1:16; 1 Cor. 1:24.

1. Jesus, thy blessings are not few,
Nor is thy gospel weak;
Thy grace can melt the stubborn Jew,
And bow th’ aspiring Greek.

2. Wide as the reach of Satan’s rage
Doth thy salvation flow;
’Tis not confined to sex or age,
The lofty or the low.

3. While grace is offered to the prince,
The poor may take their share;
No mortal has a just pretense
To perish in despair.

4. Be wise, ye men of strength and wit,
Nor boast your native powers;
But to his sovereign grace submit,
And glory shall be yours.

5. Come, all ye vilest sinners, come,
He’ll form your souls anew;
His gospel and his heart have room
For rebels such as you.

6. His doctrine is almighty love;
There’s virtue in his name
To turn the raven to a dove,
The lion to a lamb.