Tag: Latin

Origen’s “On First Principles” (Book 1, Ch. 3.3-5)

Gary Pollard

[Editor’s Note: Gary is translating the Ante-Nicene Fathers works, beginning with Origin’s work. It is meant to update the British English of Roberts and Donaldson. What follows is part of that translation]

Note: For this article, it is possible (if not likely) that Tyrannius Rufinus — the fourth century monk responsible for preserving the bulk of this writing by translating it from Greek to Latin — made changes to keep it compliant with the theology of the day. He admitted to “smoothing and correcting the stumbling blocks” in The Prologue of Rufinus, but did not specify where he made such changes. Since Theodosius I’s Edict of Thessalonica (AD 380, almost 20 years before Rufinus likely translated On First Principles) made it illegal — with severe criminal and civil penalties — to practice anything other than Nicene/Catholic Christianity, Origen’s teachings had to be redacted where they conflicted with the Nicene Creed. Since it is impossible for me to determine where these changes were made, I will leave the text as-is and include footnotes where a statement seems to reflect more Nicene theology than is typical of Origen’s writing. Recreating the original theology of early Christians is made easier by the fact that one group of “Christians” severely persecuted believers who didn’t accept the dogmatism of Nicene Creed. “You will know a tree by the fruit it produces.” 

That all things were created by God—and that no creature exists apart from Him as its source—is clearly established by many statements in Scripture. This truth refutes and rejects the claims made by some, who wrongly suggest that there exists a kind of matter that is co-eternal with God, or that souls existed without beginning. According to them, God did not give these souls their being, but merely ordered and organized what was already there, granting them structure and balance rather than existence itself.

However, even in the brief work known as The Shepherd, or The Angel of Repentance, written by Hermas, we find this declaration: “Before all else, believe that there is one God who created and arranged all things; who, when nothing previously existed, brought all things into being; who contains all things, yet is Himself contained by none.” We find similar statements in the book of Enoch as well.

To this day, however, we have not found any passage in holy Scripture where the Holy Spirit is said to have been made or created—not even in the way Solomon speaks of divine Wisdom, or in the expressions we discussed earlier that refer to the life, or the Word, or other titles of the Son of God. Therefore, the Spirit of God who is described as moving over the waters at the beginning of creation is, in my view, none other than the Holy Spirit—at least as far as I can discern. This, indeed, we have demonstrated in our interpretation of those passages, not by relying on a purely historical reading, but by following a spiritual understanding of the text.1

Some of our predecessors have noted that in the New Testament, whenever the word “Spirit” appears without any qualifying descriptor, it should be understood as referring to the Holy Spirit. For example: “The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, and peace,” and, “Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?” We believe that this distinction also applies in the Old Testament. Consider the passage, “He who gives His Spirit to the people on the earth, and Spirit to those who walk upon it.”2 Surely everyone who walks the earth—that is, all earthly and physical beings—also receives the Holy Spirit from God.3

My Hebrew teacher also used to say that the two seraphim in Isaiah, each with six wings, who call out to one another, saying, “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God of hosts,” should be understood as representing the only-begotten Son of God and the Holy Spirit. We also believe that the line in Habakkuk’s hymn—“In the midst of the two living beings” (or “two lives”)—refers to Christ and the Holy Spirit. For all knowledge of the Father comes through revelation by the Son, and that revelation is made through the Holy Spirit. Therefore, both of these beings—whom the prophet calls “living beings” or “lives”—are the basis of the knowledge of God the Father.

Just as it is said of the Son, “No one knows the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal Him,” so it is also said of the Holy Spirit by the apostle: “God has revealed them to us through His Spirit, for the Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God.” And again in the Gospel, when Jesus speaks of the deeper truths He could not yet reveal to His disciples, He says: “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. However, when the Holy Spirit, the Comforter, comes, He will teach you all things and remind you of everything I have said to you.”4

We must understand, then, that just as the Son—who alone knows the Father—reveals Him to whomever He chooses, so also the Holy Spirit—who alone searches the depths of God—reveals God to whomever He wills. “For the Spirit blows where He wills.”5

However, we must not imagine that the Holy Spirit receives His knowledge of the Father through revelation by the Son. If the Holy Spirit only comes to know the Father through the Son’s revelation, that would mean He was once ignorant and then came into knowledge. But to say the Holy Spirit is, or ever was, ignorant is both impious and irrational. Even if something else existed before the Holy Spirit, it is not by gradual development that He became the Holy Spirit—as if He had once been something else, lacking knowledge, and only later gained understanding and was thereby made the Holy Spirit. If that were the case, then He could not be considered part of the Trinity6—united with the unchanging Father and the Son—unless He had always been the Holy Spirit.

When we use words like “always” or “was” or other time-related terms, we must not take them in a strictly temporal sense. These terms are, by necessity, borrowed from our limited human perspective, since the realities we speak of ultimately transcend all concepts of time and all finite understanding.

Now, it is important to ask: why is it that someone who is regenerated by God for salvation must relate to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—and cannot be saved without the cooperation of the whole Trinity?7 And why is it impossible to share in the life of the Father or the Son apart from the Holy Spirit? In exploring these questions, we will need to describe the distinct roles of the Holy Spirit, the Father, and the Son. I believe that the activity of the Father and the Son is present not only in saints but also in sinners, in rational beings and in animals without reason, even in lifeless objects—in short, in all created things. But the work of the Holy Spirit is not present in lifeless things, nor in living creatures that lack reason. It is also absent in rational beings who persist in evil and have not turned to a better way of life.

I believe the Holy Spirit is active only in those who are beginning to turn toward goodness, who are walking the path that leads to Jesus Christ—that is, those who are doing good works and remaining in God.

 1This reading of Gen 1 is found in the LXX. The Hebrew text also includes the reading, “And a powerful wind was blowing over the face of the waters.” 

 2While this is certainly true, Is 42.5 is talking about the breath of life. 

 3If this is Origen speaking, he contradicts himself in the next-to-last paragraph of this article. “The Holy Spirit is absent in rational beings who persist in evil…” and, in the last paragraph, … “is active only in those who are beginning to turn toward goodness.”  

4John further clarifies this statement about the Παρακλητος (Jn 14.26) in I Jn 2.1 where he explicitly identifies this Comforter as “Jesus Christ, the righteous.” 

5 Jn 3.8 says το πνευμα όπου θελει πνει (“the wind blows where it wants”), possibly a play on words given the context. 

 6 See footnote 7

 7While it is certainly possible that Origen used this word, it seems unlikely. Theophilus of Antioch (AD 170) used Τριας to describe God, the Word, and his Wisdom as a “set of three”. But the word “trinity” (from trinitas — a Latin word, and Origen wrote in Greek) is generally credited to Tertullian (c. AD 210). This would’ve been around the same time that Origen wrote On First Principles, but he was distinctly Greek in his thinking, not Latin. Perhaps Τριας is what Origen originally used, which fits his earlier section on God’s Wisdom more appropriately than the distinctly Latin trinitas.  

Bread And Circuses

Neal Pollard

An early second-century Latin satirist named Juvenal is credited with giving the world the phrase, “bread and circuses.” In context, he wrote, “They shed their sense of responsibility long ago, when they lost their votes, and the bribes; the mob that used to grant power, high office, the legions, everything, curtails its desires, and reveals its anxiety for two things only, bread and circuses (Book 2, lines 10.56-89). The predominant idea in this now-famous line is that the populace lost its interest in political freedom and civic responsibility, being numbed and lured most by physical satisfaction and entertainment. In modern times, the phrase has been used to speak of food and entertainment being used by the government to keep people happy and submissive.

What makes this such an effective strategy? Perhaps it is a human tendency to favor pleasure over hard work and laziness over critical thinking, among other things. A love of ease and the illusion of peace can cause a person to surrender things of far greater value to keep them. Those things might be absolute truth, God-given moral values, personal sacrifice, care of and connection to community, charity, and similar building blocks of society. When we reduce our existence to placating our baser desires, we let go of what is much more valuable and this is to our ultimate harm. 

No doubt we see this increasingly in our national political environment, but can we succumb to the mindset of yearning for “bread and circuses” in the religious realm? Apparently so. Paul warned about “difficult times” when men would be “lovers of self, lovers of money…and lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God” (2 Tim. 3:1,2,4). In such times, they would “not endure sound doctrine, but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths” (2 Tim. 4:3-4). It seems easier to follow the flesh than to live by faith, but it is spiritually fatal. It is described as going from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived (2 Tim. 3:13). In the first letter to Timothy, Paul wrote, “But she who gives herself to wanton pleasure is dead even while she lives” (1 Tim. 5:6).

This isn’t to suggest that being a foodie or that watching TV shows and movies is sinful. That misses the greater point of Scripture. It is possible to let life become more about gratifying our bodies and putting our greater focus on the things of this world, and that is sinful. Paul tells us how to put all of that in its proper place, urging, “Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God” (1 Cor. 10:31). “Bread and circuses” can be legitimate ways to build connections with people whose never-dying souls will live somewhere, but they can never become an end in themselves. We were created for infinitely more! 

Archaeologists Discover a Sixth-Century Old Syriac Version of Matthew’s Gospel

Brent Pollard

Archaeologists discovered a new copy of Matthew’s Gospel written on ancient parchment beneath two other copies of the same Scriptures, in Greek and Georgian. (Georgian was the last language in which Matthew was written.) Researchers found the text using ultraviolet light. The newly discovered Gospel, written in the Old Syriac language, is thought to date from the sixth century and provides essential information about the early development of Christianity in the Middle East. This version of Matthew’s Gospel has a few minor differences, suggesting that a scribe translated it from an original language different from others. On the other hand, skepticism is likely to use this idea to undermine trust in modern translations of the Scriptures.

What are the differences in Matthew 12.1’s text? On the Sabbath, Jesus and his disciples walk through grainfields when hungry and begin picking heads of grain to eat. On the other hand, the Old Syriac version found on parchment adds that the disciples rubbed the grain in their hands before eating it. While there is a Latin copy that reads similarly, the overwhelming majority of extant manuscripts of Matthew do not. Yet, it is essential to note that this does not indicate that the Scriptures have changed. Before making assumptions, the article fails to consider comparing this version to other Gospel texts.

Luke 6.1 reads as the Old Syriac version of Matthew 12.1: “Now it happened that He was passing through some grainfields on a Sabbath; and His disciples were picking the heads of grain, rubbing them in their hands, and eating the grain. (NASB1995) Could you tell me what is a more probable interpretation of the discrepancy? Could a copyist have mistakenly recorded Luke’s Gospel here, perhaps from memory? Or was this how Matthew’s account was translated into Old Syriac? 

I used machine translation to provide versions of the text in Old Syriac, Koine Greek, and Georgian. However, there may be some errors present.

Old Syriac: ܒ݁ܗܰܡܟܽܘܬܝܳܐ ܕ݁ܐܝܟܬܐ ܐܰܦ݂ ܡܶܢ ܒ݁ܰܝܬܳܐ ܐܳܦ݂ܐ ܐܰܢ݈ܬ݁ܘܼܟ݂ܝܼܣ ܕ݁ܝܶܫܽܘܥ ܕ݁ܕ݂ܶܒ݂ܪܳܢܳܐ ܕ݁ܐܰܢܬ݂ܽܘܢ ܘܐܶܠܳܐ ܟ݁ܰܢܝܳܢ ܕ݁ܡܶܠܬܼܐ ܒ݁ܡܰܥܬ݁ܝܳܐ ܘܐܶܠܳܐ ܫܰܠܡܳܢܳܐ ܠܫܰܥܬ݁ܳܐ ܘܐܰܢ݈ܬ݁ܘܼܢ ܐܰܥܡܳܢܳܐ ܘܚܶܡܪܽܘܬ݂ܳܐ ܘܐܶܠܳܐ ܘܪܰܒ݂ܶܗ ܕ݁ܝܶܫܽܘܥ܀ (Matthew 12.1)

Koine Greek: εν εκείνω τω καιρώ επορεύθη ο Ιησούς τοις σάββασι διά των σπορίμων οι δε μαθηταί αυτού επείνασαν και ήρξαντο τίλλειν στάχυας και εσθίειν. (Matthew 12.1)

Georgian: ამ დროს იესო მიდიოდა შაბათზე თერთმეტის რითმით მართლად ლოცვაში, ხოლო მისი მოწმენდები მშვიდად შებრალეს და მიწუხეს ანაზღაურებისა და ჭაშნიკად ჭრიდების ჩამრთვისა და ჭამასა და სვეტისა საშუალოდ. (Matthew 12.1)

Old Syriac: ܗܘܐ ܕܝܢ ܫܒܘܬܐ ܕܬܪܥܐ ܕܥܪܕܐ ܫܡܝܐ ܐܬܘܪܝܐ ܕܐܬܝܕܘܗܝ ܒܢܝܐ ܘܓܝܪ ܕܫܡܝܐ ܡܫܝܚܐ ܘܐܪܗܡܝܢ ܗܘܘ ܡܪܢܐ ܫܘܪܝܐ ܘܐܫܬܘܬܐ ܫܘܪܝܐ ܕܐܢܐ ܡܛܠ ܠܐܝܠܝܐ ܘܐܚܘܢܝܢ ܗܘܘ ܪܒܘܬܐ ܕܥܪܕܐ ܘܐܫܬܘܬܐ ܕܟܠܗܘܢ ܘܐܛܪܝܐ ܗܘܝܢ ܐܢܐ ܘܒܫܡܝܐ ܐܢܐ ܐܢܐ ܚܢܢܘܢ ܗܘ ܡܠܟܐ ܕܠܐ ܡܕܡ ܒܢܝܐ ܘܐܣܦܝܐ ܀ (Luke 6.1)

Koine Greek: εγένετο δε εν σαββάτω δευτεροπρώτω διαπορεύεσθαι αυτόν διά των σπορίμων και έτιλλον οι μαθηταί αυτού τους στάχυας και ήσθιον ψώχοντες ταις χερσί. (Luke 6.1)

Georgian: იყო კვირაში მეორე პროტოსაბატო, და შესულიყო მათა იესომ სამეფოს ძის გარეშე, სადაც პირობდნენ სასწაულს და თავიანთ ხელებში კი კარვებდნენ პურს. (Luke 6.1)

It is unnecessary to be fluent in any of the above languages to notice that these verses differ. There are apparent differences. There are, however, enough similarities between the two passages to cause confusion or a copyist’s error. Both passages describe Jesus and his disciples walking through fields and picking grains on the Sabbath. Both passages use phrases like “picking the heads of grain.” The context of both passages mentions the Pharisees objecting to the disciples’ actions and claiming that what they had done was not lawful on the Sabbath.

It’s possible that the scribe added a passage from another Gospel to connect it to the parable that follows in Matthew’s account, as they did for Matthew 18.11. Copyists, for example, used Luke 19.10 to introduce the parable of the lost sheep. In a more recent English translation, Matthew 18.11 is bracketed to indicate that it was missing from some old manuscripts used to translate the Bible. Studying religious texts requires careful consideration of the historical context and source material to translate and interpret them accurately. This is particularly important when dealing with ancient texts like the Bible, where variations in different versions pose challenges.

This discovery might make skeptics doubt the Scriptures’ reliability by suggesting that human error or opinion may have influenced them. The most crucial point, however, is that the systematic theology of the New Testament remains consistent, even in a copy of Matthew’s passage that is around 200 years older than the copies above it. While some manuscripts have different wording or additional verses, the message remains consistent, and the steps to salvation stay the same. Whether or not Matthew mentioned the disciples rubbing grain in their hands, the fact that Jesus died to save the world from sin is undeniable. Our demonstration of faith in Jesus Christ is also unchanged. Indeed, we should be amazed at God’s Providence in ensuring His message is faithfully transmitted to people now and in the future.

Reference

A Surprising Find

Thursday’s Column: Captain’s Blog

Carl Pollard

I recently read a news article about a bargain hunter that went to an estate sale in Portland, Maine, to find a KitchenAid mixer. Rather than finding his kitchen appliance, he ended up walking away with a 700 year old treasure. Will Sideri stumbled upon a framed document hanging on a wall that caught his eye. It had an elaborate script in Latin, along with musical notes and decorative gold edges. Based on what he’d seen in a manuscripts class at College, he figured that this document was from the medieval ages. And it was a bargain at $75. Academics confirmed the parchment was from The Beauvais Missal, used in the Beauvais Cathedral in France, and dated to the late 13th century. It was used about 700 years ago in Roman Catholic Church. An expert on manuscripts said the document, first reported by the Maine Monitor, could be worth as much as $10,000. Will Sideri walked away with a priceless treasure that cost him just 75 bucks.

This news story reminded me of a parable taught by Jesus in Matthew 13:44. It reads, “The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and covered up. Then in his joy he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field.” In this short verse we read that: 

  • The treasure is hidden 
  • The treasure is valuable 
  • Sacrifice was needed to gain the treasure
  • The field was bought, but the treasure came free 

What did Jesus mean with this parable? You can’t find The kingdom without looking (the treasure was hidden). Seek and you will find (you’ll never find it if you aren’t looking). The kingdom of God is valuable, and sacrifice is required to obtain the kingdom. The man in this parable joyfully went and sold everything. The Kingdom is freely given. When we seek and sacrifice for Christ, he freely gives us grace, mercy, peace and salvation. 

Will we recognize the value that is found in the Kingdom of God?

Beware Of The Dog

Friday’s Column: Brent’s Bent

Brent Pollard

Worry not. I am not writing an article about the 2021 National Champion Georgia Bulldogs, even though that is an article I had wished to write for decades. No, I am thinking of an archaeological discovery made in a Pompeiian house (“House of the Tragic Poet”) renowned for its exquisite frescoes and mosaics. Within the house’s vestibule, there is a dog mosaic. Below the dog, there are also these two words in Latin: “Cave Canem.” I imagine you have guessed from the context of our title what those Latin words mean. Yes, they read, “Beware of the dog.” (Literally, “Beware the dog.”) The mosaic dates to the second century BC.1  

Did you imagine that the ancient Romans had “Beware of the Dog” signs? I admit being unaware of this until I stumbled upon a bit of clickbait on social media promising interesting archaeological finds. OK, so maybe this “sign” wasn’t the most breathtaking discovery ever. But it was interesting. It serves as an example of Solomon’s inspired truth that there is nothing new under the sun (Ecclesiastes 1.9).  

Typically, we think of the “Beware of the Dog” sign as a warning to unwanted visitors. It says, “We have a dog, and it may bite you.” However, scholars believe that the sign’s original purpose was the opposite. Visitors did not have to worry about dog attacks but needed to avoid trampling the family dog. “When you come inside, you will encounter a small animal we cherish. Please be mindful of him.”  

The Italian Greyhound, for example, is an older breed originating more than two thousand years ago. It is the smallest of the sighthounds. The AKC states that breeders bred them as “noble companions.”2 That fits what we know of Pompeii, a resort town for wealthy Romans who would surely own such canines. Indeed, the House of the Tragic Poet was not the only house in Pompeii with a “Cave Canem” mosaic. It was just the first one excavated.  

Now, why would I spend so much time within a religious forum talking about a “Beware of the Dog” sign? It so happens that Paul used that expression in Philippian 3.2: “Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the false circumcision” (all ref. NASB1995 unless otherwise indicated). In Koine Greek, that is “Βλέπετε τοὺς κύνας.” As odd as it sounds to the dog-loving United States today, Arabs and Jews were more likely to despise dogs. Remember that even Jesus cautioned us, “Do not give what is holy to the dogs…” (Matthew 7.6).  

Dogs were often wild and roamed in packs in ancient Judea. There was no archaeological evidence of pet dogs in the region until the post-exilic era.3 In their nondomesticated state, these dogs would do disgusting things like eating the bodies of the dead (e.g., 1Kings 14.11). These reasons are why generic Biblical scholarship believes Jews and Arabs dislike dogs and use the term as a byword for detested people. (Indeed, Western languages now likewise use “dog” in a derogatory manner, but it doesn’t impact the Western perception of the animal.)  

Paul didn’t straddle the fence when it came to the truth, but he did straddle a cultural divide. He who was the “Hebrew of Hebrews” (Philippians 3.5) would be the Apostle ordained to take the Gospel to the gentile world (Acts 8.15). That is why as outrageous as it sounds, we benefit from “Cave Canem” since knowing cultural concepts helps us better understand a verse’s context.  

So, what was Paul saying here? To the Gentile, being asked to “beware of the dog” meant looking out for him,  lest you trip over him. To the Jew, “beware of the dog” meant being wary of the one with a vile nature, fitting with their cultural perception of a dog. So, Paul begins with a Jewish insult. The third noun, translated as “concision” (KJV) or “false circumcision” (NASB1995), actually means “mutilation.” Would those Judaizers insisting that Gentiles be circumcised to become Christians enjoy being called a “mutilator?”  

It sounds less like we are talking about multiple groups troubling the church at Philippi and more like Paul describes one group by using three noun descriptions. Two of the nouns speak more loudly to one cultural group. So then, what of the “evil workers?” Would this not also describe the same “mutilating dogs?” That seems to fit the context better. This second noun and its adjective also remind one of the words of Jesus in Matthew 7.23, particularly in the King James Version: “Depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” These latter “iniquity workers” felt they had done laudable things but discovered they neglected to do God’s Will (Matthew 7.21-23). We can make the case that such was true of the Judaizer also.  

Lest anyone interpret this sentiment as anti-Semitic, we emphasize that the three nouns used by Paul work as well for any false teacher. Yet, the Judaizers were a thorn in Paul’s side as he fulfilled his ministry. And even though Gentiles doubtlessly read the words of this epistle, their Jewish brethren in this cosmopolitan congregation of Philippi could provide greater meaning while also helping their Gentile brethren be wary of the “leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” (cf., Matthew 16.6)  

In conclusion, although the Bible serves as its own best commentary, we note we can obtain understanding through additional sources of information. Sometimes those sources can be surprising, like a dog mosaic in the vestibule of a Pompeiian house. Yes, there might be some put off by this idea that it takes effort to delve deeper into the word of God as we look for answers within God’s Word and without, in sources like archaeology. However, the proper mindset makes Bible study more attractive, even fun. You can find faith-building things everywhere. Just think about that the next time you see those words, “Beware of the Dog.”   

Sources Cited  

1 Arellano, Anastasia. “Ancient Mosaic ‘Beware of Dog’ Sign Found Dating Back 2,000+ Years.” Dusty Old Thing, Great Life Publishing, 4 Mar. 2021, dustyoldthing.com/pompeii-ancient-beware-of-dog-sign/. 

2 “Italian Greyhound Dog Breed Information – American Kennel Club.” American Kennel Club, The American Kennel Club, Inc,www.akc.org/dog-breeds/italian-greyhound/.  

3 White, Ellen. “No, No, Bad Dog: Dogs in the Bible.” Biblical Archaeology Society, Biblical Archaeology Society, 28 Sept. 2021,www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/ancient-cultures/daily-life-and-practice/dogs-in-the-bible/. 

A Subtle Prohibition

Wednesday’s Column: Third’s Words

IMG_3575

Gary Pollard

The Index Librorum Prohibitorum was a Roman Catholic list of prohibited Bible versions. Anything other than the Vulgate was illegal to possess. Violations had severe penalties. No lay person would ever want to be caught with a common, modern translation while the Index had force of law.  

While not nearly as dramatic as a forbidden book list, some have inadvertently created similar prohibitions. Their reasons are different, their motives less nefarious, but the outcome is equally destructive. 

Are translations like the ERV and NIV perfect? No! But no one translation is perfect. Read multiple, but be sure to include versions like these in your study. If and when something comes up that seems different, investigate it! Spend some time figuring it out! Look at context, consult multiple translations, see how it fits with the author’s overall message. 

This is a difficult statement, but true: many Christians do not understand the Bible. Some equate memorization with knowledge, but could not accurately elaborate on what a passage means. Secularization and hectic schedules are partially to blame, but difficulty understanding their translations is often the culprit. 

Some examples:

(ESV): Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs. 

(KJV): God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

(ERV): In the past God spoke to our people through the prophets. God spoke to them many times and in many different ways. And now in these last days God has spoken to us again. God has spoken to us through his son. God made the whole world through his son. And God has chosen his son to have all things. The son shows the glory of God. He is a perfect copy of God’s nature. The son holds everything together with his powerful command. The son made people clean from their sins. Then he sat down at the right side of the Great One (God) in heaven. God gave him a name that is a much greater name than any of the angels have. And he became that much greater than the angels. 

Which was easier to read? Which was easiest to understand? The last probably shed some light on the ESV and KJV. How? It’s translated the way people actually communicate. It removes an obstacle to understanding that formal equivalence has kept in place for some time. 

This quote is famously attributed to Albert Einstein, “If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.” The same readily applies to the Bible, which was originally written in the recipients’ common language. 

The translation committee for the English Bible for the Deaf include this statement at the beginning of their work: 

“The main concern of the translators was always to communicate [the message] of biblical writers as effectively and as naturally as the original writings did to people in that time. Faithful translation is not just matching words in a dictionary. It is a process of expressing the original message in a form that will not only have the same meaning, but will sound as relevant, attract the same interest, and have the same impact today as it did thousands of years ago.”

Reading a modern translation that utilizes dynamic equivalence (alongside other translations) in personal Bible study is extremely helpful. Doing so can have no other effect than enhancing one’s understanding of God’s word!