Basic HTML Version
Quest i on
s
m
"Matthew 23:9 says that Christ
Ki
said to call no man your father
on earth. Yet Paul wrote: 'Though
you have countless guides in Christ,
you do not have many fathers. For
1
became your father in Christ Jesus
through the gosper (1 Cor.
4:15).
lf
1
understand this correctly, who am 1
to believe?' ·
John M.,
Boulder City, Nevada
R
The term "father" has many
111
shades and nuances of
meaning in different contexts. For
instance, in lsaiah 9:6 Christ is
called the "Everlasting Father." But
in that context the word father has
nothing to do with the mutual rela–
tionship between the persons in the
Godhead. Remember also that
Abraham is referred to as the
"father of the faithful." And of
course we all have had a literal
human father.
The correct contextua! under–
standing of Matthew 23:9 is that no
man or group of men are anywhere
near the stature of members of the
Godhead. Ministers (whether in a
religious or secular sense) should
be respected (Heb. 13:7, 17; Rom.
13:1-7), but certainly not wor–
shiped. The Bible says that there is
one mediator between men and
God, and that man is Jesus Christ
(see
1
Timothy 2:5). Christ alone can
absolve our sins (Rom. 3:23-25).
The apostle Paul referred to him–
self as a father in the sense that he
was the one to found the congrega–
tion in Corinth. He was the human
being God used to bring the gospel
message to them. Notice the word–
ing: "For
1
became your father in
Christ Jesus through the gospel."
Paul was not exalting himself or
placing himself on an equal plane
with Christ or God the Father; nor
34
was he arrogating to himself a for–
mal title. His use of the term
"father" in that figurative sense is
not incorrect.
m
"Why do you say that the King
Kt
James Bible is translated from
the original Greek? 8oth the intro–
duction to the Moffatt translation and
the Revised Standard Version state
plainly that the King James Bible was
a revision of earlier Bibles that had
been translated from the Vulgate–
the error-ridden Latín translation.
And as far as the original Greek is
concerned, it is conceded that Greek
was not the original language of the
New Testament, but rather Aramaic."
Bob W.,
Fallon, Nevada
ft
Those responsible for trans–
illl lating the King James Version
used many sources in the process
of translation. They meticulously
studied the original languages.
They made good use of the best
commentaries written by European
scholars and delved into Bibles
written in the continental European
languages. They studied all the pre–
vious Engl ish versions. And, yes,
they also consulted the Rhemish
(Roman Catholic) translation of the
New Testament with the view of in–
corporating sorne of the more ex–
pressive phrases it contained.
The King James is an excellent
historical
version, especially when
one considers the handicaps under
which it was produced. Today we
have at our disposal a multitude of
ancient manuscripts, versions and
quotations that simply were not ex–
tant in the early 1600s. None of the
oldest copies of the Bible (the Co–
dex Vaticanus. Codex Sinaiticus,
and the early papyri) were available
to the sorne fifty scholars involved
in the translation. The Codex Alex-
i\
n
sw e
r s
andrinus arrived in England sev–
enteen years too late to be
employed in preparing the King
James Version. (Cyril Lucar, patri–
arch of Constantinople, presented
the Codex Alexandrinus to Charles
1
in 1628.)
Also remember that the science
of textual criticism (the study of a
manuscript in the attempt to re–
cover its original wording) has
emerged since the days of the
King James translators. And schol–
ars today have a better under–
standing of the original languages
in which the Bible was written, with
the ability to distinguish delicate
shades ot meaning utterly lost on
the King James translators through
no fault of their own.
As to whether or not the King
James Version was translated from
the original biblical languages,
here is the original resolution pro–
posing its preparation: " That a
translation be made of the whole
Bible, as consonant as can be to
the original Hebrew and Greek;
and this to be set out and printed,
without any marginal notes, and
only to be used in all Churches of
England in time of divine service."
There can be no doubt that the
King James Version was translated
from the original Greek and He–
brew languages in the larger
sense. Much of the translation
work was already completed in
previous English versions, and
comparisons of those versions and
other sources with the original lan–
guages was a great part of the ac–
tual work. The book
The Ancestry
of our English Bible
acknowledges
that there was considerable Catho–
lic influence in the translation.
"The Rhemish [Roman Catholic]
New Testament ... mainly through
Fulke's publication , exercised
The
PLAIN TRUTH February 1978