Subject: Re: Erasmus

From: Mike and Jeanne Arcieri <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 1997 00:45:15 -0700

Matthew Johnson wrote:
> 
> On Sun, 29 Jun 1997, Mike and Jeanne Arcieri wrote:
> [snip]
> 
> > were working with. I'm speaking about their rejecting the Greek
> > text and using the Vulgate as a translation
> > base (ex. 'charity' instead of 'love' in 1 Cor. 13). This was wrong.
> 
> But this is a highly misleading description of what they did.  Their
> translation of "charity" in 1 Cor 13 is not "using the Vulgate instead of
> the MSS", it is using the _example_ of the Vulgate translation to try to
> solve a difficult translation problem: how to convey the distinction
> between "agape^" and "philia" in English.  

Matthew, 

First let me assure you that there was no intention on my part to 'highly mislead' anyone. If I initially 
misunderstood Hlege's argument, then so be it. I responded according to my understanding of Helge's 
statements.

Concerning 'love' rather than 'charity' in 1 Cor. 13. The term charity goes back to Wycliffe trans of 
1382 (based on the Vulgate). Tyndale changed it to 'love' and so it remained with the Great Bible and Geneva. 
The Bishop's Bible returned to charity, and since this was the basis for the KJV, the learned men followed 
suit. But why is 'agape' such a prob in 1 Cor 13 and not elsewhere? Why not translate John 3:16 as "For God so 
charitied the world..."? What is the problem with translating the verb as 'love'? AND why is this a prob only 
in 1 Cor. 13?

'Charity' may have meant 'love' in 1611, but we are not in 1611 today, and TODAY it means almsgiving NOT love. 
So WHY introduce this problem in todays versions??

> [snip]
> > > So why bother with the TR??
> 
> The TR is still very worth studying and understanding because it is the
> text form used by so many men of outstanding scholarship and saintliness
> for hundreds of years.  Its differences from the elusive original text do
> not detract from its holiness.

Actually Matthew I would go one step further than that and state that it was PRODUCED by great men. I have 
great respect for Erasmus (as I have come to know him through his correspondence) as well as for the Stephanus 
family. Now if the correlation between the 'saintliness' of these men and the pedigree of the TR can be 
established, we can discuss the quality of the TR further...

---

From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 1997 20:49:37 -0700

> So WHY introduce this problem in todays versions??

Please understand that I am not arguing just to be disagreeable. But the
above statement is simply not true. The word "charity" certainly has the
meaning "love" today.

I do not have to go further than the standard modern Dictionaries to find
that out. For example, the Collins Cobuild English Language Dictionary
(1987) has this definition of the word "charity":
"1 Charity is 1.1 a kind and sympathetic attitude which you show towards
other people by being tolerant, helpful, or generous to them. EG _She
found the charity in her heart to forgive them for this wrong_.
1.2 money or gifts which are given to people because they are poor. EG
_He is far too proud to accept charity_".

Here we clearly see that the meaning "almsgiving" (money or gifts) is the
*secondary* meaning of the word, *not* the primary. Charity is an *act*
(or at least shows itself through acts/works). In reality, I do not think
it is always possible to separate between charity as almsgiving and
charity as "love". It rather seems that it has to do with two (or more)
ways of expressing the same thing.

What is "love" anyway? Is it not demonstrated by actions? And if we
consider the context of 1. Cor.13, we can clearly see that the KJV
translators had good reasons for render it "charity" instead of "love".
The former is broader in meaning and contains the sense of love _in
action_. And that seems to be the primary meaning in 1 Cor.13. That is
what the whole chapter is about. In fact, the chapter is in itself a
*definition* of what "love" is, especially vv. 4-8. In total, "charity"
occurs 28 times in the KJV.

The interesting part is that the KJV translators chose this word in
this context. They apparently saw the need of emphasizing more clearly
the meaning of the Greek word "agape". "Agape" is a Biblical and
ecclesiastical word, meaning (in its verb expression) to wish the best of
others, to give without limit, show unselfish commitment, etc. I think
that the word "agape" (or "agapao") is in its strongest expression in
John 3:16: "For so God "loved" the world, that he *gave*....."

The Webster Dictionary has another order in the definition of "charity".
It says: "1. charitable actions, as almsgiving or performing other
benevolent actions of any sort for the needy with no expectation of
material reward: _to devote one`s life to charity_.
2. something given to a person or persons in need; alms: _She asked for
work, not charity_. 3. a charitable act of work., etc."

Whether we accept the Collins or the Webster definitions, it is grossly
inaccurate to say that charity does not mean love today! Charity meant
"love" in 1611, and it means "love" today. To accept the word charity
is therefore not to "introduce" a "problem in today`s versions", but
rather to appreciate a word that is broader and deeper than "love".

To say that a Greek word must always be rendered into one English
word in all instances is clearly a fallacy. The KJV translators had great
sensitivity when it came to choosing English equivalents that would suit
the particular context.

Another thing to consider here is that the word "love" in modern "street"
language is encumbered with many wrong ideas, which is certainly not
Biblical.

I apologize for having gone into these details on a non-tc issue.

-- 
- Mr. Helge Evensen

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 1997 13:58:03 -0500 (CDT)

Some things I can let pass. When Helge Evensen makes false and
self-contradictory statements about the Textus Receptus, I can
ignore it. When he makes ridiculous statements about the textual
theories of Erasmus, I can stand aside. But when he insults that
once-noble monument which is the English Language, I cannot leave
the matter alone.

[ ... ]

>above statement is simply not true. The word "charity" certainly has the

True in theory. False in practice. I challenge you to find *any* native
speaker of English (at least in America) to whom the primary meaning
of charity is affection rather than almsgiving.

>that out. For example, the Collins Cobuild English Language Dictionary

*This* is a standard English dictionary? Not where I live....

>_He is far too proud to accept charity_".

The American Heritage Dictionary (which *is* a standard dictionary) offers
this as its first definition:

1. The provision of help or relief to the poor; almsgiving.

The meaning "love" is the *second* subentity under the *sixth* definition,
and is marked *specific to theology.* In other words, "love" and "charity"
cannot be equated in ordinary conversation.

And remember, the NT is written in colloquial Greek. It should be
translated into colloquial English, not theological English!

[ ... ]

>word in all instances is clearly a fallacy.

This is true. But it is not the point. The complex of words AGAP-
are so important in the New Testament that they *must* be rendered
consistently. To argue otherwise is equivalent to saying that we
can indiscriminately call Jesus "Jesus" or "Joshua." Either name
may be correct -- but they cannot be used at random. 

>The KJV translators had great

This is true -- for 1611. It is simply *not true* for 1997.

The KJV is the greatest translation ever made. It is one of the
greatest ever works of English literature.

It's also obsolete. Even if one ignores its defective text, even
if one ignores all the things the translators did not know, it
is *not in the language modern people speak.*

Rant-and-rave mode off.

Bob Waltz
[email-masked]

---

From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Jul 1997 00:03:02 -0700

> once-noble monument which is the English Language, I cannot leave

Finally, I have crossed the line and have become guilty of committing
sacrilege against the Holy English Language!

> of charity is affection rather than almsgiving.

I guess I could have found more than one if I just sought hard enough
for it. However, I am not willing to use the time it would take. I am at
a great disadvantage at this point, since I am not a native speaker of
English. But your statement above is, in fact, missing the point.

> So WHY introduce this problem in todays versions??

This is what I responded to, not something else. I was speaking of the
fact that the meaning of charity is still "love" today. And the *context*
of the discussion was the occurences of this word in the KJV, which is
a version of the *Bible*, not whether or not native speakers of English
use this word in the meaning "love" in everyday language.
My point was that the meaning is still intact today. I responded to the
blatant assertion that this meaning is *not* present in the word today.
It would have been better to say that "love" is not the *primary* meaning
of the word today (even though this would have been an overstatement).
I even used one of the standard Dictionaries to prove my point.
I doubt that the Birmingham University (on whose International Language
Database the Collins Dictionary is based) did not get this right.
(Or maybe they are trying to "deceive" students concerning the meaning of
this word?)

In order for charity to have the meaning of "love" today, it does not
necessarily mean that it is to be spoken in everyday language. There are
*other uses* of words than just everyday language. This should be plain
enough.

On the title page of the Collins Dictionary, we read: "HELPING LEARNERS
WITH _REAL_ ENGLISH". So the meaning of charity which I referred to is
actually REAL ENGLISH. There is more. In the Introduction, we read: "This
dictionary is for people who want to *use* modern English. It offers
*accurate* and detailed information on the way *modern* English is *used*
in *all kinds* of communication. It is a useful guide to *writing* and
**speaking** English as well as an aid to reading and *understanding*".
"For the first time, a dictionary has been compiled by the *thorough*
examination of a *representative* group of English texts, *spoken* and
*written*, running to many millions of words. This means that in addition
to all the tools of the conventional dictionary makers - wide reading and
*experience* of English, other dictionaries and of course eyes and ears -
this dictionary is based on *hard*, measurable *evidence*. No major uses
are missed, and the number of times a use occurs has a *strong* influence
on the *way* the *entries* are *organized*".
"The dictionary team has had daily access to about 20 million words,....
The words came from books, magazines, newspapers, pamphlets, leaflets,
conversations, radio and television broadcasts.....
The aim was to provide a *fair representation* of *contemporary*
English" (Introduction, p. xv, emphasis added).

Well, if words mean anything, and if the Birmingham University does not
lie, I have good reason for trusting the definitions in this dictionary.
At least, I think it is fair to conclude that if they list "love" as the
*primary* meaning of charity, this meaning can be regarded as one of the
*valid* meanings of charity in modern English. If not, Birmingham must
have really missed it here and probably in numerous other places.
According to the quoted words, this must be a pretty good dictionary. At
least, I am not competent to try to correct it.

On the front flap, it reads: "An editorial team has worked for seven
years using extensive computer facilities to study and analyse the
patterns of use in millions of words of text".
On the back cover, we find: "It is based on a detailed analysis of how
*today`s* English is really *used*" and "90,000 examples taken from the
COBUILD database show just how words and phrases are *really* used".
(Emphasis added).

The thing that called forth my response to Mike was not that he
asserted that "love" is not the *primary* meaning of charity, but that
it did not have that meaning *at all* today!
Note also that I did not say that charity *primarily* means "love" in all
situations at all times. I was depending on the order of the listing of
the Dictionary.

Since you yourself referred to a dictionary in your post, it seems that
you think that a dictionary definition carries at least *some* weight.
My dictionary disagrees with yours, so what? That fact alone should be
enough to admit that "love" *is* a valid meaning of the word charity. It
certainly is wrong to conclude blatant that it does not at all have that
meaning in modern language. If that was the case, I doubt that any
dictionary at all would have given it this definition.

Another thing to consider is that as long as this word occurs in a very
influential Bible translation, it *is* a currently used word in modern
English. Christians are using it in connection with teaching, witnessing,
counseling, etc. Is this not part of modern English?
To state otherwise is to say that "theological language" is *not* part
of modern English. It *is* a known word today. It may not be used in the
meaning "love" on "the street", but does that mean that this use is not
part of modern English??
Is not christians who use this word today among native English speakers?

> *This* is a standard English dictionary? Not where I live....

That does not make it a non-standard.
But it certainly is a standard dictionary at numerous schools and
colleges. And since it is based on extensive research and hard evidence,
there is no reason to doubt its reliability. Students are using it, and
are being formed by it, linguistically.

> cannot be equated in ordinary conversation.

(What is "ordinary conversation"? Is it "non-religious" conversation?)

As I said earlier, "good godly men differ". And dictionaries differ.
We should not forget that there may be a difference between English
and American English, and that the KJV is written in *English*. Thus, we
may discover that there are slight differences in the definitions
between dictionaries intended for use in America and those intended for
use in England. But even though your American dictionary did not list
"love" as a primary meaning of charity, I have one that does. I am
talking about the Webster`s Dictionary of the American Language. That
one may be regarded as a standard dictionary, I suppose. (Maybe not by
all).
On the front cover we find the following announcement:
over 50,000 entries
derivations
**modern definitions**
parts of speech
syllabized
clear type
indexed

(emphasis added)

One of the things I expect to find when I open this dictionary, is
*modern definitions* of the English words. I now open it to the word
charity; and guess what I find? Yes, you guessed it, here it is:
"n. (Bib.) love and goodwill to men; liberality to the poor; leniency
in judging others; any act of kindness; alms; a charitable cause or
institution".

That is all this dictionary has to say about this word.
Note that while it indicates that the word is "Biblical", it does not
separate between that and the modern usage, but rather lumps it all
together.

But since you referred to a "standard" dictionary, let me refer to
another one which is *certainly* a standard: The Oxford Advanced
Learner`s Dictionary, New Edition (fourth edition), Oxford 1989.
On the title page it is called a dictionary "of *Current* English"
(emphasis added).
This one better be right, for it is responsible for thousands of
students` understanding of English language and usage all over the world.

When I open this dictionary I expect to find definitions according to
*current* English. And what do I find when I open it at the word
charity? Yes, you guessed it again, here it is:
"_n_ 1 [U] loving kindness towards others. 2 [U] tolerance in judging
others; kindness; leniency: _judge people with charity_. 3 [U] (a)
(generosity in) giving money, food, help, etc to the needy......etc."

It cannot be rightly held as a fact that "love" is not one of the
meanings of charity. Whether you choose a dictionary which lists this
meaning first or one that lists it last. The meaning is *there*.

> translated into colloquial English, not theological English!

It does not automatically follow that, just because the NT was written
in colloquial Greek, a translation must be in colloquial in the receptor
language. That must depend on the ability of that particular language
to contain the meanings of the words of the Bible. And what *is*
"theological English", by the way? 100 years from now, the words of
colloquial English may be regarded as "theological language". The best
words to use in a translation are those which best transfer to the
reader the meaning and riches of the original language words.
And English readers may be greatly rewarded by consulting the English
dictionaries, and gain an understanding of the *real* meaning of words!

It is wonderful that we have dictionaries to help us if we do not have
an understanding of the real meanings of the words we are faced with.

> consistently.

Many would disagree with you on that point. Personally, I would prefer
to render it consistently. But that is not the only valid view in
existense.

> To argue otherwise is equivalent to saying that we

There is a clear difference between the use of a proper name and the use
of a group of ordinary words. It should not be necessary for me to
comment further on that. (It seems that the word "equivalent" here is a
little too strong.....)

> This is true -- for 1611. It is simply *not true* for 1997.

Yeah, it is still *true* today, but the language has changed.
One of the reasons that the word charity is still in use today and still
contains the meaning it had in 1611, is precisely the circumstance that
the 1611 version has had greater influence on the English language than
any other book.

> greatest ever works of English literature.

Amen and Amen!!!!

> is *not in the language modern people speak.*

I answer this with two questions:*Should* a Bible translation necessarily
be in the language modern people *speak*? Is not the Bible a Holy book
which is different from a newspaper?

> Rant-and-rave mode off.

I doubt that, after this post....; you may feel free to turn it *on*
again now....

-- 
- Mr. Helge Evensen

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 1997 17:27:35 -0500 (CDT)

On  Fri, 04 Jul 1997, "Mr. Helge Evensen" <[email-masked]> wrote:

[ BTW -- I think we can keep the tone a little calmer this time. ]

[ ... ]

>of the word today (even though this would have been an overstatement).

The primary meaning is surely what people understand it to mean. And they
understand it to mean "charity."

I do not argue that this is "good" -- in fact, I object to the way
certain people use certain words. Very obvious example: "Gay."
In my vocabulary, "gay" is a word meaning "chearful," and is applied
primarily to ladies -- at least in traditional music. But it has
now been -- er -- perverted to mean "homosexual." And for all that
I wish it otherwise, when I hear the word "gay," I must usually
interpret it as meaning "homosexual," not "cheerful."

>Database the Collins Dictionary is based) did not get this right.

But if two dictionaries disagree, should we not investigate further?
And we are finding that the English speakers on the list understand
the word as "almsgiving."

>*other uses* of words than just everyday language. This should be plain

Not really. My interpretation of the above statement is that we are to
speak some sort of code because that's what your dictionary says.

 [... ]
>counseling, etc. Is this not part of modern English?

Really? Anybody want to tell me what a "blain" is (Ex. 9:9)? :-)

>meaning "love" on "the street", but does that mean that this use is not

In my experience, it is not. And my English (unlike my Greek) is
quite good.

[ ... ]

>(What is "ordinary conversation"? Is it "non-religious" conversation?)

"Ordinary conversation" is anything people say without trying to sound
affected.

[ ... ]

>separate between that and the modern usage, but rather lumps it all

But -- trust me -- most people *don't* speak "Biblical English" in
ordinary life, and can't be expected to understand it. Certainly they
aren't taught it. In fact, any attempt to teach it in American
public schools would be unconstitutional.

>students` understanding of English language and usage all over the world.

The ultimate authority, perhaps, is the Oxford English Dictionary.
Anybody out there have an OED to check?

>to contain the meanings of the words of the Bible.

Modern English is fully as capable of translating Greek as the language
of the KJV -- which happens to be early Modern English. It merely
translates it differently.

[ ... ]

>to render it consistently. But that is not the only valid view in

But you are arguing for rendering it inconsistently, because the
KJV rendders it inconsistently. Please, either be consistent or
tell us that you don't care about logic. :-)

>of a group of ordinary words.

I see none.

It should not be necessary for me to
>Yeah, it is still *true* today, but the language has changed.

That's *my* point.

[ ... ]

>which is different from a newspaper?

Are you Protestant? I assume so. I imagine you are Lutheran. Is not
the Priesthood of All Believers an important component of Lutheranism?
Surely this means people must be able to understand their Bible.
But people *do not* understand the KJV.

I agree that is regretable; I wish more people could understand
Chaucer and Shakespeare as well as the KJV. But it is true. We
cannot hold back time. We can only bring our translations up to date.

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

                        Robert B. Waltz
                     [email-masked]

Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
(A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)

---

From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Jul 1997 15:08:13 -0700

Mr. Waltz,

Thanks for your response.

It is obvious that my former message did not help you understand what I
am talking about, so I will just briefly end my contribution to this
debate with the present post. And, admittedly, my limited experience
as to the practical use of the English language, naturally hinders me
from going further with this.

> [ BTW -- I think we can keep the tone a little calmer this time. ]

Fine with me.

> understand it to mean "charity."

What does, for instance, the word "grace" mean in contemporary English
language outside "religious talk"? And the word "holy"?
If they are not used in the Biblical meaning, is that a reason for
avoiding the use of them in modern English translations? If so, not many
translators have thought it necessary, for very few translations
substitute these words.

[.....]

> tell us that you don't care about logic. :-)

This is a misunderstanding. I did not *argue* for rendering it
inconsistently. I stated what was my *personal* preference
with regard to the rendering of AGAPE, and that this view is
not the only *valid* one. That is, *other* choices may be *valid*.
But despite my own view, it is a fact that one Greek word does not always
have to be rendered by the same English word. And that *may* be the case
with the word AGAPE. I did *not* state anything conclusive, or that
AGAPE *must necessarily* be rendered consistently.
Actually, I have not stated that the KJV *always* has the word AGAPE
rendered correctly.

My argument is that it is wrong to say that the word "charity" does *not
at all* have the meaning "love" today. That was my concern in my response
to Mike. My personal preference may be the one or the other, but evidence
is evidence, and that is what I have presented with regard to the word
"charity". And I have not depended on my own opinions, I have cited
evidence. If I had *not* found evidence for my statements regarding the
word "charity", I would not have bothered this list with my opinions.
Because of my limited experience with regard to the English language, it
would be impossible for me to argue at all about the uses of that
language in everyday talk, if I had not found evidence in dictionaries.
If these dictionaries are not representative of the current use of
English, that is really not my responsibility. Besides, I never did say
that "charity" was used by all in the meaning "love". My only contention
is that "charity" still contains the meaning "love", as it is found in
the dictionaries which I have consulted.

> >of a group of ordinary words.

I may add that I have not argued that one is to use the words "love" and
"charity" *at random*. The rendering of words must be done carefully,
not "at random" (unless you used the expression in the sense of
"irregular").

> But people *do not* understand the KJV.

Yes, I am Protestant. However, I am also "Charis(auto)matic" (that is,
one who believes in the "auotomatic" giving of "Grace" to *anyone* who
accepts Jesus Christ as his/her Saviour and believes His Holy Word!)

[...]
>
> I wish more people could understand
> Chaucer and Shakespeare as well as the KJV.

I agree.

[...]

> We can only bring our translations up to date.

I clearly disagree with you there, but we cannot continue this debate
forever, so enough for now.

Thanks so far. God bless.

-- 
- Mr. Helge Evensen