Tim,
The references to follow do not support “
ben = ‘one’ ”, which is your construction, but rather (in my own careful and precise wording):
“ben may be used relative to time and age, as in ‘son of one’ (1 Sam 13:1) or ‘son of five hundred’ (Gen 5:32), the latter speaking of Noah being five hundred years old. In these cases the meaning of the Hebrew idiom is ‘one’ and ‘five hundred’ years respectively. So when Kinney says the meaning of ben in certain cases is one (giving examples) he does not err.
The references you asked for (please note, and I reiterate, I am referencing
my precise statement, and not
your loose one):
The Complete Word Study Dictionary of the Old Testament, by Warren Baker and Eugene Carpenter (AMG 2003): “[size=+1]!B[/size] bēn, A noun meaning son that occurs almost five thousand times in the Old Testament . . . This word can express... relative age (Gen. 5:32; 17:12; Prov. 7:7; Song 2:3) (p. 144).
The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon (Hendrickson 1979): “n. relat. of age” [noun relative of age –SMR] (p. 121).
Old Testament Word Studies, William Wilson (Kregel 1978 / 1870): “Any man is said to be a son in respect to the years of his age, a son of two, &c., Gen. iv.17 &c.” (p. 404).
Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, Harris, Archer, Waltke (Moody 1980): “Occurring almost five thousand times, bēn is basically but not exclusively a reference to the male offspring of human parents. It is also used idiomatically for children generally, for descendants, i.e. grandsons, for male offspring of beasts, for age designation (e.g. ‘son of eight days’ Gen. 17:12) . . .” (Vol. 1, pp. 113, 114).
But all this was never in question – not to you or to me – and I give the references just to show I was not speaking empty words.
--------
What I said was “an unfounded assumption” on your part was your saying his “attempting to translate the Hebrew on his own . . . [was by] simply relying on Strong's numbers”. Perhaps you are not careful to be precise, while I endeavor to be; a diamond with its facets cut poorly loses it value, and its beauty.
His level of competence in Hebrew is another matter entirely. He doesn’t present himself as “knowledgeable in Hebrew” (as Russell did) and I assume (maybe incorrectly) his competence is limited to lexical aids and word studies by those who are learned in the language. Is this not sufficient to obtain a basic and adequate grasp of the meaning of words and their usage? When the Hebrew scholars differ among themselves as to the meaning of words and the authenticity of texts, it becomes evident that proficiency in the language is not to be counted on as a source of authoritativeness. What then is to be that source? By its nature (for some of us at any rate) it is theological and presuppositional. The Lord promised to preserve His word, and that promise was realized in the Masoretic Hebrew and the Textus Receptus, and in the faithful translation, the AV. Does one need to be a Hebrew (or Greek) scholar to believe this, or to defend it? No.
Tim, you may not be familiar with the corpus of my textual work here at PB, but I certainly do not see fellow evangelicals as “enemies of the faith” because we differ on text critical issues. I have gone to great lengths to establish this necessary largesse of spirit in matters text critical, for we all depend on our Bibles (whatever version we deem the best) as the word of our God, and our lifeline to His saving presence. Case in point: William Hendriksen is among my very favorite NT commentators, yet he almost always holds to the critical text; do I count him an “enemy of the faith” or even an “enemy of the Bible”? Hardly! He is a beloved defender of said Faith, and a faithful servant feeding the Lord’s flock. I overlook where he differs with me on the Greek text.
Kinney has reason to be critical of Wallace and Archer as regards their text critical views, as do I, but they are certainly not “enemies of the faith” by any stretch! I have a number of Archer’s books and I value them highly! Wallace
has gone on record as denying the doctrine of the providential preservation of the Scriptures, but even this does in no wise make him an enemy of the Faith. He is, however, a detractor of the Ecclesiastical Text. While it is important to point this out, and refute it, he no doubt loves the Bible he cleaves to.
I have on occasion posted caveats concerning Will Kinney’s attitude in dealing with scholars who are against the Ecclesiastical Text, such as James White, an opponent in these matters, but a friend and brother in the Faith, and a valuable defender of it. And perhaps I should make caveats more often if I refer people to his works. I have learned – through this interaction with you – to be far more wary of referencing others who may have areas of weakness in their presentations. It consumes precious time having to defend others’ points of view, for who is perfect in all they say?
When I think of enemies of the Faith I think of Bart Ehrman and Chris Hedges (this latter author of
American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America, and a graduate of Harvard Divinity School), and perhaps also Frank Schaeffer (son of Francis), all of whom have degrees either in theology or textual studies. I think also of unbelieving textual critics, such as Hort (Letis strongly defended Westcott, so I will forgo examining him right here, lest I have to use more of my precious time). And there is a vast difference between being an “opponent of the Church’s Bible” and an “enemy of the Faith”, the former but one enamored of destructive critical methodologies while still loving Christ, while the latter denies the Bible is God’s word, or, as with Schaeffer, holding the evangelical (including the Reformed) faith in bitter contempt. Kinney sees those holding to and promoting destructive critical methods (resulting in the Bible of the Week clubs) as an affront to God and God’s people; I do not take such a severe view, although I see the results will be the same: come a generation or two down the pike the Bible will have very little authority, even among those who profess to be God’s people, as its words have been deemed uncertain and unreliable by the textual scholars. Perhaps my attitude differs from Kinney’s in that the community of saints and its internal cohesiveness by means of genuine friendships in Christ are of as great importance as which is the best text of the Bible. It is such friendship which is the cement that holds the living stones together, and will keep them together when the storm of persecution and hardship hits.
I appreciate your irenic and scholarly tone and approach, Tim, along with your seeking to be fair and even-handed. And I do value learning in the Biblical languages, if only it be used to explicate the text instead of deconstruct or supplant it.
As regards myself, Tim: I also do not have a fluent grasp of either Hebrew or Greek. I use many lexicons, versions, Hebrew and Greek texts, word studies, and commentaries to help me understand the original languages. I am open to views that differ from mine, but I weigh them in the balance of my presuppositions. I realize I will answer to my Lord for how I have defended His word, and have taught others to cleave to it.
I know many pastors, and many in the Presbyterian churches, some in the Reformed, and I know of none who are
fluent in the Hebrew and Greek languages (not including some Jewish and Greek pastors). They have sufficient knowledge to study the meanings and tenses of words, but I can do the same with my ample lexical materials, who do not even have
their knowledge. [I realize the constituency here at PB often reflects a higher level of academic and scholarly attainment!]
And then we have the phenomenon of those with either fluency or “sufficient knowledge” who use the Critical Text, which to us is rife with very serious problems. Fluency does not get at the problem of a people bereft of the sure Biblical text, and the ensuing loss of confidence in what they do have.
If a man has adequate lexical and study tools to get at the deeper meanings and grammatical constructions of the original languages, and has a genuine, deep, vital relationship with the Lord our God, and a thorough grasp of the doctrines of grace, along with a knowledge of Biblical history, theology, counseling, and a discernment into the human heart, is such not adequate to minister if more competent ministers are not to be found? The Lord Jesus worked with rough and unlearned men. As I have said – and I repeat myself – faithful pastors learned in the original Biblical tongues (as well Latin and other languages) are a blessing to the church, as they may open depths of meaning in the text.
But what need have we of the textual views of scholars – I care not for their pedigrees and advanced credentials – who are enamored of the (what are to many of us) destructive and faithless secular methodologies turned against our Bibles? As I said with regard to Hendriksen, in such cases I eat the meat and spit out the bones. I am against his textual method as regards the authentic readings, but very much appreciative of his learning and ministry. This attitude would apply to all who are ministers of the Lord. If a person’s emphasis is to strongly and repeatedly deny the Traditional Text and its readings, I will either tune him out or oppose him. But Hendriksen (I use him as an example) and many others do not do this.
In closing, please consider this quote from an
online article on John Bunyan:
There was one book, however, that he knew as hardly any other man in any age has known it — the Bible. His knowledge of it was not the scholar's knowledge, for he knew nothing of Greek and Hebrew or even of such Biblical criticism as existed in his own day. What he had was a verbal knowledge of the English versions that was never at fault. Many stories are told of the readiness with which he could produce apposite scriptural quotations, often to the confusion of much more learned men than himself. This intimacy with the Bible, combined with one other element, is enough to account for the substance of The Pilgrim's Progress. That other element is his profound acquaintance with the rustic and provincial life about him, and with the heart of the average man.
One learned pastor and theologian’s widely reported view of Bunyan was this:
John Owen, generally reckoned to be the most accomplished and learned theologian that England has ever produced, was asked by the King why he was so fond of listening to the Particular Baptist John Bunyan preach, ‘to hear a tinker prate,’ as the King sarcastically expressed it. Owen replied, ‘May it please your Majesty, could I possess the tinker’s abilities for preaching, I would willingly relinquish all my learning.’
If you will pursue these things, I shall not respond until next week, as I have already spent too much time away from important duties.
