The Greek Text Of The New Testament.

���I. INTRODUCTION. While modern critics are occupied with the problem as to the origin of the Four Gospels, and with their so-called "discrepancies", we believe that MATTHEW, MARK, and JOHN got their respective Gospels where LUKE got his, viz. anothem = "from above" (Luke 1:3. see note there); and that the "discrepancies", so called, are the creation of the Commentators and Harmonists themselves. The later particularly; for when they see two similar events, they immediately assume they are identical; and when they read similar discourses of our Lord, they at once assume that they are discordant accounts of the same, instead of seeing that they are repetitions, made at different times, under different circumstances, with different antecedents and consequents, which necessitate the employment of words and expressions so as to accord with the several occasions. These differences thus become proofs of accuracy and perfection.
���The Bible claims to be the Word of God, coming from Himself as His revelation to man. If these claims be ot true, then the Bible cannot be even "a good book". In this respect "the living Word" is like the written Word; for, if the claims of the Lord Jesus to be God were not true, He would not be even "a good man". As to those claims, man can believe them, or leave them. In the former case, he goes to the Word of God, and is overwhelmed with evidences of its truth; in the latter case, he abandons Divine revelation for man's imagination.

���II. INSPIRATION. In Divine revelation "holy men spoke from God as they were oved (or borne along) by the Holy Spirit" (2 Pet.1:21). The wind, as it is born along among the trees, causes each tree to give forth its own peculiar sound, so that the experienced ear of a woodman could tell, even in the dark and blindfolded, the name of the tree under which he might be standing, and distinguish the creaking elm from the rustling aspen. Even so, while each "holy man of God" is "moved" by One Spirit, the individuality of the inspired writers is preserved. Thus we may explain the medical words of "Luke the beloved physician" used in his Gospel and in the Acts of the Apostles (Col.4:14).
���As to Inspiration itself, we have no need to resort to human theories, or definitions, as we have a Divine definition in Acts 1:16 which is all-sufficient. "This scripture must needs (=it is necessary) have been fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit, by the mouth of David, spoke before concerning Judas." The reference is to Ps.41:9.
���It is "by the mouth" and"by the hand" of holy men that God has spoken to us. Hence it was David's voice and David's pen, but the words were not David's words.
Nothing more is required to settle the faith of all believers; but it requires Divine operation to convince unbelievers; hence, it is vain to depend on human arguments.
���If a person want's to know the truth about God's plan and eternal salvation God will lead him to you. Be a good fisherman, throw out a little bait. If the fish does not bite, he is not hungry. Don't hit him over the head with the anchor (the whole thing at once). You will never catch any fish that way.

���III. THE LANGUAGE. With regard to this, it is generally assumed that, because it comes to us in Greek, the N.T. ought to be in classical Greek, and is then condemned because it is not! Classical Greek was at its prime some centuries before; and in the time of our Lord there were several reasons why the N.T. was not written in classical Greek.

���1. The writers were Hebrew; and thus, while the language is Greek, the thoughts and Idioms are Hebrew. These idioms or Hebraisms are generally pointed out in the notes of The Companion Bible. If the Greek of the N.T. be regarded as an inspired translation from Hebrew or Aramaic original, most of the various readings would be accounted for and understood.

���2. Then we have to remember that in the tim of our Lord there were no less than 4 languages in use in Palestine, and their mixture formed the "Yiddish" of those days.
���(a) There was HEBREW, spoken by Hebrews;
���(b) There was GREEK, which was spoken in Palestine by the educated classes generally;
���(c) There was LATIN, the language of the Romans, who then held possession of the land;
���(d) And there was ARAMAIC, the language of the common people.
���Doubtless our Lord spoke all these (for we never read of His using an interpreter). In the synagogue He necessarily use Hebrew; to Pilate He would naturally answer in Latin; while to the common people He would doubtless speak in Aramaic.

In His service, your friend in Christ,
Jim Dunlap.

Home

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws